How to write a good argument

I know this might be overrated and overasked for some of you out there, but can you answer this question?

I am not that experienced and knowing that my Ranking has gone 1518 to 1445, I want to know the answers to these questions:

Bump

The most important thing is that you enjoyed writing it. However, a great one should flex some of your mental muscles to grow as a person.

The first step to convincing someone of something is to know yourself why you hold a certain position on a certain thing. Give me an example of a debate topic and what position you would take and I shall demonstrate.

1. I agree with Virtuoso in his #3 - define terms in description

2. On the revised debates page, there is a new sortable list by debate topic. The page used to show all topics and their count of debates, but those were eliminated and makes a search for a specific debate much easier, but it also lists thew number of debates on specific topics. The greatest number of debates on a particular subject is revealed.

3. A good argument blends your thoughts with a reliable, scholastic, peer-reviewed sources. Unless there is no other source [but there always is] I avoid Wiki like the plague. I think use of metaphor is helpful, but make sure the metaphor holds relative to the point of a specific argument. Strings of difference or mismatch unravel the best attempted metaphor.

My specialty is not writing good arguments, that's something I'm quite good but not brilliant at. 

My specialty is using your own argument against you, there is no debater other than Blamonkey who does this like I do. Blamonkey is a genius of debating and could give you the best answer on this.

Yes

Does that mean...Refutations?

I think a true debater can debate any side because he speaks for the facts and merely organizes them. I think you do this. 

I can't debate every side of a debate brilliantly, but I can do it more than most for sure. My main obstacle is my own emotions, I just lose the urge to debate and need to push myself to keep at it or I just forfeit and/or get lazy with what I write. 

My second issue is that I think much more logically and deep than the average reader, so what is a very weak vs strong point to bring up is so different for me vs the average voter and that makes it difficult for me to prioritise what to use the characters on in shorter character-limit debates.

One example is that I actually don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can be right-wing unless they're a psychopath. The reason for this is so blatant in that right-wing ethos is inherently based on the wealthy mercilessly preying on the poor without restrictions. To me that point alone with no further explanation wins the debate but because most humans can't understand how blatant and undeniable that is, entire nations can have the right-wing one win. Even worse, they can have a right-wing party that calls itself Socialist winning and giving left-wing a bad name.

You, blamonkey and Oromagi are examplar debaters. Maybe count Ragnar and Virt. 

Oromagi is good at abusing what the majority agree with to slant himself to call his opponent a conspiracy theorist. Every time he's vs a remotely competent debater, he only wins because the voters fail to grasp the logic and he's buddies with the voters. Comparing him to Blamonley, who actually does what Oromagi does.even better and actively turns your own points against you, is not really appropriate. If voters weren't flawed, Oromagi would be ranked just above average and I would be ranked innthe level above that with Ragnar, Ramshutu and some others. Then at the top we'd have Blamonkey, Whiteflame etc but I am slowly evolving to become as good as them.

How well do you think I am? I mean, I could most likely win against other people with a 1501 ranking, but too many debates with Fauxlaw made me lose. 

Debate less at once until you're ready. Observe why you're losing. 

That certainly makes sense. 

personally, i wouldnt care about ranks