based on his conversational style and his inability to understand oromagi’s complex sentences I think he’s just a foreigner with gap in English skills. He thinks debating is likely just exchange of controversial ideas so he picks the most insane topics to guarantee someone will answer. But he mistakes then for I can I BB type topics where sources are not necessary to prove your point and mere logic triumphs. So that’s why he uses zero sources, definitions and his research is slim to none. He also can’t seem to connect ideas very well which explains why he doesn’t think we proved anything, as well as why my emotional based argument failed to convince him (“we the people As one” idea works on Americans)
I think I figured out Mall...
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@Mall
Is it true, and if not, do you wish to delete this thread?
Well you guys, this is why I came up with those "trial " debates.
You guys obviously have questions for me and see some problems.
I don't know if either of you participated in the "trial" debate challenges.
Does anyone wish to honestly get an answer from me to vet or would you rather just settle in the satisfaction of what you think of someone?
-->
@Mall
I could put you on trial if you want, give you some nice pointers for debating.
Questions, pointers, tips, proposals , I'm all "ears", all eyes really.
-->
@Mall
I feel like the problem is that you don't treat the site as debating. If you read all the top debates (especially Oromagi), the structure/layout is simply not there. Looking up a simple argument reveals the problems you have. Normally, people lay it out like this:
- Optional context
- Claim
- Backing
- Clarification
- Conclusion
(or simpler:
1. Claim - present your argument in a clear statement. This claim is one reason why you're in favour of/against the motion.
2. Evidence - the evidence supporting your claim, such as, statistics, references, quotes, analogies etc
3. Impact - explain the significance of the evidence - how does this support your claim?) -- from https://virtualspeech.com/blog/guide-to-debating
Your style of asking questions is a good start, but I think connecting it to your point is the crucial part. For example. Let's say I'm debating your topic "There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such." Of course, I would never ever debate this because I cannot think of three good reasons why this is correct. But I'm going to say I forced myself to side with you. I would lay out one example of your specific idea.
Context: The heritage of the people can be expressed in the words "white power". (According to your perspective, you seem to understand white power as related to unity with your family/cultural background. An acceptable confusion if you aren't familiar with American news)
Claim: "White power" is not inherently wrong as you are uniting together on one common found trait.
Backing: For example, the Declaration of Independence unites us together as human's power, "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights". (It requires some kind of source or common logic to prove your point. Find it somewhere. Someone has to agree with you in history, even in a broader example.)
Clarification: If whites were just as oppressed as blacks, the focus on the existence of power would be justified as well. (I noticed you mentioned female and black rights. That's a good point, even if flawed to apply to this. It's okay. Tell us why you think in certain situations, white power can possibly be good)
Conclusion: Because the white person is also a person, if they are doing nothing wrong, the "white power" is not inherently wrong.
It's possible to clarify even further, pressing down upon "people's power". As seldiora tried to argue, when we unite as mankind, this accomplishes all our goals. But you can push this idea to the extreme and say it looks down upon animal rights and ideas. Seldiora's actual steel man, that "power" alone corrupts, is a very strong idea that is hard to refute, but the point is that your argument could have been more founded. Try to expand your ideas. Look for support from different sources. You're getting closer, but you have to make the connection that the "white power" in a vacuum doesn't hurt anyone. They are merely words and ideas. You can state solidly that people themselves make the decision, and that the motivation of "power" has only been corrupted in modern time. As you implied, history and heritage themselves (knowledge is power) can contribute this idea. It's not a 100% unwinnable debate, even if I wouldn't take the topic.
-->
@Undefeatable
I thought it was
Claim
Evidence
Reasoning
or
Assertion
Reasoning
Evidence
-->
@BearMan
eh. Same difference. As long as Mall has some sort of a layout.
So if you could translate everything said into questions, what would they be?
Problems are solved via the system of questions and answers, i.e. doctor visit , auto mechanic service.
-->
@Mall
why Do you fail to connect your arguments together?
Why do you not use sources?
Why do you not have structure in your writing?
Why do you not use sources?
Why do you not have structure in your writing?
Let's have an example of a failure to an argument connection. I don't specifically see where this is being referenced.
I don't use sources for the majority of the debates other than common sense and universal law.
I do however may use a generic source such as the Google search engine. For example, the incestous and same sex marriage debate, I made a reference there.
I typically get topics that don't warrant much if it all any research. You do have to think according to real life truisms while intermittently applying hypothetical situations.
I don't know what's meant by "no structure". It comes down to whether or not you understand what you're reading. If you don't, I remind you over and over to speak up and ask for clarity. Recommended to do prior to debating. You should debate with pure understanding first.
-->
@Mall
you keep failing to directly address ideas. Why is that?
For example, Oromagi said that if people change meaning of words, the context gets out of hand and language stops making sense. If his argument is confusing, try repeating back your understanding. You can also make your argument apply to more ideas. For example, you could say that even if we cannot determine language randomly, the culture works together to form meaning of language. Because lexicographers are the standard who listens to people. So whoever said gay means homosexual gradually changed it to the social standard. That’s a better reason why Oromagi may be a walking talking dictionary
The reality is definitions do change. You just indicated that based on the latter part of what you said. " Because lexicographers are the standard who listens to people. So whoever said gay means homosexual gradually changed it to the social standard. That’s a better reason why Oromagi may be a walking talking dictionary "
There are times where we have misunderstanding and that is the reality. Only way to clear up confusion is through communication such as what we're doing now.
Notice there's much talking around each other as we're saying a lot of the same things. It just takes some understanding among other things to start to see it.
So the idea is addressed when you fully understand what's being said.
-->
@Mall
right. Keep asking more questions if that’s your style. Make sure opponent has backing, and is relevant. If they say something you can’t understand ask them to clarify the idea. I get that Oromagi style is very hard to read as a foreigner. Take apart each sentence if you have to. Try to really understand what he’s saying. Knowing his claims is important so to back yourself up
-->
@Mall
The problem with only asking questions is that not only does it not wholly rebuke your opponent's claims, but you never demonstrate yours. The vast majority of resolutions have a shared burden of proof, which means both sides support or are figuratively making an assertion against or in favor of the resolution, and that both debaters must demonstrate that assertion or proposition.
-->
@Mall
You ask what your lack of structure is:
Here's an example of a recent debate you instigated. From your Description [proposal]"
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?
How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"?
Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work. But you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge.
For questions , please comment /send a message.
You have offered absolutely no "solution to 'racism'" that is YOUR solution. When instigating a debate yours is the first task to lay out a position you support, and against which you ask a contender to oppose. You're not asking for a debate, you're asking for the skeletal structure of an essay or white paper you're needing to compose. No. Take a stand, and put it out there. Claim it and defend it. Rebut your opponent's argument. And stop using your Description as your first round. Your Description does nothing, and offers nothing to rebut. As a result, your opponent generally takes the upper hand in the debate in your effort to see what your opponent will argue before giving your own argument. Thereby, you "lead from behind," which is not leadership at all. It was a pathetic strategy for Oba'a, will be for Biden if he is elected, and no better for you.
The "Your proposal to the "race" problem" debate is exactly what it is. It's your proposal, not mine.
The conclusion of the description: If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge.
My position is to debunk the proposal. If I can't, my position fails. So that is how it's structured. Many of these statements made from you guys just comes from a lack of understanding .
That's why we're here to clear it all up.
Questions, appropriately so,
What do you do when you don't understand something?
What do you do when you continue not to understand something?
Does anyone know what leading questions are and why successful attorneys are able to win cases using this method?
-->
@Mall
I think a great benefit to your debating skills is to actually provide an R1 with a constructive with format. This makes it clear what you want to debate and convinces voters of your position. It also makes it easier to lay-out your argument.
Right now, you are just refuting or rebutting, which is barely the essence of debate. Even so, you do that with no format:
Mall:
"Quote"
Response
Everyone Else:
Quote
Response
Just using these simple changes will be better for your debating status.
I do not convince or sell anything. You are to think for yourself. This is what you guys have to learn.
You need to have your own mind and not be persuaded. Refuse the sheeple, conventionalized in a box mindset.
It appears that those of you that think for yourselves ask questions as questions come from thoughts. It shows that you're thinking about what's said upon inquiring specifically about it.
But with just rehearsed, typical talking points perhaps regurgitated by and or from sources, authors, scientists , etc., it shows a limitation of understanding and knowledge or no willingness to add to both of these things.
Still looking for answers to those questions guys. Does anyone know?
You need to have your own mind and not be persuaded. Refuse the sheeple, conventionalized in a box mindset.
It appears that those of you that think for yourselves ask questions as questions come from thoughts. It shows that you're thinking about what's said upon inquiring specifically about it.
But with just rehearsed, typical talking points perhaps regurgitated by and or from sources, authors, scientists , etc., it shows a limitation of understanding and knowledge or no willingness to add to both of these things.
Still looking for answers to those questions guys. Does anyone know?
-->
@Mall
you still only have claims and you don't have all the parts of an argument. As one example lays out (https://saskdebate.ca/resources/resources-for-students/basic-argument-construction) :
Label: Bike lanes are safer for cyclists
Explain: Both being on sidewalks and unprotected roads can be dangerous for cyclists. If unknowing pedestrians or cars fail to see cyclists, it can be incredibly dangerous. Cyclists are threatened in both places making cycling an inaccessible option for people.
Example: In New York city, the introduction of smart bike lanes led to a 56% reduction in injuries to all street users. This included large reductions for cyclists, pedestrians, and fewer collisions overall.
Tieback: Because bike lanes provide a safer environment for all traffic it is critical that we form protected bike lanes on all major streets.
Explain: Both being on sidewalks and unprotected roads can be dangerous for cyclists. If unknowing pedestrians or cars fail to see cyclists, it can be incredibly dangerous. Cyclists are threatened in both places making cycling an inaccessible option for people.
Example: In New York city, the introduction of smart bike lanes led to a 56% reduction in injuries to all street users. This included large reductions for cyclists, pedestrians, and fewer collisions overall.
Tieback: Because bike lanes provide a safer environment for all traffic it is critical that we form protected bike lanes on all major streets.
You need more information to prove your argument, even with no sources provided.
I guess no one knows the answers to those questions.
Another question, what have I said that wasn't outright true?
-->
@Mall
you said:
- white power is not wrong
- white supremist does not exist
- Trump is not a racist
- Hitler was not a racist
- Atheist are religious
-white power is not wrong
- Atheist are religious
These are true statements I specifically said, alluded to .
Everything else not only have I never said but whether you realize it or not is presumptuous and or is subjected intrepretation. Just because I say prove something, it doesn't mean I stand on the opposite end or believe in the side against the other.
I suggest you actually quote what I've said in context from a segment or paragraph. Don't take intrepretation to translate to what I said.
What I say and what you think I'm saying are two different things. Be verbatim from my own text itself.
Now back to those two other statements, one was used as a debate title, not exact but basic.
With those two statements, would you like for me to explain again how they can be true statements?
Will you accept what I say or dismiss it ?
9 days later
No point to figure here I guess.
It's what I thought.
-->
@seldiora
Does this qualify as a "call-out" thread?
-->
@Mall
I don't use sources for the majority of the debates other than common sense and universal law.
Well stated.
-->
@fauxlaw
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately.
This seems crystal clear to me.
-->
@3RU7AL
no. I'm just noting why his debates have no sources and he skips the first round.