Self-Criticism

I’ll try something I’ve seen a little of under different topics, though nothing too centralized. I’d like to just have a spot where we can all provide some insights into what we feel needs work and what we’re doing about it in our debating. This can also be an opportunity to provide some constructive feedback, particularly to people who are either unclear on what to improve or just feel stuck for whatever reason.

In my case, I’d say I have two major problems. First is that I’m just generally too verbose. You give me a character limit and I’ll almost always fill it. It normally takes a lot of editing before I have decent word economy. Part of what I’ve idolized from the best debaters I’ve seen (mostly in live debates) is their ability to be concise and incisive, whereas I almost always feel like I’m failing at one or the other.

The second is that I don’t feel I put out good first rounds in debates. They’re all serviceable and they get me where I need to go, but they almost never stand as my best round. I’m much stronger on rebuttals and conclusions than I am on case construction, which is strangely the opposite of where I was in my early days as a debater (when, to be fair, I wasn’t very good at anything). I’ve got a few examples of strong first rounds, but the vast majority are just there to get my points out.

As for what I’m doing about these, I keep challenging myself by enforcing a lower character limit on what I’m writing than the debate requires. I still fill it, but I figure if I can keep moving the limit down and then one day remove it, I can feel a little more confident in using fewer words to make my point. In the case of the latter, I’m mainly just trying to break out of my usual structure for the opening round. I’ve come to be rather regimented there, whereas I’ve made a lot of changes to how my conclusions are structured. I think that the more I experiment, the more likely I’ll find what fits. I’m also trying to make them feel (at least to me) more like rebuttals, as though I’m attacking something rather than making my own stand-alone points. That’s precarious because I’m not at all a fan of pre-rebuttals (anticipating what your opponent will say and addressing it before they say it), but treating it as though I’m challenging a probable mindset of my audience or the topic itself helps me skirt around that.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Interested to see how other people respond to this. If you think you’re perfect, then I suppose that’s a response as well, though I doubt anyone’s so good at this that they couldn’t stand to improve anything about their debating.

Definitely forfeiture, forfeit way too often and kills all debates I'm in, I either get overwhelmed or demotivated, need to cease that by keeping engaged

I think I don't understand the mechanics of debate well enough to be a top debater.

I'm a British twat.

I think I agree that you could make your first rounds stronger... Not that they're weak (usually quite the opposite), they're just weak in relation to your killer rebuttals. 

As for me, while I have some ideas about areas I could improve, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on it. Where are the areas I can improve on most in your view?

Well, I guess that starts with picking a topic you enjoy and would be motivated to participate in to the end. Maybe also designating an opponent would help? I find I'm most motivated by debates where my opponent and I have planned the basics out ahead of time.

That comes with time and effort. No one comes into debate with a perfect understanding of all the mechanics or how to use them, but if you're willing to keep pursuing it, I think you can pick those things up. I find that live debates do that better than the online variety, if only because of the trial by fire nature of having to stand and be heard rather than just typing out an argument, but you could do worse than to practice here. Talk with your judges after a debate, if they're willing, and see if you can dig down into some of the feedback they gave you. Read into some of the more complex debates on the site and see if you can break down the arguments to the pieces that make them successful. It's work, but it's also incredibly informative. 

I've known a lot of British twats with incredible debate skills.

I appreciate the insight. I'm perhaps a little harsher on myself than I should be.

As for my feedback for you, I think you've got much of what I'm struggling with down pat. You tend to be much more concise, at least in your opening round (I think you tend to get a little verbose in your efforts to cover everything in your rebuttal rounds), and I think your opening rounds are one of the stronger elements of your debates. If anything could use work, I would say it's your final round. You're doing good work in weighing analysis, but the structure that you tend to go with in your final round looks a lot like all your other rounds post-R1. You tend to have an eye on your final round throughout much of the debate, but you have a hard time fully investing in it, since you tend to want to make sure everything is covered. That's something I've struggled with as well over time, and I tend to want to do the same thing you're doing, which is hitting every argument your opponent makes. It's really only since I've been doing BP, and only in the last couple of years, that I've tried to break away from the line-by-line. It works, but it kinda just leaves a jumbled mess of arguments by the end with a few points about weight that don't really give a clear set of outcomes for the major points made in the debate. Even if you say "this point outweighs this one," I'm usually wondering how those points weigh against others, and I don't have a clear big picture view of what this debate is really about. Even if I have a clear idea of what is the most powerful impact, how much it matters to the actual debate is a different story, and I feel like you are strong at setting up a debate, but not so much at linking that setup to the finish.

That's very helpful... Basically exactly what I've been kind of concerned about. 

My final rounds are basically the same structure as my rebuttals, yes. I'll try to shake things up in my debate with Undefeatable in the final round to see how that works... You'll have to tell me if it is an improvement. 

I don't think I'll turn away from line 4 line in my rebuttals just yet, but the final rounds I think could be done differently like you said

Don't have a big problem with line-by-line rebuttals in general - honestly, there's little choice but to do it for rebuttal rounds. But yeah, changing up the final round structure could do a lot to improve your debates. Interested to see what you come up with.

I have a very hard time grasping topics that can't be argued wholly from an empirical standpoint . This is generally why I avoid a lot of philosophical topics, because I don't really have the wherewithal to do so.

I think that my constructive and defense are strongest, because I always try to research my topic ahead of time. I try my best to analyze the sources in depth to support my opinion, often adding upon more logic and ideas for support. My refutations aren't the best, but I continue try to build up my own ideas by showing weaknesses in opponent and attempting to outweigh them. I also try to create a very tricky and complex case so that it's hard to truly penetrate; having many different ideas separated across different points while inferring the same thing overall. If we get to round 2 in my debate against MisterChris, I already have in mind a dangerous framework shift that Chris may fall into if he believes that my constructive is my main offense to battle his case. What do you think of me so far?

TBH I’ve seen in many effective legal briefs the same, powerful argument paraphrased and reiterated 3 times or so. I think it’s to make sure judges who have high case loads appreciate that single point rather than brush over it inadvertently.

Yeah, I have the same problem, especially since it really doesn't fit well with the structure I use for my arguments. I've done one pure philosophy debate before and I don't think I did it that well. Still, practice helps. 

I haven't had occasion yet to fully read through one of your debates, though that will be happening over the rest of this week as theweakeredge requested a vote on your debate with him. I can give you specific feedback there and, of course, on your current debate with MisterChris after that's done.

There's definitely a set of standardized arguments in law that are used over and over again, and with good reason. That comes up in debating, at least on certain topics, as well, though I think that's part of the problem with so many debates: they're predictable. No matter how strong the argument, there's always some hole or avenue to exploit them, and if you know what's coming, then you come prepared to handle it. Personally, I like to work that trick in reverse - I'll read deeply enough into my own points to see the holes, and then be ready for the obvious rebuttals I know are coming.

Your point may be more about having certain points in debate that make your judges perk up if only because it's instantly recognizable as an important point. That definitely holds true as well, though I'd say that has more to do with impacts and how they're explained on the debate side. On the legal side, it has everything to do with knowing the right cases to point to as precedent for essential arguments.

thoughts on this? I know you said you're not good at finance, but what about other topics or ideas? 

I'm pretty similar to whiteflame in that I usually have to edit down my debates because it breaches character limits, its also true that my initial case is nearly always weaker than my rebuttals/conclusion, I'm just better at rebutting than I am at attacking, so whenever I have a hard time defending my points I generally tend to lose. I also have a slight problem with motivation and all sorts of things like that, I'm currently trying to blitzkrieg though so I don't have time for further consideration, thank you

Guess I wouldn't have much to say beyond what I'm working on for you, then, since we appear to have the same difficulties for the most part. Motivation's honestly never been a problem for me. If anything, I tend to spend more time than I should on each debate - that's the perfectionist in me.

As for defending your case, I'll refer back to something I already mentioned in my response to Death23: do your best to scratch at your points when you're making them so that you can easily find the holes you anticipate your opponent will hit. I find that when I know the directions my opponent will take, I come up with much more effective points on case defense. Like you, I'd usually rather be on the attack, but part of what motivates me is just seeing my own case as one to attack. It gives me a stronger appreciation for the strengths and weaknesses of the points I'm making as well. 

Thats definitely a good point, I'll do my best to study debates more and try to familiarize myself with the direction of attack that people usually come from and have a built-in defence in my case. I'll just keep trying to improve!

That's the spirit. Haven't met a perfect debater yet, and I'm always working to improve as well.