The wisdom of preparation in engaging a debate

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 4
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
As a potential debate contender responding to an initiator challenge, is it wise to jump on a debate challenge that is feared to be too popular to assure your place as the contender at the expense of knowing before you engage that you have sufficient arguments planned - even if detail is missing - such that the rounds are adequately argued in the time given for each round?

On the other hand, is it wise to initiate a challenge with a poorly constructed Resolution that will be too easily rebutted by your competitor, or that has not had sufficient Resolution definition of words to assure your potential competitor has a firm grip of the Resolution's objective?

As a one-year "veteran" of debating on this site [not that the time is any gage of cutting mustard] these questions are serious considerations of our collective debating course and its consequences.
#2
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
I think people want good competition. If you need to rework the resolution to something you and your opponent would enjoy debating, than just PM them and explain what you want to debate and work it out in PM. 

I also would oppose planning what you will debate as competitor or initiator. Just research on the fly. I just have so much fun researching that if I already did the research prior, the debate would bore me.

#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
If your question is the habits that someone with a winrate and efficiency such as Oromagi, Ramshutu and Ragnar have followed, do the following:


Disclaimer:  I do not personally subscribe to this methodology of debating online, to me it's about more than the stats, it's also about the passion and willingness to lose while putting up a fantastic fight or also in taking a risky topic as the underdog, pushing on a weird path where you twist the burden of proof (maybe via Kritik maybe not) and seeing how well the opponent can handle fighting this.

  1. Attitude in approach to topic-picking Pick the easy side and debate it as if it is the inferior side. Take the path of least resistance and then treat it as if it is the opposite. 
  2. Approach to 'should I debate?' Do not debate at all if there is no debate that you can truly see the easier side to stack sources and points againt. Filibustering in defense and gish-gallop in offense are mutually your greatest asset, do not underestimate what quantity means in a debate nor how cautious you should be from entering a debate where your opponent's side may end up the one with more points.
  3. The reason that quantity matters more than quality in arguments... Voters are seeking to easily justify reasons to vote for either side, especially if they can vote for a regular member that they feel good about voting to win (regardless of what they say, this subconscious bias and corruption is always there in all debate websites structured with a victory-via-votes scenario). When you stack many points that are clearly listes/bolded, it starts to matter less what you've written, this is a consistent habit and stylistic preference of all the blood-chillingly high winrate champions of both this website and Debate.Org (Mikal was 100% a specialist in doing this). If you have more points and always ensure to flesh them out with non-plagiarised by reworded generic points from many different sources and places, you start to severely tire your opponent out with rebuttals (or if they don't do this, you can say 'dropped argument hehe' at the closing Round). If your opponent has many points it doesn't matter, you keep focusing on pushing your points through, rebutting matters less than repeating your points, slamming home to the brain of the average voter what to parrot in their RFD. This is not sarcastic or insulting, I spent a lot of time contemplating why debaters who are not necessarily superior at actual debate logic or strategy keep outperforming others who are and this is the biggest thing they do which is counterintuitive to most yet consistently present in their repertoire.
  4. When rebutting, focus on the source(s). A severely efficient habit of Oromagi, Ramshutu and Ragnar is that when they rebuke points, they rarely invest much effort into proving the opponent wrong. If they can gaslight and discredit your source while backing up their counterclaim with a 'very reliable authority on the subject' they opt to do this and it is not as foolish or shortsighted as you may think. What this does is very similar to why stacking points offensively does matter, it erodes the enemy's energy expenditure equalling the quality of their output. If the opponent is rushing around frantically trying to find a more reliable source and drowning in the character limit choking them away from out-explaining your brutally-sourced simpler point, they start to not just tire but feel desperation, frustration and sadness. These demoralise the opponent and let you keep a cool head as it progresses and this is why point 1 matters so much. You need to be on the side that the mainstream believe, you need to be able to type less and make the opponent need to resort to in-depth explanations of either their conspiracy theories, out-of-left-field Kritiks or deeply intensive constructive point that you didn't realise existed.
  5. Be sure to master search engine result skim-reading. Your ability to quickly assess which side of a debate can ultimately stack the most well-sourced points is your most invaluable skill if you wish to thrive on DART in the tried and tested manner.


#4
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
That is all true, but I am mad at you for saying it 😂.