gugigor VS Undefeatable Forum Debate

I always wanted to battle Undefeatable in something, though I wanted something more casual without any potential consequences, and also able to easily give feedback. I chose a fun topic that we disagreed on and I hope you guys will enjoy. 

Gugigor: Pro

Undefeatable: Con

With job interviews coming up, I was curious whether my casual style or Und's serious formal style was better in this situation. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and I feel like it's interesting to see if Und's style is too serious or stilted for usual job interviews. 

It's easily seen from my "I Can I BB" style debates that my style is far more casual: very few sources, employing mostly common sense, occasionally injecting humor, so on and so forth. In addition, my talking resembles my writing style very closely most of the time, so that I can easily translate my writing into speaking. By contrast, Undefeatable's Debate style is much more dry and tackles a more essay type approach, which can be off-putting in a job interview. As Job interviews wish to learn about your true self, I argue that we should prefer my debating style in these interviews. 

As a testimony from Glassview, Mr. Geofron notices that the casual conversation type of debate can be far more productive and preferable in the long run. He highlights studies that show traditional interview to be ineffective, and prefers to have a two way conversation. My "true persona" shining through would work out much better as Undefeatable would no doubt be forced to keep up a tiring facade. Not only so, gaining information on real life "improvisation situations" allows quick on-the-foot feeling that Undefeatable would have great trouble with.

Business2community also agrees with the same idea. The free flow of conversation allows a more in-depth examination of the person's backstory and ideas, thus reaching further than what's on their resume. Due to Undefeatable's heavy dependence on experts, it's hard to say for sure that his explanations would be fully comprehensive or explain who he truly is.

Jobs and job interviews should not be overly formal or stressful. Being a bit funny, or awkward, is only human. Being "Undefeatable" is simply unrealistic in the long term, and the formal style of writing does not apply well to the interaction with coworker or with your boss. Clearly, my style is superior to Undefeatable when it comes down to Job interviews.

Thanks gugigor. 

In order to tell what is a preferable style to use in a debate, we must consider what the work place consists of. My debating style establishes standards, encourages working harder to find an answer, and I believe that it is superior to gugigor's in a job interview.

As the Australian Institute of Business explains, professionalism is greatly valued in a workplace because the respect is increased, the business reputation will flourish, and the conflict is minimized [1]. Even though I may not always be able to cite sources or experts in an interview, gaining more knowledge from various trusted figures eventually crafts a more knowledgeable person. As a famous quote says, "knowledge is power". Combined with my deeper research into the company's purpose and ideals, it's doubtless that my debating style is superior to Gugigor's when it comes to an interview. As the same Glassdoor that Gugigor uses highlights, [2] research is crucial to understanding a company, yet my opponent would prefer his usual "wing it" style which contrasts against his casual speaking style. Would he rather that the interviewee understand very little about the company? He seems like the type of person to blindly apply for internships, not caring if he's wasting his time with completely inapplicable skills to the job, or what to answer if they ask the crucial question -- "why do you want to work for us?" All Gugigor gives us is a seemingly more flexible style, yet my standards are precisely what creates the arsenal necessary to bring to a job interview.

While it is true that a more casual style can help free flow of information, my style does not need to be applied word for word in the interview. My eloquence may be a bit overboard, but it's better to avoid using slangs or accidentally swearing which may negatively influence your image. The true goals of a company include making sure you understand the mission, answering questions thoroughly, knowing strengths and weaknesses, conveying soft skills, being confident, so on and so forth. [3] Yet Gugigor's style seems too experimental and arbitrary to actually "make it" in my opinion. He called himself a poor debater and even dared to battle intelligence about it. He believed he had gotten worse, while in reality he was expanding horizons in order to truly improve his ideas. Gugigor's progression is merely the journey in order to accomplish the job interview. I argue that my style is superior as it is the application of all his efforts. I know which topics I must improve on, but even with weak resolutions, I continue going into depth as much as I can. My username combined with never forfeiting or conceding clearly highlights that I would be far superior to Gugigor in a job interview.

1. https://www.aib.edu.au/blog/organisations-culture/3-reasons-professionalism-essential-workplace/#:~:text=Professional%20employees%20tend%20to%20understand,from%20different%20cultures%20or%20backgrounds.

2. https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/7-research-job-interview/

3. https://www.pongoresume.com/articles/498/what-employers-most-look-for-in-an-interview.cfm

Work places vary considerably.

Life ain't all smartly dressed, office bound, screen drooling, computer poking.

It amuses me that nowadays so many people are oppressed, wasting their lives staring at and poking devices..... Devices that supposedly were going to free us from the oppression of labour......Clearly, oppression is as oppression does, and there's no real freedom from it.

Though there's always Artisan Baking to fall back on, when one becomes technologically burnt out.

The fact is, we are all slaves to our own existence.