Tips, Tricks, and Advice for one Theweakeredge

I've been debating here since... around last September, or around 7 months. Throughout my time here, I've seen a plethora of different debating styles, voting styles, and even different styles of communicating a rebuttal. I've seen people with much greater rhetoric ability than mine, I've seen people with much better reasoning ability than mine, but throughout my time here - I'd like to think I've improved those aspects of myself, but I still find myself coming up short, at least to my standard of progress I hold myself too. So I am throwing my pride to the wolves, what would you guys suggest to improve myself further? What areas do I need to improve in? What areas do I need to shore up? What are my weaknesses, my strengths? Generally, how convincing am I? All of that.

You think too rigid about almost any topic you take on, it's also what's led to you clashing with so many members here.

I also clash with many members but this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you, when I come across a member I disagree with, I either try to be flexible and adjust to their way of thinking or I lay down my sword, block them and move on.

You tend to keep grappling with them, lashing out and perceiving a deeper attack than was really meant. This results in you, inside of formal debates, being too in-depth in certain rebuttals while assuming other aspects or points were sufficiently addressed by you since you perceive the entire thing through your lens of reading and thinking.

Both inside and outside of debating, I would recommend your greatest area of improvement to aim for being flexibility in thinking and perception. Sometimes there's 3 or 4, not just 2 and definitely not just 1 way to perceive and think about a certain clash of ideas relative to a topic. The hugest strength this gives you in a debate is to know what to try the most vs least with in effort.

I'd give feedback but I haven't really read your debates in any significant amount. Once school calms down I'll resume judging debates and I assume I'll get to know your debate style better. 

I think we both suffer the "in depth look into expert" idea (stack too much extra ideas to counter the logic -- I often rely on other people when I'm not sure how to defeat the other person), except I'm able to take a step back that makes me feel I have a slight advantage in some debates. I think it's also useful to continually think about unique benefits your side has, as I was unable to research too far in depth in regards with my cyber offense debate. Your debate against Fauxlaw was remarkably close.

Any feedback you have for me? I'm trying to move away from other sources by supplying my own understanding and logic.