I understand the following:
- This site is on life support. The dead userbase do not enjoy voting.
- Voters tend to prefer you attacking opponents' ideas so much so that offense is defense because if the opponent stays defensive, voters either do not vote or vote against the defender.
- To launch successful attacks, stick to semantics, get the opponent furious as you gaslight them about what they are really trying to say and tell voters that the opponent has dropped points, constantly, even if the point is shit.
- Learn and practise this method so much so that one can do it across 18 debates at once pote tially. Just read what the opponent says, link it wrongly to definitions, write antithetical contentions and syllogisms even if rebuttals are ruled out. As in make your constructive inherently attack theirs 'accidentally, and never waste effort preemptively defending.
- Over time, you will find that the impulsive members who have the passion to vote, vote for you because they fall in love with your way of attacking.
- Avoid accepting challenges from tough opponents, let them come to you, learn to debate ordinary topics ridicupously aggressive and well. Nearly plagiarise ideas from the cookie cutter round 1s and then just stick to pure offense.
I predict this approach is actually the best.
If you notice, all bad debaters have different things making them bad but all good-rated debaters here are either accidentally or intentionally adhering to this ethos, just focusing less on quantity (except Novice).
I will be surprised if my analysis is proven wrong. Do expect some losses incoming, after that, watch me annihilate.
