I say this, because reading what other person writes is often boring and sometimes too long.However, I do like reading my own arguments. So I figured I can probably just skip on reading opponent's case.
You could do that but it would suck though.
This is largely how I handled Mall's over the top ranting.
Yes if you managed to build your case on the semantic analysis of the topic itself.
I fucked your mom.
Plus, some topics dont allow much semantics, especially with rules "pro must prove X is true. Con must prove X is not true".
"Abortion shouldnt be legal"
I could write 5 rounds in advance before the debate even starts, each round using characters to the max and each round containing new arguments instead of defending old arguments. That way, I dont even have to read my opponent's case or his refutations.
He couldnt merely refute my case or play much semantics with shared burden of proof. He would have to make his case.
How would you know when to report the opponent
How would you know when to report the opponentI dont remember ever pressing the report button. I dont even report troll votes against me. I dont care much if opponent uses insults or whatever. I can take it.
This kind of defeats the purpose of a debate. What you’re describing is just two sides presenting their own case with no regard for the objections of their opponent. Normally the idea of a debate is to test whether the case you present can hold up under rational scrutiny.
I personally find that a shared burden of proof lowers the quality of a debate. Again, the purpose is for the two sides to clash, and as a judge it’s that clash that gives the reader a sense of who’s winning. Without that it’s really just a matter of whose case is more convincing, which is almost entirely going to be decided on the readers biases coming into the debate. If you stand by your position, there’s no reason why the BoP should scare you.
if my case wins without using rebuttals, then thats a really good case.
Rebuttals usually place a lot of drain on my debating. Like, having over 5000 characters split in segments and responding to each seems like too much work.
You recommend that I place burden on myself and not on my opponent? Well, I mean, I could do that. Its just that then I would have to be more careful in writing topic.
Some topics are simply auto-loss for Pro when burden is not shared, especially topics that have little evidence to support Pro's premises, or topics that are refuted by finding exceptions to the case.
If you don’t have evidence to support your position then that right there is your problem.
If you win without rebuttals it almost certainly just means the readers agreed with your position at the outset.
But beyond that these are things you need to learn to handle. People will try to knock your case down with logical fallacies all the time, you’ve got to learn how to identify them and properly call them out. The way I see it is if that’s what my opponent is lowering themselves to that means they’re losing and can find no other way to defeat my case.
Well, yeah, that is often my problem since I often debate things that either dont have evidence, either the evidence comes from sources that voters dont accept, so it becomes like I have no evidence. I guess the solution is to only debate topics that have lots of widely accepted evidence, or just face losses.
Well, logical fallacies are hard to deal with. It is mostly because it takes me more text to refute a fallacy than it takes my opponent to write it.
If you don’t have evidence to support your position then that right there is your problem. But beyond that these are things you need to learn to handle. People will try to knock your case down with logical fallacies all the time, you’ve got to learn how to identify them and properly call them out.The way I see it is if that’s what my opponent is lowering themselves to that means they’re losing and can find no other way to defeat my case.
Rational says he uses that as a tactic in his debates.
It just comes across as ignorant. As the contender or instigator, it wouldn't be a 'fun' or 'interesting' debate anymore.
