Undefeatable

I just realized Barney’s been here for like, forever but nobody’s ever beaten him. Though it seems he’s never faced a big name challenger in a show down. Who do you think could beat him (that’s active)?

My guesses: oromagi, whiteflame, blamonkey, mister Chris, I’m not sure what rational madman’s expertise is but he might be able to beat him in that (computer science or something?), intelligence and I might be able to give him a good fight.

Absolutely no idea how Trent would do considering Oromagi can beat him at his own weird history games.

Not sure if thett3 is active but they seem very strong, based on what I heard.

as you know, I like always sharpening my weak spots and discovering new ideas.

What’s AMAW? Ask me about weaknesses

- religion information 

- big politics (I hate arguing abortion, guns, border fence — they’ve been done far too often to discover new ways to innovate)

- social ideas (person interaction)

- personal problems or areas of improvement

- anything else

After I lost my Systemic racism debate twice, I tried to continuously improve my argument, running into many judicial cases and having to interpret law. Now I can really start to see why it can be important to know about Law related ideas, even if you are computer science. Using merely basic knowledge, there was no way I could win a debate that complex.

If only arguing the topic was as easy as analyzing systems of computers... *sigh*

Recently I've been trying to sharpen my debate skills a bit more and stumbled upon a book by Steven L. Johnson  (https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/Steven_Johnson_Winning_Debates_2009.pdf) which gives a lot of good debating tips. If you don't have enough time to read it all, here is a nice summary with parts that were most relevant to me:

Description: Differentiate (nature of thing), examples, analogies, authority

^Refuting: how intrinsic the characteristic, thoroughness

Relation: reduction (examination of behavior), analogies, authority

^Refuting: Capability (causation vs correlation), necessary & sufficient, absence test, alternativity

Evaluative: Use value to assign good or bad, comparing to standard

^Refuting: challenge definition (focus on wrong thing), challenge standard, challenge measurement (ex. other factors at play)

_________________________________________________________

Analyzing (why? Depth, breadth, etc.); Synthesis (logical progression)-> Problem/Solution, Principle/Application, Cause/Effect, General/Specific

Acceptability (grounds with unstated assumptions; untrue evidence; lack of validation), Relevance (I love this one), Sufficiency (is burden of proof met?)

________________________________________________

Offense: Presumption (Frameworks, Precedence, Values), Urgency ("is there a better way?" -- more timely and relevant), Objectivity (Principle, Casual connections, Analytic)

Defensive: Balance interests (identify stakeholders, notice imbalance, provide better balance), Goal analysis (find primary, ancillary-> Mitigate, contravention, consequences, counter-plan, alternate goal)

as studies come to a close, my mind has crashed and everything has come to somewhat of a halt. I have been feeling unwell which explains my relatively weak and unstructured arguments. Hoping to feel a bit better soon.

I saw the previous hall of fame's and I'm curious what the next hall of fame might be. There's been a lot of new debates and members so it could be interesting to nominate more people.

I'm probably gonna get knocked right out of top 5 with Chris's and Coal's wins gradually setting into place, but it's good while it lasts. I finally got Challenger. I wonder how many people on DART got that achievement.

All that's left is to secure number 2 and maybe even try to knock out Oromagi. Maybe I'll manage in a few years. XD

Having lost the same near-truism debate twice, I declare myself as one of the worst debaters on DART.

I guess I'll just have to have 100~500 more practice debates and then create a new account to aim for second place...

Wish me luck guys!

I've always liked games so I was playing around with the possible comparison of debating "actions" to help enhance your case when you're not quite sure what to do. Just like in RPG's where you can attack, defend, heal, cast spells, I found it entertaining to consider different ideas to make debating more interesting. Here are a few "Debating Actions" I summarized that may help in future debates.

1. Precision Attack: Precisely what, exactly what, is wrong with the opponent's case? It may be a single word, it may be a single idea, but if you find it, you may take down his whole case. Using different comparisons, metaphors, or asking various questions, you may clarify the opponent's exact stance. The more specific an idea is, the easier it is to figure out if it's wrong or correct.

2. The Reconfiguration: Perhaps you are having difficulty explaining your position. I found my case in the cyber offensive debate remarkably complex, so I felt like I had to use multiple different ways to explain what was happening. Different tones, styles, and ideas can highlight the same case in many different ways.

[Long paragraphs with detailed sentences, may be unclear]

[Numbered points help refocus and transition logically in a chronological manner]

[Bullet points help concisely explain points and summarize ideas that may otherwise be too complicated]

3. The Explanation: It's possible that real world statistics and ideas are a bit too muddy and mix up together. Creating examples or fictional situations may greatly help strengthen your case. The Explanation is similar to Reconfiguration, but can also make your case more lively when it's filled with studies and history. In my debate about giving prisoners the ability to gain lighter sentences, I tried to link the "retribution" idea to related cases in real life. Though it arguably held no weight, it greatly helped understanding and felt like I could understand my argument better. Some times explanation can also help you gain inspiration or ideas you otherwise would not have had.

4. The Question: Often times you may be so absorbed in your case that you forget to think about the other side. Whether it be admitting a counter argument, only to outweigh it, or to force your opponent to reconfigure, "The Question" can greatly help encompass all ideas. I noticed in my debate against Whiteflame that I was forced to ask a lot of questions in the end, and lost partially due to inability to raise my framework above his. Nevertheless, I believe I put up a good fight by forcing him to clarify further. In a way, it's similar to "Precision Attack".

Only a bit longer to overtake Trent. Got any questions to ask? Commentary to make? I wanted a challenge and I saw that the leaderboard was mostly people accepting debates from weaker people, rather than having an open challenge and risking a very strong opponent. So I wanted to both prove instigator advantage was wrong (by winning most of my debates as instigator) as well as prove "Undefeatable" could still lose and be very strong (by eventually beating Ragnar's rating). 

Here is how good I am at various debate subjects in my opinion.

Outstanding: Science, Computer Science, Technology

Reasonable: Economics, Education, Society

Mediocre: Politics, Morality, Entertainment

Bad: Religion, Relationships

How good are you guys at various subjects?

Though I had felt reasonably certain about my goal to being number 2 (since I would have beaten the highest "Undefeatable" debater, thus fulfilling my title), I'm curious if you guys think it's possible to beat Oromagi. He basically has at least 70 victories against 1500's, and managed to beat a number of high rankers including Intelligence, Mr. Chris, and Trent. If he goes through his 100th debate with Whiteflame as rated and loses, beating him will be much easier. But it still seems remarkably hard to win so many debates and lose so few. What do you guys think? Is Number 2 a respectable goal? Or is it possible to defeat Oromagi's position while instigating the vast majority of debates?

It seems that some Indian teacher found this site and wants to make their students debate each other about various topics, focusing mostly on police brutality but also some other ideas. What do you guys think? I hope they’re here to stay.

Despite enforcing myself stricter standards than my average writing, I find that I am still losing debates at a disproportionate rate, and even truisms meant to swayed in my favor still yet lost (Systemic Racism, Flat Earth, etc.)

As such, I think that I am doing something greatly wrong. There must be something I am missing. What rules should I add upon to further make my arguments impenetrable?

Current rules:

As I march onto my 5th lost debate, I think this is a good opportunity to take a break. I will try to avoid debating momentarily to ruminate and improve skills (unless someone is up to challenge ...) . To lose such a debate with overwhelming evidence is embarrassing to me -- not to mention the Madman defeated me in one of my expertise, internet privacy. I will be back. Mark my words.

I haven't seen so many people battle back and forth over a debate and disagree with such a disparity. (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765-u-s-k-12-public-schools-should-incorporate-more-video-games-in-their-curriculum) People being left and right with arguments, sources, and even my previous opponent TheWeakerEdge with his conduct vote. Seems a little bit crazy considering I only had a 3,000 character limit for each three rounds. 

What do you guys think? Hopefully, I'll get enough votes for a proper decision. I'm surprised by how highly gugigor evaluates Whiteflame, though it's interesting to see how (he brought this up when asked) Whiteflame on DDO chose the winner 100% of the time when elected as a judge. Will he fail this time? Hard to tell.

I feel like my round 1's are arguably my strongest and I'm trying to think of potential sampling for writing portfolio. Which of my debate openers do you guys think best exemplify my writing skills and arguing ability?

Here is the full article for Site 7 from Round 1 of my Cyber Offense Debate

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23738871.2019.1640757?journalCode=rcyb20

I own none of this. All credits go to Rod Thornton.

I made this account to try to prove my worth and see what I could do, motivated by a powerful username. But I think I must have some consequence for failing, otherwise I cannot live up to it. At 3 Rated Losses, I will go back to my hermit shell and rework on my debating skills.

That is all. 

What if my username was Defeatable. I wonder if it would be just as inspiring lol 

well, it seems like MisterChris managed to contradict my namesake. It was nice while it lasted.

I noticed it’s difficult for me to stick the landing at the end after rebuttals because I feel I’ve exhausted everything especially after strong constructive and negations. What do you guys like to do for final rounds?

here is a useful template (or maybe not, depending on your style) that may or may not help you in your debating. I think it's a good idea to help format.

Burden of Proof: [Optional commentary on Burden of Proof here.]

Reasoning why argument is important.

This research (or researches) highlights Evidence. Analysis of evidence. Conclusion.

This expert tackles idea. Analysis of connection. Conclusion.

This study demonstrates cause. Analysis of logic. Conclusion.

Impact of argument.

Further Reasoning why argument contributes or complements I. 

Impact of argument.

Some may say that this is the problem. But the worries are resolved.

Show trend in solving problem, or solutions to problems.

Analyze potential problems and compare severity.

Opponent must overcome all arguments to win.

I’m Undefeatable and thus far undefeated. Ask me anything