seldiora

well, I've had enough practice on this account. I'm moving to another one. Stay tuned!

The edition is correct this time.

The newest member Benjamin has been doing a lot of interesting topics, such as about logic and truth, omnipotence of god, and even whether atheists require faith or not. We wonder if he is confused, genuinely holds the belief, or something else. Either way, it's interesting to see so much going on.

Despite his lost to Misterchris, Undefeatable keeps on trudging with his topics. Chris has commemorated the debate on his profile, and the man himself challenges himself still, with a current debate going on with Whiteflame, even playing devil's advocate with a topic he tried arguing the opposing side for. It's interesting to see what's happening every time. 

David hosts various tournaments and practices in order to get people more experience with actual speaking. The scheduled time for practice is on next Monday, while the tournament is wishy washy due to difficulty in getting everyone to agree on topics. I'm interested to see what happens though, as I'm also participating.

And that's it for this edition. Quite some interesting things going on recently. 

ho ho ho with a bottle of rum! Oops, wrong impersonation. Anyways, the good old holidays are here and most debaters seem to be taking a break. Even Oromagi is in the Christmas spirit, sharing various youtube videos and such. People are not yet discussing their presents, but I bet they will be soon enough. 

The famous Undefeatable lies still in his title unclaimed. We await with patience to see if MisterChris has broken his streak, or the other way around. Either way, it's a Christmas present for one of them for sure. If Chris gets beaten, that'll be an interesting avenging of Supadudz's forced haitus. I'm excited to see who will win this intense debate. Rumors say it's Whiteflame's longest RFD on DART so far...

Our prolific poster has reached his pinnacle state trying to find and begin interesting ideas for us to work with. He has even begun a widely different debate from his philosophy forte, instead concerning Gorillas vs bears. It's interesting to see what he'll do next. A promising user to follow for sure.

And that's all for this edition! Merry Christmas everyone!

I thought over Kant's Universalism and I feel like it doesn't make sense to expect everyone in the world to follow a Maxim. Everyone has different way of acting, even if they would have the same reasoning. They would make mistakes in slightly different situations. In addition, universalism oppresses the minority as homosexuality or other unproductive acts would not be allowed. But what if we modified this to become "majority-ism"? If 75% of the world or more followed a maxim, would there be a logical contradiction? In democracies, we value the majority, but also respect the minority. With this modification, we would allow the minority to keep their rights while enforcing the majority to follow a maxim law. The flaws of universalism seem mostly fixed. Are there any problems with this idea?

After working through my previous argument and MisterChris's idea about objective morality, I thought of something interesting since most of my evidence was from science. Maybe science could prove objective morality?

Idea: Because science is applied philosophy and the closest representation of the universe, it is the best idea we have which we should follow more than any other ideal. For example, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the force of gravity exists, that the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum, etc. 

As science tells us how things should act, logically, this extends to how humans should act as well. Again, we have nothing better to go on, because science is the only thing that can be proved time and time again, under countless different conditions and universally applicable. 

Science tells us our genes and pre-determined instincts push us towards a specific set of morals. For example, we have evolved to naturally survive, because only those who survive long enough can reproduce their offspring. We have evolved to protect ourselves and our culture. These ideas have not changed regardless of where you are on earth, neither when in history you pick the person.

Because there are inherent values that humans value and actions that we tend to do as science predict, science tells us the objective morality. After all, every other force in the universe has some law that affects it, not affected by human thought (except perhaps quantum mechanics).

Recently the user known as demon has been providing many controversial posts with even moderators saying mean things about him, deserved or not. Theweakeredge battles him in forum activity and struggles to keep his rank. Demon's seemingly arrogant tone is definitely causing a lot of trouble with readers, reminding me of good old rational madman. We await to see his debating prowess.

Ironically despite some select users battling against each other, debating has grown relatively stale with only Mall relatively regularly posting new debates. Forum activity had gone days without posting, and sadly Supadudz chose to cheese my "last comment wins" game. Congrats to Supadudz lol.

The user crossed infamous for his paranoid debate views has begun another seemingly crazy notion that aborted babies make up natural flavoring. Intelligence resorts to a semantic argument that doesn't manage to lessen his opponent's worries in the least. We await for more credible sources to determine whether Crossed is correct. 

And that's all for now! More news later. 

how is he the 1st listed member under most active in the forums? I haven't seen him anywhere...

what's new with tech? I haven't been caught up lately despite my usual interest. This subsection has been the most dead so I'm trying to revive it.

yes.... Mall edges ever closer with every debate he takes.

like yeah there's a lot of forum stuff but there's not a lot of debates. RM left and Intel seems to be just chugging along for some reason. IDK if it has to do with Oromagi's lost but there's been a lot less debates I feel. I guess it gets weird when the number 1 on leaderboard loses.

I win.

I've been going back to lucid dreaming and having a good time. Share your best dreams here. Astound and surprise me, give me ideas!

So quick? Yes, quick. Short and quick makes the humor go round.

With the debate finally over and in the clear, it's safe to say that Oromagi's incredible 95 win streak has finally ended with his most recent debate. We are awaiting Fruit's response and his feelings for achieving a feat supposed to be impossible. And Oromagi's grand speech, if he will give any. We don't know if Ragnar will suffer a similar lost, but there are definitely tough competitors out here.

With Supadudz on a debating haitus, the mysterious yet skilled Undefeatable has taken up good old Chris in the finals topic previously agreed upon! Regardless of who wins, it'll definitely be good practice for MisterChris. And if Chris ends the man's namesake, that would further solidify the difficulty to defeat him. It's a nail-biting battle for sure. Undefeatable's case looks like it might have some flaws here and there, but it's quite complicated to take apart.

It's unfortunate to see the very man who created the DART bard and similar threads go, but it looks like I'll have to take up the torch instead! Yes. I've got funny jokes, humor, music, everything. Well, maybe not quality debating. We'll have to see about that. In any case, I just hope that this is the end of the pattern of users dropping like flies.

And that's all for this edition! It may have been short, but it's better to keep it nice and neat. No one wants to read an insanely long thread.

though his username seems obvious, his profile picture suggests otherwise. Legends say his username is pronounced "Earn the fated blade". When you defeat him he will put your name on the blade as a reminder of his lost, for eternity.

since sir Anonymous was doing these kind of things, I thought it would be fun to try my hand as well.

Welcome to 9sk news ed 1, where I will be enlightening you on various things happening in DART community!

You knew this was gonna be the headline. Though Ragnar is beyond anyone's reach due to being ridiculously careful about topics, Oromagi gladly chose a challenging one. As Whiteflame notes, two divergent viewpoints clashed each other, with little room for true rebuttal and analysis. With only 5k character limit, Oromagi's framework was opposed by Fruit inspector, and agreed upon by many voters to be defeated. Oromagi likely would've wanted it to  be the 100th debate to be his lost, but... 95's a pretty good number too. A moment of silence for the rank 1 debater on DART (though he will still be rank 1 after losing).

Good old Mall, with his standard questioning technique, has gone up against two identical solutions with two different debaters (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2620-your-proposal-to-the-race-problem, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2608-your-proposal-to-the-race-problem). He questions whether it is truly solving the problem to have people go extinct in order to solve racism. He'll probably lose, but it does bring an interesting moral dilemma -- is it justifiable to kill all of man kind, to resolve racism? It's hard to say for sure.

Bearman who got a Baker's dozen plus one wins is unfortunately quitting the site for unknown reasons. We have not yet confirmed the identity of his alter ego. Though a little bird tells us it is DynamicSquid (https://www.debateart.com/participants/DynamicSquid). We will miss the fuzzy bear man. 

Theweakeredge has been going crazy on forums! He's been telling everyone to ask him anything, and teach him on crazy stuff, even My Little Pony (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5153-teach-theweakeredge-a-lesson-in). Okay, that was me, but still. 

It's difficult to say who will win between him and theweakeredge, but so far he looks good. Madman forfeited all rounds, police sheep forfeited two, and he's winning the systemic racism debate. We don't know how long he'll retain his streak, but he has fulfilled his name to this date. We await to see if anyone will break his streak just yet.

I wrote a poem a long time ago. Any feedback is appreciated.

A Medieval Tale

I've checked, and I'm pretty sure this is the first vote ever taken up against him... even against Jeff, Ragnar tied rather than voting against. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564-thbt-wikipedia-is-a-more-reliable-source-for-information-than-fox-news

What an exciting turn of events. I'm eager to see if Oromagi eventually regrets choosing the 7 points system, or if someone counters Athias. It would infer fruit is much stronger than he seems, and virtuoso is stronger yet.

I've seen three of them but none of them have went well. I'd gladly do any topic. Up for a group debate?

I'm confused by why we have the feature, since there seemed to be no real basis for it. (Juggle just seemed to design it arbitrarily). Thett3 made a pretty convincing case why it's not a great idea (https://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-should-keep-a-voting-system-with-multiple-categories/1/votes/2/). Granted, Judging is more high quality on DART, but it's hard to say 100% that no one can abuse it. Especially since I can just easily award conduct if one side doesn't insult and the other accidentally forfeits one round. Even Ragnar is not infallible and in Oromagi's debate gave sources to Oromagi because of one uncited source from Athias. What's the reasoning?

based on his conversational style and his inability to understand oromagi’s complex sentences I think he’s just a foreigner with gap in English skills. He thinks debating is likely just exchange of controversial ideas so he picks the most insane topics to guarantee someone will answer. But he mistakes then for I can I BB type topics where sources are not necessary to prove your point and mere logic triumphs. So that’s why he uses zero sources, definitions and his research is slim to none. He also can’t seem to connect ideas very well which explains why he doesn’t think we proved anything, as well as why my emotional based argument failed to convince him (“we the people As one” idea works on Americans)

Despite Ragnar's claims that he went toe-to-toe against Roy, it's difficult to say for certain precisely how strong of a debater Ragnar actually is, since he has never been remotely challenged (unlike Oromagi, who at least went against Jeff from the top 20). 

Judging from his abortion debate against PGA (the only truly competent person who debated him on DART), it's difficult to say for sure. He kept continuing using the idea of "collection of cells", which surely would've fallen under a more competent debater like MisterChris. His comparison to slavery was hard for me to tear down, but I knew it was flawed, and Chris notes that the women's own choice makes it difficult to sustain (not to mention I could only find one research that said 92% of abortions are unintended pregnancies). Pro also didn't use the uncertainty principle, which was Chris's nail in the coffin that defeated me. I don't know if Ragnar would've been able to link the legality impact, as Ragnar's analysis of specific laws and politics are uncertain (unless he's actually on Roy's level). As for my personal loss, it's well known that I am pretty much way below average when playing devil's advocate for the most part.

Going through his DDO debates though, it's definitive that he's probably at least above average level, if not on Oromagi or Whiteflame's current level. He managed to defeat an above average user about sociology. And while Oromagi was still in his unstructured version, some one random voter was convinced that Ragnar won about self-driving cars (though to be fair, Oromagi was fighting an uphill battle). The closest Ragnar was to being beaten was in a Star Trek debate, where bladerunner voted in his opponent's favor (though Maikuru has not been defeated either, and voted for Ragnar). He definitely has improved since, but due to lack of debating against serious opponents, it's difficult to say if Ragnar is truly on Roy Latham's level. I heavily doubt he would win big issues, such as gun control, death penalty, etc. How good do you guys think Ragnar actually is? 

i was curious why multi accounting was considered an issue because everything seems fine as long as the accounts didn’t vote on each other’s debate or debate each other in a rated setting. What’s the problem?

My elo has been dropping and staying below 1,500 so I've decided to officially transfer accounts after these three debates going on (objective science, one world gov,  exquisitely poor) have ended. Unless I go back up above 1,500. In the case that I flop, I'd like to say it was nice to practice with this account.

though Oromagi has won 92 debates in a row, I decided to comb through his debates to see if anyone had a remote chance of defeating him or not. Here is the list of the people who I believe came the closest to tying or even beating him:

- Americans National Pride (VS Jeff_Goldblum): Jeff had previously won against the mighty Ramshutu and MisterChris. Ragnar's tie vote goes to show how difficult it was to judge this debate. It's hard to say if Whiteflame would've judged the same. 

- MA> CA (Vs Trent0405): With Trent's highly unusual topics being his forte, you'd think Oromagi would struggle with low character count, but he takes this one nicely. 

-- Germany > France (Vs Trent0405): Proving Oromagi's worth even in Trent's remote fortress once again, it's clearly quite tricky to beat Oromagi. 

So I guess unless Ragnar goes all rogue or Whiteflame challenges him to the 100th debate, we won't see him being truly challenged or defeated. I expected Jeff to have a chance especially due to MisterChris's prowess falling short against him, but I guess Oromagi has really improved since DDO. My bet is Oromagi is likely now better than Ragnar, because Ragnar doesn't take big chances with more difficult debaters (MisterChris and the gang). I'm not sure who will win with Whiteflame vs Oromagi on his 100th debate, but it'll be a show to see for sure.

Our newest debating member, Ayyantu, is remarkably strong as far as I'm concerned. She whipped out a very nitty gritty rebuttal against my forte and also brought up quantum mechanics (as absurd as it sounds) against Evolution. My guess would be perhaps Zaroette, maybe NiamC. Nobody super serious, but pretty strong stuff.

As the DART tournament comes down to its last round, I'd like to replicate the DDO "gauntlet tournament" since it seemed interesting. If anyone objects, let me hear it now.

As ClassicRobert said and I will paste: 

Just my personal opinion on the leaderboards' top 10. Ratings out of 10

Attack: how well a debater refutes and notices holes in arguments

Defense: how well they support their arguments

Trickery: how well the debater thinks through the premise and argues semantics/specifics, chooses topics, as well as versatility

Oromagi

Attack: 11

Defense: 9

Trickery: 10

Ragnar:

Attack:9

Defense: 9

Trickery: 11 (never lost a debate, ever)

Ramshutu

Attack: 8

Defense: 10

Trickery: 7 

MisterChris

Attack: 8

Defense: 8

Trickery: 3 (plays it straight)

Trent0405

Attack: 7

Defense: 9

Trickery: 10

Semperfortis

Attack: 8

Defense: 8

Trickery: 9

RM

Attack: 8

Defense: 7

Trickery: 5

Blamonkey

Attack: 10

Defense: 10

Trickery: 10

Intelligence

Attack: 9

Defense: 8

Trickery: 9

Nihilist

Attack: 6

Defense: 6

Trickery: 9

I just stumbled upon this review of Frozen I wrote years ago when I first watched it. Contains spoilers. Enjoy, folks.

which debate topics are you guys strongest at? Here's my list:

- Smoking Should be Criminalized (pro)

- Gun Control Should be Tightened in the US (con)

- On Balance Social Media has negative effect on users' mental health (pro)

- Gay Marriage Should be Legalized (pro)

- Table Tennis is the most enjoyable Asian sport (pro)

- We Should Colonize Mars by 2100 (pro)

I like to review songs for all that don't know. Check out favesongs.wordpress.com if you want.

yes.... Oromagi edges ever closer with every debate he takes.

I searched up debating sites and DART was not anywhere near the top. DebateIsland barely gives a chance for the instigator to respond on what is mostly "change my mind" posts, and it's excruciatingly difficult to create and access actual debates on the site. Kailo is fine, but limited to students + teacher community. And Debate hub is ... okay theoretically, but the layout is so mundane and even sorting by votes gets error lol.

Not intended as insult or attack, just found it funny to poke fun at, because my elo was so low that he got bumped out of top 5.... lol

I found MisterChris's argument interesting because I have never seen it before (and it resonates with my scientific thinking). Here I will try to cross examine with Socrates method to show if it holds water or not. 

P2 seems weaker, however, there can still be an objective standard even if only a majority accepts it. For example, it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Earth is Round. But some people lack scientific thinking, or have no experience with experimentation, and therefore believe that the earth is flat, contradicting this idea. But as the majority of scientists and educated men have managed to find and agree on this objective fact, they have successfully established its objective nature.

However, there are still problems even with this more lax expectation. There are often undecidable problems within reality. Trump vs Clinton was nearly a tie in popular vote, for example. In addition, the "majority of humans" might still believe in something wrong, such as the earth being center of the universe, before exploring outer space. Due to lack of information, they could not find the objective truth. 

Therefore, I propose an overhaul to the entirety of the universe as a standard. The reasoning behind this is that the vast majority of universe has to follow certain laws: Conservation of matter, speed limit of light, equal and opposite motions, so on and so forth. We have gathered from countless evidence in order to prove the universe's age, not merely from humans or earth, but from the entirety of the universe itself. It would be cherry picking to pick from Earth, after all.

So the whole repealed argument can be like this:

P1) What is objective (ex. science, math, truisms) can find overwhelming evidence in fact within the whole universe

P2) The whole universe follows certain laws and rules, patterns, among these which are our actions

C) Therefore, because our actions can be found to follow a certain pattern during certain times, this can be overwhelming evidence combined to show objective morality.

(however, the problem is that science is "what should happen", not "what should I do", which is a whole other can of worms...)

Here are the top active debaters on DART ranked by how good they are in overall topics, in my opinion.

1) Whiteflame [Bsh would be tied here if still active]]

2) Blamonkey

3) Ramshutu

4) Oromagi

5) Ragnar [Zaradi would be somewhere here]

6) MisterChris

7) Intelligence_06

8) Trent0405

9) Imabench [If he doesn't get to troll or talk about Frozen]

10) Supadudz 

I like to visualize arguments to gauge how strong they are, for fun. Here are a few.

yeah I somehow lost “I’d rather live in a world without global warming than a world where abortion is banned”. #seldioraisbaddebaterconfirmed

for those that don't know, I can I BB is a Chinese debating show concerning relation based and strange topics, but since it is in Mandarin, much translation is necessary. Sadly, it seems my transcription still needs work... 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2362-it-is-preferable-for-a-beautiful-woman-to-go-after-a-career-than-going-after-a-man -- I fail to say clearly that men chase after women ;.;

I lost the reborn as smart yet hated because I mistranslated the "disgusting" to loathed, and the "single dog vs noble" isn't literal, it's slang meaning being lonely and needing sympathy. I cry

it seems apparent to me that intelligence is putting very little effort in debates (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2334-being-single-as-a-human-is-more-similar-to-being-a-dog-than-being-a-noble)

Even Oromagi's "truisms" and definitions have more effort put into them. Detestable.

right now I am still looking like one of the worst debaters on this site but with all stats combined I am somehow not terrible.

Total wins: 182

Total ties: 48

Total losses: 142

As you can see I still have  only 40% lose rate so I am still good.

(i.e., the won debates, the tied debates, the lost debates) -- It kinda bothers me that DDO has it and DART doesn't. What if we lose track of Oromagi's eventual first loss on this site? XD

hooray! /s

I feel like I'm putting too much stress on the idea of being in a relationship, so I was hoping to put this to the test. Socrates method alone wasn't enough to defeat my idea, even though I felt my thought was flawed. Here is the following cross-examination versus myself.
The idea is simple. Humans innately seek relationship and intimacy, for the most part (asexual people aside), and I am one of those people. Studies have shown that kisses and hugs release dopamine and oxytocin, important to counter depression and improve mood. As the famous moral philosophy Utilitarianism itself had stated, the greater the overall happiness, the better. As long as I'm not hurting anyone, it should be fine.
Q: Why not merely friendship?
A: It seems to me that in general close romance is trusted more, and friendship in contrast comes and goes with no crux to the relationship. Consider the fact that being married means you have to spend your whole life together, in the same house, this is a testament to the power of love compared to mere friendship. The only friendships that I heard last an entire life are those that are rooted in being childhood friends, and a lot of those turn into romance as well. But as I have no childhood friends, it seems very unlikely that I would be able to establish any more, especially as adults are wary of each other, have other friends and worries, and harder to establish merely a long friendship.
Q: What if you fail?
A: Isn't there the famous saying, "it is better to have loved and lost than have not loved at all?" I would gain much experience from failing, and have a story to tell in the end. I've suffered a lot of emotional troubles in the past and I feel like they would help me get through this. And in the end, wouldn't my interaction with general friends be improved as a result of deeply understanding one other person?
Q: Does it matter to you if casual, or serious?
A: Here is admittedly where things get blurry, of course, I am able to accept friends with benefits if that is the only thing that I can achieve. But I am saying I am also not afraid to be more serious, even if that means potentially having to let go of the other person at the drop of a hat. With my analytical abilities I should be careful enough to have a good idea which type of relationship I should take, and blurring the line is better than not even getting close to the line in my opinion.
Counter: What if you are too ambitious and ignore the line as such? Human emotion is selfish and greedy as such, you yourself are unsatisfied with merely friendship; how can we be so sure you won't break the idea of "friends with benefits" as well?
A: As previously said, the solution is to merely take it lightly, being open to all possibilities and solutions. I'm sure if you tell your FWB that you wanted to make it an open relationship (potentially deeper possibilities), they would be understanding and allow you, especially since it's not a true emotional investment and only a little involvement.
Q: If you are willing to blur the line, does this not mean you only like the physical aspect, and hence, negate the emotional ideas? You said yourself you wanted to take things lightly.
A: If physical is the only thing I can get, that is what I'll take. I can still ready myself for something more serious, if we are compatible and things go well. FWB can still be a step towards an actual relationship, and taking things lightly is only the initial approach; I can always invest more once I see that the relation is going to last.
Q: You say in utilitarianism, the greater the overall happiness the better, but how can you know you won't hurt the other more than the experience you gained?
A: In this case, I'd say the best thing to do is to warn them beforehand you might be fickle and testing out relationships, looking for people with a similar viewpoint. As such, they also won't be too emotionally invested, resulted in unlikely happiness lost in the case of utilitarianism.
Q: AHA! That's the flaw in your argument! You assume that they're willing to go slow and light, but what if they want to quickly achieve a serious relationship as fast as possible? Wouldn't your idea be completely negated? After all, too slow results in too little progress in the relationship!
A: Relationships usually take time to build, especially a long and serious ones. What they want to do should be up to them, and I can just take my time. Isn't the worst case, just gaining another friend and helping them figure out their new relation?
Q: Your case in view only looks at yourself and not the other person. What if they have malicious intentions and only want finance?
A: I think this is relatively rare. I'm careful enough not to waste any important money on another person; only using it if absolutely necessary. I get that it can seem kind of stingy, but everyone ought to be wise in spending money, and the other person should understand if I don't want to give thousands of dollars to help them, if it's only a relatively casual relationship.
Q: How would you know when to keep going, or how to give up? Isn't this a problem?
A: There is the internet, there is my intuition. I can analyze the ongoing benefits and negatives of the relationships to figure out what is wrong and either try to fix it, or move on to try another person. I don't see the problem here.
Q: reason won't work on him... let's try this! Your face is ugly! Your personality is horrible! You have to worry not only about your job, your family, but now you want to worry about a relationship? Hah! Good luck with that, you fool!
A: Even if I am unable to get a relation, that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. There are indeed other problems that I should tackle first, but that shouldn't negate the eventual need for more companionship. Family is family, they are essentially different from romance. And please don't straw man this into incest; that's another thing entirely.
Q: You are a lost cause! You spit ideals and the best result possible, but you do not specify precisely what you are looking for? How do you know when one is right and when one is wrong for you, exactly?
A: As one of the other comment suggests, meeting groups of people would help the most to find the right one. Through interactions and discussions, I can gradually both improve my social skill and find out who is most fitted towards me.
Q: Another idealistic answer. What will you say? What will you do? In the spark of the moment, you choke up, you stand still, and you waste your chance. How can you achieve your goal?!
A: Isn't your thought process the only obstacle in the way? The same problems occur for any job interview, which is much more stressful, with money and career on the line. Especially considering the possibility that they will be your future boss or manager. As we continue practicing, can you say for sure that all my chances will be wasted?
Q: Impossible! My argument can't be flawless! There is no way that I found an objectively moral action, as people cannot even agree on whether murder is always unjust or if torture is necessary. But what is wrong with the thought process??!

there is the infamous 7 levels of disagreement (https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/). Here, for humor and for fun I will try to write the opposite, trying to prove your point on 7 different levels.

Level 0: I'm right.

Level 1: I'm right because I feel I'm right.

Level 2: I'm right because the evidence supports me.

Level 3: It is more probable than not that I am right, because of this such evidence from this article, and that such evidence from this research.

Level 4: There are certain positives from my extensive research that overall outweighs the negatives, and as such, prove that my stance is correct.

Level 5: Not only are my sources trustworthy, experts have agreed with this opinion. Combined with these statistics and ideals of benefits overcoming the harms, my stance is correct as a result.

Level 6: Not only using mere statistics and others' opinions, the reasoning behind the logic is clear, due to these specific ideas that lead to irrefutable results, the benefits that come to fruition are clearly better than the negatives, so as a result, my stance is correct.

Level 7: Let us first define each word in the premise. Now, having said that, I will dive into how this is supported by reasoning, data, and even some emotional appeal. The past had resulted in this occurring. The present, has this happening right now. And the future, seems to suggest a result in my favor. With all of these combined, it is clear that the validity of my reasoning is solid, and therefore, my stance is correct.

L e v e l 8 : The burden of proof is on my opponent.

(obviously joking)

here is a funny summarization of how I feel people would argue on a topic.

Example topic: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

Oromagi: Just what is, "alternative energy"?

Ragnar: Based on these implications and ideas, let me show you how my side is winning...

Whiteflame: Given these exact statistics and trustworthy research sites, I have completely defeated my opponent in this topic.

RoyLatham: We must first analyze how the government looks upon the fossil fuels and alternative energy as a political policy...

Intelligence: Opp. BoP is not sufficient to prove his case.

Supadudz: there is a flaw in opponent's argument, here...

Title. Ask Me Anything.

Intelligence mentioned this fun entertainment show that uses debate topics for amusement. Here is a list of their topics and who won if you want to have a take at them (to be updated):

-  Truisms, despite adding no constructive value to their discussions, are still worth mentioning within said discussions (Pro narrowly win)

-If your partner is living with someone the opposite sex, you should force them to move out (Con won by landslide)

- I would be reborn as a disliked smart geek (Pro win by landslide)

title. I started a bunch of debates with the same title as TOURNAMENT R1: seldiora vs supadudz, but maybe its due to previous one being deleted, it keeps disappearing for some reason.