Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debaters on DDO are robots

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again. Too many people on here debate like robots. Pre-programmed debaters with no style. Everything is like a machine. Point. Counter point. Rebuttal. There's not enough style and rhetoric. Not enough of

Seriously, read this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I'm not trying to pick on either Roy or 16k, because I like them, they're really great debaters, they're smart guys, but really, reading this debate, Roy's arguments could have been written by 16k and 16k could have written Roy's arguments. They're so much the same in style and tone.

As I pointed out in a previous thread, the way to fix this is to allow voters more freedom in who they vote for. Let the voters vote for who was more *convincing* to *them*.

Seriously, can you guess who said this?

"Solar activity is measured historically by the formation of beryllium 10, which accumulates in sediments to provide a history of solar activity. "The Modern Warm Period from 1900 to 2008 is associated with a large decline in Be10 in ice cores, indicating a sustained higher level of solar activity in the twentieth century. There is also very close correlation between ice-rafted stone debris in the North Atlantic and Be10 levels over the last 10,000 years"another demonstration that solar activity controls climate.""

"The length of the solar cycle has been correlated to temperature throughout the 20th century. Direct sunlight, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, short and long term solar cycles, all easily explain--and contribute--to climate change [7]. As geologist Bob Carter notes, "the argument advanced by the IPCC" [that] the sun cannot play a major role in global warming or cooling trends--is incorrect.""

One is Roy, one is 16k. Go ahead and guess which is which. Don't look it up.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:04:32 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Read some stuff from FT or Danielle - I think their style is the type which would appeal to you.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:09:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This website needs better rhetoric. People practice debating information, but they don't practice debating *each other.* This is a much more influential skill in the real world.

It's why users like YYW are more convincing. YYW talks alot in the google hangouts, and while I disagree with pretty much everything he says, he's got alot better style and rhetoric than many, and as such is more convincing. His personality comes through more in his arguing. In the real world, this is very very important.

Closing business deals: Based on your ability to persuade via your personality
Doing well at job interviews: Based on your ability to persuade via your personality
Asking girls out on dates: Based on your ability to persuade via your personality
Getting along with people and being liked: Based on your ability to persuade via your personality
Running for political office: Based on your ability to persuade via your personality

The list goes on.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:10:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:07:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:04:32 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Read some stuff from FT or Danielle - I think their style is the type which would appeal to you.

This is true. Also, Hitchens is a great example. William Lane Craig, not so much. Good debater, but not a likeable personality.

All success on youtube is based on your ability to sell your personality.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:14:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is, IMO, FT's greatest strength when it comes to debate - he does the research to an extent, but he still puts in some emotion and appeals to the general intuition of voters. On debate.org, debaters tend to - and I don't really know a better way to put it - ignore the obvious and try to get more sophisticated arguments than expected. But FT stays to the point and still makes his arguments persuasive, which is why I enjoy reading anything from FT. There are many other examples of that, e.g. thett, Danielle, and Raisor. I enjoy their stuff.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:26:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:14:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
This is, IMO, FT's greatest strength when it comes to debate - he does the research to an extent, but he still puts in some emotion and appeals to the general intuition of voters. On debate.org, debaters tend to - and I don't really know a better way to put it - ignore the obvious and try to get more sophisticated arguments than expected. But FT stays to the point and still makes his arguments persuasive, which is why I enjoy reading anything from FT. There are many other examples of that, e.g. thett, Danielle, and Raisor. I enjoy their stuff.

See, you know what you're talking about. There's alot of users on here who just don't understand the importance of style. Style is really important. If you don't have it, you end up debating information like a robot. Nobody wants to read that... It's boring as hell.

This could also be the reason why many debates go under voted. They're long, dry, boring, and not entertaining. People come here because it says debate.org not "Super smart dry scientists argue about string theory and math."

Also, this would drive in more publicity to the site, and make the site more entertaining again. There would be more users. More entertaining debates. More votes. More drama... And ultimately more revenue for Juggle and maybe they'd give a damn about the place then.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:29:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I agree. Robots, boring robots. I have style though. I try to let my persobality show, even if it means sacrificing the occasional conduct point. I want my debates to have a lot of readers.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:33:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
When I instigate I try to create resolutions that draw in readers. Try to argue in a way that is entertaining i don't edit much nust write in a stream of consciousness to keep it from sounding dry. I only edit when I run out of character room and need to save words
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:33:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:29:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
I agree. Robots, boring robots. I have style though. I try to let my persobality show, even if it means sacrificing the occasional conduct point. I want my debates to have a lot of readers.

This is one of the things I've always enjoyed about your debates. Cheers to you.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:39:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:33:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:29:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
I agree. Robots, boring robots. I have style though. I try to let my persobality show, even if it means sacrificing the occasional conduct point. I want my debates to have a lot of readers.

This is one of the things I've always enjoyed about your debates. Cheers to you.

Yeah, I don't really think there is anyone as unpolished as me that does as well as me, and thanks.
Subutai
Posts: 3,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 7:56:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I feel like I'm part of this. All of the debates I've done so far on this account have all had the same debate structure, and all of my arguments have had a rather similar feel and tone.

But I don't think that's a problem. Arguments should leave little room for misinterpretation, should be comprehensive (i.e. leaving no more assumptions than is possible), and should, most importantly, be compelling in the face of your opponent's arguments. Less rigid language and structure makes these attributes harder to have. Misinterpretation happens much more often when the language isn't as formulaic and comprehensiveness and compellingness can be hard to see if the language is complex or cryptic or if the structure is confusing.

My goal in debates is to provide the most concise argument using simple but articulate language that doesn't change from debate to debate, and to provide adequate, reliable sourcing, typically in the form of direct quotations (as paraphrases can sometimes say things different from what the source is actually saying). This may feel robotic and formulaic, but I think it convinces people the best because there's little room for any other option.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 7:57:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:26:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:14:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
This is, IMO, FT's greatest strength when it comes to debate - he does the research to an extent, but he still puts in some emotion and appeals to the general intuition of voters. On debate.org, debaters tend to - and I don't really know a better way to put it - ignore the obvious and try to get more sophisticated arguments than expected. But FT stays to the point and still makes his arguments persuasive, which is why I enjoy reading anything from FT. There are many other examples of that, e.g. thett, Danielle, and Raisor. I enjoy their stuff.

See, you know what you're talking about. There's alot of users on here who just don't understand the importance of style. Style is really important. If you don't have it, you end up debating information like a robot. Nobody wants to read that... It's boring as hell.

This could also be the reason why many debates go under voted. They're long, dry, boring, and not entertaining. People come here because it says debate.org not "Super smart dry scientists argue about string theory and math."

Also, this would drive in more publicity to the site, and make the site more entertaining again. There would be more users. More entertaining debates. More votes. More drama... And ultimately more revenue for Juggle and maybe they'd give a damn about the place then.

I can see what you are talking about but I would disagree that Roy doesn't have style.

Bluesteel's debates are the ones I found most entertaining to read. I'm surprised no one's mentioned that. He has a very relatable and grounded style where he makes sure everything he says is understandable to the lay-person. He will out-source and out-statistic any other debater but it's always presented in a way that a reader can understand and relate. I had a debate with him on roller-coasters (http://www.debate.org...) and I remember reading some of his arguments where he rebutted my argument about how good bumpy wooded roller coasters are by saying (" Most people don't like the bumpy ride of wood coasters, which throws people into the air and then slams their butts, painfully, back into the seat.") and I was laughing too hard to think of good rebuttals. If you can make your opponent laugh at his own arguments, there's a fvcking good chance you are making the voters laugh and swaying them to your side.

But seriously, read any of bluesteel's debates, you'll never get bored. That's not something I can say for most competent debaters even some of the people listed here.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:01:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Compare and contrast to say bsh1 (no offense) as an extreme example. I can never get through even a single argument he makes because his style is literally chop and paste from various sources. His entire first round consists of quotes with nearly nothing added.

16k is a good debater but I think he goes overboard on sources which can make his arguments a little uninteresting or to use better phrasing - lack of charisma. If you follow along with his arguments though, you can see that most of the time, he has the winning logic.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:07:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
As for YYW, opinions differ. He's controversial and most people have strong opinions one way or another. I liked his old debates but lately, his "personality" focuses more on asserting his opinions as absolute fact and telling people they are wrong if they disagree which doesn't fill me with a very pleasant or positive impression.

Roy has some of the same tendencies but is a lot milder at infusing his personality. I disagree with the OP that his style is indistinguishable from 16k. I've debated him twice and thoroughly enjoyed reading his arguments even where I vehemently disagree. He does infuse his arguments with humor and rhetoric although that global warming debate was more fact-based. He had to compete with 16k and I think that necessitated more focus on facts because of how fact-based 16k was.

Danielle is probably the least of the fact-based/sourcey types. I've never seen her use sources well or use particularly good sources but she usually complements her lack of research ability with very relatable arguments. They aren't funny like bluesteel's but are very well-explained and she's great at deconstructing people's logic thoroughly. Would read if the topic interested me.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Yraelz is a debater I've always categorized as competent but boring. He makes some very good arguments but they are usually typed almost like in code. I understand for policy debate, you might have to compress your arguments but I've seen other people like Raisor do it very well and still be persuasive whereas with Yraelz, I have to spend a ton of time just decoding what he means.

Raisor is sort of like bluesteel and tends to make very strong, relatable arguments although not as funny. But his biggest strength is using really great sources to back up his claims. I think he's like a quieter version of bluesteel whereas bluesteel thrives on a loud, extroverted presentation.

One debater who is extinct now that I both loved and loathed is Mestari (and a bunch of his multis). His presentation is arrogant (and YYW-esque), yet also has some Zaradi-ish elements (over-reliance on theory) but sometimes his logic just flows really smoothly which makes it awesome to read.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:07:28 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
As for YYW, opinions differ. He's controversial and most people have strong opinions one way or another. I liked his old debates but lately, his "personality" focuses more on asserting his opinions as absolute fact and telling people they are wrong if they disagree which doesn't fill me with a very pleasant or positive impression.

This is comical. You keep repeating the same old nonsense, never respond to anything, and the evidence here suggests that you are incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion. This is a personal problem with you, not with me.

Though I agree that I am controversial. Some people like me a lot. A lot of other people hate me. The ones that don't like me can go fvck themselves, because I don't care.

Roy has some of the same tendencies but is a lot milder at infusing his personality. I disagree with the OP that his style is indistinguishable from 16k. I've debated him twice and thoroughly enjoyed reading his arguments even where I vehemently disagree. He does infuse his arguments with humor and rhetoric although that global warming debate was more fact-based. He had to compete with 16k and I think that necessitated more focus on facts because of how fact-based 16k was.

Danielle is probably the least of the fact-based/sourcey types. I've never seen her use sources well or use particularly good sources but she usually complements her lack of research ability with very relatable arguments. They aren't funny like bluesteel's but are very well-explained and she's great at deconstructing people's logic thoroughly. Would read if the topic interested me.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:07:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:04:32 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Read some stuff from FT or Danielle - I think their style is the type which would appeal to you.

And Thett.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:53:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I definitely have a robotic style, but I don't agree that voting should be based purely on who "convinced" you more. Ultimately, I see debate as a logical pursuit, and voters should based their efforts on the arguments themselves. Otherwise, debating turns into a personality contest, and drier personalities will struggle to win.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:54:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Injecting personality can be useful for readability and for keeping voters' attention.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Dryer personalities do have a disadvantage already. Judges in an otherwise even debate will vote for the person who presents arguments in a mpre relatable way.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 9:55:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Lol this is so true. That's why I always try to add rhetorical flourish to my debates when I'm writing them....not only for the enjoyment of the readers, but also because I have to not want to blow my brains out in boredom when I'm writing it
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:43:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:45:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:07:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:04:32 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Read some stuff from FT or Danielle - I think their style is the type which would appeal to you.

And Thett.

I mentioned him in a later post.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:44:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 9:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
Lol this is so true. That's why I always try to add rhetorical flourish to my debates when I'm writing them....not only for the enjoyment of the readers, but also because I have to not want to blow my brains out in boredom when I'm writing it

Your arguments are epic.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:45:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:07:28 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
As for YYW, opinions differ. He's controversial and most people have strong opinions one way or another. I liked his old debates but lately, his "personality" focuses more on asserting his opinions as absolute fact and telling people they are wrong if they disagree which doesn't fill me with a very pleasant or positive impression.

He's arrogant, sure, and I disagree with him on nearly everything, sure, but come on, you always *know* it's YYW talking.


Roy has some of the same tendencies but is a lot milder at infusing his personality. I disagree with the OP that his style is indistinguishable from 16k. I've debated him twice and thoroughly enjoyed reading his arguments even where I vehemently disagree. He does infuse his arguments with humor and rhetoric although that global warming debate was more fact-based. He had to compete with 16k and I think that necessitated more focus on facts because of how fact-based 16k was.

Danielle is probably the least of the fact-based/sourcey types. I've never seen her use sources well or use particularly good sources but she usually complements her lack of research ability with very relatable arguments. They aren't funny like bluesteel's but are very well-explained and she's great at deconstructing people's logic thoroughly. Would read if the topic interested me.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:46:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:07:28 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Danielle is probably the least of the fact-based/sourcey types. I've never seen her use sources well or use particularly good sources but she usually complements her lack of research ability with very relatable arguments. They aren't funny like bluesteel's but are very well-explained and she's great at deconstructing people's logic thoroughly. Would read if the topic interested me.

It's awesome fun reading some of Danielle's recent/ongoing stuff. I respond to all her vote requests because of that - a Danielle debate isn't going to be boring, regardless of whether the topic interests me.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:47:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:53:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I definitely have a robotic style, but I don't agree that voting should be based purely on who "convinced" you more. Ultimately, I see debate as a logical pursuit, and voters should based their efforts on the arguments themselves. Otherwise, debating turns into a personality contest, and drier personalities will struggle to win.

Of course debate is about pursuing truth, but it's not about being a robot. Like I said, if you're good at showing that you're right, not just in logic but also in style, folks will find you more convincing.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:48:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:12:37 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Raisor is sort of like bluesteel and tends to make very strong, relatable arguments although not as funny. But his biggest strength is using really great sources to back up his claims. I think he's like a quieter version of bluesteel whereas bluesteel thrives on a loud, extroverted presentation.

This is excellent analysis.

But I enjoy reading Raisor's arguments more than those of bluesteel. His arguments are just brief, succinct and quiet, but somehow makes that very appealing. He's made some of the most awesome cases I've read.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:48:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 9:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
Lol this is so true. That's why I always try to add rhetorical flourish to my debates when I'm writing them....not only for the enjoyment of the readers, but also because I have to not want to blow my brains out in boredom when I'm writing it

Unabashed self promotion. I like it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."