Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The black market guide to winning debates #1

imabench
Posts: 14,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 1:35:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
For those of you wondering what this is, allow me to explain. This is a 'black market' guide for winning debates, which is the equivalent of a list of tips to win debates through shady and not necessarily 'proper' means. Over the years, Ive seen numerous debaters use a wide variety of little and subtle tricks to give them an arguably unethical boost in odds of winning the debate. Ive been here for 2 years now so I have seen a lot of them, and have decided I might as well reveal what I have seen.

You can either use these tips to negate the subtle tricks someone may pull on you in a debate, or you can even maybe start using some of these tactics to help you win debates on your own. Your choice, do what you will.

Here is a list of these 'black market tactics' I have seen: They are not listed in any particular order, and this is just part 1 of the list

1) Shotgun Argumentation

Shotgun argumentation is the act of making as many arguments against/in favor of a resolution as possible, to the point that their opponent is unable to adequately respond to or refute all of the arguments listed. This tactic is the DDO equivalent of divide and conquer, where someone forces their opponent to try to respond to so many different arguments that they cant focus on their main argument or introduce new arguments of their own.

Its VERY effective, and the only way you can get around it is to flat out concede arguments or be extremely efficient in refuting those arguments with as few characters as possible. Its very hard to do either of those, which is why this is a very common tactic used by good debaters to win arguments.
.
.
.
.
.

2) Source bombing

Source bombing is the act of putting as many sources as possible to reinforce a single point in order to try to win the sources vote when the voting period starts. This is also very effective since there are voters who award source points based entirely on who used more sources, not who used better sources. Source bombing can often go hand in hand with shotgun argumentation, which is a very lethal combination that can be used in a debate.

Source bombing also comes in the form of one sided bringing up something completely irrelevant to the debate, and then linking 4 sources to it to try to make a pitch for source points. This one is tricky since most people just point out that the argument is irrelevent to the debate, but the sources that the other side gives still can sway voters into giving that side source points, even though they were used for an argument not even relevent to the main debate.

Source bombing though can be countered with counter-source bombing, which means that if one side puts up 20 sources, the other side can simply resort to source bombing themselves and put up 18 sources and negate the potential advantage that source bombing can give to either side. Source bombing itself doesnt work well against seasoned debaters, but it is a lethal tactic when used against noobs.
.
.
.
.
.

3) Stupidity traps

This one is tricky to detect because it often happens when they werent intended to be used. A stupidity trap is something said in a debate that is so amazingly stupid that the opponent is baited into burning an excessive number of characters into pointing out why the statement in question is stupid. A stupidity trap can be made unintentionally just because of someone's political bias, but it can still be a game changer if combined with shotgun argumentation since it baits one side into burning characters that could be used refuting other arguments.

Stupidity traps themselves arent very effective trying to use under your own control, and on their own they could indeed backfire and cost you argument points. But if unintentional and combined with shotgun argumentation, then it becomes the 'divide and conquer' strategy that can give you an edge even over the best debaters.
.
.
.
.
.

4) Be popular/respected

Friends tend to vote for friends on debates, which means that in a debate between popular members on the site, people could vote for one side based somewhat on who is more respected and/or popular on the site. Before they even start reading the debate, voters can be biased into voting for one side because that side is very respected or popular on the site.

This naturally isnt really something you can control, and its not very effective when used against other seasoned debaters unless you are really, REALLY smart and respected on here, but it can be used devastatingly in debates between popular people and noobs.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5) Be a crybaby

This one sounds like it could be a liability, but it actually isnt. At the very end of debates, people can start pointing out all the 'mean' things the other side said to them over the course of the debate as well as simple misspelled words and barely noticeable grammar errors. This looks like being a crybaby, cause it is, but its also a Hail-Mary toss to get conduct and spelling points in a debate, which can be a game changer in debates that are very close in voting.

This tactic is used A LOT by even the best and most prestigious people on the site since there isnt necessarily any penalty for being a crybaby over small stuff at the end of a debate, while having the potential to swing a close debate into someones favor. There is no really effective way to counter this tactic, since a crybaby will use just about anything they can to try to get points even when what they are crying about isnt necessarily wrong or worthy of giving points to someone over. The best way to counter this is to put away the debate before conduct and grammar becomes an issue, and to keep your conduct in line enough for people to see that the other side is just being a cry baby asking for points.
.
.
.
.
.

6) Asking for votes

People can be annoyed by people asking them to vote on their debates, but the truth is it still is effective for getting votes, mostly in favor of the people asking others to vote. Voting against someone who asked you to vote on their debate is the equivalent of them asking you for a favor, and then you agreeing to help with the favor but then making it even harder for that person to get what they intended, which people naturally dont like to do. So while its annoying, it still is an effective way for people to get votes on debates in their favor since people really dont like voting against friends on debates when those friends are asking them to vote.

This tactic is somewhat effective, but can be countered by winning the debate by a large enough margin for the other side to give up and accept that they will not win the debate no matter how many people they could potentially ask to vote on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7) Reporting bad votes

If someone votes for a particular side, but the rfd they give for their reasoning behind their vote is very bad to the point that it can be seen as a votebomb, then one side can report the vote as a votebomb and potentially have the vote be deleted.

This one is the least effective means for getting an edge on a debate since it depends entirely on the poor rfd of a voter, and a single vote biased enough to look like a votebomb only some of the time could impact the outcome of a debate. Its only when multiple bad votes look like votebombs enough to be deleted does this tactic become potentially useful for winning a debate, and it is very rarely used to the point that a lot of people dont even know that votes can be reported + deleted.
Breaking News: A new study shows that people who make fun of my profile pic to try to disprove my argument or tend to be complete retards

Ima presents: DDO History
http://www.debate.org...

First Ima Revolution = 4/28/12
Second Ima Revolution = 10/31/12
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 840
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 1:40:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I need to find a new topic to debate now... Hmmm.
This better admin?

Kc1999<3

"Damn cow ladies ruining Zarroette's life." -XLAV

My Fool Proof plan for cleaning the forum shlt up: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 21,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 2:11:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Also, only debate popular sides to debates. Know your voting audience and debate towards them!
Fantasy Football signups
http://www.debate.org...

Please vote, a debate about swearing
http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 11,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:48:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 1:40:08 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
I need to find a new topic to debate now... Hmmm.

I'll face you in a Free Trade Debate.
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever

Lannan13=new king of this site.-Thette3

Facebook Page. (https://www.facebook.com...)

The Weekly Stupid Episode 5 (http://www.debate.org...)
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 840
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:53:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 4:48:04 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 1:40:08 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
I need to find a new topic to debate now... Hmmm.

I'll face you in a Free Trade Debate.

I don't know to much about free trade. :/
This better admin?

Kc1999<3

"Damn cow ladies ruining Zarroette's life." -XLAV

My Fool Proof plan for cleaning the forum shlt up: http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 11,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:54:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 4:53:52 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:48:04 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 1:40:08 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
I need to find a new topic to debate now... Hmmm.

I'll face you in a Free Trade Debate.

I don't know to much about free trade. :/

PM me and we'll talk.
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever

Lannan13=new king of this site.-Thette3

Facebook Page. (https://www.facebook.com...)

The Weekly Stupid Episode 5 (http://www.debate.org...)
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 840
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 4:54:34 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:53:52 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:48:04 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 1:40:08 PM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
I need to find a new topic to debate now... Hmmm.

I'll face you in a Free Trade Debate.

I don't know to much about free trade. :/

PM me and we'll talk.

Okay.
This better admin?

Kc1999<3

"Damn cow ladies ruining Zarroette's life." -XLAV

My Fool Proof plan for cleaning the forum shlt up: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 7,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Another trick is to know you enemy and try to steer the debate away from issues that they're strong at. For example, if you know your opponent will demolish you if the debate comes down to util vs. deontological ethics and you'll demolish them if the debate comes down to the practical effects of your policies, steer the debate to make sure the voting issues fall onto the side your stronger. This isn't particularly easy to do but if you do it right it's a winning tactic.
I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity- Izbo

Procrastination binds us all, cutting across geographical borders. - Cermank

Don't quote me, ever. -Airmax

#StandWithBossy
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 1:35:58 PM, imabench wrote:
For those of you wondering what this is, allow me to explain. This is a 'black market' guide for winning debates, which is the equivalent of a list of tips to win debates through shady and not necessarily 'proper' means. Over the years, Ive seen numerous debaters use a wide variety of little and subtle tricks to give them an arguably unethical boost in odds of winning the debate. Ive been here for 2 years now so I have seen a lot of them, and have decided I might as well reveal what I have seen.

You can either use these tips to negate the subtle tricks someone may pull on you in a debate, or you can even maybe start using some of these tactics to help you win debates on your own. Your choice, do what you will.

Here is a list of these 'black market tactics' I have seen: They are not listed in any particular order, and this is just part 1 of the list

1) Shotgun Argumentation

Shotgun argumentation is the act of making as many arguments against/in favor of a resolution as possible, to the point that their opponent is unable to adequately respond to or refute all of the arguments listed. This tactic is the DDO equivalent of divide and conquer, where someone forces their opponent to try to respond to so many different arguments that they cant focus on their main argument or introduce new arguments of their own.

Its VERY effective, and the only way you can get around it is to flat out concede arguments or be extremely efficient in refuting those arguments with as few characters as possible. Its very hard to do either of those, which is why this is a very common tactic used by good debaters to win arguments.
.
.
.
.
.

2) Source bombing

Source bombing is the act of putting as many sources as possible to reinforce a single point in order to try to win the sources vote when the voting period starts. This is also very effective since there are voters who award source points based entirely on who used more sources, not who used better sources. Source bombing can often go hand in hand with shotgun argumentation, which is a very lethal combination that can be used in a debate.

Source bombing also comes in the form of one sided bringing up something completely irrelevant to the debate, and then linking 4 sources to it to try to make a pitch for source points. This one is tricky since most people just point out that the argument is irrelevent to the debate, but the sources that the other side gives still can sway voters into giving that side source points, even though they were used for an argument not even relevent to the main debate.

Source bombing though can be countered with counter-source bombing, which means that if one side puts up 20 sources, the other side can simply resort to source bombing themselves and put up 18 sources and negate the potential advantage that source bombing can give to either side. Source bombing itself doesnt work well against seasoned debaters, but it is a lethal tactic when used against noobs.
.
.
.
.
.

3) Stupidity traps

This one is tricky to detect because it often happens when they werent intended to be used. A stupidity trap is something said in a debate that is so amazingly stupid that the opponent is baited into burning an excessive number of characters into pointing out why the statement in question is stupid. A stupidity trap can be made unintentionally just because of someone's political bias, but it can still be a game changer if combined with shotgun argumentation since it baits one side into burning characters that could be used refuting other arguments.

Stupidity traps themselves arent very effective trying to use under your own control, and on their own they could indeed backfire and cost you argument points. But if unintentional and combined with shotgun argumentation, then it becomes the 'divide and conquer' strategy that can give you an edge even over the best debaters.
.
.
.
.
.

4) Be popular/respected

Friends tend to vote for friends on debates, which means that in a debate between popular members on the site, people could vote for one side based somewhat on who is more respected and/or popular on the site. Before they even start reading the debate, voters can be biased into voting for one side because that side is very respected or popular on the site.

This naturally isnt really something you can control, and its not very effective when used against other seasoned debaters unless you are really, REALLY smart and respected on here, but it can be used devastatingly in debates between popular people and noobs.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5) Be a crybaby

This one sounds like it could be a liability, but it actually isnt. At the very end of debates, people can start pointing out all the 'mean' things the other side said to them over the course of the debate as well as simple misspelled words and barely noticeable grammar errors. This looks like being a crybaby, cause it is, but its also a Hail-Mary toss to get conduct and spelling points in a debate, which can be a game changer in debates that are very close in voting.

This tactic is used A LOT by even the best and most prestigious people on the site since there isnt necessarily any penalty for being a crybaby over small stuff at the end of a debate, while having the potential to swing a close debate into someones favor. There is no really effective way to counter this tactic, since a crybaby will use just about anything they can to try to get points even when what they are crying about isnt necessarily wrong or worthy of giving points to someone over. The best way to counter this is to put away the debate before conduct and grammar becomes an issue, and to keep your conduct in line enough for people to see that the other side is just being a cry baby asking for points.
.
.
.
.
.

6) Asking for votes

People can be annoyed by people asking them to vote on their debates, but the truth is it still is effective for getting votes, mostly in favor of the people asking others to vote. Voting against someone who asked you to vote on their debate is the equivalent of them asking you for a favor, and then you agreeing to help with the favor but then making it even harder for that person to get what they intended, which people naturally dont like to do. So while its annoying, it still is an effective way for people to get votes on debates in their favor since people really dont like voting against friends on debates when those friends are asking them to vote.

This tactic is somewhat effective, but can be countered by winning the debate by a large enough margin for the other side to give up and accept that they will not win the debate no matter how many people they could potentially ask to vote on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7) Reporting bad votes

If someone votes for a particular side, but the rfd they give for their reasoning behind their vote is very bad to the point that it can be seen as a votebomb, then one side can report the vote as a votebomb and potentially have the vote be deleted.

This one is the least effective means for getting an edge on a debate since it depends entirely on the poor rfd of a voter, and a single vote biased enough to look like a votebomb only some of the time could impact the outcome of a debate. Its only when multiple bad votes look like votebombs enough to be deleted does this tactic become potentially useful for winning a debate, and it is very rarely used to the point that a lot of people dont even know that votes can be reported + deleted.

Holy sh!t I've been doing it all wrong...
Thank you all, and may I go engraved in DDO history! :D
Oromagi
Posts: 768
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:55:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Don't forget presentation. Graphics, videos, spacing, and effective fonts- bolds, italics, etc used to break up and organize your arg make a big difference. Even a very good argument can look crazy when it comes in one unbroken paragraph.
imabench
Posts: 14,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 6:02:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Theres a difference between 'black market' tips to winning debates and legit tips to winning debates....
Breaking News: A new study shows that people who make fun of my profile pic to try to disprove my argument or tend to be complete retards

Ima presents: DDO History
http://www.debate.org...

First Ima Revolution = 4/28/12
Second Ima Revolution = 10/31/12
thett3
Posts: 7,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 6:02:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 5:55:51 PM, Oromagi wrote:
Don't forget presentation. Graphics, videos, spacing, and effective fonts- bolds, italics, etc used to break up and organize your arg make a big difference. Even a very good argument can look crazy when it comes in one unbroken paragraph.

That isn't an underhand tactic though
I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity- Izbo

Procrastination binds us all, cutting across geographical borders. - Cermank

Don't quote me, ever. -Airmax

#StandWithBossy
Oromagi
Posts: 768
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 6:07:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago

That isn't an underhand tactic though

You're right. I just started thinking about tactics and forgot ima's theme was sneaky
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:02:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Dude, I was looking for something like this just the other day! I will be taking advantage of these
Modern 'Science' requires more faith than religion.
Science is demonstrable, observable, testable and repeatable.
Accepting that we all came from fish (nevermind a single bacterium!) demands faith.
Zaradi
Posts: 11,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 12:50:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I see nothing underhanded about any of these.
: At 3/3/2014 1:08:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
: : At 3/3/2014 1:05:47 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
: : But I am strongly of the opinion that the opinions section, or at least the photo feature, should be prohibited. There was gay rape porn on the homepage a few days.
:
: Sorry about that. I posted my submission for Mr DDO in the wrong thread.

"Don't violate my rights" - Kc1999, self-proclaimed fascist
TrueScotsman
Posts: 313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 4:47:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 1:35:58 PM, imabench wrote:
For those of you wondering what this is, allow me to explain. This is a 'black market' guide for winning debates, which is the equivalent of a list of tips to win debates through shady and not necessarily 'proper' means. Over the years, Ive seen numerous debaters use a wide variety of little and subtle tricks to give them an arguably unethical boost in odds of winning the debate. Ive been here for 2 years now so I have seen a lot of them, and have decided I might as well reveal what I have seen.

You can either use these tips to negate the subtle tricks someone may pull on you in a debate, or you can even maybe start using some of these tactics to help you win debates on your own. Your choice, do what you will.

Here is a list of these 'black market tactics' I have seen: They are not listed in any particular order, and this is just part 1 of the list

1) Shotgun Argumentation

Shotgun argumentation is the act of making as many arguments against/in favor of a resolution as possible, to the point that their opponent is unable to adequately respond to or refute all of the arguments listed. This tactic is the DDO equivalent of divide and conquer, where someone forces their opponent to try to respond to so many different arguments that they cant focus on their main argument or introduce new arguments of their own.

Its VERY effective, and the only way you can get around it is to flat out concede arguments or be extremely efficient in refuting those arguments with as few characters as possible. Its very hard to do either of those, which is why this is a very common tactic used by good debaters to win arguments.
.
.
.
.
.

2) Source bombing

Source bombing is the act of putting as many sources as possible to reinforce a single point in order to try to win the sources vote when the voting period starts. This is also very effective since there are voters who award source points based entirely on who used more sources, not who used better sources. Source bombing can often go hand in hand with shotgun argumentation, which is a very lethal combination that can be used in a debate.

Source bombing also comes in the form of one sided bringing up something completely irrelevant to the debate, and then linking 4 sources to it to try to make a pitch for source points. This one is tricky since most people just point out that the argument is irrelevent to the debate, but the sources that the other side gives still can sway voters into giving that side source points, even though they were used for an argument not even relevent to the main debate.

Source bombing though can be countered with counter-source bombing, which means that if one side puts up 20 sources, the other side can simply resort to source bombing themselves and put up 18 sources and negate the potential advantage that source bombing can give to either side. Source bombing itself doesnt work well against seasoned debaters, but it is a lethal tactic when used against noobs.
.
.
.
.
.

3) Stupidity traps

This one is tricky to detect because it often happens when they werent intended to be used. A stupidity trap is something said in a debate that is so amazingly stupid that the opponent is baited into burning an excessive number of characters into pointing out why the statement in question is stupid. A stupidity trap can be made unintentionally just because of someone's political bias, but it can still be a game changer if combined with shotgun argumentation since it baits one side into burning characters that could be used refuting other arguments.

Stupidity traps themselves arent very effective trying to use under your own control, and on their own they could indeed backfire and cost you argument points. But if unintentional and combined with shotgun argumentation, then it becomes the 'divide and conquer' strategy that can give you an edge even over the best debaters.
.
.
.
.
.

4) Be popular/respected

Friends tend to vote for friends on debates, which means that in a debate between popular members on the site, people could vote for one side based somewhat on who is more respected and/or popular on the site. Before they even start reading the debate, voters can be biased into voting for one side because that side is very respected or popular on the site.

This naturally isnt really something you can control, and its not very effective when used against other seasoned debaters unless you are really, REALLY smart and respected on here, but it can be used devastatingly in debates between popular people and noobs.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5) Be a crybaby

This one sounds like it could be a liability, but it actually isnt. At the very end of debates, people can start pointing out all the 'mean' things the other side said to them over the course of the debate as well as simple misspelled words and barely noticeable grammar errors. This looks like being a crybaby, cause it is, but its also a Hail-Mary toss to get conduct and spelling points in a debate, which can be a game changer in debates that are very close in voting.

This tactic is used A LOT by even the best and most prestigious people on the site since there isnt necessarily any penalty for being a crybaby over small stuff at the end of a debate, while having the potential to swing a close debate into someones favor. There is no really effective way to counter this tactic, since a crybaby will use just about anything they can to try to get points even when what they are crying about isnt necessarily wrong or worthy of giving points to someone over. The best way to counter this is to put away the debate before conduct and grammar becomes an issue, and to keep your conduct in line enough for people to see that the other side is just being a cry baby asking for points.
.
.
.
.
.

6) Asking for votes

People can be annoyed by people asking them to vote on their debates, but the truth is it still is effective for getting votes, mostly in favor of the people asking others to vote. Voting against someone who asked you to vote on their debate is the equivalent of them asking you for a favor, and then you agreeing to help with the favor but then making it even harder for that person to get what they intended, which people naturally dont like to do. So while its annoying, it still is an effective way for people to get votes on debates in their favor since people really dont like voting against friends on debates when those friends are asking them to vote.

This tactic is somewhat effective, but can be countered by winning the debate by a large enough margin for the other side to give up and accept that they will not win the debate no matter how many people they could potentially ask to vote on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7) Reporting bad votes

If someone votes for a particular side, but the rfd they give for their reasoning behind their vote is very bad to the point that it can be seen as a votebomb, then one side can report the vote as a votebomb and potentially have the vote be deleted.

This one is the least effective means for getting an edge on a debate since it depends entirely on the poor rfd of a voter, and a single vote biased enough to look like a votebomb only some of the time could impact the outcome of a debate. Its only when multiple bad votes look like votebombs enough to be deleted does this tactic become potentially useful for winning a debate, and it is very rarely used to the point that a lot of people dont even know that votes can be reported + deleted.

You forgot this one.

8) Add a picture, because nothing screams "I know my sh*t," more than having a graph or picture that proves your point.
yay842
Posts: 5,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:27:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
9) Challenge a nooby/inactive opponent or accept challenges from them

They suck at debating or they will simply FF in which you will guarantee a win.
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
donald.keller
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 2:23:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 1:35:58 PM, imabench wrote:
For those of you wondering what this is, allow me to explain. This is a 'black market' guide for winning debates, which is the equivalent of a list of tips to win debates through shady and not necessarily 'proper' means. Over the years, Ive seen numerous debaters use a wide variety of little and subtle tricks to give them an arguably unethical boost in odds of winning the debate. Ive been here for 2 years now so I have seen a lot of them, and have decided I might as well reveal what I have seen.

You can either use these tips to negate the subtle tricks someone may pull on you in a debate, or you can even maybe start using some of these tactics to help you win debates on your own. Your choice, do what you will.

Here is a list of these 'black market tactics' I have seen: They are not listed in any particular order, and this is just part 1 of the list

1) Shotgun Argumentation

Shotgun argumentation is the act of making as many arguments against/in favor of a resolution as possible, to the point that their opponent is unable to adequately respond to or refute all of the arguments listed. This tactic is the DDO equivalent of divide and conquer, where someone forces their opponent to try to respond to so many different arguments that they cant focus on their main argument or introduce new arguments of their own.

Its VERY effective, and the only way you can get around it is to flat out concede arguments or be extremely efficient in refuting those arguments with as few characters as possible. Its very hard to do either of those, which is why this is a very common tactic used by good debaters to win arguments.

This is an informal fallacy, and should never be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org... (3 from the bottom of the Informal Fallacy category.)

.
.
.
.
.

2) Source bombing

Source bombing is the act of putting as many sources as possible to reinforce a single point in order to try to win the sources vote when the voting period starts. This is also very effective since there are voters who award source points based entirely on who used more sources, not who used better sources. Source bombing can often go hand in hand with shotgun argumentation, which is a very lethal combination that can be used in a debate.

Source bombing also comes in the form of one sided bringing up something completely irrelevant to the debate, and then linking 4 sources to it to try to make a pitch for source points. This one is tricky since most people just point out that the argument is irrelevent to the debate, but the sources that the other side gives still can sway voters into giving that side source points, even though they were used for an argument not even relevent to the main debate.

Source bombing though can be countered with counter-source bombing, which means that if one side puts up 20 sources, the other side can simply resort to source bombing themselves and put up 18 sources and negate the potential advantage that source bombing can give to either side. Source bombing itself doesnt work well against seasoned debaters, but it is a lethal tactic when used against noobs.
.
.
.
.
.

3) Stupidity traps

This one is tricky to detect because it often happens when they werent intended to be used. A stupidity trap is something said in a debate that is so amazingly stupid that the opponent is baited into burning an excessive number of characters into pointing out why the statement in question is stupid. A stupidity trap can be made unintentionally just because of someone's political bias, but it can still be a game changer if combined with shotgun argumentation since it baits one side into burning characters that could be used refuting other arguments.

Stupidity traps themselves arent very effective trying to use under your own control, and on their own they could indeed backfire and cost you argument points. But if unintentional and combined with shotgun argumentation, then it becomes the 'divide and conquer' strategy that can give you an edge even over the best debaters.
.
.
.
.
.

4) Be popular/respected

Friends tend to vote for friends on debates, which means that in a debate between popular members on the site, people could vote for one side based somewhat on who is more respected and/or popular on the site. Before they even start reading the debate, voters can be biased into voting for one side because that side is very respected or popular on the site.

This naturally isnt really something you can control, and its not very effective when used against other seasoned debaters unless you are really, REALLY smart and respected on here, but it can be used devastatingly in debates between popular people and noobs.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5) Be a crybaby

This one sounds like it could be a liability, but it actually isnt. At the very end of debates, people can start pointing out all the 'mean' things the other side said to them over the course of the debate as well as simple misspelled words and barely noticeable grammar errors. This looks like being a crybaby, cause it is, but its also a Hail-Mary toss to get conduct and spelling points in a debate, which can be a game changer in debates that are very close in voting.

This tactic is used A LOT by even the best and most prestigious people on the site since there isnt necessarily any penalty for being a crybaby over small stuff at the end of a debate, while having the potential to swing a close debate into someones favor. There is no really effective way to counter this tactic, since a crybaby will use just about anything they can to try to get points even when what they are crying about isnt necessarily wrong or worthy of giving points to someone over. The best way to counter this is to put away the debate before conduct and grammar becomes an issue, and to keep your conduct in line enough for people to see that the other side is just being a cry baby asking for points.
.
.
.
.
.

6) Asking for votes

People can be annoyed by people asking them to vote on their debates, but the truth is it still is effective for getting votes, mostly in favor of the people asking others to vote. Voting against someone who asked you to vote on their debate is the equivalent of them asking you for a favor, and then you agreeing to help with the favor but then making it even harder for that person to get what they intended, which people naturally dont like to do. So while its annoying, it still is an effective way for people to get votes on debates in their favor since people really dont like voting against friends on debates when those friends are asking them to vote.

This tactic is somewhat effective, but can be countered by winning the debate by a large enough margin for the other side to give up and accept that they will not win the debate no matter how many people they could potentially ask to vote on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7) Reporting bad votes

If someone votes for a particular side, but the rfd they give for their reasoning behind their vote is very bad to the point that it can be seen as a votebomb, then one side can report the vote as a votebomb and potentially have the vote be deleted.

This one is the least effective means for getting an edge on a debate since it depends entirely on the poor rfd of a voter, and a single vote biased enough to look like a votebomb only some of the time could impact the outcome of a debate. Its only when multiple bad votes look like votebombs enough to be deleted does this tactic become potentially useful for winning a debate, and it is very rarely used to the point that a lot of people dont even know that votes can be reported + deleted.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 5:11:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
There is a relevant classic, Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument, http://www.mnei.nl.... It's impressive how much of it still resonates after more than 150 years. The list is mostly things to watch out for in a debate, although he seems to actually advocating things like making your opponent angry and resorting to personal attacks.

Shotgunning is a common among professional pundits. Jesse Jackson starts many interviews by making a dozen outrageous claims in the first thirty seconds. If a claim is made without proof, the rebuttal is just to claim the opposite without proof. If each claim is made with one source, then deny the claim and provide one reference. The idea is to spend no more space refuting the claim than was made asserting it.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for votes, except that it's not very effective. Politicians nearly always ask for votes, and voters like to me courted. However, the last round of debate is supposed to have a summary, so it makes sense to give the reasons why you think you won the debate.

In a serious debate friends won't vote for you unless they think you've won. The best you can do is to maybe get friends to read a debate they might otherwise not slog through. Even so, reading a five round debate is asking too much.
Roy's political blog http://factspluslogic.com...
Roy's photo blog: http://quickshotartist.com...
Roy's facebook page: http://www.facebook.com...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 9:35:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think Imabench left out some important tactics:

Semantical pseudo-autism.

It's basically being too literal-minded and deceivingly "autistic" when trying to understand your opponent's arguments, definitions and citations. It's all about making it seem that your opponent is not making any sense, only to deceive the readers into thinking that something must be wrong with your opponent's arguments and citations. (e.g Rross and Wrichcirw in some debates).

Being honest and defensive

If you're honest and sincere, this would usually work for you if you're defensive to great lengths when it comes to anything that questions your honesty, and able to support your case with facts. (e.g Danielle in some debates)

Stay on the offensive

This could be achieved through questions and accusations which would put your opponent in a very uncomfortable position and force him to have to defend himself most of the time. (e.g Heineken and myself in some debates)

Resolution-defeater comes last

It's basically using the final turn of the final round to bring forth a resolution-defeater which you might have lost as a trump-card if you used it earlier. (e.g Brian_eggleston in some of his non-trolling debates).
bsh1
Posts: 7,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.
<3 YYW

"The best thing to hold onto in life is each other." - Audrey Hepburn

"Us. Just...us." - YYW

"That's because it is 'our' future, and I think it was meant to happen." - YYW

"I'm not able to decide whether or not there is a moral to this story." - Romanii

Best Debate on DDO: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 17,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:31:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

It's not a way to win rounds with seasoned judges, though. People who are seasoned and experienced in debate see that tactic for what it is, and never reward it. So, when a shotgun argument wins a round, that's more a reflection on the judge (and not a good reflection) then it is on a debater (although, it's not a good reflection on the debater either).
<3 Bsh1

My Wonderful Boyfriend's FanFic: http://www.debate.org...
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:39:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I should use that tactic IRL LAWL

Shotgunning time!
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
wrichcirw
Posts: 8,275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:42:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 5:11:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
There is a relevant classic, Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument, http://www.mnei.nl.... It's impressive how much of it still resonates after more than 150 years. The list is mostly things to watch out for in a debate, although he seems to actually advocating things like making your opponent angry and resorting to personal attacks.

I think it's telling how he advocates using insults:

"A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect."

I've found this to be true in just about every case where the opposite side of an argument breached civility, that it's nothing but a cover to hide a losing argument.

Shotgunning is a common among professional pundits. Jesse Jackson starts many interviews by making a dozen outrageous claims in the first thirty seconds. If a claim is made without proof, the rebuttal is just to claim the opposite without proof. If each claim is made with one source, then deny the claim and provide one reference. The idea is to spend no more space refuting the claim than was made asserting it.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for votes, except that it's not very effective. Politicians nearly always ask for votes, and voters like to me courted. However, the last round of debate is supposed to have a summary, so it makes sense to give the reasons why you think you won the debate.

In a serious debate friends won't vote for you unless they think you've won. The best you can do is to maybe get friends to read a debate they might otherwise not slog through. Even so, reading a five round debate is asking too much.

I'd say that given the underlined, most debates here are not serious.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 7,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:50:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 10:31:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

It's not a way to win rounds with seasoned judges, though. People who are seasoned and experienced in debate see that tactic for what it is, and never reward it. So, when a shotgun argument wins a round, that's more a reflection on the judge (and not a good reflection) then it is on a debater (although, it's not a good reflection on the debater either).

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are quite a few judges who vote just on technical performances (extensions included.) Some of them I would consider seasoned. I think the spreading divide is more so a split between progressive and traditional rather than experienced or inexperienced.

I always prefer traditional judges and not spreading. Every now and then, I've had to spread in rounds to adapt to the judging panel. Second round at nationals I think I took three breaths total during the 2NR. It was nuts; I hated it.
<3 YYW

"The best thing to hold onto in life is each other." - Audrey Hepburn

"Us. Just...us." - YYW

"That's because it is 'our' future, and I think it was meant to happen." - YYW

"I'm not able to decide whether or not there is a moral to this story." - Romanii

Best Debate on DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 11:36:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/8/2014 1:35:58 PM, imabench wrote:
For those of you wondering what this is, allow me to explain. This is a 'black market' guide for winning debates, which is the equivalent of a list of tips to win debates through shady and not necessarily 'proper' means. Over the years, Ive seen numerous debaters use a wide variety of little and subtle tricks to give them an arguably unethical boost in odds of winning the debate. Ive been here for 2 years now so I have seen a lot of them, and have decided I might as well reveal what I have seen.

You can either use these tips to negate the subtle tricks someone may pull on you in a debate, or you can even maybe start using some of these tactics to help you win debates on your own. Your choice, do what you will.

Here is a list of these 'black market tactics' I have seen: They are not listed in any particular order, and this is just part 1 of the list

1) Shotgun Argumentation

Shotgun argumentation is the act of making as many arguments against/in favor of a resolution as possible, to the point that their opponent is unable to adequately respond to or refute all of the arguments listed. This tactic is the DDO equivalent of divide and conquer, where someone forces their opponent to try to respond to so many different arguments that they cant focus on their main argument or introduce new arguments of their own.

Its VERY effective, and the only way you can get around it is to flat out concede arguments or be extremely efficient in refuting those arguments with as few characters as possible. Its very hard to do either of those, which is why this is a very common tactic used by good debaters to win arguments.
.
.
.
.
.

2) Source bombing

Source bombing is the act of putting as many sources as possible to reinforce a single point in order to try to win the sources vote when the voting period starts. This is also very effective since there are voters who award source points based entirely on who used more sources, not who used better sources. Source bombing can often go hand in hand with shotgun argumentation, which is a very lethal combination that can be used in a debate.

Source bombing also comes in the form of one sided bringing up something completely irrelevant to the debate, and then linking 4 sources to it to try to make a pitch for source points. This one is tricky since most people just point out that the argument is irrelevent to the debate, but the sources that the other side gives still can sway voters into giving that side source points, even though they were used for an argument not even relevent to the main debate.

Source bombing though can be countered with counter-source bombing, which means that if one side puts up 20 sources, the other side can simply resort to source bombing themselves and put up 18 sources and negate the potential advantage that source bombing can give to either side. Source bombing itself doesnt work well against seasoned debaters, but it is a lethal tactic when used against noobs.
.
.
.
.
.

3) Stupidity traps

This one is tricky to detect because it often happens when they werent intended to be used. A stupidity trap is something said in a debate that is so amazingly stupid that the opponent is baited into burning an excessive number of characters into pointing out why the statement in question is stupid. A stupidity trap can be made unintentionally just because of someone's political bias, but it can still be a game changer if combined with shotgun argumentation since it baits one side into burning characters that could be used refuting other arguments.

Stupidity traps themselves arent very effective trying to use under your own control, and on their own they could indeed backfire and cost you argument points. But if unintentional and combined with shotgun argumentation, then it becomes the 'divide and conquer' strategy that can give you an edge even over the best debaters.
.
.
.
.
.

4) Be popular/respected

Friends tend to vote for friends on debates, which means that in a debate between popular members on the site, people could vote for one side based somewhat on who is more respected and/or popular on the site. Before they even start reading the debate, voters can be biased into voting for one side because that side is very respected or popular on the site.

This naturally isnt really something you can control, and its not very effective when used against other seasoned debaters unless you are really, REALLY smart and respected on here, but it can be used devastatingly in debates between popular people and noobs.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5) Be a crybaby

This one sounds like it could be a liability, but it actually isnt. At the very end of debates, people can start pointing out all the 'mean' things the other side said to them over the course of the debate as well as simple misspelled words and barely noticeable grammar errors. This looks like being a crybaby, cause it is, but its also a Hail-Mary toss to get conduct and spelling points in a debate, which can be a game changer in debates that are very close in voting.

This tactic is used A LOT by even the best and most prestigious people on the site since there isnt necessarily any penalty for being a crybaby over small stuff at the end of a debate, while having the potential to swing a close debate into someones favor. There is no really effective way to counter this tactic, since a crybaby will use just about anything they can to try to get points even when what they are crying about isnt necessarily wrong or worthy of giving points to someone over. The best way to counter this is to put away the debate before conduct and grammar becomes an issue, and to keep your conduct in line enough for people to see that the other side is just being a cry baby asking for points.
.
.
.
.
.

6) Asking for votes

People can be annoyed by people asking them to vote on their debates, but the truth is it still is effective for getting votes, mostly in favor of the people asking others to vote. Voting against someone who asked you to vote on their debate is the equivalent of them asking you for a favor, and then you agreeing to help with the favor but then making it even harder for that person to get what they intended, which people naturally dont like to do. So while its annoying, it still is an effective way for people to get votes on debates in their favor since people really dont like voting against friends on debates when those friends are asking them to vote.

This tactic is somewhat effective, but can be countered by winning the debate by a large enough margin for the other side to give up and accept that they will not win the debate no matter how many people they could potentially ask to vote on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7) Reporting bad votes

If someone votes for a particular side, but the rfd they give for their reasoning behind their vote is very bad to the point that it can be seen as a votebomb, then one side can report the vote as a votebomb and potentially have the vote be deleted.

This one is the least effective means for getting an edge on a debate since it depends entirely on the poor rfd of a voter, and a single vote biased enough to look like a votebomb only some of the time could impact the outcome of a debate. Its only when multiple bad votes look like votebombs enough to be deleted does this tactic become potentially useful for winning a debate, and it is very rarely used to the point that a lot of people dont even know that votes can be reported + deleted.

Wait till the last round to define the topic and clarify who has the burden of proof!
thett3
Posts: 7,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:01:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

Should've done PF noob
I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity- Izbo

Procrastination binds us all, cutting across geographical borders. - Cermank

Don't quote me, ever. -Airmax

#StandWithBossy
YYW
Posts: 17,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:05:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 10:50:35 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:31:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

It's not a way to win rounds with seasoned judges, though. People who are seasoned and experienced in debate see that tactic for what it is, and never reward it. So, when a shotgun argument wins a round, that's more a reflection on the judge (and not a good reflection) then it is on a debater (although, it's not a good reflection on the debater either).

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are quite a few judges who vote just on technical performances (extensions included.) Some of them I would consider seasoned. I think the spreading divide is more so a split between progressive and traditional rather than experienced or inexperienced.

They might be seasoned (in that they've been judging a long time) but a judge who falls for shotgun arguments is not seasoned (in the sense that they are wise, competent, or know what they're doing). Policy judges get snowed by spreading every time -though policy as an event is categorically worthless.

College kids are the worst offenders in that capacity, btw.

I always prefer traditional judges and not spreading. Every now and then, I've had to spread in rounds to adapt to the judging panel. Second round at nationals I think I took three breaths total during the 2NR. It was nuts; I hated it.

Well, did you win the round?
<3 Bsh1

My Wonderful Boyfriend's FanFic: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 7,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:15:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 12:01:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

Should've done PF noob

I have done some PF. But, it's just not as exciting as LD, noob.
<3 YYW

"The best thing to hold onto in life is each other." - Audrey Hepburn

"Us. Just...us." - YYW

"That's because it is 'our' future, and I think it was meant to happen." - YYW

"I'm not able to decide whether or not there is a moral to this story." - Romanii

Best Debate on DDO: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 7,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:16:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 1/10/2014 12:05:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:50:35 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:31:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/10/2014 10:01:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Shotgun Arguments = Spreading IRL.

Spreading was the bane of my existence for four years of my life.

It's not a way to win rounds with seasoned judges, though. People who are seasoned and experienced in debate see that tactic for what it is, and never reward it. So, when a shotgun argument wins a round, that's more a reflection on the judge (and not a good reflection) then it is on a debater (although, it's not a good reflection on the debater either).

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are quite a few judges who vote just on technical performances (extensions included.) Some of them I would consider seasoned. I think the spreading divide is more so a split between progressive and traditional rather than experienced or inexperienced.

They might be seasoned (in that they've been judging a long time) but a judge who falls for shotgun arguments is not seasoned (in the sense that they are wise, competent, or know what they're doing). Policy judges get snowed by spreading every time -though policy as an event is categorically worthless.

Agreed. I've been judging policy so much this year though...it's like my league hates me.

College kids are the worst offenders in that capacity, btw.

True...but not me.

I always prefer traditional judges and not spreading. Every now and then, I've had to spread in rounds to adapt to the judging panel. Second round at nationals I think I took three breaths total during the 2NR. It was nuts; I hated it.

Well, did you win the round?

Yes. 2-1 decision, but it still counts.
<3 YYW

"The best thing to hold onto in life is each other." - Audrey Hepburn

"Us. Just...us." - YYW

"That's because it is 'our' future, and I think it was meant to happen." - YYW

"I'm not able to decide whether or not there is a moral to this story." - Romanii

Best Debate on DDO: http://www.debate.org...