Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Analysis of debate, atheist vs creationism

Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.

http://www.debate.org...
XLAV
Posts: 14,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 2:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


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

From skimming your debate, I'd suggest you tone down with the useless stuff like talking about your old debates and the character limit.

I can't give a more detailed criticism because I don't have the time, but you can start improving from what I've mentioned above.
Baby, you're the highlight of my lowlife

Favorite Debate:
Muhammad Drawing Contest
http://www.debate.org...
XLAV
Posts: 14,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 2:48:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I've learned from previous debates that going all defense is a poor decision strategically. If my opponent throws 8,000 characters of attacks and zero characters of defense I can effectively lock myself in trying to defend against my opponent, and let them take control of the debate. Instead, I will split 50/50 offense and defense. First, attacking and showing how my opponent has not mentioned Jesus once in the debate nor quoted the Bible."

Like this portion is not really needed. With the character limit you placed, you need to use your character space effectively.
Baby, you're the highlight of my lowlife

Favorite Debate:
Muhammad Drawing Contest
http://www.debate.org...
Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 11:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2016 2:48:02 PM, XLAV wrote:
"I've learned from previous debates that going all defense is a poor decision strategically. If my opponent throws 8,000 characters of attacks and zero characters of defense I can effectively lock myself in trying to defend against my opponent, and let them take control of the debate. Instead, I will split 50/50 offense and defense. First, attacking and showing how my opponent has not mentioned Jesus once in the debate nor quoted the Bible."

Like this portion is not really needed. With the character limit you placed, you need to use your character space effectively.

Thanks for the feedback, I still don't know where I really went wrong in the debate. These are all minor flaws.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 9,604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


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

From what I see, your appeal to authority and ad hoc, as well as unsubstantiated arguments and the use of biased sources.
"If anyone wants to engage in casual anti-Semitism, then whatever." ~Max

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 9:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


http://www.debate.org...
Are you asking us to help you cheat?. I have just viewed the debate which is still ongoing. P.S. You haven't made any claims for Evolution.
Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2016 1:51:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 9:38:12 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


http://www.debate.org...
Are you asking us to help you cheat?. I have just viewed the debate which is still ongoing. P.S. You haven't made any claims for Evolution.

You must be looking at a different debate.
Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2016 3:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:03:24 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


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

From what I see, your appeal to authority and ad hoc, as well as unsubstantiated arguments and the use of biased sources.

Can you pinpoint the alleged appeal to authority, ad hoc, unsubstantiated arguments, and bias sources?
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2016 1:31:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some points of note:

> You use the terms 'I think' and 'I will' dozens of times each round. While signposting in a debate is encouraged, you do not need to overuse it to a superfluous extent.

> Most of your debate is written in first person, which makes your case seem more subjective than it would otherwise be.

> Many of your paragraphs are useless strings of tirade that don't further your case and are better left out. For example: "I don't want to spend too much time reiterating common scientific facts, therefore I will focus on obliterating creationism. Since my opponent has graciously shown that he is Christian, I will focus on Christian creationism. Since he will most likely be defending from this point of view as opposed to a Native American religion or Hindu religion point of view. " Could instead be stated as "Rebuttals will specifically address Christian creationism."

> Arguments must be stated, and a syllogism must be easily inferred if not outright declared. Referrals to sources for arguments are not allowed, such as: "Then, there is the contradictions in the Bible. [5]"

> Your arguments are virtually all fallacious in one way or another, and you need to be able to think critically in order to understand why very few of them were valid. For example: "on one hand we have the vigorous scientific method that scientists from around the world and from many different races and religions have competed to find the truth, and an enormous amount of empirical evidence to back up evolution." Is an example of a common method of expression you used in this debate. It's a bare assertion and would not be acceptable even with sources. This requires explanations and elaborations that were never given.

> Most of the time your arguments are incoherent and border on ranting. For example: "The Earth has proven to be round. Yet, my opponent sticks to a literal interpretation of the Bible. As seen here from answering-christanity.com an awesome website for showing the flaws of Christianity in my opinion." You then follow it up with incredulous claims the site makes and then move on as if you had made a point. Notice that the debate is about Creationism vs Evolution, and this is irrelevant material.

> Nobody likes arrogance or condescending tones during a debate. Each of your rounds contains a significant number of words dedicated to them specifically. For example: "I must assume this is a tactical decision on my opponent's part. To not commit and not build up their argument for creationism hoping I would miss the gaping hole. I have noticed the hole, the absence in my opponent's argument, and I plan to exploit this weakness fully.
I will exploit my opponent's non-committal approach by forcing my opponent to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. If my opponent attempts a metaphorical approach, I will call him on that, since my opponent will have gained an unfair advantage by me having to hit a moving target."
To put it simply, what the fvck made you add this into your debate? What does it achieve?

> Improvement can be gained quickly by emulating members who are quite proficient in the art. Members like RoyLatham are good for reading up on how to meticulously structure a comprehensive analysis of a topic; Danielle and Blusteel are good for learning how to appeal to common sense; and any debater from the first few pages of the leader board will have a style that you can learn from if you want to cut down on the garbage posted each round.

In Summary, your debate style is snide, ostensibly incoherent, fallacious and obnoxious. Improvements can be made by first treating the opponent like your equal and then formulating arguments without all the exasperation at the opponents apparent stupidity.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2016 9:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2016 1:31:25 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Some points of note:

> You use the terms 'I think' and 'I will' dozens of times each round. While signposting in a debate is encouraged, you do not need to overuse it to a superfluous extent.

> Most of your debate is written in first person, which makes your case seem more subjective than it would otherwise be.

> Many of your paragraphs are useless strings of tirade that don't further your case and are better left out. For example: "I don't want to spend too much time reiterating common scientific facts, therefore I will focus on obliterating creationism. Since my opponent has graciously shown that he is Christian, I will focus on Christian creationism. Since he will most likely be defending from this point of view as opposed to a Native American religion or Hindu religion point of view. " Could instead be stated as "Rebuttals will specifically address Christian creationism."

> Arguments must be stated, and a syllogism must be easily inferred if not outright declared. Referrals to sources for arguments are not allowed, such as: "Then, there is the contradictions in the Bible. [5]"

> Your arguments are virtually all fallacious in one way or another, and you need to be able to think critically in order to understand why very few of them were valid. For example: "on one hand we have the vigorous scientific method that scientists from around the world and from many different races and religions have competed to find the truth, and an enormous amount of empirical evidence to back up evolution." Is an example of a common method of expression you used in this debate. It's a bare assertion and would not be acceptable even with sources. This requires explanations and elaborations that were never given.

> Most of the time your arguments are incoherent and border on ranting. For example: "The Earth has proven to be round. Yet, my opponent sticks to a literal interpretation of the Bible. As seen here from answering-christanity.com an awesome website for showing the flaws of Christianity in my opinion." You then follow it up with incredulous claims the site makes and then move on as if you had made a point. Notice that the debate is about Creationism vs Evolution, and this is irrelevant material.

> Nobody likes arrogance or condescending tones during a debate. Each of your rounds contains a significant number of words dedicated to them specifically. For example: "I must assume this is a tactical decision on my opponent's part. To not commit and not build up their argument for creationism hoping I would miss the gaping hole. I have noticed the hole, the absence in my opponent's argument, and I plan to exploit this weakness fully.
I will exploit my opponent's non-committal approach by forcing my opponent to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. If my opponent attempts a metaphorical approach, I will call him on that, since my opponent will have gained an unfair advantage by me having to hit a moving target."
To put it simply, what the fvck made you add this into your debate? What does it achieve?

> Improvement can be gained quickly by emulating members who are quite proficient in the art. Members like RoyLatham are good for reading up on how to meticulously structure a comprehensive analysis of a topic; Danielle and Blusteel are good for learning how to appeal to common sense; and any debater from the first few pages of the leader board will have a style that you can learn from if you want to cut down on the garbage posted each round.

In Summary, your debate style is snide, ostensibly incoherent, fallacious and obnoxious. Improvements can be made by first treating the opponent like your equal and then formulating arguments without all the exasperation at the opponents apparent stupidity.

I wonder what you think of my opponent's argument.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2016 10:51:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


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

Its repeatedly proven impossible to prove Creationism is false against a worthy opponent. I'll just let you bear that in mind. If they have an actual basis for their argument, it can't be done. The best way I can think, should I try to take down an intelligent creationist, would be to show an uncontradictory possibility of atheism forcing them to match it to have a chance, and either require proof from them, or bank that I can find some sort of contradiction that makes my argument a possibility and theirs illogical. Without that advantage, I don't know that its possible.

Do NOT try to force literal interpretations of the bible against an educated opponent. They will rip you to shreds, and you will have wasted part of your argument. Build up your hypothesis on evolution and bolster the hell out of it, forcing them to have an equally convincing argument, and pray they make a mistake.

If you do that, you have an excellent chance of a tie, and a fair chance of a win. Do not EVER assume an atheistic standpoint is a default because the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Its a sound uncontradictory model, but you will get screwed over if you assume its universal fact in a debate. Always assume you are unproven.

I'll add that your claims that the earth were round, and older then 6000 years old, though accepted in my view, were unsubstantiated, unproven, and really not helping you in the least. You showed no logical explanation for why that is so. Your faith in others is no better then your opponents faith in a debate. You can't simply say, this man is a scientists so what he said goes. That's just blind faith. Why does the statement make sense?

Further, those claims don't really tie in with what creationism is based on. Creationism doesn't rely on an accurate prediction in the bible. It simply states that an intelligent being is behind everything. Its not uncommon for a creationist to use your very argument as proof for their own, as magic is only magic until the reality is understood.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2016 9:58:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2016 9:53:43 PM, Stupidape wrote:
I wonder what you think of my opponent's argument.

I didn't read them.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2016 2:52:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2016 10:51:46 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 12/14/2016 5:34:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I lost this debate fair and square. I gave my best effort. Can someone please help me make better debates? I am getting frustrated losing. Where did I go wrong? I accept I made the inferior argument, yet can't pinpoint where I messed up.


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

Its repeatedly proven impossible to prove Creationism is false against a worthy opponent. I'll just let you bear that in mind. If they have an actual basis for their argument, it can't be done. The best way I can think, should I try to take down an intelligent creationist, would be to show an uncontradictory possibility of atheism forcing them to match it to have a chance, and either require proof from them, or bank that I can find some sort of contradiction that makes my argument a possibility and theirs illogical. Without that advantage, I don't know that its possible.

Do NOT try to force literal interpretations of the bible against an educated opponent. They will rip you to shreds, and you will have wasted part of your argument. Build up your hypothesis on evolution and bolster the hell out of it, forcing them to have an equally convincing argument, and pray they make a mistake.

If you do that, you have an excellent chance of a tie, and a fair chance of a win. Do not EVER assume an atheistic standpoint is a default because the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Its a sound uncontradictory model, but you will get screwed over if you assume its universal fact in a debate. Always assume you are unproven.

I'll add that your claims that the earth were round, and older then 6000 years old, though accepted in my view, were unsubstantiated, unproven, and really not helping you in the least. You showed no logical explanation for why that is so. Your faith in others is no better then your opponents faith in a debate. You can't simply say, this man is a scientists so what he said goes. That's just blind faith. Why does the statement make sense?

Further, those claims don't really tie in with what creationism is based on. Creationism doesn't rely on an accurate prediction in the bible. It simply states that an intelligent being is behind everything. Its not uncommon for a creationist to use your very argument as proof for their own, as magic is only magic until the reality is understood.

would you like to debate creationism?
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.