Just wondering what kind of debating type the people of the Vine are. Like, what's your style when you do CaVs and stuff.
I personally have more of a "Chill" style. I first get all the feats and information out of the way in the first or second post, so I mustn't bother with it later in the debate, then I take my points and just try and drive them home. I don't really cracck a lot of jokes or try and insult my opponents plan, I just kinda... debate.
What about you? How do you tend to debate in these type of things?
( I put this in the Battle Forums because it is pertaining to CaVs and stuff, but it can be moved if you think it is in the wrong place. )
i'm fire- i come at ya hard and rough (giggity) but deep down its cuz i like to have good strong debates. my words carry a spot of venom but at the end i always carry the antidote.
I have only had 2 Cavs thus far so I don't really have a huge experience to draw upon. I like to keep it light, start with a smaller and precise argument and built up as we move along.
I might have the wrong mentality but to me debating, be it on Cav or a normal thread is about having fun rather than focusing on proving a point.
I usually start off just stating basic facts and hold on to the good stuff for down the road. I don't really deconstruct arguments till everything has been stated so I have the full board. For the most part I just counter arguments.
I don't debate too much on the vine but in real life I look for any faulty facts, any background not given etc and dismantle every part of their argument.
@joewell: I'm usually a "this is what's going to happen" debater, I usually state how things will go in order for myself to favor the sway of how the battle continues and rebuttal most with defenses of why one thing could happen. I wouldn't really say I debate all that well, but I do enjoy having fun with it in the long run, like writing goofy phrases and throw in odd and random words in the mix to see if people catch it.. But I do like to keep the debate friendly when in a CaV, it's always classy. Usually.
In other words, you will find me agreeing with parts of people's arguments... then challenging the weakness of said argument, while pretending to be on their side. :D This gives me uninterrupted access to behind-the-scene information I can use to exploit any possible weakness in the said argument, countering with why the opposition is especially unfavourable.
That really depends on the thread, lot of factors play a role in it. Motivation and the users involved would be the primary ones. Strategies generally adapt to the situation, with some core values.
Sometimes you simply do have the upper hand, and you can create your own "plan" supported by strong evidence, and simply debunk whatever the other debater fires at you.
Other times it's more tricky, and you have to pay a lot of attention on analyzing your opponent's tactic and exposing it's imperfections and flaws while maximizing the impressiveness of what you have.
Instead of describing myself I'll just use what others have said about me in threads.
In terms of what comic character I'm like:
Citizen Bane:
Tao
Erik:
You see all the angles. You seem to know how to respond to every user as if you come from the future and since you come from the future, you can write how every battle will go with a giant wall-o-text data stream. And if all else fails, you basically use subtle tele-suggestions that direct opponents to make crippling mistakes in their arguments while you gun them down with your over-sized weaponry/arguments. :p
In terms of my bending element:
pooty:
Avatar: Morpheus/Buckshot: Whatever style you got. They are better at it. They have mastered all forms of Comic Debate. Whatever side of the debate they choose, that's the side that usually wins.
Lunacyde:
Water: Flow with the nature of the debate. Use opponents attacks against them.
Strider92:
BuckShot is definitely Avatar anyone who can convince people that Wolverine can beat Magneto without believing it himself I suspect of being a reality warper.
Nox_Arc:
I can easily see you as Earth/Metal. You're never swayed when you debate and literally have almost all the facts you need to destroy your opponent.
And just sort of in general:
Vance Astro:
I don't know what to make of Buckshot anymore.I don't know if he's extremely good at debating and launching facts or if he's just smarter than alot of us.(That's not to say he doesn't know what he's talking about) I have debated with him and felt like I was wrong but at the same time felt like my case was valid.He's a damn Jedi or something...mind tricks.
Primus Inter Pares:
Has anyone noticed Buckshot and Gambler have similar debate styles? They both have a way of making you think you're wrong when you're right. Buckshot is the master and Gambler is the Padawan learner.
DC_MARVEL_1000:
it's almost liek the guy has the book right there with him when he is naming off facts and backing it up with scans, his posts are long and well thought out almost closing EVERY possible way for the person to turn it around
Lunacyde:
Like Vance said Jedi mind tricks. "Midnighter can beat Superman" waves two fingers in front of my eyes and I repeat.
I think when you put that all together it comes down to seeing most, if not all, points of the discussion from every angle and presenting arguments and counter-arguments for future arguments, turning my opponents arguments against them by exploiting every flaw, and being highly persuasive. Some amalgamation of Tao and Midnighter.
I'm a debater who tries to apply logic to every debate I have, i don't strategize around lengthy encounters, but instead I focus on wearing down others debates piece by piece.
@buckshot: Buckshot? Damn, it's weird to see you in threads these days.
Anyways, I agree with all of them. You're basically Saren/Morpheus/Killemall when it comes to debeating. You literally have a battle computer just that it's for debating.
I'm the kind of debater who prep myself. I make a really good case in my head (to the point where I have debunked most of it) but when I go to a thread to counter someone, I forget about everything I was going to say, and how to debatez
I'm a logical debater. I base my appraisals on what feats a given character has performed in their respective continuities.
Believe it or not, I tend to take what a writer might say about a given character with a grain of salt because some writer's don't have the first clue what they are talking about. Unless, we are talking the original creator of the character. The character Zoom comes to mind whom Johns did away with because other writer's were screwing the character up so bad (which, by the way gets a standing ovation from me).
I've borrowed a philosophy, or guiding principal from some friends on another site that serves me well: consider the character's high feats consistent with their presentation. I think trying to decide what a character would do "in character" is silly as that varies from writer to writer. I mean, who cares if two combatants meet and decide not to fight because each is a good guy? Really? I mean I can pick up the book and just read it and be entertained rather than listen to it on a battle forum fight.
Generally, when I give an opinion, each combatant has been researched fairly well.
I try to use logic and my unbiased opinion to debate with others and try to keep things civil. Also If I am in a thread with characters I not too familiar with, I wait till other knowledgeable debaters give points and scans and construct my own decision based on the facts given.
Log in to comment