0
1

[–] ThisWeirdIndividual 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Because most of the times, people inviting others to a live debate are laying a trap that they are prepared to slam shut on the first person accepting it and it takes a very strong and clever person to outsmart a person that has a huge panoply of traps in stock.

Also, not everybody is fluent enough in spoken english ;)

Sidenote: the quality of sound in the videos presented in this sub is really sub-optimal ...It makes listening and actually understanding the debate quite hard for me (I'm not super shitty at understanding spoken english but this is a little too much for me to not suffer. ) Perhaps changing the filter used to something less treble-y

0
1

[–] gruix 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Every discussion can be manipulated by a plethora of techniques (ad-hominem, Insinuation, Bad Analogy...). It is possible to counter them by getting 10 more seconds to think about it before writing a reply, in a text debate. No so much in a live one:

Live debates have the added trap that a skilled manipulator will have the advantage of time/suprise. He can bombard you with a quick succession of simplistic but sneaky questions; you then have see all the logical fallacies they are hiding, devise a answer/retort and deliver it in a snappy way. Simplistic but false assertions generally need long and complicated counter-demonstrations. If you take more than 5 seconds to begin answering your opponent will take the lead again "what, so you don't have an answer, you admit defeat ?" If your answer takes too long he will interrupt you by "I just asked a simple yes/no question and you're trying sidestep to the issue !"

In summary, it's not a debate that can be won by logical arguments, but by verbal dexterity.

For example:

Is covering their ass more important to them than telling the truth?

-> probably some kind of False Dichotomy; just telling the truth would still get a bad result on a live debate when the opponent is just determined to kick under the belt instead of the supposed goal of doing an actual debate.

1
-1

[–] Kookus_ [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

No, in a text debate, faggot keyboard warriors can always duck accountability for their views and can conveniently avoid answering challenges. they don't get that luxury in a live debate.

and you must be referring to retarded point system debates that aren't real debates. we don't have time limits so that each side feels fairly heard. and if you feel you're not being heard you can always appeal to the moderator.

i would agree with your criticisms in other so-called debating platforms, but our platform effectively nullifies these silly tactics. in our LIVE debates you can ONLY win by using good arguments as evidenced by the examples we've posted.

0
0

[–] sakuramboo ago 

And run the risk of destroying someones precious hugbox?!

0
1

[–] 1735818? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Anything said, or even a facial expression, can be taken out of context and go viral. It's a pity that social media's echo chamber just appeals to knee-jerk reactions being amplified a million times with very little room for context. Even mainstream media is becoming more clickbaity just to get pageviews and ad revenue. In that context, the whole purpose of a debate can be subverted, twisted, manipulated, and any effort to provide clear thoughts and ideas are wasted, as only mindless provocative one-line zingers gain traction - the sound bite.

0
1

[–] Kookus_ [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

in a live debate, you can be held accountable to what you say. in a written debate, you can just deny or twist what you've said as it takes no effort to duck accountability during a written debate. that's why keyboard warrior faggots always duck and run from a live debate but love fapping to written debates.

1
0

[–] toyhammer98 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.