Originally posted by generalissimoLol, he will this question as a personal insult and respond with an accusation that you hurt his feelings. If he would focus a little more on the actual debating points rather than taking everything personal and making more insults that most anyone on this board he has the potential to become an average debater, but he's not there yet.
Yes, or No, and why?
this is not a personal attack, it just about transparency.
Many people on this forum are at least decent competition.
Although I greatly disagree with many of their points, I've found kazetnagora and palynka to provide strong logical arguments, as well as others that I'm still memorizing names. wajoma is a better debater than fmf, but must less popular in these liberal forums, and yet he could probably give people more details which they crave so they can continue to disagree with him.
I give FMF currently a 4 on a scale of 1-10. If he stops taking everything persona and making insults like every other response he could easily become a 6 or 7 almost instantly.
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusIts interesting that you should compare and contrast these two. In many ways they are so alike. Apart from a great ideological divide that probably sees them on opposite sides of most debates and apart from the literary styles that are their signatures, they have probably much more in common than they have differences.
wajoma is a better debater than fmf, but must less popular in these liberal forums, and yet he could probably give people more details which they crave so they can continue to disagree with him.
Both rarely if ever will concede any merit in the opposing view, both are fairly consistent in their worldview and both tend to play the man not the ball.
FMF tends to use his highly literate ability to belittle his opponents, which while amusing and certainly inventive, tends to undermine the authority of his point of view. Given his ability to express himself one would have hoped that he would have let his arguments speak for themselves. The asides tend to detract rather than enhance his arguments anyway so I'm not sure why he goes there. If they were playful and light maybe but his need to wipe his opponent off the floor at all costs, is probably the only thing that stands in his way of being a top notch debater.
Originally posted by generalissimono hes mince, he tries to dance on thin ice when he would be best spreadeagled and inching along on his back. but hes a human , i think, and articulate and occasionally funny. i don't think he should be put to death.
so you think he's a good debater because you "like eem"?