I am bad at debating

R#1 Assuming what I meant makes you a bad debater. Good debaters should never assume what an opponent is saying. R#2 I accept this refutation. R#3 Your topic was "I am a bad debater", so YOU should have defined YOUR words in the beginning. The fact that you didn't left it open to semantics, which bad debaters usually do. R#4 I accept this refutation R#5 Rookies are usually bad at anything at first. The fact that your a rookie means that your probably a bad debater. Ok, I'll be serious now (in other words, I'll use non-semantical arguments). I'm assuming that when you say "bad", you are using the definition: "Of poor quality or low standered" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) I also assume "debating" is the following definition: "Argue about (a subject) often in a formal matter" "Bad" is very subjective (people have varying standards and opinions of the quality of something, including your debating skills). Thus, I'm arguing against something that is mostly subjective. Thus, I have to convince the voters (who ever they may be) that your debating skills are bad according to their own standards. Since I'm not a mind reader and can't know what their standards are, I'm taking a shot in the dark, but here goes: Argument 1: The key to be a good debater is debating. You have done only 5 debates, most of which you have only won by the opponent forfeiting or being a weaker arguer. Good debaters should debate better opponents and debate more. The reason you win your debates is because the other opponents don't argue. Not because your good at arguing. In fact, you have done more poll votes then debates on site about debating. Arguments 2: You should have defined your terms at the beginning of the debate. All good debaters do this. Only poor debaters ever leave key words undefined during a debate (especially formal debates). Argument 3: This ties in with argument 1. You almost always accept debates, and nearly every one of your opponents were worse debaters than you. The fact that you always debate with worse debaters than you shows that you yourself are a bad debater. Good debaters try to debate in a diverse range of opponents, not just those whom are worse then themselves. Argument 4: Your debate "Healthcare is a right" (located here: http://www.debate.org...) In that debate, you accepted the debate and then later complained about the character limit. A good debater always carefully inspects debate rules before accepting. Usually only inferior debaters accept a debate impulsively without regard to rules and character limit. Argument 5: Every single one of your debates was voted by one of your friends. This allows for extra bias, meaning that many of your wins could have been based on biased voting (could have). In conclusion, you don't debate often, you leave important words undefined, and when you do debate you debate people who are inadequate to the task. To top it off, every one of your debates is voted by one or more of your friends. One cannot possibly say that you are a good debater. In fact, one can safely deduce that your are a bad or poor debater. P.S. You cannot accuse me of any Ad Hominems and such since this debate itself is solely about Con (the instigator).