Purushadasa is not a good debater.

I will be using this debate between Purushadasa and cakerman(http://www.debate.org...) to demonstrate why exactly Purushadasa, or as I will now nickname him "Puru" is not a good debater. 1. "That's a straw man." Puru's debates arguments are riddled with multiple accusations of the opposition committing a straw man logical fallacy. By definition, a straw man is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." Let's look at one of the 10-12 "straw men" that Puru claims cakerman, "caker" set up: caker: Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god Puru: I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Puru (his opening statement in the debate): Without God, there could be no science As you can clearly see, Puru attacks caker for putting words into his mouth. However, although caker does not repeat him verbatim, his proposition does not misrepresent what Puru said. Misrepresenting a statement is the needed criteria to be a straw man fallacy. caker does not repeat EXACTLY what Puru says but still captures the essence of what he said, and yet Puru calls him on a straw man. This shows that Puru's debate's, you'll notice that they're SWIMMING in straw man accusations, and about 97% of them are not straw men. Therefore, Puru does not know what an actual straw man logical fallacy is, and therefore it hints that he's not a good debater. 2. Taking things out of context. I want to point a line out from the caker vs. Puru debate, where Puru quotes caker and sees it as a victory: caker:I believe in God Puru: I know you do -- you stated that the changes in the Laws of Nature are proof that God exists. caker (in the his previous argument): (like myself, not entirely certain as to why you keep assuming I believe in God) I find this actually pretty funny and I'm seriously wondering if Puru is the biggest, most dedicated debate troll ever. I mean, how can you call yourself a debater and take someone out of context so much? Puru constantly picks out tiny little phrases and uses them as quotes from your argument. Afterwards, he acts like it is a concession and is proud of himself for "convincing" his opponents. Obviously caker did not take any of this, and so far neither have voters. But the fact that Puru actually thinks he can get away with taking people out of context this badly STRONGLY suggests he is a bad debater. 3. Ferocious ad hominem/arrogance For some who points out logical fallacies every 15.7 seconds, Puru actually commits the ad hominem fallacy quite a bit. Ad hominem is (of an argument or reaction) "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Here are a few quotes from Puru in the caker vs Puru debate. "That statement is constructed with such poor grammar that I honestly have no idea what your point may be: Please re-phrase it with some modicum of intelligible grammar." "You utterly failed to even address my argument, setting up about 10 or 12 straw men and arguing against those. " I know these don't seem that bad, but they get really annoying after a while and are a sign of an inexperienced debater who has nothing to turn to but attacking his opponent. Also, every 13.26 seconds, Puru shows intolerable amounts of arrogance in his debates, even though he has lost well over half of them. "in short, I won this debate quite handily and easily (and with a good amount of assistance from you): Thanks for your time! =)" "You offered no valid arguments and no valid refutations to my argument, only a slew of straw man logical fallacies, whereas I provided air-tight evidence for all of my statements... Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)" Puru constantly affirms that he has won this debate, even though he has done no such thing. And when voters don't vote for him, he throws a fit because "they don't know what debate is" or "the system's rigged." I would be OK with Puru being this smug if he could actually prove his points with inarguable evidence, but the fact that he doesn't gives him no right to brag about anything. 4. Extreme repetition. Everyone, including me, has the tendency to repeat themselves in a debate because there might be a point we ESPECIALLY want to get across. However, Puru repeats himself so much that almost all he has to do is press copy/ paste. Throughout his closing arguments, he constantly says stuff like this: "The only circular reasoning is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong." "Without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong." "The only circular reasoning here is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong." It's honestly a fair point to make, but we only need to hear it once, and not every time caker brings up circular reasoning. There are many instances of his extreme repetition, and most of the time what he repeats I can agree with. However, it is only a small issue, and his failure to explain other arguments makes him want to keep falling back on his one solid statement. 5. Lack of evidence/ failure to prove, "Yes it is." Now for the most diabolical thing that Purushadasa does, the "Yes it is" argument. Puru will begin a debate by stating his premises and beliefs, and then let the opponent try and refute them. After caker has made his arguments, Puru fires back with a "No it isn't" or a "Yes it is." Read Puru's round 4 argument and you'll see what I'm talking about. caker makes a valid counter-argument, and Puru answers with "No, that isn't true." And when cakerman asks for proof of Puru's arguments, Puru restates what he said before and claims "That is true." This shows a complete failure to actually take part in a debate. You actually have to talk about and explain your arguments if you are going to convince the opposition. I don't know if Puru was just lazy or he felt that "Yes it is" is proper proof, but it's very disrespectful to give that answer to someone who's actually put thought and time into their argument and then claim "you lost this debate." In conclusion, I can actually agree with Purushadasa on a lot of issues, and I think we would be a good debate team on the side of proving God... IF he could actually debate. He shows little care for proving his arguments and shows arrogance throughout, claims nonexistent straw men fallacies, and takes his opponents extremely out of context. For these reasons, I believe Purushadasa is a terrible debater. Bonus: Puru's assumed response to my argument. That is all your opinion, and I never did any of that, so straw man. Therefore I won this debate, thanks for your time! :)