Registered: Sep 2016
Location: Outside the Universe
Personally, I think Tempest and ILS are the top. NewGuy is maybe up there as well, as his posts are generally pretty great, and his hype is top tier, but I havenīt seen enough of him. Ant is a step down, and he is probably followed by Ell and then Nova, but both have quite a few low showings. Skillz, DMB, Bart, Ziggy and possibly Sel are there as well, while Beni is solidly behind due to his low showings. Az prolly follows him, excluding his shit opinions. Not sure about nai.
"Jacen Solo is the living Jedi dream. Even without the Force, he is more dangerous than you can possibly imagine."
^ to justify the above: (edit: Urs posted in-between) some minor changes, same caveats apply (e.g. no ordering within tiers, don't take it personally, just pure debating skill not taking into account work ethic or knowledge, etc.)
The Tempest - best combination of rhetorical mastery, social manipulation, logical precision, insight, etc. A true master of the art.
Upper Elite: - could consider merging with the above. High-level argumentation with an extra level of "holy sh*t that was so insightful" and "wow you picked up on that line of reasoning really quickly".
ILS - in addition to being a great wordsmith, he picks up on concepts and formulates complex arguments very quickly and effectively, both inside and outside of Star Wars. Seldom commits blunders.
NewGuy - great word economy and high insight + logic skills, can make groundbreaking points with minimal words but knows how to wall-of-text debate as well.
[I'd insert myself here but YMMV, when I put focus and effort in I think my grasp of logical argumentation on a precise and technical level is perhaps the best on KMC, and I am elite at the other areas like rhetoric and insight too. Then again I'm adjusting my lower showings for my knowledge that I didn't put full effort in, while not as strongly adjusting for when others possibly don't, so it's hard to tell]
Elite: Only an extra "wow" factor separates this and the above. Could interchange with the above.
Nova - high logical acumen who can analyze arguments and evidence with great precision, only doesn't make upper elite for slight disparity in rhetoric and "wow" factor.
Skillz - incredibly insightful and understands arguments / logic very easily. Not as precise as Nova or those in higher tiers but that may be due to differences in effort, so I put them on the same level.
DMB - comes up with some of the most complex arguments and interpretations I've ever seen on a wide variety of topics, only specific debate fineries like strategic framing and really elite rhetoric keep him from upper elite.
Nai - would be upper elite or even legendary in terms of rhetorical power and ability to generate complex arguments, but those complex arguments can contain naked sophistry so he's hard to place.
Borderline Elite: Elite level with some sort of noticeable limitation.
Ant - one of the most insightful people on this list with great success in swaying opinion (usually) and elite rhetoric, just can commit logical blunders and not grasp more technical concepts like some of the higher tiers.
Bart - great argumentation skill and can follow arguments and lines of reasoning very well. However, his strengths in humor and trolling aren't being counted here (though they are important) so he doesn't get into the higher tiers.
DarthSkywalker0 - prodigious intellect and information processing, hindered a bit by some logical blunders and not "getting" some rebuttals (e.g. Ant). Enormous potential.
Ziggy - very precise logic and argumentation, some tendencies of sophistry and a lack of "wow" factor keep him from higher tiers.
Excellent: High-level argumentation just without the forum-swaying domination of the above.
Beni - excellent debater (when he wants to be) across the board, just with some more philosophically/academically complex topics would not choose over most on the higher tiers (but still obviously better than most).
Joker - based on what I see of him he's a really good debater, just doesn't stand out enough for upper tiers.
Selenial - see Joker.
Good: This is the threshold at which you can engage in a debate over pretty much any subject that you both have knowledge over and isn't fantastically technical, caveating intellectual honesty, and still have a productive conversation.
Syndicate - comes up with great arguments and insight but doesn't do actual debating at an elite level.
Urs - dunno honestly, kind of guessing. I don't remember him making lots of "wow" or groundbreaking arguments but he can logically follow points well. Might be a lack of memory on debates with him.
Decent: Like good but not as uniformly confident that you can have a productive conversation with them over a more complex topic than Star Wars.
Carthage - very good debater, makes coherent arguments, but doesn't "get" more nuanced or complex arguments very well (e.g. meta, theory/model creation, etc.) and will just stonewall them.
Proficient: They clearly usually make arguments that make sense, but when the chips really fall down they stop following things.
Neph - can debunk a bad argument with some good rhetoric and makes coherent arguments, but not overly impressive and won't come up with particularly unique or interesting points. Stonewalls and just stops engaging when the points are too nuanced.
Freshest - see Neph.
Kenshin - fairly eloquent rhetorician who obviously grasps argumentation to a decent degree, but often makes rather non-responsive arguments and doesn't get more complex points. Non-responsiveness may be impeding potential.
Bad: Some competence but frequently makes just "WTF" bad arguments.
Ancient Power - can make coherent lines of argument but then goes off the deep end when the rebuttals get tougher, starts blanket denying things with no justification, appeals lots of incredulity, makes bizarre inferences from evidence, etc.
quanchi - doesn't respond to or make any but the most simplistic points. Gets beaten by literal satire bad-debater accounts.
SW_Legend - routinely presents evidence that debunks his own case as though it proved it, makes cringe arguments of little coherence. More responsive than quanchi but with a higher cringe factor.
Last edited by The Ellimist on Jan 21st, 2018 at 12:05 PM
^ to add onto the above, let's say I just want to discuss some complicated topic with someone and we're ignoring more specific debating ability and personality. So, this is just intellect (or at least general conceptual reasoning ability + rationality). Then the list goes (no ordering within clusters):
Ziggy (might be higher)
Ant (might be higher)
then a bunch of tiers below this
^ all way above the general population
(omitting a lot of people as this is just off the cuff)
Though this list is more tenuous.
Last edited by The Ellimist on Jan 21st, 2018 at 12:31 PM