1. Direct Address to Voters

Behavior: He frames his argument by speaking directly to the audience ("Hello voters") and focusing on his interpretation of the debate, rather than engaging with my points in a meaningful way.

Purpose: This tactic aims to create a connection with the audience, potentially bypassing the opponent by appealing to the judges' (or voters') sensibilities.

Classification: This can be referred to as audience-directed rhetoric, which shifts focus away from the direct clash of arguments in favor of persuasion through narrative and emotional appeal.

Also

This approach is often referred to as "audience engagement" or "appealing to the audience/voters." When it is done excessively to sidestep the opponent's points, it also fall under:

"Dropping arguments": Failing to respond to key arguments presented by the opponent, which my opponent did.

"Appeal to popularity" or "appeal to emotion": Attempting to win favor by focusing on persuading voters rather than refuting the opponent's case.


2. Dismissing Opponent's Arguments

Behavior: The opponent repeatedly accuses me of bias, logical flaws, or using non-scientific evidence while positioning his argument as more empirical.

Purpose: This is a defensive mechanism to delegitimize my argument and make it appear more objective and factual.

Classification: This is a mix of strawman argumentation (misrepresenting your claims) and preemptive rebuttal (addressing perceived weaknesses in my case).


3. Overemphasis on Scientific Empiricism

Behavior: he heavily relied on the inability of science to measure spirituality to dismiss my claims as unverifiable.

Purpose: To frame the debate as a binary (empirical science vs. subjective religion), rather than considering the broader philosophical or cultural implications of my points.

Classification: This leans towards a false dichotomy, implying that only empirical evidence is valid in the debate.


4. Undermining the Use of Religious Evidence

Behavior: My opponent repeatedly suggests that my use of personal stories or religious texts is not valid evidence.

Purpose: He aimed to discredit the foundation of my argument by reframing the debate rules around his criteria of evidence. While he claimed he did not put any rule.

Classification: This approach could be seen as debate framing, where the opponent tries to redefine the parameters of acceptable evidence.


5. Tone and Engagement with Opponent

Behavior: While addressing some of my arguments, he largely focuses on his own narrative and broader principles instead of engaging with my points in depth.

Purpose: This helps him stay on the offensive and keep the debate focused on his framing.

Classification: This can be considered argumentative evasion, where one party avoids direct engagement with key rebuttals.


6. Logical vs. Factual Distinction

Behavior: He argues that logical consistency is not equivalent to truth and uses this to undermine my reasoning.

Purpose: To suggest that even if your argument is structured well, it lacks empirical backing.

Classification: This is a  philosophical point but may border on philosophical pedantry if overused, Which it did.


Evaluation:

The overall strategy appears to be one of debate control through reframing, where he defines the terms of evidence and validity while directly appealing to the audience. It  signals weaker engagement with my case and an over-reliance on audience sympathy.