Confused about winning

Skill issue.

It can’t be a skill issue if I win whenever someone else does it. Unless you mean a skill issue on everyone

You tend to instigate things that are very hard to prove

Step 1: Place definition in description, definition which makes topic extremely easy to prove.

Step 2: Pick topic where opposite position is impossible to be true, such as "true claims exist", or such as "Every claim is true" (as Con) or such as "logic exists", or "reality exists". Any topic where opposite claim is false by definition, such as cats are animals, or animal agriculture sometimes causes pain to animals. Or you can pick known topics which are easily won and known to be won easily. You can also choose to be Con as instigator in case you cant be Pro.

Also, you can choose to always be contender, always accept topics which by definition cannot be true.

The reason why contender has advantage is 2x:

One is burden of proof, which is on Pro. So if you go as Pro, you have burden of proof. Even if Con doesnt prove his side of topic, you failing to prove yours means you lose.

Second thing is, last word. In debates, person with last word is always considered to have ultimate advantage. The ultimate advantage is that person with last word can save best counter argument or best claim for last round, and such must be accepted by voters due to no possible negation. This is the biggest problem in all debates. As long as Contender can mask his last round as relevant while also bringing out his best relevant claims then, Contender wins by default.

You are not taking advantage of being instigator. You get to set the definitions and choose a topic you are familiar with. You can even plan an argument well in advance to have an opener ready and research potential counterarguments.

Also, go back and read all of your votes. It seems like you're not really paying attention to criticism and fixing the issues. I'm not an expert, but a few things I've noticed:

--You need to have a strong opener

In multiple debates, you have just made a few short statements and assumed people will already be on your side. Not only do you not fulfill your burden of proof, you let your opponent's arguments be the main focus.

--Choose your resolution more carefully and focus on it

I used the word focus again intentionally.

--Use the description to set parameters for the debate

While people may still attempt to nitpick certain things to change your intended purpose for the debate, this goes a long way in reducing that. AND DON'T IGNORE DEFINITIONS! You don't have to go crazy defining every word, but you also can't just leave major contentious terms undefined all the time.

Hopefully this helps.

Why do I always lose every debate where I am the instigator but when every debate when I am the contender?

The contender always has an advantage since he can just change the definition of what the instigator said. The contender can always say more than what the instigator’s opening statement was to make it look better on paper. The contender always gets the last laugh.

You are probably making the mistake of substance over tactic, the belief that the debate is about a logical argument backed up by facts.

Alot of people here think substance doesn't matter, all that matters is the mother of all tactics, the tactic that all logic and facts bow down to in a debate, "the burden of proof is on you". They think that is an argument, and it's the only argument they know, it's what they make the debate about. According to their first principle of debate, pro always has the burden of proof, the only other principle is you "can't prove a negative" so see first principle.

Since that's also how they vote, pro is always at a huge disadvantage.

Your premise is incorrect. You have engaged in 7 finished debates, 2 in challenge [both as instigator], 2 in debate [1 inst, 1 cont], and 2 in voting [both as inst.]

Of your finished debates, as instigator you have 1 win, 1 loss. As contender, you have 1 tie, 4 wins.

The leaderboard is not correct; it does nope account t for your one tie with Pierree re:Pantheism

We have varying degrees of voting talent, and voting is a learned behavior, so we cannot consider all voters as skilled in that function.

Your greatest issue, already mentioned by others, and, in my opinion, is your attitude about defining your terms [keywords] in a title [resolve] - you just do not take advantage of doing definitions. Never. You have even said in one debate, and mention in your #1 post of this string, that definitions can be changed by a contender, and you do that too, including in the 2 debates we have had now in voting. The fact is, definition is the privilege of an instigator and, once a debate challenge is accepted, the definitions, and all other parameters of the proposed debate are locked and cannot be altered, even by the instigator, and never by the opponent, and a skilled voter will recognize the attempt to change definition[s] and will deduct for it.

Since that's also how they vote, pro is always at a huge disadvantage.

Having no experience in debate under your current username, at least in DA or here on DC, that opinion is flawed. Voters do not exist on an even plane of existence, and you assume Pro is always instigator. Neither condition is true.