(Untitled)

[the__lord]

Debate #1

Winner: imaybeparanoid

skaloop did an excellent job, since he was at a disadvantage on this topic, but he fell short of pulling off the upset.

Debate #2

Winner: cargill

Since the debate was already decided when I wrote this, I shouldn't have bothered to read this book, but I did my best to fly through it anyway. In the end, badlydrawnjeff didn't make a convincing enough

Comments

[mrexcised]

Thanks to those who suported my argument, apparently there was some dissention in the judges ranks, 2 on 2 split decision that I somehow lost. I won't pretend to understand how, based purely on the merits of the two arguments, I DID lose, but hey. Shrug.

[the__lord]

Eh, you won, 3-2.

[mrexcised]

Whoa, did I? Sweet, must have miscounted.

I do have a question though...are the votes based solely on the merits of the two arguments put forth? It seems to me that some of the voting has more to do with which position the voter is closer to in their own thinking than it is about which debator better supported their side of the debate.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were?

[the__lord]

I can only speak for myself, but I generally vote for who made the most compelling argument, in light of the facts as I understand them. I tried putting a balanced council together, in order to keep the impact of personal bias to a minimum, and I think it's worked well so far.

[ex_brainles]

My thoughts are on comment limits!

[ex_brainles]

I think it works both ways. I have no problem boucing someone for providing an argument that is factually inaccurate. Normally, I'll only do it if they are going to win, as sort of protest. We are well rounded enough that we don't have to suspend reality to judge a debate, but when someone lays the smack down, I'm not going to vote against them because I disagree. In my debate, I was certainly thinking I would have voted against myself but I felt I finished string enough to make it competetive.

[killtacular]

i'll quote you on that last part :)

[ex_lovecraf]

I think you won because I was too busy Friday and Saturday to sit down and write a response.

I also didn't understand your argument at all. It didn't really seem to rebut my argument. It seemed like you were agreeing with me that the US shouldn't seem to support Israel, but should support them anyway. Which I don't get. And I still think your entire argument presumes that the Middle East is full of morons.