DWYP 1 Archieves ( Merged )

[Eor]

Both of you, shut up. This gets no one anywhere. This was what I was saying in the post above, but Eric posted right before me, and I originally said "I think Eric would say this if he posted".

Flaming each other does nothing.

 

[Digital Watches]

Ugh. This is getting ridiculous. Yes, it's obvious that Duke would have liked that post to be counted, with posts like this:

I have done a lot for the competition, I had to stay up to midnight to start and stop threads so that this competition looks nice. All I ask for my service is a little slack.

HOWEVER: He seems to be fine with it not getting counted now, so why is the issue not resolved?

Duke: Stop furthering this stupid bickering. Who really cares if the conflict is "solved?" Not letting it blow over is not only digging a deeper hole for yourself in terms of public opinion against you, but really inane. I don't really know or care what it is you did before, but you've obviously made enemies, and throwing a fit and getting defensive whenever they accuse you of wrongdoing isn't getting you anywhere.

Delorted: Stop pushing the d-mn issue. Duke isn't now arguing that his post should have counted, so there's no reason not to drop it, except to further escalate this ridiculous conflict - and it's already a moot point.

Eorlingas is right: It's nothing but a flamewar at this point, and the Debate Hall is (or should be) better than that.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

lonejedi - I could tell you were a tad rushed, what with the frequent grammar issues, but you maintained a sturdy and unwavering point in the face of tough adversity. A

Zephyr - See above--you were the strong adversity. You have a pinache for debating and were steady as a rock, though at times I think you misinterpreted a few things. A


Bottom Line

You both debated with much power. A tough call--quite tough--but I think lonejedi takes this. Good luck!

 

[Duke]

Well, dang, I didn't know it was only delorted that was against me. If I would have known it was only him and that everyone just wanted this to blow over then I'm fine. You guys see how much crap I get for my previous DH membership. I just don't want that again.

Evil Eye told me he has graded 4 debates, but that was a couple days ago so he might be considerably further. Let's just make sure we are kind and thankful to the judges for their efforts and sacrifices.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

sheepyman - I could see that you were having trouble matching, er, 'wits' with a tangential, four thousand word extended Bible Thump, but your frustration never showed through. As far as I'm concerned, you had her pinned to the wall the entire time, even if she doesn't realize it. Keep it up. A+

Tera253 - No words... should have sent... Giygas...

Oh, wait.

THIS IS ********

F


The Verdict

sheepy, and there's no question about that. There were more colors flying than the stars and bars caught in a stiff wind.

 

[Crimson King]

Sargent_Peach: B+
You have some great ideas here. You fleshed out a lot of points, but there were some areas where you got a bit personal in your debate, which I think should be avoided. Also, I would have liked some real world sources. In fact you only instance of sources was the first post which you used as a reference post, so I let it slide. For future debates, it is best if you examples of illegal abortion deaths and what not (I remember hearing the coat-hanger infections back in my younger years).

Duke: TBA
Since we voted to ignore your last post, you provided very little substance in your debate. You had an excellent style in your form for refuting Peach's points, but it never really took an official stance, just your opinion. It wasn't until your last post did you properly delve into the topic at hand. You had both a decent grasp of how to use quotes and sources, but I really wish you would have used it as more of a defeating point. I know where your side of the argument, which is good, but it didn't work out as good as Sargent Peach did.

This is still a pending argument.

 

[lonejedi]

I just wanted to say GG to Zephyr, it was a good debate, and I'm sorry for the loss, but you did extremely well. I hope you either get into the DH as 1/3, or you apply, hope to see you debating in the DH as a regular member. That is all.

EDIT: Gah, I thought what EE posted was the overall thing, my bad, then this is still on. If it does happen where both of us could go on, that would be cool, I thought you did a good job as stated before, and I think we could have both done better if we had more time, and not such a general debate. GL to both of us.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

Sargent Peach - Impeccable structure. You pinpoint specific things and your arguments are all facts. You also give credit to your opponent, and thus attack the most logical conclusion he can muster. This is especially impressive, since most people would underestimate Duke. All in all this argument was shot from the hip and never wasted words. After thinking about it, though, your later posts don't really match the steam and focus of your original post, and use less sources, which I found damaging. And at times your staunch disagreements with Duke almost turned into ad hominem. A-

Duke - The beginnings of your argument were a bit too foundationally opinion-based. However, you do have a knack for using new information and points on the fly, and you didn't take the passive stance most would, nor the black-and-white one. However, this is a certain lack of a definitive post being taken preceding you controversial after-post, and I had to dig up the outcome of Skinner's case to know what you were talking about when you said, adamantly, that she suffered no consequences. And by the way--the second article had a lot from which you could have built an even stronger argument. Including quotes from the judges and other legal bigwigs that were involved in the dismissing of her charges. TBA

Winner

TBA

 

[Crimson King]

Sheepyman: A
Really, I don't have anything negative to say because you didn't lose your cool and all that good stuff. Great job.

Tera253: F
Sorry, Tera, no. Sorry, it was too personally fueled and that is never a good way to go. Really bad attempt.

Crimson King's Winner: Sheepyman

 

[Crimson King]

Best Debate of DWYP 1 candidate already (more on that later).

LoneJedi: B+/A
Excellent job. I loved your usage of quotes early on, but I felt you could have used some statistics to re-enforce your claim. Great show overall and I really felt you got your point across.

Zephyr: B+/A
Zephyr, what the hell? Why haven't you applied sooner? Great showing against a DH member in your first round. Outside of that you really stood your ground, never got to personal attacks. I expected you to use constitutional references which was excellent.

Crimson King's Winner: Uh... I really don't know right now. I have no problem pushing both of you through since we had a few drop-outs, so we will discuss this. The split grade was because I felt both of you presented a debate that wasn't up to the par you could have had you went into it a lot more. Next round, whoever or both of you, just go deeper into key points, and you will make the grade.

 

[Crimson King]

I think you guys read the grades wrong. Each judge will submit their scores and I will post official standings in here as they are are done. They should be completed by Monday.

Duke, if we count your final post and we feel you are equal to or better than Peach, we may have a run-off debate with a judge for you to go through as well. We are working on this.

 

[DoH]

Can you judge mine and delorted's debate next? Please?!?

 

[Crimson King]

I was gonna do that one last, but I guess so. It'll probably be tomorrow though. I've got a bad headache.

 

[sheepyman]

Hey, at least they got the hottest, closest debate (me vs. Tera253) over with first. Now they can go on to the debates with obvious winners and such (DoH vs. Delorted, etc.)

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

Congratulations on your victory, Sheepy. I really wish I could have done more with my debate. Should I write up an admissions-esque debate on my topic to compensate for it? My opponent dropped out.

 

[Crimson King]

Consider yourself lucky. Next round you won't be as fortunate to get a "no-show."

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

That's what I look forward to. I also want to take this moment to thank you, Evil Eye, Mediocre, lonejedi, and Duke all for making this tournament a success.

 

[Mediocre]

Grades

sheepyman

Your first post is strong, countering many of the usual arguments against gay marriage before your opponent presents them. Your followups are just as good, picking out both logical and factual fallacies in your opponents points and exposing them.

You cited your sources, which is good. I did feel that you could have used more sources as the debate went on. This doesn't really hurt you much, because you were mostly picking apart your opponents posts, rather than making any new points of your own (most of which you made in your first post). However, I feel that your already strong argument could have been made even stronger if you had used more sources as the debate went on.

Final Grade: A-

Tera253

There are a few major flaws with your argument. For one, you presuppose that homosexuality is a bad thing. If you think homosexuality is a bad thing, you must prove that it is a bad thing, or else your whole line of reasoning falls apart. This brings me to the next major flaw I see in your side of the debate. You rely on the Bible as a source. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a religious book as a source. However, the Bible never proves that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, it asks you to accept it on faith. You cannot rely on your faith to win a debate. Finally, you resort to using popular opinion to support your argument. No matter how many people agree with you, that does not make you right. These flaws, taken together, undermine nearly all your arguments.

Also, nowhere in any of your posts do I see you cite any sources.

That said, I did see one redeeming argument on your part. Number five on your list in your first post, that children raised by homosexuals might be mistreated by their peers. I'm going to give you some credit for that, but the failings of your argument are much more evident than any decent points you made.

Final Grade: F+

 

[Crimson King]

McCloud: C+/B
Even though I felt you were a much better debater here, you really need to use sources and quotations more. I awarded you a C+ because you successfully refuted his points using your own logic, but you could have scored the B had you made use of quotes, sources, and outside information. For the next round, please be more mindful of this.

Marthmaster: D-
Where McCloud didn't use quotes, you didn't cite your usage which is worse. You provided a statistic with no evidence that you didn't make it up to prove your point. 95% of your debate is personal opinion only with nothing solid to back it up. If you are trying to prove a point, you need credible evidence for it.

CK's Winner: McCloud
Honestly, not the best debate from either of you. Not sure why, but if you wish to make it further into the contest, McCloud, USE SOURCES.

 

[Crimson King]

Riciardos: A

You had a great introduction which really makes me hopeful for your next showing. Honestly, there isn't much else to say.

FiErCe_oNi: No show = Failure
Why sign up if you won't make it.

CK's Winner:Riciardos

This is just for logistics.

 

[Crimson King]

JAKETHIRTEEN:N/A
*******.

Hamsterpie:C-
Despite a lack of competition, I felt your opening, and closing as it were, argument was REALLY weak. A more experienced debater would have ripped it to shreds. Be glad you got off easy.

CK's Winner: Hamsterpie
Nothing special.

 

[Crimson King]

JTB:A
I think you misinterpreted the rules a bit, you could have posted more than once. I say this because it seems you condescend your whole argument into one post. It was a good example of how to start a debate, I just hope you were inactive for this because there was a lot of promise here.

The Mad Hatter:A
Great job over all. You started off well and used your second post to refute his claims rather than restate what you had said. Excellent job.

CK's Winner: The Mad Hatter

I give the nod to MH only because I fear JTB may be inactive for this and instead of giving the winner spot to someone who won't be here, I will give it to someone I am sure of. If you weren't inactive and misread the instructions, I will consider a tie.

 

[Crimson King]

Skywalker: N/A
Pity, I was looking forward to your debate.

kaid: C-
You didn't use any sources here, no quotes, nothing. Worst yet, you used information that you didn't create so you should have cited it. Poor showing overall, but you should improve for the second round or face elimination.

CK's Winner: kaid
You got lucky. You may not be so lucky next round.

 

[Crimson King]

demoncaterpie: N/A
Maybe next time

Uncle Kenny: A
Good intro. Not much else to say honestly.

CK's Winner: Uncle Kenny

Good luck next round.

 

[Rici]

Weeeeeeeeee I won! xD

dontlookinmythread

Maybe it already has been asked, but when we get to the second round, are we able to choose some topics again, or are you guys putting us in a random spot?

 

[McCloud]

Huzzah, I win.

 

[Crimson King]

I'll explain the second round more deeply later, but basically, I will assign numbers to the participants, use a random generator to select competitors, and you two will have to pick topics that both of you can agree on before hand via PM. That will ensure a. that you talk to your opponent before the round and avoid personal attacks, b. they you both have input in your topic, and c. avoid having people mismatched before hand.

 

[Duke]

That is good, sargent and I had a dandy conversation beforehand you didn't see any personal attacks. It was nice.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

We did have a nice conversation beforehand, and there might have been one or two personal attacks (mainly my fault, but not all). I was not sure the type of debate etiquette here in the hall. It didn't seem that "formal" to me, but now I understand.

How does a random number generator stop people from being mismatched before the mat4ch happens?

@Duke- I laughed my *** off at your location

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

They pair you up before you recieve your topic and then the two will talk to each other and agree on a topic.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I understand that, but they pair you off "randomly," which doesnt stop unfair matchups, unless we are talking "fair" in topics and not competitors. Then I understand.

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

It wouldn't be a competition without difficulty. In every type of competitive event there is always somebody that is better than somebody else. Don't worry though, be more optimistic. Enthusiasm is the best confidence builder. That and steroids.

 

[Duke]

Which part of my location is funny? There are many aspects to it.

Also, what happens if two people cannot choose a topic to discuss?

 

[Crimson King]

His location is just a rip-off of Kiki's.

Right, it won't be easier as the rounds go on, that would be pointless. This way, you aren't matched with someone who got their first choice when it was your second or third. Finally, if you two can't agree, you will have to debate a topic given by the mods on a side, selected by the mods. Again, I don't care what your opinion is, I care how you debate. It isn't Opinionate with your Power.

 

[Duke]

His location is just a rip-off of Kiki's.

...that's the point.

 

[Zephyr]

Ha, that was good stuff, Lonejedi. I guess Mediocre decides who wins? Cool. And, in response to CK's comment, I never applied here because I looked at the Hall entry guidelines and said, "What? Essay? Pssh!" XD I already wrote one up, though, because I know I'm not getting a membership out of this tournament. I guess that's all I have to say...

PEACE!!!

 

[lonejedi]

Anyone else here can't wait any longer? Man I wish EE would grade some debates, I'm itching to see what his grades are on some close ones.

 

[Crimson King]

I will say this much, we have determined who will be added this round. I'll have a lock posted with results with the person we appointed in that. This will morph to Round one discussion until we post Round 2.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

demoncaterpie: How unfortunate. I should point out that DWYP won't be around as often as WWYP N/A/

Uncle Kenny: There isn't much, and there's no citation, but obviously you had no reason to do any of this. Still, an opening statement with citations would have been nice. At any rate, you raised valid points that could have been expanded on had DCP not dropped out. B+

 

[Crimson King]

Sizzle: C
You had a good concept of what you wanted to say, but never really went past that. For future tournaments you have to prove a side of an argument without a shadow of a doubt, you left a lot of doubt which was taken for granted.

psicicle: B-
You had some solid arguments, but you neglected to make any citations of outside sources. In the next round, your opponent may have a thicker argument that you will have to use higher, credible references for.

CK's Winner: psicicle
This one was filled with reasons why I am so stiff on sources and citations. Sadly, it's an example of the negative.