DWYP 1 Archieves ( Merged )

[Crimson King]

cF=): B+
You held your ground and I really appreciate that kind of thing. I would have used the famous bible quote that states it is better to keep a prayer to yourself than to brag about it.

KishPrime: A
Well, executed and written. You were able to take a highly controversial issue and really dig into it. Great job indeed.

CK's Winner: KishPrime

Really a great debate and I loved how both of you managed to take this topic to new levels. For anyone else reading this, cF=) only got a lower score because I felt Kishprime did such an excellent job with his side. Overall great one.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

Digital Watches: You have a style of writing that has a lot of flash and dazzle, but you make your strongest statements with little -- and often no -- citation or support. You seem like the type I'd take on their word, but I don't take anybody on their word, and that left me pretty cold throughout. That said, your pinache for presenting the facts shows skill, I just wish those facts would have been followed by instances. And the lack of a central point leaves a weak center for your points to orbit around.B+

Scav: You did what I wish DW would have -- you saved your razzle-dazzle for transition and introduction, and let facts and logic drive your central argument. I found that you could competently dismantle a lot of things said with fewer words, which is quite impressive. Like with DW, I would have liked some citation, but here I found myself drawn into your argument rather than waiting for links. A

Verdict

You both did good, but a bare margin gave Scav this win.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

Skywalker: You seemed impassioned by this, so I'm pretty let down. N/A

kaid: Mmh. You raised valid points, but you gave me nothing to chew on beyond a pretty good analogy. No facts, no citations. Just points. You need an actual caseline, or you won't get past the next heat. C

Winner

kaid

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

McCloud: Not quite what I expected from you. You have a way to say plenty with little, and you don't mince words. Still, more citation would have given your debate more solidity. B-

Marthmaster92: I'm very let down. You normally portray yourself, perhaps, as a bit arrogant, but this is often the sign of a good debater. Instead, I'm left with an uncited statistic that is mostly irrelevant and biggoted rambling. Biggoted rambling that was made fully a waste of energy in your opponent's opening statement, I might add. F

The Winner

No real contest here, McCloud is the winner.

 

[Crimson King]

DeLoRtEd1: A

Wow. Just wow. You managed to rope me into this debate. I kept bouncing between choices. The only reason I gave you an A instead of the A+ was because I felt DoH refuted you more than you could him. **** fine debate.

DaRkNeSsOfHeArT: A+
Wow! How did you manage to delve so much into this subject so well? It was a great job and I can see you going far in this debate. Excellent job.

CK's Winner: DaRkNeSsOfHeArT
This was a top-notch debate. Wow. This is my second nominee for Best Debate.

 

[Evil Eye]

IMPORTANT: DWYP Grading

You guys have all debated with your power. You've debated with so much power that we need another day to finish the first round. In the meantime, enjoy the grades we have posted and count the hours until tomorrow, when we unveil who goes on and who eats dust!

 

[Crimson King]

Eorlingas: A
Awesome job, Eor. I was really glad to have you in this tournament and look forward to see you going far.

ti83pop: N/A
Pity. You coulda did great.

CK's Winner: Eorlingas

****, this could have been an epic battle as well.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

JTB: I certainly hope Eric isn't right about you misreading the rules, because that was a dandy opening statement. The moralistic plea rarely works, but your analogies made sense and spoke out. Nonetheless, the lack of any following posts leaves me salivating for more meat on the hook! A-

The Mad Hatter: Just a great job. You separated your opening statement and your rebuttling, which was refreshing, and your posts were full of statistics, quotes, citations, and an obstinate logic. That was a debate with much power. A

Winner

Unlike Eric I didn't have too much trouble picking the winner, though I would have if there had been more activity. In the meantime, The Mad Hatter moves on.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

JAKETHIRTEEN: Bleh. N/A

Hamsterpie: Your opening has a strong sense of logic, but it's as skeletal as a fossil. A competent (or... existant) opponent could have shredded it simply due to its lack of substance. C

Winner

Hamsterpie

 

[Sargent_Peach]

You guys graded my debate, but didn't grade my opponets part. I have no clue what is happening, and its been killing me. Its like you guys gave me a liitle taste and are teasing me with the rest.

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

ti83pop: **** you! Iraq War + two intelligent sides = everybody wins N/A

Eorlingas: Ahhhhh. How refreshing -- a pro-Iraq War post based on logic. Your stance proved a point for a war many hate, and most are at least skeptical of, myself included. Contrary to popular belief, WMDs were indeed found. I was very happy and impressed that you dug this fact up, as it punches the "false pretenses" cliché full of holes and leaves it ripe for a swift rebuttling. A

Lowdown

Eor advances.

 

[Zephyr]

Lonejedi and I got CK's first nomination for Best Debate? Crazy! I didn't think we did that well, but hey, you guys know more about this stuff than I do. You know, a funny little thing about my side is that halfway through the debate I realized that Lonejedi was right and found some reasoning that he fortunately never posted for his side. I ended up arguing for a side I didn't believe was right, and I think that's a pretty cool exercise for a debater. I do wish that I could know what's going to happen with the second round, though. That's kinda eating me from the inside. Ah well. =/

 

[Digital Watches]

Wow. 5 dropouts and two very one-sided gay marriage debates. I hope the rest of DWYP goes off without a hitch, even though it looks like I won't make it to the next round.

 

[McCloud]

What, my debate was clearly hard to win

 

[Rici]

And it was very hard to scare my opponent away

 

[lonejedi]

Lonejedi and I got CK's first nomination for Best Debate? Crazy! I didn't think we did that well, but hey, you guys know more about this stuff than I do. You know, a funny little thing about my side is that halfway through the debate I realized that Lonejedi was right and found some reasoning that he fortunately never posted for his side. I ended up arguing for a side I didn't believe was right, and I think that's a pretty cool exercise for a debater. I do wish that I could know what's going to happen with the second round, though. That's kinda eating me from the inside. Ah well. =/

Yah going back and looking at our debate, there were some things I realized I missed as well. But that's the joy of debating. You got me all side tracked with that WW2 Analogy, kinda got me off the mark there.

 

[cF=)]

I really enjoyed my debate and wish there will be more event like this one. Was nicely organized but perhaps a bit short. Nice job on the fast grading and the useful comment. Seriously, it's such a great way to practice my written english ahah

Hope the best for KishPrime next round.

 

[KishPrime]

Hey I didn't even see you were from Quebec. I've been through there a few times. Yes, I would've liked for it to go a little longer, too. I didn't really understand what we were debating, whether it was the social good or the legality...shrug. Technically aren't there three judges though? I think I could still lose, but I'm not sure if I am clear on it.

 

[KishPrime]

Fun so far! I'm a little concerned about the whole "agreeing to a topic" thing. Shrug. Should work out I guess.

 

[Crimson King]

Trust me, it will work out fine. All of you have opinions ON SOMETHING that someone disagrees with. Plus if not you can always take the opposite of your favorite argument since you have heard it all.

 

[Crimson King]

Scav: A-
Like EE, I wish you had cited some stuff just because you gave some information that should be. However, even I found myself drawn into your overall argument. You made some great ideas that, if addressed, could have grown quite well. Good job overall.

Digital Watches: B+
So close. You stood toe-to-toe with Scav and I really appreciated it. There were some quirks I could do without, ie your opening leaving quite a conundrum, but overall I think with just some minor tweaks, you could do well next time.

CK's Winner: Scav

Such a great first round debate.

 

[sheepyman]

Just out of curiosity, since there were a few REALLY good and close debates, and a few bleh debates, will you guys be doing it Top X go to the second round type style?

For example, in Jane vs Bill, Jane got an A and Bill got an A-.

In Adam vs Jerry, Adam got a C+ and Jerry got a D.

If it were Top X move on, Bill and Jane would move on and Adam and Jerry would both get eliminated. Basically, the top X scores move on, not the winners.

Anyways, how are you doing it?

 

[Zephyr]

I think that would be fairest. I mean, the best debaters would move on, not just those who got lucky and went up against bad debater or a no-show. That would make the competition more fierce later on and therefore, more enjoyable for everyone involved in the tournament. But the judges get the say on what happens.

 

[Deleted member]

I would love to not be eliminated after working extremely hard on my debate, even though I enjoyed every second of it

 

[Crimson King]

Unfortunately for us to do that, would mean we'd have to redo our entire scores, at least for me. When grading I put a blank slate and compared the two debaters to each other and only each other. I knew what I was looking for (Good citation, clear structure, and decent explanation) from there it was the two facing off for my score. I think Mediocre did it more consistent. Even then we'd have to switch to a numerical value since As, Bs, and Cs aren't very clear as to what the actual score is.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I understand where you guys are coming from, but how would that be to someone who won and was eliminated, that would suck. And as CK said, some of the debates were graded agianst opponents and not on an even scale.

I dont even know my opponents grades yet.

 

[Mediocre]

Grades

Digital Watches

Well, first of all, I'm just going to point out that you didn't cite any sources in your debate. However, your opponent didn't either, both your grades will be equally affected.

I have to say, your opening post is rather weak. As your opponent noted in his first post, you spend the majority of it teaching us about the history of both parties. The lesson is too long, especially when you consider that it's pretty much irrelevant.

Throughout the debate, you talk mostly in hypotheticals. You say, "If so and so happened, such and such would be the result." However, you generally fail to back these claims up with evidence. If you had made these points in a historical context, rather than placing that huge history lesson in your first post, your argument would have been much more convincing. In a few instances you use examples from European politics to back up your point. That's good, but I still feel that you should have done more to prove your points.

Final Grade: B



Scav

Again, there's a problem with a lack of sources. But since your opponent did the same thing, his grade suffered too.

However, despite your lack of sources, you give examples that prove each of your arguments, or disprove your opponents. Like your opponent, you're talking about things that are very hard to prove, but you do substantiate them by bringing up those analogous situations.

Final Grade: A-

 

[Digital Watches]

Heh. Yeah, as cool as it would be to get to go to the next round, I think it makes very little sense to eliminate winners and advance losers. Just like in any tournament, there may well have been an opponent you could have easily beaten somewhere else in the tournament, but all that matters is who you were actually matched up against.

 

[Digital Watches]

Though I wouldn't object too much if a few of the better first round losers were to move up as well as ALL of the winners... But that would just make the whole tournament take forever.

 

[lonejedi]

I love how medicore plays with our minds, every couple of days he judges a debate, at this rate.... maybe in the next two weeks....

JK Medicore, I understand you've got a busy schedule.

 

[Evil Eye]

I love you guys. Thanks for making me not hate DWYP

DaRkNeSsOfHeArT: You had logic and liberty on your side, and you made a beyond substantially earnest case with them. A+

DeLoRtEd1: It's funny, you did some Tera-ish things but in a way that wasn't fueled by bigotry or non-logic. It was a very tough call, however, I completely bought into DOH's logic, whereas I would -- albeit rarely -- question yours. A

Winner

You guys are both winners, but DaRkNeSsOfHeArT gets my vote.

 

[Skywalker]

If it's not too much trouble, may I do the beginning posts for round two? (Like what Duke did)

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

Diapers: Eric's right, you certainly held your ground, and it helps that I agreed with you. Although it may seem insensitive, however, the way to argue this sort of thing is to really attack your opponent -- led prayer infringes on the rights of non-theist students while private prayer infinges on the rights of no one, that kind of thing. You were logical and smart, but you should've been rougher, I think. B+

KishPrime: Nice job there. You really got your footing from the start and didn't release. You had a real Gandhi aura -- aggressively passive, as it were. I didn't agree with your stance, but **** if you didn't make a good case for it. A

 

[Evil Eye]

General Comment: Neither of you really dug in. I didn't feel it, and that hurt your grades.

Grades

Sizzle - I can tell that, had you put the time in, you'd have left more to chew on. This is supposed to be a heated battle of two intellects, but the pot barely boiled. That's not all your fault, though. You had good ideas, you just need to invest. C+

psicicle - Your argumentation was good, but very bare. You didn't dig in much, and there was one post that had terrible formatting that hurt my eyes. Not that that affected you much. Just try to avoid that. Overall, you need to really get dirty to get past the next rounds. Going for a slightly better case won't cut it. B-

 

[Evil Eye]

Grades

Riciardos: A dandy introduction. I like that you appeal to your reader (through logical means), as it involves one with what is being communicated. Your claims are valid and, obviously, without opposition. A

FiErCe_oNi: Boo! N/A

 

[Evil Eye]

All right, guys, I am done. Any further delay is ALL MEDI'S FAULT.

Let's all glare at him in a menacing fashion!

*glare*

 

[Crimson King]

No, we aren't doing that mistake again. Thanks though.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

If your done, and mine is still TBA, then what is going on?

IF a non-debator does not move on, do they lose their temp debaters membership now, or at the end of DWYP?

 

[Zephyr]

*glares at Medi*

 

[Crimson King]

Temp debaters are removed once the next round starts to discuss scores and what not.

Keep in mind we can and may add people who are eliminated in this round and later in earlier rounds. We go for the best non-debaters who prove themselves.