-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
DWYP 1 Archieves ( Merged )
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
No and there is a good reason for that. Each round (I think we will have 3 or 4 rounds total) I will select two debates(except for the last round of course). Those debates will make it to a voting topic which will allow the DHers the chance to vote for the best debate of the tournament. This will just mean that debate will be stickied for a month, but it's still bragging rights.
I'll morph this to a general discussion of round one until round two opens, but we have to await Mediocre's and EE's scores.
I'll morph this to a general discussion of round one until round two opens, but we have to await Mediocre's and EE's scores.
You mean we have to await Mediocre's scores. Evil Eye's done, apparently. 
EDIT: In response to below, I think I remember seeing a split decision somewhere in there. I can't remember which, though. There's also the case of my debate, where EE says Lonejedi and CK says he doesn't care. Medi could alter the balance of that.
EDIT: In response to below, I think I remember seeing a split decision somewhere in there. I can't remember which, though. There's also the case of my debate, where EE says Lonejedi and CK says he doesn't care. Medi could alter the balance of that.
DoH
meleeitonme.tumblr.com
Well technically you only have to win 2 ballots to win, and I don't think we have any split decisions...
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Man. I'm sort of itching for an Israel/Palestine debate. If I start one, can it be DWYP safe? I think it'd be a waste to not allow temp. debaters when they're already watching the forum.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
D-mn. The DH has really slowed down, hasn't it?
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
How long will my debate still be a pending arguement?
Nothing against Medicore, but this is really starting to get annoying. We can't wait another 2 weeks for the grading, I can understand Medicore has a schedule just like everyone else on this board, but EE and CK found times in their schedules to grade, medicore should be able to make that sacrifice.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Don't *****. Mediocre hasn't been online in about a week so there is probably a good reason.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
No more worries with Duke. I'll be up for adding Zephyr and Lone Jedi since we will have a gap that I planned with Duke going through.
Anyone have any objections?
Anyone have any objections?
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
No objections here...
Except that I'm not on that list!
Heheh. Just kidding, I lost fair and square, and don't expect any favors. Congrats to LJ and Zephyr.
Except that I'm not on that list!
Heheh. Just kidding, I lost fair and square, and don't expect any favors. Congrats to LJ and Zephyr.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Adding to what? What?? I'm confused.
D
Deleted member
Guest
But are you two the only ones who are being added?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
No no.
All the winners are added as of now. We had a split vote with Lone Jedi/Zephyr and I think that was the last contested vote. If Mediocre doesn't return by Sunday, I kinda hoped to get this rolling, sadly, without him. We had 14 debates that is 14 winners, Duke was going to be the 15th if he met the parameters and thankfully he is gone, so I will add Zephyr. I'm confused now... It worked out better when I wrote it down before. Hmm...
All the winners are added as of now. We had a split vote with Lone Jedi/Zephyr and I think that was the last contested vote. If Mediocre doesn't return by Sunday, I kinda hoped to get this rolling, sadly, without him. We had 14 debates that is 14 winners, Duke was going to be the 15th if he met the parameters and thankfully he is gone, so I will add Zephyr. I'm confused now... It worked out better when I wrote it down before. Hmm...
D
Deleted member
Guest
I'm still lost. Am I out of this tournament completely?
Am I out of this tournament completely?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
I don't know anymore. I need to talk to EE about what we will do.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
15 seems like an awfully ugly number for a tournament of 1v1s, no matter how you slice it.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
I had it worked out to 16 to give us an even break down for the following rounds.
I forgot how I did it now. Maybe EE or Mediocre will remember.
I forgot how I did it now. Maybe EE or Mediocre will remember.
Sizzle vs. psicicle Final Grades
psicicle: B
The introduction is good, and preempts a number of arguments you anticipated coming up.
Your points and arguments are good. Also, I like how you restricted the debate to the actual subject of evolution, rather than allowing yourself to be sidetracked. That's about all I can say.
Sizzle: C-
First of all, I'll say that you do manage to back up your arguments with facts and hypothesies. You're not merely arguing "God did it," which is a common problem in the creationist sides of these debates. You get points for that.
However, you seem constantly on the defensive. It seems more like you're poking at the argument for evolution rather than attempting to make any arguments of your own. You bring up the flagellum tail example twice, once after it's already been countered, and without adding anything the second time you bring it up.
Your overall argument wasn't horrible, but it seemed pretty weak.
psicicle: B
The introduction is good, and preempts a number of arguments you anticipated coming up.
Your points and arguments are good. Also, I like how you restricted the debate to the actual subject of evolution, rather than allowing yourself to be sidetracked. That's about all I can say.
Sizzle: C-
First of all, I'll say that you do manage to back up your arguments with facts and hypothesies. You're not merely arguing "God did it," which is a common problem in the creationist sides of these debates. You get points for that.
However, you seem constantly on the defensive. It seems more like you're poking at the argument for evolution rather than attempting to make any arguments of your own. You bring up the flagellum tail example twice, once after it's already been countered, and without adding anything the second time you bring it up.
Your overall argument wasn't horrible, but it seemed pretty weak.
cF=) vs. kishprime
cF=) Final Grade: B-
You know, I agree with you on this subject. I am absolutely against teacher-led prayer in public schools. However, I find your arguments somewhat... lacking. It's not that there's anything wrong with them, exactly. It's just that you didn't pursue them as vigorously as you probably should have. You addressed all your opponent's points, but what you should have done was pick out the weakest points and attack them. Once you feel you've got a good argument, keep pressing on it.
Try to lead the debate, rather than just countering each post from your opponent as it comes.
Neither you or your opponent cites sources, but this type of debate doesn't really lend itself to that, so I'm ignoring it.
kishprime: A-
Good job. Not much else to say, really. You make some strong points, and you definitely hold your own. However, I also notice a few very weak points, that I would have definitely tried to capitalize on. Some of your arguments in regards to "morality" and "the soul" I feel were fairly weak. You talked about those very abstract concepts without really giving them a definition, and that weakened some your points. Overall though, well done.
Again, I'm ignoring the lack of sources because of the nature of this debate.
cF=) Final Grade: B-
You know, I agree with you on this subject. I am absolutely against teacher-led prayer in public schools. However, I find your arguments somewhat... lacking. It's not that there's anything wrong with them, exactly. It's just that you didn't pursue them as vigorously as you probably should have. You addressed all your opponent's points, but what you should have done was pick out the weakest points and attack them. Once you feel you've got a good argument, keep pressing on it.
Try to lead the debate, rather than just countering each post from your opponent as it comes.
Neither you or your opponent cites sources, but this type of debate doesn't really lend itself to that, so I'm ignoring it.
kishprime: A-
Good job. Not much else to say, really. You make some strong points, and you definitely hold your own. However, I also notice a few very weak points, that I would have definitely tried to capitalize on. Some of your arguments in regards to "morality" and "the soul" I feel were fairly weak. You talked about those very abstract concepts without really giving them a definition, and that weakened some your points. Overall though, well done.
Again, I'm ignoring the lack of sources because of the nature of this debate.
JAKETHIRTEEN vs. Hamsterpie
Hamsterpie: C
Where are you getting this from, man? Your points are good, but they're backed only by loose internal logic. There are no sources or examples. You claim that immigrants are a good thing for this country? Well, show me some proof. At least give me a link to a knowledgeable person who agrees with your stance.
I've gotta say, I wasn't very impressed. If your opponent had come and responded with a post that had even a shred of logic and one citation, he would have been leading the debate. You want your opening post to be strong. Yours could practically have been ignored.
JAKETHIRTEEN: F-
Sorry, you've got to at least show up.
Hamsterpie: C
Where are you getting this from, man? Your points are good, but they're backed only by loose internal logic. There are no sources or examples. You claim that immigrants are a good thing for this country? Well, show me some proof. At least give me a link to a knowledgeable person who agrees with your stance.
I've gotta say, I wasn't very impressed. If your opponent had come and responded with a post that had even a shred of logic and one citation, he would have been leading the debate. You want your opening post to be strong. Yours could practically have been ignored.
JAKETHIRTEEN: F-
Sorry, you've got to at least show up.
Eorlingas vs. ti83pop vs. Delphiki
Eorlingas: A
I was extremely impressed. You cite sources (and lots of them). You make logical arguments (and lots of them). Sadly, you never really get an opportunity to do anything other than make an opening statement. Still, what you did, you did splendidly.
ti83pop: F-
I wish you'd debated.
Delphiki: F-
I wish you'd debated, too. Disappointing.
Eorlingas: A
I was extremely impressed. You cite sources (and lots of them). You make logical arguments (and lots of them). Sadly, you never really get an opportunity to do anything other than make an opening statement. Still, what you did, you did splendidly.
ti83pop: F-
I wish you'd debated.
Delphiki: F-
I wish you'd debated, too. Disappointing.
JTB vs. The Mad Hatter
JTB: B
You only make one post. That's not something I like, but I'm going to ignore it in my judging.
However, I felt that even that post was not as strong as it could be. A large part of that post seems to be an argument against President Bush (and an extended metaphor backing that argument), rather than being relevant to the topic of the debate.
When you do address the actual topic of the debate, you address it only from the Mexican point of view. I like the fact that you do this, because it's an area of this contention that goes largely ignored in the media. However, I dislike that this is the only point of view from which you approach the argument. Surely there is some benefit that Americans will get by letting Mexicans in? You entirely ignore this perspective in your post. For that reason, it seems to me like at least half of the issue is left completely unaddressed.
The Mad Hatter: A
You make an excellent introduction post, providing specific hows and whys of how illegal immigrants hurt the United States. You provide sources to back up the assertions. Excellently done.
In your second post, you counter your opponent's arguments smartly and logically. I'm not sure how this debate would have turned out if it continued, but it didn't. I felt that your two posts were good enough to give you the win.
JTB: B
You only make one post. That's not something I like, but I'm going to ignore it in my judging.
However, I felt that even that post was not as strong as it could be. A large part of that post seems to be an argument against President Bush (and an extended metaphor backing that argument), rather than being relevant to the topic of the debate.
When you do address the actual topic of the debate, you address it only from the Mexican point of view. I like the fact that you do this, because it's an area of this contention that goes largely ignored in the media. However, I dislike that this is the only point of view from which you approach the argument. Surely there is some benefit that Americans will get by letting Mexicans in? You entirely ignore this perspective in your post. For that reason, it seems to me like at least half of the issue is left completely unaddressed.
The Mad Hatter: A
You make an excellent introduction post, providing specific hows and whys of how illegal immigrants hurt the United States. You provide sources to back up the assertions. Excellently done.
In your second post, you counter your opponent's arguments smartly and logically. I'm not sure how this debate would have turned out if it continued, but it didn't. I felt that your two posts were good enough to give you the win.
McCloud vs. Marthmaster
McCloud: C
Your argument felt very off the cuff to me. Your opening paragraph seems to addresses a lot of issues, but you really on brush up against any of them. You hardly spend any time justifying your points, nor do you spend any time on citations.
In your reply to Marthmaster's post, you continue to use rather simple logic to counter his points. The only reason you are successful in doing this is because his points are even more simple than your arguments against them. Perhaps if your opponent had made a more compelling argument, you might have made a more compelling rebuttal, but I see no reason to assume that.
Marthmaster: F
Colour me unimpressed.
First, you preface your first post by making a disclaimer about how little research you did, and expect us to "bear with you." Well, sorry, I'm not willing to bear with you. Either you research, or the lack of research shows up in your debate. And believe me, it showed up plenty in your debate. I'm not sure how well you understood the subject to begin with either. Or the basics of debating, for that matter.
You quote statistics without even being sure where you got them from. You use the Bible to back your points. You make statements and don't bother to show how the pertain to the topic. Honestly, I think you did worse than Tera. The only reason you don't have an F- is because you manage to type well enough that I can at least understand what you're saying, even if you never manage to actually say anything the least bit convincing.
McCloud: C
Your argument felt very off the cuff to me. Your opening paragraph seems to addresses a lot of issues, but you really on brush up against any of them. You hardly spend any time justifying your points, nor do you spend any time on citations.
In your reply to Marthmaster's post, you continue to use rather simple logic to counter his points. The only reason you are successful in doing this is because his points are even more simple than your arguments against them. Perhaps if your opponent had made a more compelling argument, you might have made a more compelling rebuttal, but I see no reason to assume that.
Marthmaster: F
Colour me unimpressed.
First, you preface your first post by making a disclaimer about how little research you did, and expect us to "bear with you." Well, sorry, I'm not willing to bear with you. Either you research, or the lack of research shows up in your debate. And believe me, it showed up plenty in your debate. I'm not sure how well you understood the subject to begin with either. Or the basics of debating, for that matter.
You quote statistics without even being sure where you got them from. You use the Bible to back your points. You make statements and don't bother to show how the pertain to the topic. Honestly, I think you did worse than Tera. The only reason you don't have an F- is because you manage to type well enough that I can at least understand what you're saying, even if you never manage to actually say anything the least bit convincing.
Skywalker vs. kaid
Skywalker: F-
Well, you started to debate. If you care, I might as well tell you that your first post was much too broad. You didn't have anything specific, just extremely general statements. Your source should have been able to provide you with specific arguments, too.
Anyway, that's all kind of moot, now.
kaid: D+
You spend almost half of first (and only) post on an analogy. There's nothing wrong with analogies, but they should be used sparingly, and they definitely shouldn't constitute half of a post. Like your opponent, you talk mostly in generalities. Unlike your opponent, you fail to cite sources.
If Skywalker hadn't forfeited, and yours had been the last post made in the debate before it ended, I would have given him the win.
Skywalker: F-
Well, you started to debate. If you care, I might as well tell you that your first post was much too broad. You didn't have anything specific, just extremely general statements. Your source should have been able to provide you with specific arguments, too.
Anyway, that's all kind of moot, now.
kaid: D+
You spend almost half of first (and only) post on an analogy. There's nothing wrong with analogies, but they should be used sparingly, and they definitely shouldn't constitute half of a post. Like your opponent, you talk mostly in generalities. Unlike your opponent, you fail to cite sources.
If Skywalker hadn't forfeited, and yours had been the last post made in the debate before it ended, I would have given him the win.
Zephyr vs. lonejedi
lonejedi: A-
You've got a good opening. Right off the bat you adress two major points of contention in this debate, namely the religion of the founders and the current religious affiliations of Americans. You also provide sources for everything that needs them, which helps make a strong start even stronger.
You continue on in the same vein, although after your first posts your use of citations seems to fall by the wayside. Really, I have very little criticism on your debate.
Zephyr: A
Like your opponent, you start off strong. You begin with a compelling introduction, backed by citations and examples, while at the same time responding to many of the points made by your opponent. As the debate continues, you sustain the level of your debating. You also keep up the use of sources throughout the debate, which is something your opponent didn't manage.
My winner is Zephyr, but it's extremely close. I want both of you to go on to the next round (and the way things went, you probably both will).
lonejedi: A-
You've got a good opening. Right off the bat you adress two major points of contention in this debate, namely the religion of the founders and the current religious affiliations of Americans. You also provide sources for everything that needs them, which helps make a strong start even stronger.
You continue on in the same vein, although after your first posts your use of citations seems to fall by the wayside. Really, I have very little criticism on your debate.
Zephyr: A
Like your opponent, you start off strong. You begin with a compelling introduction, backed by citations and examples, while at the same time responding to many of the points made by your opponent. As the debate continues, you sustain the level of your debating. You also keep up the use of sources throughout the debate, which is something your opponent didn't manage.
My winner is Zephyr, but it's extremely close. I want both of you to go on to the next round (and the way things went, you probably both will).
DeLoRtEd1 vs. DaRkNeSsOfHeArT
God, this debate was long.
DaRkNeSsOfHeArT: A+
First of all, I've gotta say I hate some of your formatting. I'm not going to count any of it against you at all, but those gigantic blocks of text in your first post are rather hard to go through. They're fine for essays, but I think message boards need more separation for easier reading. Honestly, I think DeLoRtEd1's criticism had some merit, although I doubt you intended it as a "trick." Despite your attempts to make your points easier to understand, gigantic blocks of text are inherently difficult to read, especially on message boards.
As for the actual debate... excellent. I don't know what more to say. You consistently went in depth, and you provided sources for whichever points needed them.
DeLoRtEd1: A
I felt your debate was extremely well done. Like your opponent, you argued well and you cited pretty well. However, at times I felt that you were a little more emotional in your responses than you needed to be. This is never a good thing. Occaisionally I noticed you making points that were either irrelevent or tangential. Overall, it was one of the best DWYP arguments I've read. Unfortunately for you, you were matched up with an extremely strong opponent.
This is another one of those debates where I feel like both participants deserve to go on to the next round (and probably both of you will).
God, this debate was long.
DaRkNeSsOfHeArT: A+
First of all, I've gotta say I hate some of your formatting. I'm not going to count any of it against you at all, but those gigantic blocks of text in your first post are rather hard to go through. They're fine for essays, but I think message boards need more separation for easier reading. Honestly, I think DeLoRtEd1's criticism had some merit, although I doubt you intended it as a "trick." Despite your attempts to make your points easier to understand, gigantic blocks of text are inherently difficult to read, especially on message boards.
As for the actual debate... excellent. I don't know what more to say. You consistently went in depth, and you provided sources for whichever points needed them.
DeLoRtEd1: A
I felt your debate was extremely well done. Like your opponent, you argued well and you cited pretty well. However, at times I felt that you were a little more emotional in your responses than you needed to be. This is never a good thing. Occaisionally I noticed you making points that were either irrelevent or tangential. Overall, it was one of the best DWYP arguments I've read. Unfortunately for you, you were matched up with an extremely strong opponent.
This is another one of those debates where I feel like both participants deserve to go on to the next round (and probably both of you will).
Sargent_Peach vs. Duke
Sargent_Peach: A-
Your opening post is excellent, preempting a lot of arguments before they can even be brought up by your opponent. You continue to counter any point presented by your opponent as he presents them, displaying impressive logical skills, and using research to supplement them. Nice job.
Duke: C+
Since the end of this debate you have been banned, so the grade here is really moot. However, I'm going to give a bit of a review anyway, just for the hell of it.
I'm discounting the last post entirely, because it has been ruled to be irrelevant.
For almost the entire debate, you seem to be on the defensive. I don't see a single argument with which survives the next post from Sargent_Peach. You make connections that shouldn't really be made, and it sometimes seem like you don't entirely understand your opponent's posts.
Your last post would have probably raised your overall grade to somewhere in the B range, but your posts before that had already ****ed your overall score.
Sargent_Peach: A-
Your opening post is excellent, preempting a lot of arguments before they can even be brought up by your opponent. You continue to counter any point presented by your opponent as he presents them, displaying impressive logical skills, and using research to supplement them. Nice job.
Duke: C+
Since the end of this debate you have been banned, so the grade here is really moot. However, I'm going to give a bit of a review anyway, just for the hell of it.
I'm discounting the last post entirely, because it has been ruled to be irrelevant.
For almost the entire debate, you seem to be on the defensive. I don't see a single argument with which survives the next post from Sargent_Peach. You make connections that shouldn't really be made, and it sometimes seem like you don't entirely understand your opponent's posts.
Your last post would have probably raised your overall grade to somewhere in the B range, but your posts before that had already ****ed your overall score.
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
Sorry ive been gone, what were these parameters that duke had to meet?
On a side note, I'm wondering why the judges feel the need to say which side of the debate they are on during their summaries? <_< I don't know why but that bothers me, probably because I don't want it to affect how I'm judged since I know I'm going to be a minority viewpoint most of the time.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Yeah, seriously.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Scores are up on the first page.
DoH
meleeitonme.tumblr.com
I'm the only one with A+ across the board, does this mean I get top seed?
:D
:D
- Status