Debate Judging Guide

[dondon151]

You can make your argument as fancy and extensive as you want, but it doesn't matter if the opponent ignores or just immediately concedes them anyway because it would still be like smashing an immovable object with a baseball bat. It's incredibly redundant and I don't see the point of saying the same shit over and over just to create the appearance that you're dedicating a lot of effort to a certain element of the debate when in fact you pretty much had that handed to you.

[Reikken]

Yes, it does. The goal isn't to get your opponent to admit defeat (concede). It's to make the better argument.

[Zkirsche]

Obviously the two are linked, as if one makes a great argument, one would be forced to concede the point.

[Tino]

No, when one makes a great argument, you obviously try to refute it as best as you can, unless the argument is absolutely... But a great argument is probably never irrefutable. We would be talking about a perfect argument in that case.

[Vykan12]

It's not usually a good idea to concede a point outright unless it is minor.

Going back to Calill vs Oscar, you could admit Oscar wins durability but downplay that lead in various ways. Obviously arguing a durability lead is minor gives more strength to the arguments you do win, since they will matter more.

[-Cynthia-]

Just for the record, try to state your vote in a diplomatic manner. Insulting who you think lost and/or the judges who voted for that person both can influence the opinion of the other judges and be generally hurtful. As with the debates themselves, try to keep it professional, you're entitled to your opinion but you are not entilted to rudeness.

Edited July 1, 2009 by -Cynthia-