Judge Judy Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Me?! I'm quite surprised! I have no experience debating, and the most I'll say is occasionally pointing out who obviously wins when comparing characters (i.e. If someone said "Lol Dozla > Gerik", I'd say "No." Anyone would. >_>) I, sir, am no debator and am not fit to be a judge. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tino Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Having played the game also lets you see holes in arguments. e.g. Someone may appear to have the better point, but from playing the game you know that there's a big hole in their logic. Like I said, it's better if you have actually played the game, although it's not a requirement. In other words, it's preferably that you have played the game, but if there aren't enough judges, it's also possible to judge without having played the game so that you can look at logic. Also, something I'd like to point out as well, is the first and last post advantage. Especially the latter one, since the other debater has no chance to actually counter the points being made. I think the first and last posts should have less weight than the other four (or eight in a five post debate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_____ Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 But you do get involved in a debate almost all time <_< It's not like I really contribute anything, do I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 It's not like I really contribute anything, do I? I think you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oguma Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Mekkah Reikken 安室 奈美恵 Swordsalmon Tino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tino Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 It's not like I really contribute anything, do I? When I first was here (with the Titania topic, if you still remember that), I believe you did contribute stuff to the debates sometimes. Eh, anyway, it's not my decision whether you want to judge or not :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_____ Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 What? I've never been in a formal debate, and the only free-for-all debate I've been a major component in was the Ross vs. Garcia one where I failed horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tino Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I suppose that's true, and I don't remember a Garcia vs. Ross debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 How about Fox? She is always in debates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I suppose I could be a trial judge or something like that >_> Maybe participate in some debates but I've only been in 1 before (and somehow won O_o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 (edited) How about Fox?She is always in debates... Ha, you're joking right? No offense, but I'm one of the last people to be a debating judge. I hate the idea of debates in general, I think too lowly of tiers and too highly of archers. I suppose if that's the kind of person you guys want as a judge I would do it, but I doubt that. The only debates I ever was serious about were Priscilla vs. Serra, which never really concluded, and Nailah vs. Naesala, which I technically "won," but not by a longshot. Edited November 8, 2008 by Red Fox of Fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Ha, you're joking right? No offense, but I'm one of the last people to be a debating judge. I hate the idea of debates in general, I think too lowly of tiers and too highly of archers. I suppose if that's the kind of person you guys want as a judge I would do it, but I doubt that. No I wasn't joking. I see you alot in debates and you bring up very good points...but it's fine if you don't want to be a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tino Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 She hates debates in general. That's reason enough to not want her as a judge (no offense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reikken Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 (edited) Having played the game also lets you see holes in arguments. e.g. Someone may appear to have the better point, but from playing the game you know that there's a big hole in their logic. If the opponent doesn't point out the flaws in their logic, then the argument stands, more or less. But this can be a problem if a post has to be left uncontested due to post restrictions, and new points are brought up in it. Ha, you're joking right? No offense, but I'm one of the last people to be a debating judge. I hate the idea of debates in general, I think too lowly of tiers and too highly of archers. I suppose if that's the kind of person you guys want as a judge I would do it, but I doubt that. Thinking highly of archers or something shouldn't matter since the judge's job is to look at the arguments, leaving their preconceived notions and opinions behind. If that's hard for you to do, then you would make a poor judge. But if it's not, and you have a strong grasp on logic and stuff, then you would be a good one. Edited November 9, 2008 by Reikken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunny: spider bitten Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I think more of a code or an outline would work just as well. RULE NUMBER 1: DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE DEBATE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YokaiKnight Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 If the opponent doesn't point out the flaws in their logic, then the argument stands, more or less. That kind of contradicts ...the judge's job is to look at the arguments It's debatable, because on one hand the argument could be weak because of it's many holes, but on the other the opponent put up a weak fight because they didn't point out those flaws. It's one of the questions a judge'll face, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reikken Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) That kind of contradicts I'm not seeing the contradiction. It's debatable, because on one hand the argument could be weak because of it's many holes, but on the other the opponent put up a weak fight because they didn't point out those flaws. It's one of the questions a judge'll face, I guess. If someone has a horribly flawed argument, but the opponent doesn't check them on it and is weak aside from that, then I would say that the dood with the flawed argument wins. Ex: d00d A: "Devdan's offense is better than Soren's because Devdan has more RES." d00d B: "But Soren uses magic!" d00d A wins Edited November 9, 2008 by Reikken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Mekkah and Reikken. I've known them in the debating business for awhile, back when I used to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YokaiKnight Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'm not seeing the contradiction.If someone has a horribly flawed argument, but the opponent doesn't check them on it and is weak aside from that, then I would say that the dood with the flawed argument wins. Ex: d00d A: "Devdan's offense is better than Soren's because Devdan has more RES." d00d B: "But Soren uses magic!" d00d A wins And if the argument is fine aside from that point, they could still win. It's not totally black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reikken Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) ok, statement revision: If someone has a horribly flawed argument, but the opponent doesn't contest it, and they're evenly matched aside from that, then I would say that the dood with the flawed argument wins. Edited November 9, 2008 by Reikken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reikken Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Anyway... Well, maybe get all the people who are WILLING to judge, eh? Then we can go from their. this I'm willing, Tino ZXValaRevan ...who else? I assume 安室 奈美恵, since there was no "no way, dun wanna be judge" and Mekkah and Swordsalmon haven't posted and how many judges do we want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral "Bull" Halsey Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 We may need just about 5. Reikken you should be a Judge also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunny: spider bitten Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I didn't know this was a beauty contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reikken Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Now you know! Charisma means a lot in debaets, especially in judging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I agree with Reikken being a judge. Easily the best debater I've seen back when I used to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts