Latvia vs Lithuania Debating Championship, Morgoth was a Poor Strategist Opcijas Sekot šim pavedienam Nosūtīt šo pavedienu pa e-pastu Drukāt šo pavedienu Lejupielādēt šo pavedienu Parakstīt šo forumu Skata režīmi Struktūrskats Pārslēgt uz: Parastais Pārslēgt uz: Lineārais+

[Elk]

International Champtionship Debate #1

Welcome to the first International Debate between the Latvians and the Lithuanians! I am Elk, the judge of this competition; if you are from the Plaza, you will (currently) know me as Túrin. To start, here are the topic official rules:

===========================

Morgoth was a poor strategist.

Teams

Each country has a team. In the team they have an equal number of main debaters (starters) and an unlimited number of subs. Teams select their captain, who will write the opening post for the team.

Starting the Debate

1. The judge decides on the topic of the debate and announces it in the debate thread. The teams have one week for preparation.
2. After a week, the time counting starts and the proposition team (the hosting team) is expected to post their opening statement within time limit.

The Debate
1. No IC, therefore no ‘spectators’ allowed. All out-of-context posts should be deleted without warning.
2. No editing of posts allowed.
3. After the judge has posted the topic and before posting their first posts, the team captains should post their rosters.
4. The teams post Prop, Op, Prop, Op…
5. It is up to the teams how they organize their arguments, but there are certain rules to be sticked to:

Prop 1st post, Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Proposing/Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as space allows. The Opposing team cannot rebutt the arguments put forward in the Proposing team’s first post.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd (also 3rd) Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments. Only two rebuttals allowed in one team’s post. Opponent’s rebuttals can be rebutted.
Prop closing statement, Op closing statement
(Preferably written by the team captain) Aim: Enforce team's arguments. It may be done by summarizing your arguments, by rebutting the last rebuttals of the opponent or in some other way, but no new rebuttals can be made.

6. Colour codes may be used by the team to organize their posts. In this case, the codes should be posted at the beginning of each post. This section is not included in the word count.
7. Rebuttals should be separated from the main arguments. The team may choose whether to include headings “Main argument”, “Closing statement” etc., but headings “Rebuttal #1”, “Rebuttal #2” are required for the purpose of separation.
8. Time limit for the post to appear in the thread is 48 hours. In case a sub is called (which should be done openly in the thread), another 8 hours are added to the time remaining on the clock. The judge is expected to inform the debaters about the date and time their post is due.
9. Word limit is 2000 words for each main post and 500 words for the Closing Statement, excluding colour codes and all the formatting codes, including Headings and quotes.

Judgment

Every post (except the closing statements) is rated in the following categories, 5 point scale (5 - outstanding, 4 -very good, 3-ok, 2-somewhat lacking 1-poor 0-nonexistant)

*Creativity
*Staying on topic
*Team spirit/team unity
*Organisation (how easy it is to follow the author's thought)
*Choice of arguments and rebuttal points.

Plus, each team is rated in the following categories:

*Overall strategy (how well posts were organized to allocage enough space for arguments and rebuttals. How well the chances to rebut opponents arguments and rebuttals were used)
*Overall choice of arguments and rebuttal points
*Strength of the Closing Statement

===========================

To expand a bit on how I'd be judging - the rules are pretty straightforward: The first poster should introduce a number of arguments and support them as thoughroughly as s/he can, the second poster should continue in like fashion, and the 3rd should come in as a 'sweeper' and tie any loose ends, solidify any arguments that might need more support, etc. A strong, authoritative ending should also be included.

But to elaborate on my personal style: I think there are two part of debate, one is logic, the other is passion. Logic is important, I want to see you fully reason out your points. But the other is passion, get into your words, make be believe that you are utterly convinced of their truth. That is the essense of debate, to me. In every one that I have been in, I still believe the side that I argued no matter of the outcome (or maybe it's because I'm stubborn (IMG:http://www.kurbijkurne.lv/forums/style_emoticons/kurb_gaiss/tongue.gif) ).

The first post is due 48 hours from this post. I'm looking forward to it!

(PS: I'm sorry for being late with this, it totally slipped my mind!)

Šo rakstu rediģēja Elk: 27.02.2005 21:26

[Elk]

Latvia 1: Nulukkizdin, 19
Very good job, Nuluk! You have the gift of strong logical reasoning. You open well for your team. I liked how youstarted by defining the terms and telling how your team interpreted that topic. And you two main arguments are interested and well-begun, I’m eager to see how your teammates continue them. The only big detraction from your post is that you seem to rely on quotes and allow them to speak for you too much. Quotes should be used, no doubt about that, but a person’s own logical reasoning and arguments should be the focus of the post.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard, defining terms and using sound logic. Not bad, but not groundbreaking.
Staying on Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - You bring in quotes and define terms that your team will use, but all in all I think it’s hard for a first poster to show much ‘team unity’, as they are setting the stage. Perhaps a bit more elaboration on how an argument will be expanded upon by teammates.
Organization - 4 - Very good here, defining terms and then moving into arguments, though I think that it would have helped your post if you switched the order of arguments, having the ‘What he paid attention to’ before the ‘He didn’t manage it’. I think that they would build more on each other that way.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - You make good arguments, but you don’t fill them in all the way. Flesh it out some more, convince me, don’t just drop quotes with little commentary, I’ve seen them all before. Also, I think that you could have made a very good point with the quote which says Morgoth had no plan - a good strategist needs a plan, and Morgoth had none, I think you would have done well to stress that point.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 1: Elfhild, 19
Another excellent opener, good job Elfhild! Your post flowed very well, I though, and there was a passion in it. You went beyond using quotes and expanded your reasoning and logic to convince me. I like how your team split up the arguments, but I think that there might be a bit of a hard time ahead for you to prove some of them. It’s easy to say that Morgoth was planning on this or that, but it’s harder to prove it, I’m not convinced that Morgoth was planning on estranging the Noldor from the Valar so that the Noldor would follow him to Beleriand. You make interesting arguments, but they need some more support than you’ve gave them.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - You incorporated more leads into your teammates’ arguments here and there, but you did not do as much term defining
Organization - 4 - I think you had excellent organization, but I’m hesitant to give a perfect for this part, there’s always little things which can be changed or fixed.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - There are some other arguments which you might have employed to better use. I’ve debated this same topic once before (long before), and there are some better ideas to use, I think.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Latvia 2: Nimue, 18
Very good post, you bring up some strong arguments, and continue that which Nulukkizdin began. The importance of defenses was a bit of a weaker point, in my opinion, because how is he supposed to guard against the Valar? You argue that he should have, and that is good, but I think to adequately handle that point, you should give at least one possibility of how he might accomplish that. Your other point, about the risk, was well done, your explained what you mean thoroughly and then brought in your supports. Be careful about just dropping quotes with minimal commentary though, I’ve seen the quotes plenty of times, it’s your spin on it which makes the difference. About your rebuttal, it works, but I do not think Eonwe was the only Maia, in other versions it is the ‘Children of the Gods’ who lead the Host of the West (Fionwe among them). So while you are right that it is not Valar, it is more than just Elves.

Creativity - 3 - No breakthrough arguing style.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - I don’t think you really did too much work in
Organization - 4 - Excellent.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - Your first argument could have been done better or replaced in favor of something else, and the second was a very good one to include. Your rebuttal worked, but I think another point could have been chosen to better effect.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 2: Starlin, 20
You start….interestingly. Nulukkizdin had already given a late quote saying that Morgoth had no plan, and you say he had. This can score very high on the creativity and choice of arguments section depending on how you support it. And in your case, I think you did a very good job spinning off Melkor as someone with strategy. You clearly labled out your sections and handled them well, in addition to the rebuttal. What I would caution against is the use of lists, while sometimes they are effective, I think that paragraph format is generally more persuasive.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - Not tons of work here, there was some, but to give a higher score I’d want to see more than you did.
Organization - 4 - The only complain I have is putting the rebuttal at the end, I think it should come before the conclusion. Rebuttals help you make your own point as well.
Choice of Arguments - 5 - Very good work, they were interesting and effective.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Latvia 3: Agronoms, 21
Very good wrap to your team’s arguments! You took the arguments, explained them, fleshed them out, and nearly wrapped up each one and send it off. If you don’t understand that horrible analogy - you categorically finished each argument with a flourish. Well done! The only thing I really have to complain about it that you used some big paragraphs, break them up a little bit, if nothing else than for the ease of the reader. You have the arguments well organized, now organize them within the sections themselves.

Creativity - 4 - A bit different, I think, a good logical reasoning, as opposed to quote-and-run. You didn’t just argue your points, you compared them and explained them well, it was a style I don’t see often.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - Good, I think. You took the arguments of your teammates and expanded upon them and finished them well. Just be a bit more explicit, I think, tell who argued what, etc.
Organization - 4 - Well organized, but like I mentioned above, just do it within the sections a bit more as well.
Choice of Arguments - 4 - Not much ‘selection’, persay, but the effect of your arguments and summaries was very good.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 3: YaWorm, 18
Good argument, Yava. Your analysis of the two battles - Bragollach and the Nirnaeth Arnoediad - was in depth and insightful. I thought that you argument about a battle which Melkor lost was a bit dangerous, but you worked with it well and handled it efficiently. But be careful about shedding any negative light on someone you are trying to defend.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard.
On topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - There was not as much here as I was expecting, you didn’t reference your teammates’ work as much, and you have two fully new arguments.
Organization - 3 - Good, but I think it could be better. Your post was somewhat chopped up, I think, with long quotes separating shorter commentary sections. You should reverse that - shorter quotes (where possible) and more logical elaboration.
Choice of Arguments - 4 - Good work, I think, looking at some specific examples, though other battles might be better to utilize in a positive spin, for Melkor lost one of the battles you spoke of and nearly lost the other.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Totals:

Latvia:
Nuluk: 19
Nimue: 18
Agronoms: 20

Overall Strategy: 5
Team Unity: 4
Closing: 4

I thought that the Latvians were consistent in their position that Melkor was a poor strategist. They used some strong arguments and hammered them home. And I believe that they showed more cohesion than did the Lithuanians. The closing statement was effective, a good summery and explanation of team arguments and strategy and positions. Well done Latvians!

Lithuania:
Elfhild: 19
Starlin: 20
YaWorm: 18

Overall Strategy: 4
Team Unity: 3
Closing: 4

I think that Lithuania pursued a good strategy, but that when looked at in a broad perspective, there were arguments which could have been omitted in favor of other, stronger arguments. Also, they showed a bit less ‘teamwork’ than the Latvians, some of their points seemed to be disconnected from the rest of their team. Their closing was also an effective summary of their posters, though like I mentioned earlier, I think that lists should be avoided most of the time. Breaking and numbering or bulleting sections is different, but just listing lends itself to less convincing rhetoric.

Latvia: 70
Lithuania: 68
Congrats to the Latvians!

This debate was close in the score, and indeed, the minor difference in the score accurately reflects how close the teams were. I think you all did a marvelous job, it was a very interesting debate to read through!