Round 1: The Vagabond v Byrd: New World Disorder

A tie!! I kinda think it is appropriate.

I had both of you ahead at different points throughout the course of it. I must have read the whole thing 20 times.

Two points each would be ok, I think. No harm, no foul. Could be something to add to the rules for future debates though. I am sure it won't happen often but it would be good for clarification if it did.

Jbird, I usually wait for both posts in a round before starring unless it is a real amazing post that has some hard to refute facts. I would give that one a star right off the hop.

Originally posted by semperfortis
... A lot of time was spent defining and arguing the various NWO definitions and who was applicable.

I've noticed this in many of the debates.
I enjoy reading these portions, myself, as they usually contain interesting background info,
but perhaps a universal definition of terms at the beginning, (by the debate moderator)
could help keep things on track ?

I realize with some topics, the definition of terms is the debate,
but with others, I think they only serve as 'speedbumps' in getting to meat of an issue.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
...
I would give that one a star right off the hop.

Not sure if you noticed, but staff give 2 stars/click.

HEY,

Both of you should get two in my book...

Outstanding debate and well fought on both sides, deserving of two points to each debater...IMHO of course...

Semper

I've gone ahead and added to the rules that non-elimination events can end in a tie, and that in those cases the bonus points are awarded in full to both participants.

Personally I don't need the two, but it's a crime against nature for someone as good as Byrd not to have ranking points.

The two stars are kinda nice since I'm a first-time debater. What makes this even funnier is that I don't like to argue in real life and that I've never had any debate training.

This was *tough!* Wowsers -- Vagabond is an amazingly tough!! I didn't do as good a job as I wanted with the references and got awfully long-winded, and his formatting was just darn impressive. I was about to bow down and yell 'I'm NOT WORTHY!" when I saw the lovely formatting.

Style makes a lot of difference in presentation. I somehow never seem to get it to my satisfaction and almost always go back and edit (ooops!)

It was a mercy that the debate was short because I *really* wanted to bring in game theory and economic theory and a few other things.

Ya can tell I've had my head stuck in the Ivory Tower for a bit, huh?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Byrd]

reply to post by Byrd


Really don't cut yourself short....

You did an excellent job worthy of any debate I have seen....

You should be proud of your debate.

Semper

There were a few moments when I was ready to abandon all hope. Byrd was opening a disturbing early lead on me- that was when I scrapped a lot of my historical details and decided to argue "Byrd is wrong, therefore I must be right" with aggressive rebuttals. I did not like my chances at the time.

Sometimes in good debates, like this one, both participants come out feeling like they sort of came undone, because they both did well. Everyone's got a plan until they get hit, so if both get hit, plans start coming apart and nobody is entirely glowing at their own performance. Call it a sign of a good match.

reply to post by chissler


I only found this debate this morning. My reading of the entire debate at one time did lead to viewing Vagabond and Byrd as fairly even, but in the end I feel that Vagabond showed that the UN was and is what is meant by NWO.

reply to post by Byrd


For your first go round ma'am, that was a heck of a show.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jbird, I found that out recently from a fellow mod.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There were a few moments when I was ready to abandon all hope. Byrd was opening a disturbing early lead on me- that was when I scrapped a lot of my historical details and decided to argue "Byrd is wrong, therefore I must be right" with aggressive rebuttals. I did not like my chances at the time.

That was a scary tactic, I might add.

I had to reply in a manner that didn't "up" the aggression (particularly since this was a showcase debate.) So I had to soften some of the points and reframe, and that's where I lost the "they never acted as a single unit at any period of time -- therefore they've hardly fragmented since they were formed" train of thought.

When your opponent gets aggressive, it's very tough to bring the tone back down. I stuck with "scholarly" - a reasonable choice for the tactic but not always the best (depending on the audience.)

The little psychological sidelights in the debate are interesting. I really had no idea it was this complex.

Oh Yes....

The subtleties are amazing...

I keep telling myself all through the debate..

"I am NOT trying to beat the topic, just my opponent"

I think a good thing to remember, especially for new debaters is this...

"You don't have to convince the judges of your side of the debate, you just have to have a better argument"

Semper

Originally posted by The Vagabond
...Everyone's got a plan until they get hit, ...

Truer words were never spoken, my man.

Originally posted by Byrd
What makes this even funnier is that I don't like to argue in real life and that I've never had any debate training.

I can relate there, so kudos for taking one for the team, Byrd.

Points all around, I like it.


Edit- insightful points , Semper'.