OK.Time for the result.I am one vote short but it can't effect the result so rather than keep everyone in suspense i'll give the judges verdicts.
Judge A = Ktpr
Judge B= NOT IN.
So we have a new ATS Debate Champion.ktprktpr.
I'd like to congratulate both debators for taking part and I will divy up the ATS points tomorrow morning.
I'd also like to thank the judges.Both those that have judged throughout this tournament and those that had to judge the final,which by common
consent was the closest debate so far.
And of course Stumpy,Skadi,and drunk without whom there would have been no tournament.
I hope OIMD will take up his position as number 1 seed in the next tournament with a vengence.While Ktpr can take a break but Ktpr can not rest
I hope he will take part in an exhibition debate during one of the gaps between rounds.His opponent???
More on that later but I can say I for one am looking forward to it.
Below are some of the comments that came with the judges verdicts.
"I think ktprktpr and onlyinmydreams both did a great job. ktprktpr backed up what he was saying with facts. Ktprktpr made a better argument because
he had facts to help prove his idea. Onlyinmydreams just stated what he thought but did not show any facts to back up his opinion. This make
onlyinmydream's debate weaker."
"I must say up front that onlyinmydreams was more convincing by using the down to earth logic that a child lives in. He has demonstrated the
limitations that hinder a Childs ability to make rational, safe, choices during a crisis.
On the other hand, ktprktpr referenced studies that we do not have access to. How are we to decide if half the information is not present? And of the
references provided, how can we know what the motivation is of these people? Do they have children?
My choice is a clear, my vote is for onlyinmydreams."
"Wow, the first final debate was an excellent one! Both parties did an outstanding job, but I have to give it to OIMD."
"Firstly this isnt an easy subject to debate with, as personal feelings can come into this, and I feel that both of them did in parts, saying that,
it was a very good debate on both sides.
ktprktpr-against: put the arguement across as good as possible but didnt put as much into it as I thought could have done
OIMD-for: very good points put across and broke-down into easy reading of this side as well, did the homework and put up a good arguement.
So I would have to vote for OIMD"
"My vote is going to ktpr. It's funny because I'm personally for spanking, but he actually got me to reconsider my views which is why I'm voting
They both did great, it was a difficult decision."
"While both did an excellent job of articulating their side... ktprktpr focused on accepted research, while OIMD seems to rely soley on personal
opinion (or it was hard to tell when he brought in material from a 3rd party). ktprktpr also held a better stance of convincing the reader/judges,
while OIMD lacked that focus and occasionally seemed as though he wants to change ktprktpr's mind on the issue."
"Judge "I" gives it to Ktpr , he did research, his argument was concise and backed up with factual studies relative to the debate, OIMD did neither
and his argument was cagey and NOT scientific (instincts)."
"My vote for winner goes to OIMD. ktprktpr would often speak of what he COULD do, such as go on and on about this or that, and then only provided a
few citings of research, that failed, in my opinion, to counter OIMD's arguments and explainations. Indeed, OIMD even successfully channeled the
arguement into an issue of communication, and steered the debate with ktprktpr seemingly none the wiser. For that, based on debating skill, my vote is
for OIMD... "
"I voted for OIMD, he was just a bit more convincing in his arguement. It does make sense that such punishment is more effective at focusing the
thoughts of a child that may be too young to understand verbal instructions.
Both sides performed in an excellent debate, both should be applauded."
"My vote goes to ktprktpr. I thought he did a great job. Almost made me feel bad for spanking my son.(Almost )."
"Judgment on this topic was very difficult, and not the first time I’ve felt as such. I found myself in complete agreement with the pro argument, but
having to side with the con on pure rules of engagement point accumulation. I now know the quandary a boxing judge often finds themselves in!
The other under lying issue that made this difficult is that ( if you can visualize the ‘evolution of man’ picture from Chimp to Homo Sapien) it had
two perfectly cogent arguments occurring simultaneously - but dealing with two ‘snap shots’ of man: our visceral and our present day intellectual.
OIMD is not wrong in his thesis that distills my favorite author’s quote, Robert E. Howard, “ Barbarism is the ultimate state of man, and barbarism
must ultimately triumph”. KTPR is not wrong in surmising that we can be said to know better now.
From my viewpoint, we have two winners, OIMD won the barstool poll hands down. KPTR won the debate by technically scoring without equal rebuttal. It
was the thinnest of margins, made thinner by the caveat in the debate topic “A smack is defined as a light open handed blow to the wrist, bottom, or
leg.” However, of the ‘snap shot’ & the points made supporting, in a debate rules format….KTPR gets the win."
"Difficult one.First I was not convinced by Kptr's "call-phrase" argument and I was more inclined towards OIMD's instinctive argument but it was
when OIMD made pre-verbal children his best example for this that swung it.I don't believe a child who can not understand punishment should be
punished.Kptr leapt on it,though I was dissapointed he didn't tackle the point more strongly instead he seemed happy that the argument had been
narrowed.Really I'm just putting a cigarette paper between the two of them but I'm going to give it to kptrkptr."
[Edited on 30-9-2003 by John bull 1]