Debate Final:Smacking Children:Results.

OK,The Final has been completed and I will now set about sending out the ballot papers to the judges who will give their verdict and decide who will be the ATS Debate Champion.

For the final only there will be 15 judges.They include:

1 Admin.
3 Super Mods.
3 Mods
and 8 Members.

Also there is a poll so everyone can see if they'e view of the debate is in line with our judges.

The debate can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When I have the full results I will post them on this thread.

Goodluck to both OIMD and Ktprktpr.

2 verdicts in so far and....................

It's Even Stevens!!!

I'm not going to keep on doing this but.......

4 results in!

And it's neck and neck

I'm not that surprised at the results so far. These topics have been a little abstract recently and this one sure strikes an emotional cord. OIMD played good in the end, offering morality on an altar

Overall I think i handled my side pretty well. I wished i could've explored the life vs. morality aspect a little more. I got tripped a little with the 800 word limit, but it's there for a good reason. OIMD defintely got a nice little sticker for that last closing comment. But I was able to fence him into a more extremist position, overall.

I think my phrase idea was a little kooky, but it would work and demostrates how parenting would work. A big problem is that i had no evidence. I'm afriad some judges may have decided the issue before they read the debate, but this is no place to chatise judges ATS judges are impeccable. So then, I think, my weakness was demostrating total alternatives to smacking. But parenting does require creative thought... I'll defintely be reading those comments and may cry a foul Al Gore hehehe.

okay then. Well I had fun. This was the best debate I've had yet and I learned a bit.

6 results in.

Still neck and neck.

The final should be close and so it is proving to be.

This was indeed a difficult topic to get my hands around. In fact, when I first heard what it was, I was somewhat worried about how I was going to deal with it.

Basically, I realized that the new, 'compressed' debate form would leave little room for an in-dpeth scientific analysis.. and, if anything, if I decided to run a purely scientific argument, I wwould, eventually, run the risk of running out of time... In which case I figured a halfway completed (scientific) pro-slapping argument would look worse than a half-way completed anti one.

So, instead, I decided to run an argument based purely on 'intuited' and traditional reasoning.

To that extent, I deliberately put myself in a defensive situation... as I wanted to make it seem clear that my position was the standard and culturally accepted one that had to be overturned by some new logic by KTPKR, rather than an idea that was competing with KTPKR's position on an equal footing. It was a "Red Zone" strategy wherein I gambled that, once I conceded most of the field to KTPKR, that he would fumble in trying to prove, decisively, that physical contact was bad under all circumstances... and that there were at hand alternatives to it. To be frank, what I wanted him to do was chase me for awhile and the trip... Which is what I believe he did with the 'Call Phrase' thing.

Some might argue that this was a lazy or weak strategy... But, considering the topic, I feel that it was the best choice. Had I been more proactive, and begun citing this and that study, I feel that I would have led the argument into an atmosphere that would have benefited KTPKR. Surely, for every study he can cite I can cite one... But, if we had run an arms race like that, he would, eventually, have garnered a layer of moral superiority. My appeal to instinct and tradition, I thought, was my best shot at nuetralizing his projected morality AFTER he had already wasted himself on that 'call phrase' bit (had I tried it earlier, my argument would have just looked reactionary).


Now.. that being said, I think my comments about child rearing research being iffy at best were fairly accurate and reasonable...

But, I also recognize that my 'red zone' fall back with a last minute sting was entirely reliant on having misdirected KTPKR in posts 3 and 4 and a gamble that my conclusion would hit some type of resonance.

So, it was was, paradoxically, a conservative, defensive strategy that, at the same time, took a big gamble in relying on the hope that KTPKR would stumble with something like the 'call phrase' idea. Personally, I think that the 'call phrase' theory was presented in a fashion that was just weak enough to give me the edge.

Regardless of how the rest of the votes come in I will not be updating again but I can say that after 8 votes,Yes you've guessed it,there is still nothing between them.

So the next time I post it will be with the full result.

Dang OIMD, you got the marbles in my head and your playing all the games. I didn't know you was so tricky

edit- but you gotta admit oimd that we both must've put out equal firepower, somehow, `cause its split down the middle all the way.

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by ktprktpr]

Actually, I can be sharper and am kicking myself now for not being as spot on as I could be.


I thought you did a very good job, KTPKR, and would be happy with you as champ. To make the circle complete, though, I'd like to see you debate Dragonrider at some point in the future.

The two competitors missed out on one very important alternative to child slapping/spanking...

I've never, ever hit my kids nor have done anything similarly harsh that might be considered an alternative. However, they have been constantly concerned that someday I might if they screw up bad enough.

Of course, this alternative works best if your 6'2" and 225 pounds.

I hope the judges realize that my definition of creative parenting includes all possible non-physical parenting tatics (requires creative foresight...) and that I don't have to spoon feed them every alternative to smacking.

edit- okay enough post-debate posturing from me. I will strive to make my side clearer next, if I debate as the champ or as #1 seed

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by ktprktpr]

OK,we do have a result!

I'm just waiting on one judge.

I'll give it another 2 hours and then I'll post up the result regardless.

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.
Judge C=Kptr
Judge D=Kptr
Judge E=Kptr
Judge F=OIMD
Judge G=OIMD
Judge H=OIMD
Judge I=Kptr
Judge J=Kptr
Judge K=OIMD
Judge L=Kptr
Judge M=OIMD
Judge N=OIMD
Judge O=Kptr.


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 completely.

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 for them.
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]

Congratulaitions ktpr, OIMD!!!
I enjoyed the debate, very well thought out and presented.
I guess if all goes well, both of you may debate again...

- Tass

uh, is my math bad or do I see 7 votes for each of us....

a bit confused

uh, yeah, I just recounted... 7-7 with one vote still out. Am I missing something?

OIMD

My comment exactly.

7-7 it stands, unless John bull 1 has mistranscribed something.

A premature ejaculation if I ever saw one.

uh oh!!
And I was about to send my congratulations u2u..
I'll report it.
- Tass

Sorry[blushes]my bad.

Judge A was for Ktpr.

Sorry OIMD.

My hypothesis confirmed.

Hard luck OIMD, great debate.

Congrats to ktprktpr.

I foresee a rematch some time!