Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by seabag
I edited in the actual wordings of the judgments for you to read for
Thanks, in fact, many thanks, Skyfloating. We needed the closure with an official ruling, and I'm good with the decision.
Kinda makes a point for every debate needing the judges "decision". The debaters like to read a ruling. It's how we tailor our debating skills,
and how we get better in our forensic skills. Loosing or winning a debate isn't the issue, it's knowing how you did. Ties, like my opponent seabag
has stated, is more an exercise in Political Correctness, (as seabag says, PC), than determining a winner.
I'm reluctant to address this issue, as I had a desire to participate in debates, and worked to get this forum running again. It's functional, not
up to speed, but the mods are doing an excellent job to run things smoothly.
My reluctance stems from the fact that we really do need a third judge. All the debates could wind up as ties. As much as I hate to admit it, the
tie between Hefficide and SonoftheSun needn't have been. The tie between seabag and myself needn't have been.
To be unfair to the Mods, the membership wants a decision, cut and dry, no ties. (Well, at least two members.)
A third deciding judge? I've been here since the re-invigoration, and I do support the inclusion of a third judge as a tiebreaker. Any debates that
rule a tie should have a third judge to lay the decision plain.
As a participant in this forum, I humbly propose my position:
NO ties. Ever.
The third judge? That solution is open. I'm sure the staff will work out the details, knowing ties over and over are not conducive to the
philosophy behind debate.