Ballot from Tom H:
LDS Catfight decision from Tom H
My decision is going to be based on the rules set out by Catbert in his first post on the thread: loosely based on “worlds style” parliamentary debate, and with all speakers Government.
The role of Government speakers in worlds style debate is to affirm the resolution. The first speaker/team has the right to define the resolution in whatever way they see fit, and subsequent speakers on the Gov side must follow that definition and argue for it. They may use new arguments, new examples and new analysis, but they may not come up with a new case. Coming up with a new case as a Gov speaker down the table is a very significant transgression of the rules, and is colloquially known to debaters in worlds style as “knifing”.
Now, to this round.
Patrick came up with a case, which was essentially “Patrick should win this competition”. It wasn’t very imaginative, or well argued, but it was a case.
Everyone else knifed. They knifed Patrick. They even knifed each other. I mean, how many definitions do you need, people?
The rules Catbert laid out were, to me, very clear. Following Patrick’s definition, anyone who had made a speech supporting the resolution, i.e. arguing in favour of a victory for Patrick, was acting within the rules. Anyone who did not, was not.
I therefore have no option but to vote for Patrick, despite his lousy, egocentric and unimaginative case (oh, Patrick, Patrick, you could have run something on Japan again - it could easily have linked to the resolution, and it would have been much more interesting, and you would have known more than anyone else and had a good chance of winning. As it was, you pulled off a technical, dull, win).
Subsequent placings: well, everyone else is guilty of a pretty major transgression, and I’d like to make you all come last, but I’m not allowed to.
Jed: it made me laugh, but it raised questions about unfair use of technology, exclusion and so on. it gets a vote anyway, for being funny.
Alan Tauber: you just didn’t seem to care very much. I admire that.
AhhAlegra: I just don’t like your use of “uh” as a device to make lines scan. Also, the Starcraft round didn’t do it for me as much as it seems to have for everyone else. Still, marks for effort.
Pdano: I’m just not interested in your accounts of alliances and in-game politicking. Should I be?
Vegethalas: very similar to my analysis of Pdano, except that I found it even less interesting.
Stanford: bribery doesn’t impress me, particularly when the chances of his buying me a drink are as minimal as they are, what with living in different countries and all. Stanford’s offer is US-centric, and will lead to nuclear war, genocide, ecocide and the deaths of kittens. And to me not getting a free drink. Clear last.
So, my final ballot is as follows:
2 DB8 MissingLink
3 Alan Tauber