The following is my judgment of the First Debate, I will be followed by KrisWest and then Phaedrus.
I adopted a scoring system for my judging and will briefly explain my reasons for the socres given in each category.
Carleas:
Readability/Form: 12/20- The lack of line breaks severely damaged readability. I understand time constraints, but I edited and greatly improved the readability of the post in mere seconds.
Foundation: 25/30- The foundation for the premise was very strong, in my estimation. Carleas came up with an original example pertaining to strength in numbers and consistently employed said example throughout the post. The only thing I felt the post could have used would have been more specific examples in terms of benefits that exist that can only be attributed to government or governing agencies.
Adherence: 30/30- The post remains on-topic and focuses strictly on the development of why government should be preferred.
Originality: 8/10- Carleas did pretty much what was expected of him, at least in my opinion. The original example and hypothetical community saved his originality score.
Evidence: 7/10- No citations are really necessary for this topic, so 7/10 is the lowest possible score which indicates that Carleas (or any other poster) did not really present independent evidence or case study.
Total 82/100
GOBBO:
Readability: 20/20- I found no readability issues.
Foundation: 15/30- The foundation for Gobbo’s argument was somewhat off-topic. Basically, the primary thing I got from Gobbo’s argument is that we already live in an anarchy structure. Of course, Gobbo is using the definition of anarchy having to do with selective participation in controlling affairs.
In attempting to prove that we already live under anarchy, Gobbo would have essentially taken the merits of archy (as defined by Carleas) and those merits would have been anarchy’s merits and no longer archy’s, and I think this was a good tactic.
The one thing Gobbo fails to realize is that participation in government is not entirely selective and voluntary. An 18 year-old male, by law, must sign up for the selective service, no other choice, he can be drafted. In one registers (volunteers) to vote, one is also automatically registered for jury duty and has no other choice but to go if called in. Another example yet is welfare, we pay into the welfare system via income tax, there is no alternative, that is not voluntary.
Adherence: 15/30- “The opposition is arguing that archy, or government is preferable but this is like saying the abstract is preferable to the specific. Of course it is, but it is impossible to achieve government because it is an ideal.”
This is the exact opposite of what Gobbo should have said. Gobbo is supposed to defend that anarchy is preferable (the ideal) and openly states that his opinion lay with ILP that archy is ideal.
Originality: 10/10- Trying to prove U.S.A. is an anarchy already was a very creative move that would have worked save a few evident exceptions.
Evidence: 7/10- Same thing, no independent sources.
Total: 67/100
TAB
Readability/Form: 10/20- The readability was there the form was not. I felt that Tab’s post was condescending and arrogant and also, “Talked-down,” to and disrespected Gobbo. The dismissal in the opening was too blatant.
Argumentation: 30/30- Government is limiting insofar as that it limits the ability of people to commit heinous acts upon one another wantonly which thereby ensures actual freedom to live with a certain lack of constant fear. The duration of structure and stability is far longer under an archy as opposed to an anarchy, while in many cases ensuring that a certain leader does not overstay his welcome or become too controlling simply because he is the Alpha. Government also ensures fairness insofar as that the same rules should theoretically be applied to everyone as these rules are the standards (often moral) under which we can all be expected to live.
Adherence: 25/30- The argumentation in Tab’s post is fantastic, but I felt that the preference for archy was essentially limited to fairness and equality. Tab himself states that there are certain numbers under which a self-governing anarchy could successfully exist under this Alpha, but fails to state to a great extent why these smaller self-governing societies are not preferable.
Originality: 8/10- A few original examples, the Roman Empire thing was good. Pretty much what I expected from Tab, though.
Evidence: 10/10- Good independent study, adequately cited.
Total: 83/100
SIATD:
Readability: 20/20-No issue there
Argumentation: 25/30- Anarchy provides a multitude of options in terms of ideas and methodologies. Basically, the more things we try to do the more likely that we are to figure out the right thing to do, reasonable enough. Government enslaves people in order to accomplish its ends. The vast majority of governments have failed. SIATD basically said that all governments have failed, but this is untrue because some governments currently exist and therefore have not failed in terms of sustainability, at least not yet.
Adherence: 20/30- SIATD’s post adheres to the topic of preference for the most part. The only problem I had was that I felt that equal time should be spent on SIATD’s part promoting anarchy as opposed to saying, “Government sucks,” but the vast majority of the post was pure argument against government. Of course, in saying government sucks, anarchy is promoted, so I decided not to deduct any points here.
Originality: 10/10
Evidence: 8/10- Good examples, loose citations.
Total 83/100
Xunzian
Readability: 17/20- Some of the sentences were difficult to pick apart through the fat and get to the meat, but the overall readability was pretty good.
Argumentation: 18/30- Xunzian does well to bring up the point that those governments still in existence have not fallen by way of the fact that they exist.
I believe that the use of the Roman Empire carrying so many things over into modern times is fallacious because the Roman Empire still fell. That would be like saying if I put my pants on then rob a bank, kill three people in the process, flee the police, get backed into a corner, get in a shoot-out and am killed by the police that my model should still be considered workable because at least I did not go in public naked.
Xunzian also argues that specialization increases efficiency, but it does not. What it does do is increase ability.
Adherence: 20/30- I think that Xunzian spent too much time nit-picking at very minor details in SIATDs post to be truly effective at furthering the argument for archy. Many of the perceived misconceptions in SIATD’s post warrant mentioning, but no full break-down is necessary and often detracts from the greater argument.
Originality: 6/10- I felt that the entirety of Xunzian’s post was in response to something and often failed to produce original argument or reasons for archy preference.
Evidence: 10/10
Total 71/100
Kawaki
Readability/Form: 16/20- The introduction had a slightly condescending tone.
Argumentation: 30/30- Government is often exploitative. The church suppresses the people and is often a roadblock to scientific breakthrough (stem-cell research, for example) Also a very good opinion is made about how the long-lastingness of government societies can be detrimental to creativity, freedom and thought. Kawaki also makes a good point about over-specialization. I think he could have thrown the fact out there that when corporations lay people off, they are able to accomplish the same tasks that they were before by teaching the people they keep new tasks, but, I got the point.
Adherence: 25/30- Again, the post is almost exclusively argument and there are really no new examples of reasons to prefer anarchy.
Originality: 8/10
Evidence: 7/10
Total: 86/100
SMEARS
Readability/Form: 18/20- Smears lost a few points for over-simplifying things, but gained them back with his itemization of the issues.
Argumentation: 20/30- The church has not always participated in studies that will help people extend their lives, the active opposition to stem-cell research by the church is a clear and convincing example.
Smears is right in suggesting that for the most part when a person does something he/she is doing it because he/she believes it to be right and that those who disagree with the person (or with archy) are simply disagreeing with decisions that have been made.
Smears focuses at one point on what anarchy is or is not and challenges the definition of anarchy made, but again this detracts from his overall goal to prove preferability.
Adherence/Closure: 20/30- Smears does a good job in his argument, but very rarely expands upon the overall point of archy’s preferability. In addition to that, Smears’ post would have been an excellent second or third “build-up,” post, but I fail to see a strong close.
Originality: 8/10- Again, Smears mostly played off of pre-established arguments.
Evidence: 7/10
Total: 73/100
Penalty (5 Points)-Late Post, even after extension was given.
68/100
GAMER:
Readability: 20/20- Very readable post despite the clear comedic aspects.
Argumentation: 10/30- Gamer completely fails in any way to address any point made or opinion given prior to his own post. The only thing that he argues is the generality that anarchy is preferable, of course that is the point of the debate, but Gamer completely neglects the societal level which had been the topic of conversation prior to his post and focuses exclusively on the individual level.
Adherence/Closure: 30/30- Assertive close. Gamer also adheres strictly to arguing anarchy being preferable.
Originality: 10/10
Evidence: 7/10
Total 77/100
Team ILP:
Carleas: 82/100
Tab: 83/100
Xunzian: 71/100
Smears: 73/100
Total: 77.25
Team ILO:
Gobbo: 67/100
SIATD: 83/100
Kawaki: 86/100
Gamer: 77/100
Total: 78.25
Team ILO is assessed a penalty of five points (1.25 basis points) because they could have altered their posting order to have Gamer post third to be closer to the posting deadline. As a result, Team ILO scores 77 Points.
Opinions are all well and good, but today, ILovePhilosophy.
ILP MVP: Tab- Had your post not had an arrogant and condescending tone toward your opponent, your score would have been almost perfect.
ILO MVP: Kawaki- ILO are lucky to have you in the next two debates. SS could not have come anywhere close to what you accomplished, and to think, you were a fill-in! Amazing work.
MVP (Overall): Kawaki