Suggestions for improving the Judging of Debates

[Gothmog]

I have moved some posts from another thread to here so that a point that has been brought up can be discussed properly.
Please give your suggestions for the improvement of judging here. What is needed is to look at how judgements should be given and how those new to judging can be given experience without antagonising debators

The beginning of the thread may seem a little strange but it shows the reason this one was started. ;)

Gothmog

[Lhunithiliel]

And I would also wish to see rest of the judges posting their opinion in a way somewhat different form a "wishy washy " one (whatever it might mean :confused: !)

It should also be taken into consideration that Nom has not been around for quite some time. I truly hope she is OK but if she is unable to perform her judging duties, it may be a good idea to invite someone else to replace her.

[HLGStrider]

Wishy washy means going back and forth because I changed my opinion at least three times in the course of the debate as to who was winning (I typed that up as I read and then editted a little so you can sort of see me changing my mind. . .)

I have never really don't one of these before and so I'm not sure I've done it right, though I have read other judge's things, so I tried to do somewhat what they seemed to do.

[Lhunithiliel]

Colloquialisms there are in every and each language.
And even if this forum is American, still the community has also an international section, and even if English is spoken and used by all, I think a more "standard" version of this language would be more appropriate especially when it comes into use in the serious threads.
Unless....of course, judging this debate was for you just another kind of game. I wouldn't be surprised! :confused:

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Colloquialisms there are in every and each language.
And even if this forum is American, still the community has also an international section, and even if English is spoken and used by all, I think a more "standard" version of this language would be more appropriate especially when it comes into use in the serious threads.
Unless....of course, judging this debate was for you just another kind of game. I wouldn't be surprised! :confused:

wishy-washy adj. weak or feeble in colour, character, etc., lacking strong or positive qualities.

The above is from the Illustrated Family Dictionary published 1990 by arrangement with Oxford University Press.

Dictionary text is taken from the Oxford Paberback Dictionary 1st ed. copyright Oxford University Press 1981.

This term has been in standard use for more that 20 years.
So what more "standard" form of the English Language would you prefer to see used in such a situation?

[Lhunithiliel]

PEACE, Lord Balrog! :)
PLEASE!

PEACE!

[Gothmog]

Yes please :)

[Gil-Galad]

Don't argue with Balrogs,especially with their Lord.;)

[Scatha]

I guess our resident Balrog just proved one of my favorite quotes:

England and America, are two nations divided by the same language. ;)


On a sidenote, Lhun dear friend, I and most of the board already are aware of the fact that there seems to be little love lost between you and Elgee. You have those nice warning points to show for it. Could the two of you please settle your differences in PM, instead of in plain public view? We came here to see the result of a debate, not the next fight. It serves no purpose and has no place here.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Gothmog
wishy-washy adj. weak or feeble in colour, character, etc., lacking strong or positive qualities.

The above is from the Illustrated Family Dictionary published 1990 by arrangement with Oxford University Press.

Dictionary text is taken from the Oxford Paberback Dictionary 1st ed. copyright Oxford University Press 1981.

This term has been in standard use for more that 20 years.
So what more "standard" form of the English Language would you prefer to see used in such a situation? Aaaah, so that was what Charlie Brown meant when he said "How wishy-washy can you get?" to Lucy van Belt....

Or was it Linus? I forgot... ;)

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Scatha
On a sidenote, Lhun dear friend, I and most of the board already are aware of the fact that there seems to be little love lost between you and Elgee. You have those nice warning points to show for it. Could the two of you please settle your differences in PM, instead of in plain public view? We came here to see the result of a debate, not the next fight. It serves no purpose and has no place here. [/B]
I know I can get wild sometimes. ;)
But I did offer peace, didn't I?

However, a serious work demands serious attitude.
Let the judges do their job with ALL the respect to the great work our BOTH teams did on this debate!
We'll have time for comments later.

[Scatha]

I know how you feel, Lhun. I even checked the tournament rules for you, but if a judge delivers his vote and was not contested when the judges were announced, we'll have to accept the 'verdict'.

[HLGStrider]

Was I under contest? Why? Because of inexperience? I would like to be more experienced, but I'm not a guild member.

I hope it wasn't for any sillier reason.

I actually accepted this job and did half my judging before you got mad at me, Lhun, if you think I'd be biased because of that. I may have even finished judging before our situation got really hot.

I got a pm with some objections to my form of judging, to which I'd say I'd like to know the judging criteria better, because it does seem a little foggy.

I don't see why you don't think I respected it. I do post in a light tone, but I can't become funereal easily. It takes too much thinking to no real purpose.

[Lhunithiliel]

Don't ask ME,about criteria, LGee!
I am sure there are a lot of peope around who would most willingly give you an answer. :rolleyes:

[Walter]

The participants in the debating tournament often invest a lot of time and energy in their posts. Researching and posting here, can be quite tedious and hence it is perfectly understandable that the participants expect that the person who agrees to judge is equally willing to invest some time and energy in the judgement and - if necessary - even does some research on their own regarding the topic of the debate.

Now if a judgement post has the air and tone of something that has been made rather flippantly, without giving the issue much consideration, it is likely to cause some frustration among the participants.

I too think the participants deserve better than this, but above all I think that for further debates the requirements for a judge and the judgements should be made clear in advance. Any judge should be aware in advance that s/he will have to invest at least as much time and energy as the participants in the debate. And any judgement post should have to fulfil certain criteria in order to be qualified, or else it should simply be disregarded and replaced by another.

Just my thoughts...

[Gil-Galad]

That is why I(as well as Eriol) will suggest to the organizators of the next Tournament to choose one list of judges who will judge all the debates.These members wiil be persons with extended knowledge and experience .Of course they will be really busy with judging so many rounds and debates,but at the same time there will not have such problems.Thus the quality of the Tournament and especially the judging part will be definitely improved.
But this will be a question of long discussions in the future.

[Lhunithiliel]

Let me share with you a few thoughts on the subject even before the heavy opinion of the organization masters.

A judge for a debate in my opinion should:

>> have a large knowledge in the works of and about Tolkien. This is a must!!!

>> be absolutely impartial and unprejudiced

>> dedicate enough time as to read all the posts in the debate at least twice

>> submit his/her judgement in such a way as to show to the participants of both teams all above.

I personally would not be satisfied with anything less. :rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

You forgot the

Does not possess anything with the slightest resemblence to a sense of humor or good naturedness


one.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
You forgot the

Does not possess anything with the slightest resemblence to a sense of humor or good naturedness


one.

This thread is to suggest and discuss ways to improve the judging of debates. Please leave personal problems and animosity at the Door as you enter.

Thanks.

[Ithrynluin]

>> be absolutely impartial and unprejudiced

In a perfect world maybe. We are all human, and we can only strive to be those things as much as possible.

>> dedicate enough time as to read all the posts in the debate at least twice


The intention is good in theory, but in practice this would turn out too be too rigid a rule.

I usually read debates only once before judging them, but I read them carefully and thoroughly and it consumes several hours of my time. If this rule is applied in the future, I'm afraid I'll have to decline judging quite a few debates. And besides, how on earth can you force someone to read a debate 'at least' twice over, or prove to them that they haven't read it as many times as you require?

[Lhunithiliel]

Hey!
I'm not writing the RULES here!

I've stated my opinion! :)

[Idril]

Ok as an inexperienced and not overly knowledgeable judge, I'll chuck my 2 pence in and run for cover;). Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
A judge for a debate in my opinion should:

>> have a large knowledge in the works of and about Tolkien. This is a must!!!

>> be absolutely impartial and unprejudiced



These 2 don't quite add up, surely members with a large and extensive knowlege of Tolkien are less likely to be impartial and unprejudiced with regard to the topic (not personalities and guilds etc). I would expected a scholarly Tolkienite to be laden with pre-conceived ideas, whereas a less experienced judge would not have this baggage and would only go only on what the debators have presented.

I'm not saying the knowledgeable members/judges, are not capable of being impartial etc, but to disqualify the less experienced because some feel they are not able to determine the better of 2 arguments is very belittling and unkind to many fellow members.

(will do the Yay Gollum thingy and hide now;)

[HLGStrider]

This thread is to suggest and discuss ways to improve the judging of debates. Please leave personal problems and animosity at the Door as you enter.

It just doesn't seem right that I can be blasted when I didn't intentionally make a post that was flippant. I made a post that was in a sense of good naturedness because I felt I had to be tactful. I did use a colloquiel conversational style. I didn't feel you wanted me to write a book.

It seems very snobbish for people to then blast me for it.

Tolkien knowledge, I'm not the highest scorer. I'm hardly the lowest, however. I only read the debate once. I didn't know twice was required.

[Khamul]

Do you consider the purpose of it to be whose side was correct, or which side was the best debated? If it's the latter, then I don't think Tolkien knowledge really weighs in as heavily as it appears.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
It just doesn't seem right that I can be blasted when I didn't intentionally make a post that was flippant. I made a post that was in a sense of good naturedness because I felt I had to be tactful. I did use a colloquiel conversational style. I didn't feel you wanted me to write a book.

It seems very snobbish for people to then blast me for it.

Tolkien knowledge, I'm not the highest scorer. I'm hardly the lowest, however. I only read the debate once. I didn't know twice was required. You quoted My post now Read It and Follow the Advice. Also Read very carefully the PM that goes with it.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Khamul
Do you consider the purpose of it to be whose side was correct, or which side was the best debated? If it's the latter, then I don't think Tolkien knowledge really weighs in as heavily as it appears.

This is the major question, that really need to be defined very clearly before any future debates now that the Tournament is over.

There are, in my view, three different ways in which a judge can look at the question of the debate (before reading the debate proper):

1) I'm sure that the side that is right is side A
2) I'm not sure that any side is right... but I don't know a lot about the subject
3) I'm not sure that any side is right, and I know a LOT about the subject.

This is not necessarily related to the amount of Tolkien knowledge that the person has, since we have some scholars who specialize in a given Age or race or something like that. I can easily see a guy who knows a lot of Tolkien admitting ignorance about a minor question about the Dwarves (for instance) -- and conversely I can see a person who does NOT know a lot of Tolkien feeling quite confident about his opinion on the same question!

According to this "pre-stance" of the judge I've seen many kinds of judgment in the Tournament with which I strongly disagreed. But of course the problem is lack of definition, not any intrinsic inability of the judges...

I don't think there is any need for a lot of Tolkien knowledge to judge the debate proper. Tolkien knowledge is needed only in one "line of judgment" -- the "lost opportunities" line of judgment.

I mean, if the judge sees a debate that falls under category 1 because of a given line of argument, but side A never follows that line (either because of insufficient research or because of insufficient thought devoted to the question), then of course the judge is likely to deny victory to side A.

This is the only instance in which I see "Tolkien knowledge" as a factor in judgment.

But this is a rather special case... if only because very few debates fall under category (1). But ideally, to be a judge should NOT require top-notch Tolkien knowledge... to enlighten the judges is the job of the debators. And even this special case is open to question! This is because, ideally, the judges should NOT use "outside knowledge" to cast a vote, and this is for two reasons:

1 - standardization of judges' opinions (if one judge knows a lot and another doesn't, then it is bad to have this difference as an active influence in the judgment)
2 - let me repeat it here -- to enlighten the judges is the debators' job! They should use quotes and references and everything else to accomplish that...

I mean, let's take that "special case". I think that side A should win on the strength of argument (1). They never use argument (1). Nonetheless, they can still win! It all depends on what side B is doing; and even if they USE argument (1), they can still lose if they use it badly.

So the "special case" will only apply if side A lost a HUGE, GLARING opportunity... and most people on TTF have enough Tolkien knowledge to perceive that, without being a super-duper expert. And even so I'm not sure about that (I'd like your opinions about this... should even the "special case" be an instance in which a judge may offer a radically different vote from another judge based on his prior knowledge? I'm inclined to say "no", to rule out even the "special case". Standardized judgments -- all judges have the same amount of info, provided by both debating teams -- are what we should be aiming for here).

It is clear by now that I believe that the debate should be judged on the question "who debated better", and not "who's correct".

If I were to think of a "judges' workbook", it would include these steps:

a) to define for himself the question of the debate. This can be a matter of discussion, itself, as we've seen in some debates; and it can even become a "sub-debate". If it was worded so as to raise doubts, then the judge must judge the "sub-debate" before anything else... following the later steps. In other words, he must NOT decide for himself that "this is the meaning of the question", if there is any doubt; he must follow the arguments of the teams. This is to achieve "standardization of judgments".

b) to define -- in his own words -- the main arguments of each side. That means making a short list (in writing if necessary) of the arguments in each side (ideally, in each POST).

c) to check the strength of the arguments themselves in each side; possibly one argument will have been thoroughly refuted by the other side

d) to check the applicability of the argument to the question of the debate. I can't stress the importance of this step strongly enough. I have seen judgments (and it is not rare) where a judge was swayed by a great post by someone... completely unrelated to the point being discussed!

e) Finally, to judge the presentation of the arguments. (This is why step b is so important). This is usually the first step of a casual reader; it should be the last step for a judge, in my opinion. It is important, of course; and rhetoric is a major element in the debates. But even so if one does not go through the analytical path, one may be easily misled by a well-crafted post.

I don't think a judge should follow this as strictly as a check-list; he can do all of these things very intuitively and quickly. But I do think that these points should be raised in the judge's mind, consciously or not. I know that when I look at a judgment that did not look at some of these points I can easily sense that something is wrong. That is of course my own feeling. "Wrong" here means "not what I would do, personally"... and given the lack of definition in the whole business of judging, it is a messy story.

Now, it is clearly a demanding job. This entails two conclusions:

1) a LOT of leeway should be given to the judges
2) they should be chosen carefully by the host (assuming the rules of the Tournament)

I have already written a lot. Three last subjects:

-- The "Supreme Court" idea -- this was alluded by G-G in his post. I see a lot of benefits flowing from it; but I'll leave them to another post.

-- Elgee's judgment -- I must say that I never saw a judge being bashed so much; especially since the judgment of that debate isn't over yet. We have rules against that. Even if the posts are no longer in the judgment thread, the rules still apply. I must also admit that I don't see any reason for concern about Elgee's judgment... the only reason being she voted against my Guild! Hehe. But her judgment was surely not worse than many, many other judgements I've seen in the Tournament. To use her as an example of bad judging is very odd. I remember lots of worse judgments. Her judgment is OK by me. I really think we should drop the bashing tone. As long as the judgment is done as impartially as possible, and as earnestly as possible, why bash? Because we disagree?

-- Presentation of judgments -- We had problems with this before Elgee's judgment. And in all cases we have asked the judge to clarify the vote (after the overall judgment was over, by the way) if there was any reason for it. So, if there is any actual complaint about Elgee's vote, I suggest we all wait until the judgement is over, and ask her to clarify her position. Just as we did in the other instances of disputed votes. To use her vote as an example of a badly presented vote is also very odd, since there were many worse examples in the Tournament, in my opinion. (I gather that she's being criticized on both presentation and judgment itself). And even if my opinion is not the majority one, I REALLY think we should discuss this only after the judging is over, both to avoid influencing other judges and to avoid breaching the rules.

[Elbereth]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Let me share with you a few thoughts on the subject even before the heavy opinion of the organization masters.

A judge for a debate in my opinion should:

>> have a large knowledge in the works of and about Tolkien. This is a must!!!

>> be absolutely impartial and unprejudiced

>> dedicate enough time as to read all the posts in the debate at least twice

>> submit his/her judgement in such a way as to show to the participants of both teams all above.

I personally would not be satisfied with anything less. :rolleyes:

Now I have been asked to be a judge in the past, and as a guild leader...I knew I would have to be a judge at one time or another. However if these are the requirements to be a judge for the debates, may I never be judge, for your expectations are too high.

Believe it or not, not everyone on the forum has the time to dedicate so much time and effort as to read a thread twice. Knowing how long some of these debate threads run....such a task would be tedious to say the least.

And no offense...but not everyone can write in a way that will appease everyone on the forum. It is just not possible. Each person has their own style of writing...and if some choose to describe things in a more colloquial manner, using slang or expressions to get their point across...that is their right to do so, and they shouldn't be judged for it. The mere fact that you are insulting or putting down someone for their use of slang, is indeed insulting to those of us who choose to use such slang on a daily basis.

Now I understand you expect those who participate in the debates to maintain a degree of seriousness and dedication. However, if you make the rules too strict and structured you will ultimately isolate and chase away many good members from participating, who may be essential participants to the debates. Please don't let this happen. Yes, the debates need rules ....but please lets try to open our eyes a little and stop all of this stubborn intolerance.

[Úlairi]

Hahahah, now I see why they let me back on, because what I did is nothing compared to what's going on now. Talking about experience, hmmm, let me see. Let's just check registration dates here, oh! What? How can this be possible?

Elgee: Dec 2001
Lhun: Jul 2002
Gil-Galad: Apr 2002

Dear me, it seems as though we do have a member with some experience. It is of course, Elgee, and I am older than all of you (except Elgee, whom to which I pledge my allegiance, as we should all respect our elders).

Despite the fact that you people claim to have exceptional Tolkien knowledge, understand this. Although there is nothing I love more than to debate Tolkien and read his works, there is one thing that I understand. Pratical application of his works, where the hell is it going to get you in the end? You come to the end of your existence, but there is one thing you can be assured of, and that is you managed to accomplish the destruction of another person with knowledge that has no practical application. Congratulations! I understand that you consider yourselves extremely intelligent individuals, but doesn't that come at a price? Instead of arguing that you are more appropriate for the job, why not prove it? If you are assured in the sense that none can defeat you, why not debate with Elgee, and we'll get ourselves a mutual judge.

Oh dear, I hope I didn't use any shameful colloquialisms in my post, perhaps you guys could spellcheck it for me while you're there.

[Lhunithiliel]

First - about the subject of this thread:

Addressing one of the hottest points discussed (apart from LGee being bashed by the "evil wraith" ;) ) - KNOWLEDGE in Tolkien.

You say the judge does not have to be too well T-knowledge "loaded" and that people "specialise" in variant areas (ages, languages etc.).
Then the Host should invite someone with a "specialised" knowledge. And v.v. - someone , if invited to judge, should assess his/her knowledge on the subject and decide whether he/she would be qualified enough as to judge.
Knowledge is very important IMO because otherwise he/she would not be able to assess the "work" of the participants to go into a serious research on the subject of the debate.
I have seen debates totally spoiled by long and absolutely fruitless and unnecessary "what if"- scenarios or personal interpretations (not that individual opinion is not to be applied!!!!) and contemplations on the subject...and all that - covering pages! And no factual material, no serious approach...just having fun :confused: A knowledgable judge should be able to see this!

I can tell you a simple example in simple words : I would personally feel uneasy and on a "hot" chair if I am to judge a debate where Inder or Ithy, or jallan and co. participate! I don't feel qualified enough as to judge their knowledge!

And I also don't think that the participants are the ones to "enlighten" the judges or ANYone on the subject debated!
The participants have volunteered to enter the debate to discuss BETWEEN themselves! The fact that their dispute is and is going to be viewed by many others and even judged at the end, should have no influence on their performance ! However, I have seen debates where the participants were trying so hard to make the judges like them that they applied ...hmmmm.... "strange" tactics. And some even directly addressed the judges!

This mentioned, I come to a suggestion:

What about assessing a debate not only by "Yes" or "No" but with points = "marks"?
Do you think it could be possible to think of a "marks"-system?
Then for example team A may receive mark "C" and Team "B" - mark "A" and .... See my point?
Would you like to think this idea over?
These "marks" could show how the judge assesses the QUALITY of the work done on a particular debate.
I think this could help a lot.
**********

Now...to the "side effects" of this thread:

As I see, some things will never change!

This thread here was opened by Gothmog for good reasons and with good intentions.
Yet people think this is just another place where the row ELgee-Lhunithiliel is going to be discussed...:eek:
Well... Let me tell you - You are wrong!

LGee, if you have a problem with me, PM me! :)

Ulairi, my "brother" ;) , I know people aaround who joined the forum a long time after LGee or me or GG and they have knowledge in Tolkien that can cover everything that all of us three know together! :rolleyes:

[Idril]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel

Knowledge is very important IMO because otherwise he/she would not be able to assess the "work" of the participants to go into a serious research on the subject of the debate.

Well I don't agree. A debate is the presentation of 2 sides of an arguement/topic. It's irrespective of the background research done. A debator may be lucky enough to get a topic he/she is very familiar with and has to do little background work and go on to win a debate because he/she presented a better argument and managed to blast his/her opponent points out of the water with little effort. On the other hand someone may do loads of research and then goes on to present a lousy debate and fail to refute his/her opponents points and then loses a debate.

I have seen debates totally spoiled by long and absolutely fruitless and unnecessary "what if"- scenarios or personal interpretations (not that individual opinion is not to be applied!!!!) and contemplations on the subject...and all that - covering pages! And no factual material, no serious approach...just having fun :confused: A knowledgable judge should be able to see this!

Surely that's for the other team to do this - it's a weakness in the other side's presentation, it's up to the debator to make use of it.


However, I have seen debates where the participants were trying so hard to make the judges like them that they applied ...hmmmm.... "strange" tactics. And some even directly addressed the judges!

LOL - Ideally judges should be able to see pass these 'debating styles' including 'grandstanding' and 'whinging'.

This mentioned, I come to a suggestion:

What about assessing a debate not only by "Yes" or "No" but with points = "marks"?
Do you think it could be possible to think of a "marks"-system?
Then for example team A may receive mark "C" and Team "B" - mark "A" and .... See my point?
Would you like to think this idea over?
These "marks" could show how the judge assesses the QUALITY of the work done on a particular debate.
I think this could help a lot.

I think this is a idea which is worth exploring, and I know some judges use their own system of points already.



Now...to the "side effects" of this thread:

May I suggest that the 2 parties stop mentioning each other's names for a start.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
You say the judge does not have to be too well T-knowledge "loaded" and that people "specialise" in variant areas (ages, languages etc.).
Then the Host should invite someone with a "specialised" knowledge. And v.v. - someone , if invited to judge, should assess his/her knowledge on the subject and decide whether he/she would be qualified enough as to judge.

Well, I assume "You" is me, since I said that :D. And yes, the Host should pick the Judges very carefully, as the rules stand now. The "Supreme Court" idea would do wonders to improve that area, as we could have openly specialized judges -- people who only felt comfortable in judging Third Age debates, for instance, since they did not read the Sil. The Supreme Court would have many benefits -- since they wouldn't be tied in with the Guilds, we wouldn't need 5 judges (I think 3 good judges are more than enough...); we could pick, say 15 judges and only 9 of them will be judging in any given round; the judge may express his preference (specialization), which will result in more enjoyable (and therefore better) judging.

But... picking a judge carefully does not mean picking the guy with the greater amount of Tolkien knowledge. See below ;)

Knowledge is very important IMO because otherwise he/she would not be able to assess the "work" of the participants to go into a serious research on the subject of the debate.
I have seen debates totally spoiled by long and absolutely fruitless and unnecessary "what if"- scenarios or personal interpretations (not that individual opinion is not to be applied!!!!) and contemplations on the subject...and all that - covering pages! And no factual material, no serious approach...just having fun :confused: A knowledgable judge should be able to see this!

And so should a non-knowledgeable judge :). There is no need for intensive Tolkien knowledge to detect these instances. The big problem in judgments in the past Tournament, as I see it, is NOT lack of knowledge by judges... it is the will to rush a judgment because of time pressure. I've seen judgments in which a judge said "the debate became boring at that point, and so I stopped reading". That is unbelievably wrong. But it has nothing to do with knowledge or lack of knowledge.

I can tell you a simple example in simple words : I would personally feel uneasy and on a "hot" chair if I am to judge a debate where Inder or Ithy, or jallan and co. participate! I don't feel qualified enough as to judge their knowledge!

And I wouldn't feel any problem in that position. The difference is that I'm considering judging under the "who debated better" paradigm, and you are considering it under the "who is correct" paradigm. This is the big question that must be answered before any progress is made.

Sure, I'd never feel comfortable in decreeing that jallan is incorrect in a debate; but I feel qualified enough to say that jallan was the best (or the worst) debator, or that his argument was better (or worse) than that of his opponents. And in spite of my personal opinion that jallan is the greatest Tolkien scholar in this site, this does not mean he should gain automatic victory in any debate :D. It depends on what is shown by the teams in the course of the debate.

Ideally, a debate judge could have NO Tolkien knowledge, and I almost write should have no knowledge. Tolkien knowledge is only liable to bring in pre-conceived ideas to the judging. And so I've seen judgments in which it was said that "side A debated better, but I think they are wrong, so I vote for side B".

???

All it takes to be a judge in my opinion is:

-- willingness and good will
-- impartiality
-- time
-- the drive to do a good job

That's it. An "intelligent layman" can do the job, easily. I much prefer a judge with these qualities to Tolkien himself if he could be a judge :D. I strongly oppose the idea that a judge should debate, by which I mean a judgment in which the judge says "team A said this, but this is easily contradicted by this quote here" -- and the quote (and reasoning) was never offered by team B! It's not the job of the judge to do this, it's the job of team B. I don't know if this kind of mistake was made in the judgments of the Tournament...

And I also don't think that the participants are the ones to "enlighten" the judges or ANYone on the subject debated!
The participants have volunteered to enter the debate to discuss BETWEEN themselves! The fact that their dispute is and is going to be viewed by many others and even judged at the end, should have no influence on their performance !

I disagree, quite strongly. Debate is persuasion. However, does anyone here believes that the other team would be persuaded at the end of a debate? I guess not :D. So, the persuaded parties are the judges; the debators should (and of course they do) keep in mind that they have to convince the judges. So if an obscure line of argument is based on info known by the debating teams, but not by the judges, it is only natural that the arguer should post some quotes to clarify the argument; even though the debating teams are well acquainted with it.

I can't even imagine what is the goal of a debate, if it is not to persuade the judges.

However, I have seen debates where the participants were trying so hard to make the judges like them that they applied ...hmmmm.... "strange" tactics. And some even directly addressed the judges!

And if a judge is fooled by someone trying to "be liked", then the judge is not applying himself to the question of the debate. Simply that. He's not there to decide who's the most likeable debator. He's there to decide which team made the best argument related to a question. Just as in real life judges should not be influenced by bribes :).

What about assessing a debate not only by "Yes" or "No" but with points = "marks"?
Do you think it could be possible to think of a "marks"-system?
Then for example team A may receive mark "C" and Team "B" - mark "A" and .... See my point?
Would you like to think this idea over?
These "marks" could show how the judge assesses the QUALITY of the work done on a particular debate.
I think this could help a lot.


And is not this idea the complete opposite of what you advocated throughout the post? :eek: It seems so to me. A marks system would require no knowledge of Tolkien. I don't think we can determine how a judge should judge, but we can suggest, and I see no problem with marks. The important thing is that a judge should have willingness, impartiality, and time. If he has all three, no matter what he does, he'll bring a good judgment... provided he knows whether the question is "who debated better" or "who is correct".

This is what must be decided before the next Tournament, in fact before the next debate. What do you think?

[Walter]

Eriol is indeed addressing a crucial issue there: What is the purpose and goal of these debates?

If it is about finding out who is the best debator at TTF then the judges need no Tolkien knowledge whatsoever. Furthermore we could even use a wider spectrum of topics, for to find out who debates better, we may as well use topics as "Today, Dec. 8th 2003 is a monday" and have the parties debate whether or not this is correct.

But if the goal would be to further the interest and knowledge of Tolkien's works, then I'd venture to say that a certain - and not too small - degree of expertise in Tolkien's works is a prerequisite. Because then the judges would have to decide whether the parties argue along the line of Tolkien's writings or if they just use their didactical skill or experience to make their points and to dazzle or deceive the judges...

[baragund]

I completely support everything Eriol said in his last post. The judges (and the debators as well) really need to understand the Purpose and Intent of these debates.

Along with 'Who is most persuasive with their arguments?' and 'Who has the most extensive knowledge of JRRT's writings?' I always had another Purpose and Intent in mind as I read or judged these debates:

'Who did the best job in improving understanding of Tolkien's works?'

And isn't this the real reason we are doing this in the first place? It seems to me the debates are a means to this end.

There has been a lot of discussion about how debates should be judged. I believe it would be immensely difficult to lay out specific rules and I'm not sure we should try. That is why I support Eriol's 'governing principles' of judging to 1) be of good will, 2) be impartial, 3) invest adequate time to fully understand the arguments and 4) maintain a genuine motivation to return a quality product in the form of a well thought-out judgement post.

Regarding the issue of whether or not light-heartedness has a place in these debates and in the judgements, I say absolutely! This whole forum is for our enjoyment and if we can't lighten up in our discussions, whatever they may be, then this will be a dreary place indeed. That said, light-heartedness or, by extension, humor are powerful but dangerous weapons in debating OR in judging. Used correctly, it can illustrate a point most clearly or as a means of stepping back and appreciating the big picture. Used incorrectly, it can convey the impression that one doesn't care about the subject matter or, worse, it can offend your audience. That's why one should REALLY know their audience before employing light-heartedness or humor in a debate or a judgement.

This is what I do when I judge a debate. I've done 5 or 6 of these and I don't recall anybody being dissatisfied with my judgements. So I guess I'm doing something right...

1. I don't look at the debate thread until it is finished and it is time to judge. This helps maintain my impartiality.

2. I don't brush up on the material before I judge. By doing this, my judgements lean more toward 'who is the most persuasive' and 'who did the best job of improving understanding of Tolkien's works' because I look at reading the debate thread mostly as an educational experience. Indeed, I have not yet read most of the HOME series so I rely on the debator's posts when the subject involves stuff from those books.

3. I print a hard copy of the entire debate thread. This makes it easier for me to read. I can more easily flip back and forth to different parts of the debate and I can make notes as I go along.

4. I will read the debate once but, like I said, I flip back and forth to refresh my memory.

5. My judgement post is based on my notes. I try to make references to specific posts in the debate to convey that, yes, I read the whole thing. I also try to touch on all of the main issues discussed in the debate.

6. If I am judging a debate by people I don't know, I tend to be more business-like. If they are people I feel I know from other discussions, then sure, I may throw in a tongue-in-cheek remark if I am reasonably sure they will take it the way I intended. Doesn't always work that way, though.

This works for me. Maybe some of you will find some useful ideas here. The key is find what works best for you, and as long as you are meeting the spirit of Eriol's governing principles, you'll be fine.

-----------------------------

One point Eriol raised that struck a chord with me is the time factor. This should come as no surprise to some of you because I have been notorious for not meeting the schedules throughout the tournament. My point: it is most unfortunate if the quality of posts in a judgement was compromised because of the need to conform with some arbitrary timetable. Judges should not feel they need to rush to complete their posts.


I'll be quiet now.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by baragund

This is what I do when I judge a debate. I've done 5 or 6 of these and I don't recall anybody being dissatisfied with my judgements. So I guess I'm doing something right...

1. I don't look at the debate thread until it is finished and it is time to judge. This helps maintain my impartiality.

2. I don't brush up on the material before I judge. By doing this, my judgements lean more toward 'who is the most persuasive' and 'who did the best job of improving understanding of Tolkien's works' because I look at reading the debate thread mostly as an educational experience. Indeed, I have not yet read most of the HOME series so I rely on the debator's posts when the subject involves stuff from those books.

3. I print a hard copy of the entire debate thread. This makes it easier for me to read. I can more easily flip back and forth to different parts of the debate and I can make notes as I go along.

4. I will read the debate once but, like I said, I flip back and forth to refresh my memory.

5. My judgement post is based on my notes. I try to make references to specific posts in the debate to convey that, yes, I read the whole thing. I also try to touch on all of the main issues discussed in the debate.

6. If I am judging a debate by people I don't know, I tend to be more business-like. If they are people I feel I know from other discussions, then sure, I may throw in a tongue-in-cheek remark if I am reasonably sure they will take it the way I intended. Doesn't always work that way, though.

This works for me. Maybe some of you will find some useful ideas here. The key is find what works best for you, and as long as you are meeting the spirit of Eriol's governing principles, you'll be fine.




I'll be quiet now.

This works for me too.
But still the problem of the time stays.It is true that sometimes real life problems do not let us do our jobs here and thus whole rounds have been late with weeks.

The "Supreme Court" idea would do wonders to improve that area, as we could have openly specialized judges -- people who only felt comfortable in judging Third Age debates, for instance, since they did not read the Sil. The Supreme Court would have many benefits -- since they wouldn't be tied in with the Guilds, we wouldn't need 5 judges (I think 3 good judges are more than enough...); we could pick, say 15 judges and only 9 of them will be judging in any given round; the judge may express his preference (specialization), which will result in more enjoyable (and therefore better) judging.

Eri,you and me have discussed this thing,and I am glad you offered it here.Before the beginning a simple research can be made among those who will be judges in most of the Rounds.Those who want to specialize themselves in the Third age can judge debates with topics concerning Third age,others who feel more comforatable with the Sil can judge moslty topics about First Age.I believe this will improve the quality of the judging.
I believe that if 15 members are chosen to be permament judges,this would definitely have a positive effect on the whole judging process.Those who want to be among the 15 will have to spend some more time judging than usual ,because they will be really busy and etc,but I am sure the result will be better.

Listen to Eriol,this Sailor speaks wise words :)

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Ulairi, my "brother" ;) , I know people aaround who joined the forum a long time after LGee or me or GG and they have knowledge in Tolkien that can cover everything that all of us three know together! :rolleyes:

Perhaps I should keep my forked tongue behind my teeth from now on! Sorry, Elgee and I go way back. ;) Alright, a suggestion if I may. Perhaps we can all discover our strong points in T-knowledge. I already know mine. Now, we need 'Specialist Judges'. Hence, if you are stronger than other judges in a particular area, then you will be the one to judge all debates in which you strong aspects of T-knowledge lie. I will gladly Judge anything to do with the darker side of Tolkien's world, especially Ring Lore. If you are weaker in most areas, and you still want to remain a Judge, then simply confabulate with the other Judges, discover their specialties and then study an area which many debates are catagorized in, and then you will take those debates. OK? Good.

[HLGStrider]

Glad to see you back, Ben. . .things are going to get very interesting, it seems.

You quoted My post now Read It and Follow the Advice. Also Read very carefully the PM that goes with it.

I did and it seems you misinterpeted my post to refering to you when it was only answering your statement. . .which I said in my pm, but I thought it should be said here as well so that the otras members know we aren't fighting. . .though if anyone else took my post as biting out at Gothmog, I'd like to know so I can edit it in someway to make it more clear that I was refering to the general atmosphere that started this whole thing.

It is of course, Elgee, and I am older than all of you (except Elgee, whom to which I pledge my allegiance, as we should all respect our elders).

I cede a point, however, I am not a guild member (officially not a member). I have only participated in social debates before, never in a tournament. I don't have experience in this, which is one reason I made my post try to be unassuming. I didn't want to enter my first debate on a high horse.

LGee

This is probably better for a pm, but why do you do that? I'm curious. . .must discover the truth;). . .

Sorry, Elgee and I go way back.

In a scary way, yes we do. ;)






Though seriously, when there was an initial problem in the judging thread, I asked what I did wrong, and the only really concrete thing pointed out was that someone didn't like the use of the word Wishy-Washy.

I also got a long pm explaining why one person thought his/her side should have won, to which I asked the question, "Is it on debating skills and method?" or simply on "Who used Quotes best to prove their side?"

If it's on quotes I think it was about a tie. I'd have to read it over again to see if the quotes would change my mind, but as I don't seem to be a wanted judge (or perhaps I am wanted the wrong way, dead or alive) I am not going to bother.

[Arvedui]

I don't see the nescessity (sp?) of being well-versed in the texts of Tolkien to be able to judge.

As it is said, a debate is about persuation. And because of that, it can actually be a drawback to be a Tolkien-scholar (or whatever you want to call it). If you know the texts like some members here do, then you are probably bound to have an opinion on which side is right before the debate even starts. If you then are not aware of this, the other side starts with a disadvantage.
A judge that does not have a preset view on which side is wrong and which is right, can actually vote based on which team convinced him/her most. If none were able to do so, then it is a draw.

Judging on "lost opportunities."
I think this is totally wrong!
How can it be right that a team should be awarded a minus because they do not pursue a chain of arguments that a certain judge think that they should have? What if they have considered that chain of reasoning, but dropped it because it had some drawbacks that the judge did not see?
It is hard enough debating the other team, and you should not have to debate the judges as well (which isn't allowed anyway).

Finally, I find it strange that some of you that have posted here are of the opinion that some judges take lightly on their responsibility. I do believe that any member take on such a task with a clear understanding of what is expected from them. Does anyone honestly think that any judge casts his/her vote based on which way the wind blows?
Maybe I am old and starting to feel the Alzheimer, but I really have a more positive view on my fellow members.
A judgement does not need to be less serious if it is written in five lines, than if it takes two or three posts to come to the point.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Arvedui

Judging on "lost opportunities."
I think this is totally wrong!
How can it be right that a team should be awarded a minus because they do not pursue a chain of arguments that a certain judge think that they should have? What if they have considered that chain of reasoning, but dropped it because it had some drawbacks that the judge did not see?
It is hard enough debating the other team, and you should not have to debate the judges as well (which isn't allowed anyway).


Yes, I've come to agree on that too. I mentioned it because I was trying to find an instance in which "Tolkien knowledge" was needed... but as I wrote that post my opinion about it became weaker and weaker, and by now I think it should never happen.

Hehe, I read that first post of mine and I can actually detect my change of mind there...

Though perhaps someone thinks that is a valid line of judgment. I don't think it is; I agree with Arvedui here.

However, it is a problem. Because a very knowledgeable judge is liable to fall for it (unconsciously, most often). If it is to be considered an invalid judgment, all judges should be made aware of it, so that they can watch out for it in their own judgments. Believe me, it is very common in one form or the other. The judge says "I thought they could have brought up example A to help their case" -- i.e., he is judging the team according to his idea of a good argument about that question (an ethereal notion), instead of judging which of the two teams performed better.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Eriol
Yes, I've come to agree on that too. I mentioned it because I was trying to find an instance in which "Tolkien knowledge" was needed... but as I wrote that post my opinion about it became weaker and weaker, and by now I think it should never happen.

Hehe, I read that first post of mine and I can actually detect my change of mind there...


That is why we have such discussions ;).The best solution should be found and sometimes it is a mixture of several suggestions and ideas.The best compromise should be found for thez next Tournament.
I believe it will be definitely better than the first one,because of all these TTF members here,who take care of the improving of the Judging process :)

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Gil-Galad
That is why we have such discussions ;).The best solution should be found and sometimes it is a mixture of several suggestions and ideas.The best compromise should be found for thez next Tournament.
I believe it will be definitely better than the first one,because of all these TTF members here,who take care of the improving of the Judging process :)
The next Tournament?:eek:
Are we really planning on having another one????:(
I don't know about the other guilds, but O-i-E have experienced some serious strains in trying to gather a team every other week. Obviously, there aren't too many debate-eager old-timers available;)

[Gil-Galad]

We had the same problem, especially in the last part of the Tournament when two of our members left the Guild of Tolkienology and others were too busy to debate.
But we are talking about the future,probably next spring.So we have enough time to search for new members and etc ;)
I believe that with all these changes the next Tournament will be definitely better and more interesting.

[Elbereth]

I suggest we wait a couple of months before beginning a new tournament.

Perhaps we could wait until Aule returns from his internship in a few months. I am sure by then we will all be well rested and refreshed and ready to tackle another action-filled tournament of debates.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Arvedui
I don't see the nescessity (sp?) of being well-versed in the texts of Tolkien to be able to judge.

As it is said, a debate is about persuation. And because of that, it can actually be a drawback to be a Tolkien-scholar (or whatever you want to call it). If you know the texts like some members here do, then you are probably bound to have an opinion on which side is right before the debate even starts. If you then are not aware of this, the other side starts with a disadvantage.
A judge that does not have a preset view on which side is wrong and which is right, can actually vote based on which team convinced him/her most. If none were able to do so, then it is a draw.

C'mon Arvedui, that is about the most insipid argument I have seen here. To not have an opinion on something is simply not to be human. If someone has knowledge of particular areas, and form their own opinion, that is merely the result of the human condition i.e. it is unavoidable. The solution itself is simple. Do not judge on the topic, judge on the style of debating used. Progressive logic, deduction and so on. Of course, the topic can't be ignored. Perhaps a points system in judging should be used. If the team arguing is at a disadvantage. Say, the topic is was the downfall of Saruman his own doing? I would say the disadvataged team would be arguing that it wasn't for argument's sake. Perhaps a couple of extra points could be awarded. If the argument is close, than a second opinion must be used. Fair no?

[Arvedui]

Very fair, and I think that we actually agree. Take a closer look at one of the sentences: If you (the judge) are not aware of this...
I have judged debates where I had a personal opinion on what is wrong and right, and I have participated in debates where I had to 'fight' the side that was against my personal opinion.
The judge must be aware that he/she does not bring his/her judgement on basis on personal opinion, and this is where also the 'lost opportunities' comes in.

But again: I think that we have the same opinion.

[Lhunithiliel]

I really can't understand you! ("you", Eri, does not mean only you :p )

So, you're saying - no knowledge is needed!:eek:
All the debators have to take care of is how to impress the judges and all the judges have to do is to let be impressed by the debators.... :eek:
But as I see, in neither of these cases you suggest knowledge is to be involved,.... but only "techniques" of persuasion????

Call me a stupid fool.....but .... am I to understand that debates are viewed as a way to show off ? I thought debates, just as well as any other in-depth discussion, absolutely need serious approach and willingness to research and provide facts.... To me this seems of much greater importance than the "techniques" of debating!!!:rolleyes:
"Techniques" may be as different as the individuals involved depending on their personalities. To a judge, Snaga's style (for example) may seem the best debating skill ever! To another judge, Eri's style (another example ;) ) may seem unrivalled! Yet to a third judge these both may seem not convincing enough. Why did I give these two debators as examples? Because they have absolutely different styles of debating...or as you call it - "techniques". Yet knowledge they do NOT lack! And if I am to judge their posts in a debate I will for sure skip the "style" and look for the essence (hoping to find it!!! :p ).
On the other hand.... Say in a debate a team provides a quote from a source the judge is not acquainted with. But as it is done in a very "clever" style , and as the judge is impressed by the quote provided, he/she might be influenced enough as to think" Oh! Good for Team"*"! They have a wonderful technique! Look what a clever quote they have provided! Yes! My vote goes for them!"... But then it turns out that perhaps the said technique was only "throwing dust into the eyes"...providing clever suitable PIECES of quotes just with the purpose of impressing the judges.... And because the judge does NOT have enough knowledge of the source, he/she can not be aware of the fact that the said quote was only provided partially so that to suit the purpose of the debator!!!
The judge thus can be "sold" anything!!!

Another example: Say the judge is not well acquainted with the "proof material" (meaning sources) but is just a "romantic" soul. Then the "technique" of imposing "What if" - scenarios will win this judge on the spot!!!! For any "what if"-scenario let fantasy run wild and free!

In both above examples I spoke about techniques of debating. And I tried to show to you that the techniques of debating is ....or should be the thing to be NOT paid attention too much!

All I think is important for a debate - on the participants' and on the judges' part, is KNOWLEDGE!!!
Give knowledge, receive knowledge, search for knowledge....
Debates IMO are a clash of minds. Not a vanity fair!

I don't see other purpose of debates at all!

[Arvedui]

I don't totally agree with you, Lhunithiliel. (or Lhun, if I may...;) )
In debates such as they are set up, half of the participants are not allowed to debate which side they want. As I said in my previous post, you sometimes end up arguing against what you believe in.
That, and the fact that most participants put an enormous amount of pride in their guild and because of that desperately wants to win, makes such debates not to be so much a source of knowledge, but a place where debating skills are tested.

Concerning 'misuse of quotes,' I think that this is actually something that the opposing team should take care of. If they can point at a quote and say: "Hah! the next sentence totally undemine your argument," then the judge will see who really knows the texts. If a team can get away with using a phony quote, then that also tells which team knows the texts least.

Finally, the 'no knowledge needed'- issue doesn't really come into account, does it? After all, this is a Tolkien-forum where all of us share one common interest.

[Eriol]

I don't think that styles play a role in judgment. I haven't judged many debates, but I never even considered the style of the posts.

For example. If a judge is usually nit-picky with grammar and spelling, should he take points off a team which does not take care for these things? I think not.

The only effect of "style" is therefore unconscious; it is a part of the "likeability factor". And it cuts both ways. Just as one style may be appreciated by a judge, another style may be annoying.

I don't think the judge should take that into account. He should check himself and beware of the possibility. He should try to filter it out of his evaluation.

The goal is not "to impress" the judges, it is to convince them. Quotes are used to that effect. When a "style" or a "technique" becomes an end in itself -- a way to "throw dust in the judges' eyes" -- why, the other team should simply prove that. No one likes to get dust in the eyes :).

We can't hope for the ideal, perfect judge. We can hope for committed judges; and we can give them guidelines to be followed. "Put content above style" is one guideline.

In the end, judges are swayed by content, not style. (I am an optimistic guy :) ). For the best technique of persuasion is... the truth, and logic. Truthful quotes, and cogent arguments, win debates (hopefully :p). "Dust in the eyes" do not.

You talk, for instance, of "what-if" scenarios. These are a valid technique in my opinion and can often make an important point. But they also can be flights of fancy. Who are we to outrule them? It is the job of the opposing team to shoot it down if it is only a flight of fancy... just as it is the job of the opposing team to refute the point made by the argument if there is a point.

I think there is a great difference between the two actions. To expose a flight of fancy is not at all like refuting a point. And it is the job of the judges to ascertain which is which.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
I really can't understand you! ("you", Eri, does not mean only you :p )

So, you're saying - no knowledge is needed!:eek:
All the debators have to take care of is how to impress the judges and all the judges have to do is to let be impressed by the debators.... :eek:
But as I see, in neither of these cases you suggest knowledge is to be involved,.... but only "techniques" of persuasion????

Call me a stupid fool.....but .... am I to understand that debates are viewed as a way to show off ? Those last sentences would indicate to me that you are beginning to understand... :)

The contents and your actual knowledge regarding Tolkien's works seems to be only of secondary interest in the debates. As long as you present your posts well and use terms like "logic", "reason" and a couple more phrases often enough it might remain unnoticed that your logic is twisted and/or is circular, what matters is that you can win, even when the guy of the opposite team knows twice as much...

And since the judges don't have to have a clue what it's all about, chances are they won't even notice they've been fooled... :rolleyes:

[Lhunithiliel]

To Arvedui:
I don't totally agree with you, Lhunithiliel. (or Lhun, if I may... )
I'll always be "Lhun" for my friends, High King! ;) :D
In debates such as they are set up, half of the participants are not allowed to debate which side they want. As I said in my previous post, you sometimes end up arguing against what you believe in.

True! But then ... am I to understand that one can take up a factual material and twist it the way it may just suit the position defended? Then it will result in using one and the same facts for opposite arguments!!!:eek: (Boy! I am still to learn so much about debates!!! :p )
That, and the fact that most participants put an enormous amount of pride in their guild and because of that desperately wants to win, makes such debates not to be so much a source of knowledge, but a place where debating skills are tested.
And this is supposed to win a debate?????? And what, please, shall the "debating skills" serve if NOT knowledge to be provided??????:eek:

To Eri:
I will not quote you, Mariner, but I'll summarise what I understood from your post......
And it goes like this: "style" IS the "debating technique" you're defending as the most important in a debate (when compared to knowledge). Then.... if the judges are to disregard "style = technique = debating skills", this means they are actually coming to the "core" - which is ... knowledge provided, I suppose!Right?
Aha! I see...You AGREE WITH ME!
Finally! :p :D

To Walt:

Those last sentences would indicate to me that you are beginning to understand...
Only when they convince me that all I have to do as a debator is to be just very smart and not bother too much about the content of my posts, my friend! Or when they convince me that all a judge has to do is to like or dislike the "tactics" and not the content! Only then! ;) :D

[Scatha]

Well Lhun, the ideal debator would be able to use persuasion and debate, while quoting from the works of Tolkien.

Then again, someone with good debating skills can certainly be an asset to the team, even when not able to come up with quotes, but to disrupt the presenting of material of the opponent by unravelling their posts, aka cast doubt. ;)

[Lhunithiliel]

Hmmmm..........
So, you're saying that a quote from T's works/Letters or/and reliable sources about T can be "anihilated" simply by sth.like:"C'mon man! Don't you see you're wrong?! You can do better! Why don't you go and read a bit more!"
(I've seen such "arguments"! :p )
Hmmmmmmm............

****
BTW, Scatha, I love your "Deep thoughts! :D

[Scatha]

No, I am saying however, that with good debating skills, you can counter posts, without the need for quotes from the book.

*grins* Thanks Lhun. :D

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
To Eri:
I will not quote you, Mariner, but I'll summarise what I understood from your post......
And it goes like this: "style" IS the "debating technique" you're defending as the most important in a debate (when compared to knowledge). Then.... if the judges are to disregard "style = technique = debating skills", this means they are actually coming to the "core" - which is ... knowledge provided, I suppose!Right?
Aha! I see...You AGREE WITH ME!
Finally!

Not really. What you just did was an example of debating tactics, haha. You are, in effect, dividing all possible actions in a debate into two categories: "knowledge" and "style". And you say that what is not knowledge is, forcefully, style. Even though I said I don't think style is important in judgments! (check my last post)

I don't agree, and I don't think I'm alone in disagreeing. "Style" is not all there is to debating technique... or else there couldn't even be team debating! I'd be using "my style", you would be using "your style", and how would the judge decide which style is "GoT's style"? How could he vote? (Remember, we are teammates ;) ). The judge could only rank the styles in order of preference, and he might find one GoT debator at the top of the list, and one GoE debator in 2nd place (to allude to the debate which started this thread...), and then another GoE, then a GoT... how to decide which is the best team if you are just looking at the styles, and not at the arguments? It's not a fashion parade.

No, what the judge does it to look at the argument. The argument is not "style", but it is not "knowledge" either. It uses knowledge and style to make a point, but it is a different thing.

What this means is that there are "ground rules". For instance, logic and reason (and other "phrases like that :D") are very important -- or should be very important! You should use Tolkien's words to boost your argument; and so on.

So, there are (at least) three major factors involved, and not two, as you tried to show (see, debating tactics ;)). These three points are: logic, style, and knowledge. I submit that the most important (by far) is logic. But since logic can't be presented without style or knowledge, the distinction is very artificial. When one is judging, he is looking at a complex matrix of logic + style + knowledge.

This means that the "pure knowledge debate" is a fiction, Lhun... for one thing, because Tolkien's works are not as cut and dry as they would have to be for meaningful debates if only knowledge was important. Take a look at the most famous controversies, Balrog's Wings, Uruk vs. Uruk-Hai, Tom Bombadil... how can one "win" a debate on these matters by sheer weight of knowledge? Tolkien is not Mathematics. The best we can hope for in a debate is to be enlightened by the research effort of the debators, and to gain arguments to form our own opinion of the matter, since the debates (ideally) deal only with controversial issues, without a clear answer.

Also, "pure knowledge" debates would be a clash of librarians :(. If no arguments could be offered, it would be best for us to simply post quotes.

"The big picture" is very important. What is the point of this thread, for instance? Is it to improve our knowledge of Tolkien? No. Is it to see which is the smartest arguer? Also, no. It is to provide guidelines to judges in future debates. Arguing is here a method; I don't claim I know all there is to be known about the best guidelines, and you don't claim that either, and almost no one here does. We seem to be accomplishing something. Yay!

What is the point of a debate "in the big picture"? -- quite simply, there is only one point: to have fun. It is not to see which Guild is the best debating Guild, or the best debator, and not even to gain knowledge... though of course all of these things are achieved in the process. But they are all subject to the fun of debating, in my opinion. Debating is a method, not an end; and the end in our sight is fun, not medals or awards or even knowledge.

Only when they convince me that all I have to do as a debator is to be just very smart and not bother too much about the content of my posts, my friend! Or when they convince me that all a judge has to do is to like or dislike the "tactics" and not the content! Only then! ;)

Well, that's not my goal ;). I don't want to convince you of that, mostly because I don't believe in it. I've been accused of "using too many quotes" in a debate (and you know that), so you are aware that I do not subscribe to this very funny description of the opposite stance to yours :D.

What I want to convince you of is this: Yes, what you have to do as a debator is to be smart. Smart enough to use quotes skillfully and build a cogent argument out of them, and if possible to find flaws in the opponents' arguments. Knowledgeable enough to know where are the quotes (anyone who does bibliographical research knows that the most important skill is knowing where the info is). Remember in a debate, when we were discussing what the opponents could do, and we commented that "if they use such and such quote we'll be in trouble"? That is knowledge. And "Stylish" enough to please the judges.

Mostly, I want to convince you that this is not a contest of knowledge. This is a way to have fun. I wouldn't like debating if the point was to see who knows more or less than I do; I'm quite aware of the status of most people here as pertains that, I know some who know more than me, some who know less, and (the immense majority) many whose knowledge is unknown to me.

And to be quite frank I don't see any relevance in this kind of thing. I don't care if someone knows more than me, and I don't care if he knows less... we're here to have fun, not to compete in such a hazy and meaningless area as "Tolkien knowledge". I don't think that "Tolkien knowledge" is something one should put on his resumé :D. I have more reasons to be proud, and more reasons to be ashamed too, than "Tolkien knowledge".

Sometimes I get very guilty feelings, you know... not regarding TTF, but regarding the amount of time in my life that I spent (and still will spend) reading Tolkien books. It's not something that makes me proud. I'm sure there are many interesting things out there to be read, and I don't have infinite time, since I'm not an Elf. If I were really smart I'd be reading new things instead of re-reading Tolkien by the umpteenth time... or so says the guilty feeling.

I get this guilty feeling now and then. It's fleeting. I soon convince myself that I go back to Tolkien because I find beauty in there, and there is never "enough beauty" for me. The "guilty feeling" is the snob within -- the guy who wants to know all there is to be known. It's a vain desire. Much better to enjoy beauty where we find it.

If I ever manage to convince you of these two things: that a debator should be smart, knowledgeable and "stylish" -- in that order -- and that we're here to have fun, I'll be glad. If not, oh well, it's just ANOTHER issue on which we disagree...

;)

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
True! But then ... am I to understand that one can take up a factual material and twist it the way it may just suit the position defended? Then it will result in using one and the same facts for opposite arguments!!!:eek: (Boy! I am still to learn so much about debates!!! :p ) Yes and no. There is a thread hiding in the Debate-section somewhere, where twisting quotes was discussed. I think that snaga started it. The way it is done is that I find a couple of sentences that would be very good for my 'side of the story.' I see that the next sentences will not be serving my cause, so I just post the first sentences and go from there. You as debating for the other side, are perhaps without your books at the moment, or think that this sounds plausible and goes on from what I said, without checking. Then the twisted quote remains standing, and I might score a point with the judges. That is, all the way until another member of your team catches me red-handed...:( ;)
If I get away with it, then I have fought my side better than you have fought yours.
If I am caught, then it works the opposite way

(This is obviously hypothetical as I am using you and myself as examples :D )

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
And this is supposed to win a debate?????? And what, please, shall the "debating skills" serve if NOT knowledge to be provided??????:eek:

I think that you might be misunderstanding me a little. Noone can employ any techniques to cover their lack of knowledge. At least not on this Forum. The simple explanation for this is that the level of knowledge here is so high that the chance of getting caught is very high. But politicians do this all the time.

So there is a difference here between debators and judges, Lhun. :)

[Lhunithiliel]

What is this "curse" of mine!?!
I don't want to debate, yet you guys just love to argue with me!!! :D

All right...

To Eri:
What you just did was an example of debating tactics, haha...
Clever! Right? Just as I did in ansewr to Scatha. :p
But I was being 'funny"and you liked it! THOUGH I said absolutely nothing to contribute to the essence of the present discussion! I was simply applying tactics... How much did my post then help the on-going discussion? NONE!
See my point? I can use different tactics...or call it a "style" but what can these give?
Fun! Ah! Well... This is what you see as another aim of the debates. Remember what "fun" we had with the "Eowyn" - debate, Eri ???? ;)
Besides, style only, can bring big troubles! See my warning points! :D

But let me stop being smart!
"Style" is not all there is to debating technique... or else there couldn't even be team debating! I'd be using "my style", you would be using "your style", and how would the judge decide which style is "GoT's style"? How could he vote? (Remember, we are teammates.
But that's what I am saying! In debates with more than one debator every one has his/her own style = techniques.
The point is however that a judge should NOT be persuaded by the style itself only but what this debator uses his/her specific style for!
And when the styles of the whole team, no matter how different these may be, are all dedicated to defend the position chosen (or left), then the final result is good.
I think you misread me. I do not put the Berlin Wall between style and knowledge! (Besides, didn't they take it down? :p )
No, what the judge does it to look at the argument. The argument is not "style", but it is not "knowledge" either. It uses knowledge and style to make a point, but it is a different thing.
The combination of these two are what should be taken in consideration by a judge!
True! I do agree!
But I see that you have slowly come to this conclusion starting from the position that all that matters is "technique" of persuading the judges.:p
I still don't think that a debate should ever be called only for the purpose of persuading a judge!!!

To Arvedui:

I know about that thread. Yes, Snaga suggested that discussion. And I know this is a problem...I mean twisting the facts as to fit one's position.
The point is that based on many factors (mostly strictly individual) the judge may take this "twisted" way of presenting "facts" as granted if he/she does not have a clear knowledge of the thing mentioned in the said quote. And it will be as you said:
If I get away with it, then I have fought my side better than you have fought yours.
And to what effect? :confused:
There will come a reader and he/she will take that information for granted as well, since the judge has not discovered the fault for:
1/ not knowing well the factual material used by the debators
2/ for being too lazy to check if it is true (if 1/)
And where will the knowledge go to? To **** (my place! ;) :D)

I still can't agree that knowledge is irrelevant for the judges!
So there is a difference here between debators and judges, Lhun
Definitely! And we here are to find out what a judge should have or/and be as to serve as a judge. Right?
We have strayed a bit from the track, applying debating techniques!
Let's back to the track! :)

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Fun! Ah! Well... This is what you see as another aim of the debates. Remember what "fun" we had with the "Eowyn" - debate, Eri ???? ;)
Aaargh!!! Don't mention that again. I had to degauss my monitor just because of you!!:D There will come a reader and he/she will take that information for granted as well, since the judge has not discovered the fault for:
1/ not knowing well the factual material used by the debators
2/ for being too lazy to check if it is true
Have you noticed that all the topics have been brought up for discussion among all members? (at least those that have been judged...) IMO, this is where the members may seek knowledge, at least more than in the debates.We have strayed a bit from the track Really???:D

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
But I was being 'funny"and you liked it! THOUGH I said absolutely nothing to contribute to the essence of the present discussion! I was simply applying tactics... How much did my post then help the on-going discussion? NONE!

I don't agree. Your post and mine, together, helped to clarify the relationship between style, knowledge, and the argument.

But that's what I am saying! In debates with more than one debator every one has his/her own style = techniques.
The point is however that a judge should NOT be persuaded by the style itself only but what this debator uses his/her specific style for!

And when did I disagree with that? I'm just repeating everywhere in this thread that style, on its own, is not important.

I think you misread me. I do not put the Berlin Wall between style and knowledge! (Besides, didn't they take it down? :p )

Luckily :). But you equated "style = technique = debating skills". Do you still think that these are the same thing? Or do you think (as I do) that style should be considered in a different category from "finding the right quote", or "presenting a cogent argument", or "finding flaws in the opponents' argument?"

Style is style. Debating skills are more than that -- they include what I mention above and much more.

The combination of these two are what should be taken in consideration by a judge!

True! I do agree!
But I see that you have slowly come to this conclusion starting from the position that all that matters is "technique" of persuading the judges.:p

Well, if I came slowly or quickly to that position is not very important, is it?

But you miss the difference. For the judges, all what matters is the argument. Presentation and style should be minor matters. For the debators, style is more important.

Take the ultimate example, which is -- knowledge ;). For a debator, knowledge is essential. He must have knowledge of Tolkien's words to find the right quotes, to develop the argument, to find counter-quotes, etc. For a judge, it is NOT important. He must judge based solely on what the two teams presented. And this I called "debating technique". It is miles away from what I call "style". It is related to logic and proper use of quotes and team effort, etc. etc. If one does it caustically, nicely, or neutrally (matters of style) should not be an important consideration for the judge.

I still believe that a layman which is dedicated, impartial, available and careful is more efficient as a judge than Tolkien himself -- if Tolkien is pressed for time or partial to a team, or careless, or unwilling to work.

Likewise, style is quite important for a debator, and should be disregarded by the judges.

I still don't think that a debate should ever be called only for the purpose of persuading a judge!!!

No, the debate is for fun :). If there is no fun in a debate, quite simply, it failed in its purpose. That it happened in the Tournament is very sad. I would enjoy MUCH more a fun debate with the worst judging in the world than a nasty debate with the best judges ever.

I still can't agree that knowledge is irrelevant for the judges!

Not irrelevant, but also not required. It helps in some occasions, it hinders in others. Why the disagreement between us? Because you still have a different opinion as to the purpose of the judging. You think it is to establish the more knowledgeable team; I think it is to establish which team debated better.

While we don't agree on this, we'll never get "on the right track" :).

[Khamul]

Well, you can always just have a quiz game if it's purely based on knowledge. The truth is that the explanation of a quote is done with the use of rhetorical strategies, and is thus a debating technique. You are trying to convince the judges of your information, but the way you present it will always be taken into effect regardless of how hard the judge tries. Especially in the forum environment, we expect people to have a fair grasp of grammar and spelling and to at least take the time to put together a coherent post.

(Hmm, I think I need to get back into this. :))

[Gothmog]

One thing to remember. Good Debate Questions Do Not have a Right or a Wrong side therefore it is not a matter of who has the greater knowledge of Tolkien that counts. Each side is presenting a case for a question without an definate answer. The "Balrog Wings" question is a classic example of this. There is no definitive answer (even though they do not have wings ;) ) And each side tries to convince the other that they are right.

Therefore, While I would say that some knowledge is needed to be a judge (otherwise they would get lost in the first post) it is not a pre-requisite that each judge have an "Extensive" amount of knowledge. Though looking at most of the members on this site I would say that apart from myself it would be very difficult to find many who were willing to judge that do not have a very extensive knowledge of the works of Tolkien.

[Gil-Galad]

Well,I have read carefully all the posts so far.These by Lhun and those by Eri,and Arvedui and the others.
Some very good suggestion have been made,but there will be no agreement without compromises.And to tell you the truth,from everything that I have read here,I believe that the truth is in the middle.
How philosophically said ;) :)

[Khamul]

I mean, I wouldn't mind judging, but alot of times when a debate is a huge number of posts, with alot of the same things being said over and over again; it gets a little tedious. ;)

[Lhunithiliel]

....A bit earlier in this debate:....
Originally posted by Eriol
If I were to think of a "judges' workbook", it would include these steps:

a) to define for himself the question of the debate. This can be a matter of discussion, itself, as we've seen in some debates; and it can even become a "sub-debate". If it was worded so as to raise doubts, then the judge must judge the "sub-debate" before anything else... following the later steps. In other words, he must NOT decide for himself that "this is the meaning of the question", if there is any doubt; he must follow the arguments of the teams. This is to achieve "standardization of judgments".
...yet, good knowledge needed!!!

b) to define -- in his own words -- the main arguments of each side. That means making a short list (in writing if necessary) of the arguments in each side (ideally, in each POST).
good knowledge needed!!!

c) to check the strength of the arguments themselves in each side; possibly one argument will have been thoroughly refuted by the other side

d) to check the applicability of the argument to the question of the debate. I can't stress the importance of this step strongly enough. I have seen judgments (and it is not rare) where a judge was swayed by a great post by someone... completely unrelated to the point being discussed!
good knowledge needed!!!

e) Finally, to judge the presentation of the arguments. (This is why step b is so important). This is usually the first step of a casual reader; it should be the last step for a judge, in my opinion. It is important, of course; and rhetoric is a major element in the debates. But even so if one does not go through the analytical path, one may be easily misled by a well-crafted post.
no knowledge needed, indeed

So? ;)

But you equated "style = technique = debating skills". Do you still think that these are the same thing? Or do you think (as I do) that style should be considered in a different category from "finding the right quote", or "presenting a cogent argument", or "finding flaws in the opponents' argument?"

Style is style. Debating skills are more than that -- they include what I mention above and much more.
To be more precise, I'd say style includes debating skills=techniques.

But you miss the difference. For the judges, all what matters is the argument. Presentation and style should be minor matters. For the debators, style is more important.
I do not miss the differencve! But I knoe too that this thread here is dedicated to the judges. Then....why not open a separate thread about the debators? Seriously! Sth.like the one we have in the GoT to discuss everything that concerns the important issues when debating.
Thus, we can clear the present thread, because with the development of the discussion here we have often started to comment the debators' instead of the judges' skills.

Take the ultimate example, which is -- knowledge ;). For a debator, knowledge is essential. He must have knowledge of Tolkien's words to find the right quotes, to develop the argument, to find counter-quotes, etc. For a judge, it is NOT important. He must judge based solely on what the two teams presented. And this I called "debating technique". It is miles away from what I call "style". It is related to logic and proper use of quotes and team effort, etc. etc. If one does it caustically, nicely, or neutrally (matters of style) should not be an important consideration for the judge.
Oh, no! It isn't miles away! All that you describe IS a style!

Not irrelevant, but also not required. It helps in some occasions, it hinders in others. Why the disagreement between us? Because you still have a different opinion as to the purpose of the judging. You think it is to establish the more knowledgeable team; I think it is to establish which team debated better.
Exactly!
I do see a different purpose in debating!
As I've said, for me to debate means: to seek knowledge, to exchange knowledge, to provide knowledge (in the best style I am capable of! :p)

I just CAN'T agree that all a debate is for is to persuade the judges!!! :eek:

Khamul:
alot of times when a debate is a huge number of posts, with alot of the same things being said over and over again; it gets a little tedious.
Precisely! This happens whrn the "smart guys/gals" ;) are just so - being smart and nothing more! No development of the debate!

But this is AGAIN a topic we should discuss in a separate thread - dedicated to the DEBATORS' skills.
Do you agree?

[Arvedui]

No, I do not agree.
In fact, I don't think we should discuss the DEBATORS's skills at all. Each and every member are different, and if all debators are to have the same skills, the same rules to follow concerning allowed-for techiques and so on, then all debates would be a terribly boring read!
One of the most interesting challenges of the debating tournament was to test ones skill against members with such different ways of debating. There are debators that combine knowledge with humor, sarcasm and provokation. Others have knowledge and try to add humor, but fail. Some are easily angered. And some are just so knowledgable that they are able to drive you insane (given that they have the opportunity to argue the 'stronger' side).

I mean, I wouldn't mind judging, but alot of times when a debate is a huge number of posts, with alot of the same things being said over and over again; it gets a little tedious. I agree.
But if you try to stop saying things over and over again, there is a fair chance that a judge will say that the side that stopped the tedious argumentation gave in to the arguments of the other side. In a close debate, you probably won't take the risk.
I think that Lhun agrees with me. We had one of those back-and-forth arguments in a recent debate. But then of course, we are both too stubborn to give in anyway...:D

[Eriol]

We only delved into the matter of debators' skills because we had to find out the purpose of debating, and what it means "to persuade the judges". Lhun -- still -- believes that to "persuade" is simply to befuddle and cast dust in the eyes. I still believe that to persuade means using logic and arguments and information from the books to make a case.

I'm trying to persuade you, Lhun, in this thread... not to cast dust in your eyes ;). In fact, I think that's what you are trying to do :eek:.

Lhun, you must re-read my posts. In fact, it is enough to re-read the quotes you provide.

To define the question, you need knowledge?

To check the strength of the arguments, you need knowledge?

To check the applicability of the arguments to the question at hand, you need knowledge?

I think you are completely wrong. I would trust someone who NEVER read any Tolkien book with these jobs, easily.

When (to mention a famous example) the question is whether the race of men is "inherently" evil, does the judge need Tolkien knowledge to define what "inherently" means? Surely not!

:confused:

It seems to me you haven't read my posts at all!

:confused:

And the only instance in which you say no knowledge is needed, presentation... why? What is the difference between judging presentation and judging consistency in the arguments, that someone need no knowledge to judge presentation and conversely needs knowledge to judge consistency in the arguments?

While you say that presenting arguments, finding out quotes, finding flaws in the opponents' arguments, is "style" -- in fact, re-establishing the Berlin Wall :) -- we can make no progress. You have to pick an option, Lhun.

Either all that is not "knowledge" is style -- the Berlin Wall;

Or else there are things which are neither knowledge nor style; and then you must examine whether these things are more or less important than style for the judging.

[Walter]

Eriol just presented us with an excellent example how a post in a debate could/should be made which has a high chance to persuade the judges (in this case the reader is made the judge). I think it is highly interesting for anyone interested in debating and I shall try to analyse it's strategy, tactics and techniques a little, if I may. But this is not meant in any way to analyse - or judge - the contents of the post.

Originally posted by Eriol
We only delved into the matter of debators' skills because we had to find out the purpose of debating, and what it means "to persuade the judges". Lhun -- still -- believes that to "persuade" is simply to befuddle and cast dust in the eyes. I still believe that to persuade means using logic and arguments and information from the books to make a case.1) Introduction and declaration of goals. Careful wording to present the own side in a somewhat better light ( using logic and arguments and information from the books to make a case) than that of the opponent ( to befuddle and cast dust in the eyes). Even more efficient when the opponent already used these words one way or the other.


I'm trying to persuade you, Lhun, in this thread... not to cast dust in your eyes ;). In fact, I think that's what you are trying to do :eek:. 2) Similar to 1) also pointing out how honourable the own intentions are and at the same point accusing the opponent to have dishonourable intentions. Also the smileys emphasize the message very well.


Lhun, you must re-read my posts. In fact, it is enough to re-read the quotes you provide.3) At first sight this looks like a serious concern to not be misunderstood, but it is also a very subtle way of accusing the opponent of not being diligent and careful enough, or not capable or willing to read and/or understand what one has been saying earlier. Also trying to form a certain image of the opponent in the judge's mind.


To define the question, you need knowledge?

To check the strength of the arguments, you need knowledge?

To check the applicability of the arguments to the question at hand, you need knowledge?4) A series of leading questions, and nicely presented too (by making them appear as mere "rhetorical questions" to which only an idiot could give the wrong answer). But this could backfire if the opponent comes up with good points why the answer should or must be "yes", but until then they make an impressive appearance


I think you are completely wrong. I would trust someone who NEVER read any Tolkien book with these jobs, easily.5) Providing the - expected - answer to the leading questions in a matter-of-factly way and emphasizing a crucial word (or phrase). (just in case the judge might miss the point)


When (to mention a famous example) the question is whether the race of men is "inherently" evil, does the judge need Tolkien knowledge to define what "inherently" means? Surely not!6) Repetition and variant of 4) & 5) by giving an example and hence attempting to emphasize the own point once more.



:confused:7) Once again using the carefully placed smiley as an emphasis of the own point


It seems to me you haven't read my posts at all!

:confused:

8) Repetition of 3), again paired with the smiley like in 7)


And the only instance in which you say no knowledge is needed, presentation... why? What is the difference between judging presentation and judging consistency in the arguments, that someone need no knowledge to judge presentation and conversely needs knowledge to judge consistency in the arguments?9) Trying to pick apart the opponents line of argumentation by implying contradictions in it.


While you say that presenting arguments, finding out quotes, finding flaws in the opponents' arguments, is "style" -- in fact, re-establishing the Berlin Wall :) -- we can make no progress. You have to pick an option, Lhun.

Either all that is not "knowledge" is style -- the Berlin Wall;

Or else there are things which are neither knowledge nor style; and then you must examine whether these things are more or less important than style for the judging.10) A complex and elegant move (in fact a series of clever moves):

A) Trying to force the opponent to move on (While you say that …. We can make no progress).

B) Trying to force the opponent to make a choice (which at this point he doesn't want to make (and which usually gives the opponent the choice between a rock and a hard place) and thus trying to disturb and disrupt the opponent's "rhythm" and forcing the own "rhythm" upon him.

C) Implying that one has just made ones case (and proven the other's wrong) by means of logic (regardless whether this is true or not, if it is presented well enough, the judge will have a hard time looking through it even if he smells a rat). Careful wording emphasises that there is no chance that ones point of view is not correct, and - in the same breath - leaving no doubt the other one's is just plain wrong.

----

Many of the tactics and techniques used above (which btw. let us catch a glimpse of Eriol's brilliant debating skills) - and many more - can also be found in A Book of Five Ring and Sun Tzu the Art of War. Together with e.g. the "Tit for Tat strategy" such techniques will aid a lot in winning debates.

----

Regarding the subject at hand, the judging of debates, it should be taken care that everyone who serves as a judge, should be able to recognize such techniques and to look through them and judge the actual core, the quintessence, of the post, rather than be deceived by the brilliance of its presentation...

[Eriol]

Hahaha...

:D

Well, I'm a very singleminded guy, so I'm still focusing on the purpose of this thread. Walter's "contributions" to the thread (and I don't mean only this last post) can then receive the attention they deserve...

In any way, one of my purposes here is to persuade Lhun, not "the readers". Especially since the overwhelming majority of opinions here agrees with me, so far. In fact, I think Lhun is the only involved person (since Walter never took part in the debating activities) who disagrees. You, Lhun, must be "the judge" of this "debate", if I want to persuade you. This is how it happens in any thread; we offer arguments, but we must judge whether the argument is fitting, applicable to the question at hand, whether the quotes are fitting, etc. When we do that, we disregard the style -- right? I mean, even Walter is right more often than not when he posts about Tolkien, regardless of his style.

Do this. Re-read the thread. Look at the arguments. Look at my "rhetorical questions" (which are nothing more than the repetition of what you said in your last post). Remember the startling revelation of Walter's -- I am trying to persuade you! (amazing, eh?). And then give your opinion. Don't pay attention to those who say that I'm accusing you of "dishonorable intentions" ;); just as I know that you don't impute them to me.

Now, as for the "big picture" -- "Suggestions for Improving the Judging of Debates" -- I think we have advanced a lot in this thread. What must be done is simply to write up guidelines for judging. I think the majority of posters in this thread agrees with the idea that the purpose of judging is to decide which team debated better; and that the purpose of debating is having fun. So, just as the rules for debating were made with the purpose of debating in mind, the guidelines for judging should also have the purpose of judging in mind.

Baragund gave an excellent example of how a judge works. There were others in this thread. Why don't we choose a group of "good judges" and ask them to write up a short list of "tips for judging"?

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Eriol

Baragund gave an excellent example of how a judge works. There were others in this thread. Why don't we choose a group of "good judges" and ask them to write up a short list of "tips for judging"?
Probably that would be the best idea.The more exeprienced and honoured members can write a kind of Guidlines.Good guidelines will need some more time to be made and those who will write them will probably spend a lot of time in front ot their pc's discussing them in pms.But that will be for the good of TTF and it will definitely make the new debates better than the one we are still trying to finish.;)
:)

[Snaga]

Those who judge debates should be seen to be qualified to do the job, and if appointed should exercise a reasonable degree of diligence in doing so. I say this from a debators viewpoint: it is frustrating to feel either that the judge didnt understand what was being discussed, or that they did not exercise care in their verdict.

Example: if two people were debating the intricacies of sub-atomic physics, would you feel qualified to judge? I know that I would not, and in fact it would foolish to ask me to. I do not agree that the judges must have a superior knowledge to that of the debators, but I feel that some familiarity with the topic would be helpful. I have sometimes found myself asked to judge debates relating to aspects of the Silmarillion based on my greater familiarity with the topic than other Periaur members. I conclude Lhun is not alone in her view.

I myself have always ultimately judge on 'Who was more convincing?'; and I have consciously tried to avoid my own preconceptions. On more than one occasion I have been 'forced' to vote a particular way because the topic was not impartial. If the topic was 'Do dwarves have beards?' I would almost certainly vote with the team who said yes, unless they failed to present any evidence of it. Even very ingenious counter-arguments would be unconvincing in this instance. This is an extreme example of a problem that is quite frequent: namely the unfair question. I would argue that in judging the suitability of a question some knowledge AND skill is required; more than in judging.

At the risk of sounding like a complete geek, here are some stats based on all the judgements in debates where all 5 judges have given verdicts.

- 7% of verdicts gave no reasons
- 30% of verdicts gave only short verdicts of the kind "I felt overall Guild X did better than Y"
Therefore approximately two-thirds gave reasons in a good level of detail.

The following judges judged 4 times or more, and consistently gave judgements that were reasonably detailed in explaining their reasons:
- Baragund
- Beleg
- Chymaera
- Gil-Galad
- Ithrynluin
- Nom
- Snaga

(Note: this is based on statistical analysis, and for example Maedhros gave two very brief verdicts, possibly indicating lack of time or that the debate itself didnt merit a longer verdict! Noone would conclude Maedhros is unsuitable as a judge so don't get worried if your name does not appear!:p)

The first post may be influential on other judges: in 80% of cases the first judgement indicated the eventual winner. By contrast, the third post was on 53% likely to do be on the winning side. (Overall 67% of posts are on the winning side.) Interestingly, the Eruhini were most likely to vote for the losing side, whereas the Outcasts only twice ever picked the losing side.

Hosts are NOT influential to the outcome it seems. 57% voted on the winning side: less than average. Does this indicate that the host has a preconception about the 'right' answer to their question, which other judges do not share?

There is also some STATISTICAL indication that there is bias amongst guilds (ie Guild A is biased against Guild B, or in favour of Guild C). It is possible that much of this is statistical variability rather than actual bias, but even so it begs the question as to whether it would be better to have judges who are non-participants. Except that statistics tell you that the Scholars only ever got one vote from a Neutral judge in the entire tournament; so from that angle even the Neutral judges "can't be trusted".;) So I don't know what to make of that!:)

I'm not sure how useful those statistics are, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is a sucker for a good stat! Eg: most unbiased judge = Gothmog, who has voted once against each of the guilds (apart from OiE of course)!:D

[Walter]

Originally posted by Eriol
In fact, I think Lhun is the only involved person (since Walter never took part in the debating activities) who disagrees.
Well, yes, in a way this is almost correct, I never took part in an organized debate on TTF as a debator and only once as a judge.

But even then I was applying the wrong criteria, as it seems now, since I was trying to judge who argued more along the lines of Tolkien's texts and not who used the better techniques, tactics or strategies.

As for my dislike to take part in the organized debates the way they are: In my younger years I have taken great delight in debating just for the sake of it or to show off my debating skills. But by now, I feel beyond that age and a debate has to be about a topic that interests me greatly and I think that with taking part I could improve my insight, knowledge or maybe gain a little wisdom. If that is not the case, I consider it a waste of time and energy and know of many - and more pleasant ways - to kill my time.

Nowadays, I don't like debates just for the sake of debating or winning, it's got to be about something more. And most debates I have seen are about winning. But while it seems to be fun when one is winning I have seen things become outright nasty when some debators were less fortunate...

So, if there is a way the "modus operandi" is changed, things would be different of course. If e.g. a list of topics (eventually already with the judges settled) would be pre-existing and everyone who wants to participate could choose which topic and which side to take part of (just by filling her/his name into the list), no one would have to fear to end up on the "wrong side" of the argument. As soon as one topic is "full" the time can be settled in agreement and the debate held. Such a system would - IMO - result in more interesting debates than those resulting from the current system.

Another point regarding judges: If we take for example the Uruks vs. Uruk-hai debate. It has been going on for some 40 pages (each filled with 15 posts) and almost every single post a treasure of "Tolkien-lore"

Now let's assume this would've been one of the topics in a debate, who should have been the judges? Would we need knowledgeable judges to judge such a debate? How many "judges" at TTF would actually know what the debators were talking about? What would the decision have looked like?

Well, in the "Uruks.."-thread eventually a certain member jumped in and finally - in a single post - said pretty much everything, that there is to say about that issue. Talk about knowledge and insight. But, yes, judges don't need no knowledge, I know ;)

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Arvedui
Very fair, and I think that we actually agree. Take a closer look at one of the sentences: If you (the judge) are not aware of this...
I have judged debates where I had a personal opinion on what is wrong and right, and I have participated in debates where I had to 'fight' the side that was against my personal opinion.
The judge must be aware that he/she does not bring his/her judgement on basis on personal opinion, and this is where also the 'lost opportunities' comes in.

But again: I think that we have the same opinion.

Good, than that's settled. ;)

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Walter
So, if there is a way the "modus operandi" is changed, things would be different of course. If e.g. a list of topics (eventually already with the judges settled) would be pre-existing and everyone who wants to participate could choose which topic and which side to take part of (just by filling her/his name into the list), no one would have to fear to end up on the "wrong side" of the argument. As soon as one topic is "full" the time can be settled in agreement and the debate held. Such a system would - IMO - result in more interesting debates than those resulting from the current system.

I think this is a very good idea :).

It seems awkward to fit it in the current scheme for debates (i.e., in the framework in which a host picks a subject, and then a team -- formed before the question is divulged -- picks a side). I'll give some thought to it. It would undoubtedly be the best way to debate, in my opinion; it would avoid the problem touched upon by snaga (the unfair question).

A very good idea, indeed :).

Posted by snaga1

Example: if two people were debating the intricacies of sub-atomic physics, would you feel qualified to judge? I know that I would not, and in fact it would foolish to ask me to. I do not agree that the judges must have a superior knowledge to that of the debators, but I feel that some familiarity with the topic would be helpful. I have sometimes found myself asked to judge debates relating to aspects of the Silmarillion based on my greater familiarity with the topic than other Periaur members. I conclude Lhun is not alone in her view.

I agree, too. Though I was mentioning the "intelligent layman" as an attempt to emphasize that knowledge is not the most important thing -- something with which I think you agree, snaga, when you say that "it is frustrating to feel either that the judge didnt understand what was being discussed, or that they did not exercise care in their verdict". I don't think utmost knowledge is needed either to understand what is being discussed, or to exercise care. But clearly (as you say) "some familiarity with the topic would be helpful".

Arvedui (I think) touched upon this. I believe that almost everybody in this Forum has "some familiarity with the topic", except in the most "encyclopedic" questions. To judge a debate about "whether Frodo was successful in the quest", I think the judge must have read LotR to have a clear grasp of the meaning of the question.

But I don't think the judge must have read all the Letters that mention that, for instance. Quotes from the Letters were extensively used in that debate, and I think they sufficed for the judges. (I'm skipping the problem of dishonest quotations for now).

"Familiarity with the topic" is then a requisite for judges that I would be glad to add to those four items I listed a while back. However, I still think it is in a distant fifth place. Willingness, Impartiality, Time, and Care are much more important.

I have nothing to complain about the judgments I received in all the debates in the "familiarity with the topic" department. And I also think it is frustrating to have a judge mi