The GM can judge, but I feel having more than one judge is beneficial to eliminate bias or pick up on issues not raised by the GM. I was going to judge either way GM or not, but I am terrible at this kind of unrestrained management, I am too lenient and tend to lose track of time, which is why I am reassigning Zairak as the GM.
I am, however, going to play in the tournament instead of being simply a judge now, as thinking about it it shortens down the tournament from 10 games to 4 (1 player gets a bye)
Anyways, my judgement:
Kudos:
First argument:5
I'm uncertain about the anthropomorphising of animals in their thinking capabilities, and while it is not my position to argue the point, the problem with that is it is a logical fallacy. Otherwise, reasonable points are made and I have no real issue with what is said as much I do in what wasn’t said. They were quite general arguments and may have needed a few stronger points with sources.
Second argument: 7
Her argument becomes much stronger here, with more sources and this more solid points. She directly confronts Tormenteds main points then proceeds to add arguments. My main issue with these newer arguments is that while they are strong, they are still quite basic, but for what there is she uses what she finds well nonetheless.
Third argument: 4
Points out the flaws of his argument but then also misreads what he said and ends up straw-manning, though I can understand misreading, since there was only one word changing the context of his statement, where he said trying to save every animal was utopian, but working to save as many as possible wasn’t. Besides that, points were on mark but still very brief, though mainly recycled and expanded slightly on her previous remarks.
Overall: 6
What weakened her overall was the simplicity and relatively few points. A couple sources were used but she may have benefited from using more. That being said, she addressed the main points fairly clearly, but may benefit from expanding more than she did.
Tormented:
First argument: 5
Some solid points raised but quite vague, did not dive much into the point of utility. The writing style was interesting but again lacked sourcing and generalised or at times.
Second argument: 2
His arguments begin to go off track to far into the issue of animal suffering rather than of preservation, appealing more to emotion than to reason. While he does address kudos' points, he tangents too far into philosophical ideas of wealth usage and idealism for more than half of the argument. Its good he recognises that his view should not be on saving all, but nor does he address why we should invest into saving animals beyond their suffering.
Third argument: 4
Couple good points, but again very general, addressed arguments that kudos didnt raise (I dont think she said the funds were untrustworthy). Points were ok, but only ok. He did call Kudos out on taking an extreme side at the end of no funding into animal preservation whatsoever though, which improves his position somewhat.
Overall: 4
Tormented makes some good points at the start but they are all general arguments and completely lack sourcing and research. He would have benefited from researching into his side much more than he did, and at times he did tangent away into other issues such as animal suffering or focusing too much on monetary allocation. His writing was appealing but at times was too emotional and definitely would have benefited from even a small bit of research.
Conclusion: 6/4 in favour of Kudos.
One more judge needed, then onto the next round.
|