I knew I was screwed the moment I found out Seabs would be the tie-breaking judge. And no, Seabs, I don't think it was because of any kind bias due to the debates not being anonymous to you. I strongly disagree with how you judge debates but I would not question your fairness.
The problem with you and my debates is because of your own bias into how the question should be debated. This is something I have previously pointed out. I try to take a creative approach with my debates and any time you've judged me, you don't open your mind to any kind of creative approach. Best I can tell, you want as dull of a straight-forward approach as possible. You've told me in your own words that it is up to the debater how he wants to interpret the question but then when you judged my debate...
The question was is it TOO MUCH of a negative approach. Read the question and take it in properly
...is in your feedback.
A: "TOO MUCH" wasn't in bold. That's your own interpretation of what the proper question was. Since, according to you, it is up to me how I interpret the debate question, you shouldn't be including your own bias of how the debate should be interpreted in your judging. You say I answered the question well but then you say I answered the wrong question. How can I answer the wrong question if it is up to me to decide how I interpret the question?
B: You say I took no notice of "too much" but I very clearly stated in my opening that there is "no such thing as too much
negativity if it gets people to buy newspapers." There was nothing else to say about "too much" beyond that because I had already stated that the concept of too much
does not exist in the business of newspapers.
C: The other judges had no problem whatsoever with the approach I took. They actually seemed to appreciate the creative and unique ways myself and my fellow debaters attacked the question. I was critiqued fairly for the content of my debate without any bias of how the question should be interpreted. I applaud and thank Anark, Zombo and Aid for their judging and feedback.
I do have a couple of follow up questions for the judging panel.
The stats did me in, eh? I was trying to use the declining sales to bolster my overall point of newspapers not having any choice in the matter. So that was pretty much it? Nothing wrong with the rest of the debate?
I find it interesting that you had the least to say about mine but I got the winning vote. No real question here but I will point out, this is my first victory with a judge. I'm making progress!
Damn... I was one missing line away from getting the 2nd vote I needed for a win? You even thought I had the best debate. Ugh, that's heartbreaking.
To answer your question, "Decline of National Newspapers: Alright, so how does this matter to the topic?", same as I said above to Anark; I was trying to use the declining sales to bolster my overall point of newspapers not having any choice in the matter.
"For all I know, you could really mean that they do not have too much of a negative approach because they need to have said approach."
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Had my closing been...
At the end of the day, selling newspapers is a business and they are in the business of selling newspapers. They are forced to print what sells. Violence sells. Negativity sells. They do not have too much of a negative approach because they need to have said approach.
By reporting bad news, they are simply doing what's best for business.
...and included that one line, would it have been victorious?