Get down! Get down!
Score the first W in the win column for Tater! Woot!
Uh-oh, look who's learned how to write a winning debate. Watch out Social Division... Tater the Debater is on the rise!
Originally Posted by Anark
You also dismissed the subject of musicality with one sentence by stating people can argue about song quality and it means nothing. In my opinion, the majority of both debates should have been focused on the musicality. The question wasnít Ďwhich album had the most cultural impactí or sold the most, but which is the better Nirvana album.
Itís a musical question, not a cultural impact question.
Ah... but by your own logic, the debate question wasn't "which album had the better musicality?" ...no? It seems like to me that it was up to me to decide how I wanted to make the case of which one was better and what made it better. Had the topic been "In Utero was a better Nirvana album musically
than Nevermind. Agree or Disagree?", then I would have been forced to debate that aspect.
Originally Posted by Anark
Tater was a technically superior piece of writing by quite a distance.
The reason why I think the music should have been dealt with is down to the wording of the question: In Utero was a better Nirvana album than Nevermind. Itís asking for a direct comparison between the two albums rather than albums in general
Itís a shame too (unless you got the other judges' votes ) as youíre showing huge improvement style-wise. Itís just this repeating issue with interpreting the question thatís holding you back.
See, this is what I don't really understand about the whole debate and judging process. Seabs tells me that it is up to me how I interpret the debate question. Then, when I get to the judging cards, I run into judging that penalizes me for not debating the topic how they think I should have debated the topic, rather than judging me purely for the quality of my debate.
Explain to me exactly why it is that "better" in this case should be debated on the musicality aspect of the two albums? Because I see nothing in the way the topic is phrased that says anything at all about the music. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to decide what makes something better than something else.
Even though you admit that I wrote the superior debate, I didn't get the vote from you because we interpreted the debate topic differently. If I am allowed freedom in how I choose to debate the topic presented, then I just don't get why I am penalized by the judges for taking a different approach than what is expected. If I was to be told that I am not allowed creativity in my approach to debating... if I am told that the straightforward method is the only acceptable form of debating... then that is what I would do. As long as I am still operating under the belief that creativity is allowed in interpretation, I'm probably going to keep running into this problem.
Saw my loss coming, congratulations Tater
Although I am pretty happy I got a vote.
I had a feeling that I might get ripped for not debating the music side of things. Thankfully, it was only Anark who wouldn't give me a vote because of that. It seems the other two judges didn't like it either but still gave me the W for the quality of the debate. Still, a win is a win and I'll take it.