Well, a lot of you probably know that judging debates isn’t all that easy, especially if two debaters are very close. As a judge and a debater myself, I’ve seen lots of confused votes when these close debates arise. For that reason I’ve decided to piece together this short guide to judging, which may someday be expanded into a longer, more detailed guide.

The major problem with the way that the current debates work is well-stated by Yzarc:

Indeed it is. Yzarc suggested a different debate format, but as that’s not being implemented at this moment, and as it’s uncertain whether it’ll ever be implemented, I’m going to suggest some things to the people that currently judge debates. Here’s a general format that Inui and I use:

Last post and first post are given the least weight. The first post is made based off of no counters, and last post is never countered. The middle four posts are the most important. If one person or the other is doing better in those four posts, then it hardly matters that one person is doing better in the final exchange. Sometimes a h4x first post can decide a debate, as can a h4x last post, but generally speaking, the middle four matter the most. All are counters and all are followed by counters.

And then in Inui’s words:

With that said, here are some other tips as well:

1.) Don’t let your own opinions mix with what you read. Judge what each person has to say on each point, not what you think of what they say. Someone could say “Marcia wins Res by a huge amount, and that matters more than Brom’s Def lead since physical enemies don’t really impact either of them that much” and it could seem totally ridiculous to you, but if the opponent in that debate can’t counter or counters it unsatisfactorily, or counters it without any evidence, the first poster easily wins.


2.) Don’t get caught up in details. The more you nitpick about “lol this guy was off by 6 Avo” or something, the more you’re going to lose focus on the actual logic used in the debate. Obviously getting a big point such as someone having a skill wrong is a bad thing, but if the person covers his or her errors well, and can maintain the case overall, it doesn’t really matter. Computational errors are entirely possible. Rarely so with logical errors—that’s where lack of skill comes into play.


3.) When the issue is conceptual, be sure to think things through. Does the person have a logical procession of thoughts? If so, does the other person counter it, or just brush it off? If one person counters with a statement rather than a logical procession, obviously that's worth a lot less, even if the statement seems more logical to you personally.

After reviewing this


...

This is stupid, and not even neccesary for a forum that doesn't debate. First off:

Last poster doesn't have an advantage. Each person gets three posts, regardless of counters. Since we are not reading the counters while reading the posts, obviously we'll only be assessing the post. For every single of the six posts, same process. The first one happens to be a little nicer to read due to not having to check out the quote boxes for clarification on what somebodies talking about .... You could say that an advantage would arise from the last poster having the most experience with the comparison when they're making their final blow, but that disadvantage would only exist if the original poster didn't do their homework, which obviously leaves them at a disadvantage. Is that a problem? You could say so, but I don't think so.

And for his numbered stuff:

1.) This is mostly acceptable, however, as judges, hopefully you know what you're judging. If somebody were to make a ridiculous statement and the opponent didn't counter it, I would count it as a point against the maker of the ridiculous statement. If the other person attempted to counter it and ... failed, then they would be at a loss. Some could say this leaves room for the person to just not counter points and get a lead, but that is dependent on their ability to see which arguments are valid and which aren't. If they can discriminate properly then they show ability with the characters and with logical decision making. If they mess up and ignore something that wasn't quite as ridiculous as they had imagined, then they botch their score. After all is said and done, the person who is making the most sense arguing their character is winning, which (pretty sure) is what we're looking for.

2.) Lol ... "Logical errors are rarely possible". How can something even be rarely possible....

Logical errors are completely possible, just like computation errors (and most everything else) they rely on the person to calculate a definitive response to a situation. Logic is generated in less steps than some of the more complex formulas when calculating FE statistics, which *generally* means that they'll be completed without error (if the person has the ability) more likely than computation, however, we cannot say this is true for every case. It wouldn't make sense assuming that both these sets of computation are distinct and should be graded using separate criteria.

Speak of "lack of skill", but the same remains with mathematics. Difference is most people know what they're doing when it comes to numbers. If somebody failed to make a logical statement due to lack of skill, it would be roughly parallel to somebody not knowing how to multiply rather than somebody making a mistake while multiplying.

I don't believe mistakes should be given much weight, like Solide, but I don't believe this is exclusive to mathematical errors in the least.

I can *safely* say Solide has no clue wtf he's talking about on point 2 ... and 3

3.) Logic is built on premise-conclusion criteria. Conclusions are _not_ logic. Premises are _not_ logic. If they don't have both, what they're saying isn't worth _anything_ other than conversation material ... not what we're looking for. Remember, premises don't need a conclusion immediately after them. As long as the premise has been established, a conclusion can come at any point in the debate afterward as long as the premise is accepted by both parties.


/unpin