Judge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: bsh1
Reasoning:
While nz had nicer formatting and more laid out arguments, the fundamentals of it were torn apart by bsh's case. Nz would keep insisting that because Charles could benefit from a predecessor,he was automatically needed more than the Queen herself was, to the UK. Bsh successfully retorted this with medical records and is/ought fallacy and frankly i find the whole can-should jump using p1-p8 just a joke in all honesty. Ageism is technically as flawed as racism and therefore it's just prejudice to make such a case. The matter of fact is that the Queen is not in poor health for her age and is a fully capable person in Throne. this is proven by how little she's been to hospital and the sheer lack of any examples of the age getting in the way of her duty as the head monarch.

Feedback:
bsh1 had greater understanding of the raw logic at hand but should work on their formatting and layout skills. While I appreciate the efforts of nzlockie to be both entertaining and over-the-top courteous, this doesn't win you a debate on its own.

There are many ways to tell if you are winning the debate. The first is if you are having to resort to funny images and snappy one liners in order to outwit the opponent.

The second is if you are getting your friends to class any vote against you as vote-bombed and biased.

The third is if your entire debate is based on that Queen Elizabeth II would make a great mentor to her successor without still being a good Queen herself base don nothing more than pure ageism.

---

3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
3 users rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as good

Judge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
This was a good debate, and I felt like there was some draw-back near the end from Bsh1, but this honestly came close. The fact that Cx wasn't used to its full advantage is disappointing, and brings up some important questions that I feel need to be discussed more on this site.

The most convincing part of NZlockie's opening argument, was that he pushed the "health" and "well being" point very well. While this and the "because she can" argument alone convey that the queen should abdicate for her "own" well being, it didn't at first prove that the queen should abdicate for England's well being.

I feel the lack of arguments concerning what's good for England were a lot lighter than the more strong arguments about why it is good for the queen. Where NZlockie was caught off guard in Bsh's intro. NZlockies third argument, that England needs a firm hand, was well placed, considering that proving the queen should abdicate for her own well being, isn't enough in my honest opinion to fill the burden of proof.

The argument for "Charles being a firm leader" and the actual content under the title differed greatly, but the fact that the title and the content didn't match didn't actually negate what was said. Quoting Queen Elizabeth was a smart move, because it established firmly that the queen couldn't run her realm alone. While this opened Bsh1 up to a counter argument concerning governor generals, it sadly was not taken, therefore NZlockie had an advantage with this argument. One I don't feel was adequately refuted by bsh1.

Again, the point wasn't stressed enough to make a lasting impact on the debate. Although the argument on Scotland's unrest was somewhat convincing, if only NZlockie put more emphasis on how Charles would of been any different. The fact that this point was mostly ignored is what made the whole argument vulnerable to heavy refutation.

The Fourth Opening argument by NZlockie was by far his strongest argument, but for reasons I will get to later, it was met with HEAVY attacks. There's not a lot to say, the "Charles" having the advantage of a living predecessor was to good an argument to pass up, and at that point I was concerned about how bsh1 would counter such a powerful argument.

The two most convincing parts of the final argument were as follows...
- Charles will be a stronger ruler by having the guidance of a 70 year predecessor
- Charles will have more legitimacy to the throne if he is given to it as crown prince rather than through the death of Queen Elizabeth.

Bsh1, as expected, gave a strong opening, but something that really killed her was the following introductory quote "What this question really calls upon us to consider is whether there is a good reason for the Queen to step down--if there isn't, then she should not abdicate". This is pretty much legitimizing NZlockies case upon proving there is one good reason the queen should abdicate. It wasn't the "Good reason", as much as it was the "one good reason", and at that point, NZlockie had provided several good reasons.

I felt there was a lot of focus on how the queen was doing a great job, and the palace delegations was really getting off track. Bsh1 focused on "why the queen is doing good", and not how "prince charles wouldn't be as good as the queen". Yet, a lot of the points were legitimate and strong.

The major problem I had with the opening arguments, and partially what bsh1 lost the debate, was this statement... "This strategy has the advantage of allowing the Queen to not be overworked, but it allows future heirs to garner needed experience and prevents any discord of actually effecting a succession"

Okay, you issued a counter proposal, shifting part of the BOP over to you. At this point, the best that can be hoped for is nullifying NZlockie's case, and giving you half of the BOP. The final argument on Prince Williams being a more popular monarch than Prince Charles originally had me convinced that everything NZlockie had said had been negated, but I studied the resolution carefully, it is clear that proving Prince Williams is more popular than Prince Charles does nothing to actually counter the reasoning of the queens resignation.

There was no effort in the CX, and in traditional debating, effort and speaking skills displayed in Cross examination are point worthy, so why shouldn't they be in online debating. Leaving your opponent hanging in cross examination should be factored into how I vote, and makes you lose valuable time to ask and affirm questions.

NZlockie this round spent more focus explaining how the queens bad health is bad for England, and that solidified that argument for the most part, which wasn't contested by bsh1. Arguments about health affecting the role of office were largely ignored in the next round.

A solid refutation in the next argument, actually turning bsh1's irrelevant argument about delegation against him, which was stunning. The transfer of power that NZlockie explained was happening, is a clear indication that the queen's age is affecting her role of office. Although the case was already affirmed, this bonus argument made it harder to negate. Turning your opponents case against them is a solid way to win a debate.

To summarize the rest of the debate, here's some key points
- The effort bsh1 put into the debate in the final two rounds decreased from the introductory
- NZlockie restates his arguments for the most part, which were already affirmed despite the round by bsh1 in between, which I felt became an argument from sources
- Bsh1 again didn't participate in cross examination.
- NZlockie solidified his case again, and there wasn't any strong arguments to negate what he had on the table.

I'm trying a new judging format from the IPA, so please give me some feedback.
http://www.ipa.udel.edu/democracy/mockelection/DebateScorecard.pdf

+2 presentation (pro)
+1 opening statements (pro)
+1 organization and clarity (pro)
+1 use of facts and examples (con)
+2 substance (pro)
+1 strength of rebuttals (pro)
+1 conduct (pro)
+2 closing (pro)

Final tally: 10 NZlockie, 1 Bsh1

Feedback:
I'll just give my feedback based on my point tally.

Presentation- - NZlockie had a superior presentation. He used an expanded vocab, good transistion words, ect. Overall he did a good job, and that's why I gave him this point. I felt like bsh1 had good presentation as well, but the transition between points was bad. It felt like "refute this", "argument that".

Opening Statements- - Pro was superior in this regard, partially because he appealed to emotion more (with logic), and made more arguments of my own. The opening for con was for the most part, just "refutation", and there wasn't any passion in the arguments. When you're passionate about what you're saying, chances are the reader will become passionate about what you're saying.

Organization and Clarity- NZlockie used superior formatting and put to better use the tools that edeb8 provided him to make structured arguments. Things that will win this point in the future
- Use of Headers
- Organized + Structured Arguments
- Indenting, proper spacing
- Clear arguments
- Color code whenever possible

Use of facts and examples - More is always better. Bsh1 had more facts, more examples, and more evidence. This is what makes or breaks a debate. It was hard to refute the Williams data, and some of the sources brought up. This makes the case all the better.

Substance - NZlockie had more, and better arguments. Always try to keep your content both strong and in high levels. The more arguments you have, and the better they hold up, the more likely you are to get this point. Bsh1 tried to much refutation, and not enough arguments of his own. While refutation can be counted as substance, it needs to be strong to begin with.

Strength of Rebuttals - I considered giving this to Bsh1, but NZlockie on two occasions reversed refuation from bsh1. Always try to keep your rebuttals infallible and strong. The reason why you lost this point, is because you didn't have confidence in your rebuttals, and there were many flaws in the logic within them.
Even one strong rebuttal can negate a case, over several small rebuttals which fall flat.

Conduct - It is disrespectful to not participate in cross examination, but you're also losing out on a great opportunity to punch holes into the oppositions case, and create new arguments from the questions you begin to ask. Cx is a good round to experiment, so do exactly that.

Closing- Always try to match the length and content of your opponent. When your closing is 1/3rd the size of your opponent's, you have reason to be concerned.

---

2 users rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
4 users rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: drafterman
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
Ultimately I think Pro was correct in their assessment of Con's sources actually supporting Pro's arguments. Pro argued that the Queen's age and health were resulting in her reduced ability to perform her functions, which Con supported by showing that, because of her age and health, she has had to delegate the responsibility of her functions!

Furthermore, I think Con undermined his own arguments by stating that the Queen is merely a ceremonial position. I understand that he was trying to argue that the responsibility of the Queen is not as important as Pro indicated, but it contradicted his earlier sources and statements that touted the importance of the Queen.

While I agree with Con's reference to the is/ought fallacy, a better reading of Pro's arguments indicates that the "can = "should" was merely poor labeling (on Pro's part) of that section of his argument.Pro did, in fact, provide reasons above and beyond "she can" in that section.

Lastly, I found Con's refutation of Pro's point (regarding the benefit of Charles having a living predecessor) to be lacking.

Feedback:
I think Pro's weakest area was the "Should because she can!" point as it naturally led to the refutation via the is/ought fallacy. The points raised here could have been subsumed into other parts of his points and overall I think it diluted the effectiveness of those parts.

I think Con's greatest issue was shifting his arguments which ultimately resulted in implied contradictions between his rounds. While I understand that sometimes you need to switch tactics, I think the way Con did so lead to Pro capitalizing on those inconsistencies to his advantage.

I'm sad to see that the Cross-Examination didn't pan out. It would have been nice to see that element used more fully.

---

4 users rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
Nz heavily stresses the fact that the Queen can in fact resign. Then he moves on to his points about how her successors are better. He points out much more errors the queen of England has commited than Bsh1 has shown benefits. Especially in the support for the Queen's retirement, and the Queen's old age. (He even turned the point of Bsh1's point concerning delegation against himself!) There also remains those points concerning how Charles would gain more respect through being crowned rather than the forceful-passing on through death, and the guidance from the experienced Queen. Those points felt really strong. It feels like Bsh1 was too rushed, and his side was doomed from the start. Good try, my good sir. You shall always be respected for you efforts.

Feedback:
Bsh1, try doing your rounds earlier. Also, I felt like CX rounds were kind of pointless...so they could've been more useful.

---

3 users rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as good

Judge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
I'm going to go about this round by round, addressing each side's arguments and explaining how I perceive them.

R1:

Pro:

These contentions don't come off as strongly as they could. The first one simply describes why the Queen has reason to resign. This makes some sense, but while you can FIAT the result (her abdication), you can't really FIAT her attitude here. You're providing reasons why she might be happy with it from an external perspective, but it's really for her own sake. I can see why this might be a general good for her and provide some reasoning as to why she's stepping down, but as it only has impact on herself, it's really a weak impact.

The second contention is basically just pre-rebuttal, an attempt to deflect any reasoning from Con that she couldn't step down based on precedent. There's no benefit here, just the negation of harm.

The third contention is probably where your strongest points should lie, and that's why I'm surprised at just how limited the points are in explanation. You state that she's losing her senses, but provide no examples of where she's made poor decisions. You state that a younger person could have quelled the unrest that led to the Scotland vote, but a) as the Scotland vote went in England's favor, there's little harm, b) as the harms of the vote going sour aren't clear, and c) as your explanation of how a younger person might have done better is incomplete, unwarranted and lacking in support, it's not nearly as strong as it could be. Even the digital point gets under-covered, especially regarding which challenges require this attention.

The fourth contention is really where your case shines. The argument that Elizabeth would send an important message by handing over the reigns directly, and that she would act as a sort of adviser to him, are well-taken. The latter could certainly have been better explained, and the impact of both of these required more elucidation, but it still stands powerfully.

Con:

Starting off by effectively seeking to garner the benefits of Pro's fourth contention, and to remove the link to parts of the first and third, Con makes a solid effort to tackle Pro's case. We'll see how that holds up.

He also establishes the level of support for the Queen, making a clear case for her continued presence, though he should have established some level of harm that results from reduced the reduced support her successor would receive.

Con then focuses on the harms of Charles taking the reigns too early, specifically with regards to Republicans in the UK, which would undermine the monarchy. This warrants more explanation as to its impact, but as both sides agree that the monarchy is something to be prized, its impacts are at least implicitly obvious. These are at least somewhat validated by the preference for William over Charles.

Lastly, Con discusses the importance of the Queen holding to her commitments, though this is little explained, as Con never discusses an impact beyond saving face, which is, at best, superficial.

R2:

Pro:

The format for his case starts changing here as he groups arguments and focuses on turning Con's case. Pro repeats much of his Contention 1 with a little more focus on the impacts, though this still remains limited to effects on the Queen herself. It's the link to Contention 3 that makes this more powerful, namely that weakness translates to reduced relevance. In a world that seeks constant motion on the part of its leadership, many British citizens may find fault with a leader whose health is failing, presenting as weakened. I think more work could have been done here to explain why age and physical weakness translate to weak leadership (FDR had Polio and still managed to act in a strong capacity), but the point is reasonably well made. However, Pro should take care here. If I buy the argument that she will be very likely to die in office at the rate she's going, then the firm hand argument is lost, since Prince Charles would take over shortly. Contentions 1 and 4 become more potent, but you completely lose 3. Just something to bear in mind.

As for the first case turn, I think it's well executed. I buy that the Queen looks weaker when she's actively delegating tasks to her princes, as it appears that she's deferring her duties now. Resigning would recognize that shift in responsibility and simply put the person doing the work at the helm. I think this could use more support in terms of how the views of her subjects have changed over this period of transition, but it makes sense.

The second extension starts off a little confusingly. Pro tells us that Prince Charles is already qualified with the “experience and wisdom” to lead. This, at the very least, seems to weaken Pro's Contention 4, as it seems to me that the benefits of having the Queen around for several more years are small when confronted with the reality that he's already in good shape. So Pro's impact turns to focus on the importance of public support for the new king. I appreciate the explanation here, but it still doesn't feel complete. Pro never gives us any examples of a monarch doing something like this and it resulting in good outcomes for their successors. You gave examples of people who had abdicated early, look to them – how are their successors doing? I recognize that there is a distinct capacity for benefit, but does a direct endorsement on death really have enough of an impact on public opinion to sway it in a new direction? So while I buy that there would be some shift, I don't see enough evidence that the shift would have such a marked impact.

The remainder is mainly a restatement of Pro's Contention 2 and some push back on Con's statement that she made a promise to stay until she is physically incapable of performing the role, which I wasn't buying much anyway. Point well-taken.

Con:

The arguments here start by turning towards mitigation. Con tells me that a firm hand is unnecessary, though I still buy that the crown has some power at home and abroad, even if it is more ceremonial. Con also points out that she's acting solely as a head on moral conduct, which I can see partially, but it still fails to address some of the meat of Pro's contention. Con tells me that she's not in physical decline because there's no history of illness, which does substantially mitigate Pro's argument that she could basically die at any moment, though I still buy that age weakens her and makes her more susceptible.

The main response to Pro's first turn is to focus the argument on mitigation. If she's able to delegate powers while she's alive, why not do that instead of resigning? The problem with this reframing is that this argument now only seems to take out Pro's Contention 1. The remainder of it certainly mitigates Contention 3, but it doesn't erase it. Even if this just shows responsibility on her part, I can still see Pro's argument that it could be perceived as showing signs of weakness.

Con is right on the is/ought fallacy, though I don't think Pro was ever making that argument. Even so, I was never buying that Contention 2 stood as a reason to abdicate, so I leave it as mitigation of a point never made.

Lastly, Con makes a strong assertion that Charles needs more time to be firmly entrenched. However, I get no reasoning as to why the previous years have been insufficient, and why adding on several more would substantially change his public persona. Hence, while I see some possible benefit from delay, it seems weaker than it should be.

R3:

Pro:

On the health issue, Pro shows that this is a growing problem, and that while it may not involve hospital visits, it still shows a decline. However, it's the context that Pro provides this round that makes this argument important, as this is the first time Pro has presented a marked shift in behavior on the part of the Queen that substantially modifies public perception of her, especially given her history with Ireland. The fact that the elderly are more prone to illness is well-taken, but relatively weak by comparison. I'm still not seeing much impact to her death in this point in particular, as it's really a question of weakness and passing on the throne while alive that seem to have taken center stage in this debate.

We then get some rather spirited clash on what the Queen means to society. Pro obviously feels quite strongly that there's an important sense of unity created by the Queen between her subjects is a potent one, though he never explains why this unity is important. He starts explaining this by saying that the British monarchy has a long history, and that there's the potential for discontent should she die (a point that really should have gotten more discussion by Pro), but never really gets to the impact. He does point to her political importance, which is well-taken, but for some reason is pushed off almost as an afterthought. It still factors, but this should be up front.

And we're back to the is/ought. I still don't see the link between CAN and SHOULD, to be honest. Pro gives reasoning for one separate from the other – the money issue, for example, isn't a reason why she should retire, it's a reason why she can, whereas the hard work of her job is a reason why she should retire, not why she can. I buy that the Queen has vested interest in retiring, but these are all personal preference issues, and difficult to weigh within the debate. This whole point seems subjectively important, and within the context of the debate, rather weak. Her physical weakness and probable death have more impact than her personal happiness and that of her family.

Interesting take on Con's argument requiring that the Queen “work herself to death” over something she said when she was 21, though that might be taking his argument a little far. It's also probably coming out a tad late, since Con made that argument in R1.

Con:

The response on health really ignores much of Pro's analysis from the previous round, where he said that just getting sick is normally not enough to cause the Queen to miss an event, and that these are signs of a genuine decline as a result. I get where Con is going with this, but he needs to provide a direct response to Pro's analysis in order to win this point. I think Con effectively mitigates this problem by showing that these didn't require hospital visits and that one of the sources Pro used isn't very strong, but that only reduces the likelihood by a small amount, not as substantially as he needed to win this. Con's response to the elderly issue is similarly not enough, as Pro hasn't argued that she's unfit to carry out her duties, but rather that she puts herself at risk by doing them. Pro has also argued that just doing the duties isn't enough – she has to look resolute and powerful in the role. Con fails to address that in the final round. I buy that there's an ageist quality to Pro's arguments, but Con doesn't make that a voting issue, as it lacks any impact. He does point out that Pro never fully proves that she's in medical danger as a result of her age, but again, this is solely mitigation, and fails to dismiss the point.

I think where Con could have taken a substantial positive argument is on this point about popularity and what it means for the institution. Only Con's case has a certainty of high popularity, whereas Pro is throwing that into flux and uncertainty. However, Con never really makes a solid argument for why that popularity is important. Pro gives me a much more solid case for why public perception of strength is important, and so that seems to outweigh. Spreading out power seems to at least somewhat reduce that perception, so the link is there even in the event that the Queen manages to keep herself healthy by reducing her workload. The training and experience of Prince Charles don't have a solid link to better outcomes, so I can't do much with that. If it's going to increase his popularity, I need to know a) why that's a big deal, and b) why it hasn't happened yet. I don't know the answers to those questions. I buy that there's some possible benefit to his ratings with the general public, but the link is weak, and the impact difficult to assess.

Beyond that, Pro left the date of the resignation vague, so the idea that she's resigning tomorrow if I vote Pro doesn't link well to the case either. Building up reputation might be necessary before she finds it convenient to resign. Personally, I would have found fault with that within the debate, but as Con didn't express any concerns, I'm forced to accept it as is.

Conclusion:

It was a good debate, guys, but it appears to me that Pro put down enough argumentation to satisfy his burdens, and Con simply didn't assault them all as well as he should have. That might be the result of the time issues that he encountered, as much of his initial case actually seemed to be paving the way for future explanation that simply never came. Con's rebuttals just seemed to miss much of the key issues, and while Pro's case built in steam as the debate continued, Con's continued to function under limited analysis with little offense and mostly mitigation being utilized. Pro gives me sufficient reasoning to believe that the Queen should resign at her earliest convenience, ergo that's where I vote.

Feedback:
nzlockie -

I think your case had a lot of merit, but far too often (as you can see in my RFD), I'm asking "why?" Specifically, I'm asking why things will happen the way you say, and why impacts are important. Those things should be very clear, and perhaps they are to you, but they stand out as easy points of attack and, if bsh1 had used them, turns. I think you had the right points, they just really needed the extra support to make them potent.

bsh1 -

I can tell that there were some factors of time that played into this, needless to say it wasn't your best performance. I keep the page up and refresh every day or so to make sure I haven't missed anything. I don't think I need to say much here except that you fell into many of the same traps of assumption of impact here, and that your case really lacked the necessary links and warrants to challenge nzlockie's. Just bear that in mind.

---

1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
3 users rated this judgement as constructive