Judge C

Kats. Obin.
Presentation. 3. 3
Logic. 3. 2
Facts. 4. 3
Persuasiveness. 3. 3
Knowledge. 4. 3
TOTAL. 17. 14

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS

Kats. Obin.
Presentation. 9. 10
Logic. 10. 8
Facts. 11. 8
Persuasiveness. 8. 10
Knowledge. 11. 10
TOTAL. 49/60. 46/60

WINNER BY CRITERIA
Presentation - Obinoscopy
Logic - Katsumoto
Facts - Katsumoto
Persuasiveness - Obinoscopy
Knowledge - Katsumoto

3-2 in favour of Katsumoto

Winner by judges
2-1 in favour of Katsumoto

On behalf of my respected partner, OAM4J, and the entire Nairaland officials, I hereby declare KATSUMOTO as the winner of the October maiden edition of Nairaland Political debate. A very tough contest, great challenge by Obinoscopy.

See you guys in November by God's grace.

Thanks everyone.

Floor now open for the chair-throwers

Na wa oh!!!

HNosegbe:
I don't necessarily agree with the bolded. There is no evidence suggesting that the quality of life for the AVERAGE RUSSIAN has improved after the fall. Indeed the most significant events in Russia since then have arguably been the creation of a new elite class (the Oligarchs) from the below-market-value sale of former state-owned assets. Life in Moldova, Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and all the other "jans" and "stans" have not really improved materially; indeed they only slightly better sub-Saharan African countries, and the gap is fast closing.

Indeed I can hardly point to a balkanised region where things have materially improved FOR THE COMMON MAN. At best, a new ruling class emerges.

While use Moldova, Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan? Why not countries like: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia etc.. which have seen massive grassroot developments since the balkanization of USSR? Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are not really doing bad, they have enough resources to turn their future around in the next couple of years, and they are all on the right path towards achieving that. Also bear in mind that these countries are still very young.

Insightful note by one of the judges:

1, Presentation (opening, flow, closing, response to questions)

Katsumoto: 3 out of 4

Obinoscopy: 3 out of 4

I thought that both Katsumoto and Obinoscopy had  a good opening and closing for their opening arguments and had a polished overall presentation. Both also gave good responses to questions posed by coogar, Malcolm-X, Prof Corruption, HNosegbe, Dede1, larride and myself according to their perspective. In this area, I would rate it a tie and add that they both performed well.

2, Logic of arguments

Katsumoto: 3 out of 4

Obinoscopy: 2 out of 4

In this area, I think both Katsumoto and Obinoscopy had good points though I give the edge to Katsumoto. Obinoscopy's argument that many of the problems that Nigeria faces aren't directly as a result of amalgamation and also that some of these problems would arise anyway definitely had some merit. Also his argument that attempts to bring diverse peoples under a central authority over a wide area by pre-colonial empires in Nigeria mean that the amalgamation was not a historical mistake but something that could/would probably have happened naturally was an interesting perspective, however it's not clear to me that the manner in which different/distinct groups were put under a central authority by those empires can really be compared to a direct amalgamation like that of modern Nigeria, so I don't think the the comparison there is necessarily appropriate. Also, Obinoscopy's example of Somalia as a basically mono-ethnic country with one religion that is still a massive failure is a particularly good point in favor of his stand that the amalgamation of diverse and distinct peoples is not necessarily the source of all the woes and problems a developing country would face. However, on the whole, I felt that Katsumoto's arguments (I am not going to repeat/summarize all of them, as that would be a long summary), and his defenses of them, were more logically convincing, especially his references to the specific effects of the amalgamation as far as sectionalism and his examples from around the world of places where a lack of ethnic homogeneity has resulted in ethnic strife and violence.

3, Strength of facts, examples, cases

Katsumoto: 4 out of 4

Obinoscopy: 3 out of 4


Both brought numerous facts to bear in defense of their positions, but I would give the edge to Katsumoto here as he brought several more specific facts to bolster his position, went into detailed examples as necessary, used facts and specific cases slightly more effectively in his arguments, and included his sources (and although that is not necessary for a debate, it does improve the presentation/appearance of a debater's performance and give assurance to debate watchers/readers that the claims that are being made have a factual basis or can be checked against a source.)

4, Persuasiveness

Katsumoto: 3 out of 4

Obinoscopy: 3 out of 4

Katsumoto and Obinoscopy both analyzed the situation from multiple angles, instead of just relying on one single line of argument and both defended their perspectives tenaciously. I would say that both debaters made very persuasive arguments for their perspectives and I think it was basically even in this area.

5, Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject

Katsumoto: 4 out of 4

Obinoscopy: 3 out of 4

Both had good knowledge and understanding of the subject, with Katsumoto getting a higher score in my view because, although both drew upon history and current politics (national and international) for their arguments, Katsumoto demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of the issues surrounding the amalgamation and its historical effects that had a bit more depth (in my view) than that demonstrated by Obinoscopy.

*Breaks bottle and throws first chair*
.
Nice Presentation.

Yeye mod, who dey throw chairs?

icez: *Breaks bottle and throws first chair*
.
Nice Presentation.

Adedibu or Tokyo or eleweomo? Which one u be?

Great contest! As from now on no more e-fightings, anybody who has issues with a fellow NLder will sweat it out in front of the Five-Wise-Men.

Nice work guys, bookmarking this right away... And pls am lost here, but Egbon Jarus made mention of two debating teams, then the final holding tommorow, where is Afam?

Where Negro, oya come throw chair now

I must say I was impressed by the way Obinoscopy handled the topic, He picked a topic thats considered a poisoned chalice and he delivered with it

dayokanu: I must say I was impressed by the way Obinoscopy handled the topic, He picked a topic thats considered a poisoned chalice and he delivered with it

Thanks

Katsumoto presented more facts

Malcolm-X:


While use Moldova, Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan? Why not countries like: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia etc.. which have seen massive grassroot developments since the balkanization of USSR?

I didn't mention the bolded countries because they represent a special case: Their geographical location has positioned them in such a way as to benefit from trade with and investment from the EU (especially Germany). Moldova, Tajistikan and co don't have such luck, so they are better examples to use in a comparison with sub-Saharan African countries.

Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are not really doing bad, they have enough resources to turn their future around in the next couple of years, and they are all on the right path towards achieving that. Also bear in mind that these countries are still very young.

Are you saying that they are young COUNTRIES or young DEMOCRACIES? Because even during the Soviet era many of them had some level of internal autonomy (Official name: UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, implying that the "Soviet Union" was a "union of republics"-indeed each of them were Soviet Socialist Republics [SSRs} in their own right). So really their democratic experience has been quite similar to those of African countries. Remember that the Soviet fall also indirectly aided the rise of democracy in African countries.

HNosegbe:
I didn't mention the bolded countries because they represent a special case: Their geographical location has positioned them in such a way as to benefit from trade with and investment from the EU (especially Germany). Moldova, Tajistikan and co don't have such luck, so they are better examples to use in a comparison with sub-Saharan African countries.

Tajistikan don't need the EU, it has enough resources for self-sustenance. However, these countries are way ahead of sub-Saharan African countries in terms of developmental index

Are you saying that they are young COUNTRIES or young DEMOCRACIES? Because even during the Soviet era many of them had some level of internal autonomy (Official name: UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, implying that the "Soviet Union" was a "union of republics". So really their democratic experience has been quite similar to those of African countries. Remember that the Soviet fall also indirectly aided the rise of democracy in African countries.

I meant young countries, most of these countries are young republics. And you can't compare any level of internal autonomy with full independence, those are two different things.

How did the fall of the soviet union aid the rise of democracy in African countries? Are African countries really democratic?

I was not able to cast my vote as I was otherwise occupied.

I think the debate was loaded in Katsumotos favour and he capitalised.

The only drawback was the length of his argument. He could have reduced the amount of words assigned to historical antecedents by consolidating them with his original premise a lot quicker.

Obinoscopy did a good job defending his stance but there were quite a few grammatical errors in his submission.

He did a decent job accentuating the positives of the union with regard to Financial and Military power. He made a good argument that tribes were already consolidating before the introduction of the British and pointed to other peoples who have managed to build successful countries despite ethnic heterogenity. Katsumoto hit back strongly with the riposte that other amalgamations were fused together through time and conquest. If I was in Obinoscopy's shoes, I would have challenged the audience to see themselves as Nation builders at a very delicate and precarious time, pointing to the difficulties faced by similar nations in assimilating different peoples to form one nation. I would have charged the audience with the burden of history, drawing inference from two other African Nations who have successfully fused different tribes together to form a cohesive union, namely Tanzania and Ghana (Tanzania most notably). I would not have used the Spain example as their union is not without its troubles presently, however I would have presented an alternative through which Nigeria could keep the Financial and Military gains of the Union whilst keeping tribal autonomy through a loose federation.

In addition, Katsumotos argument that Nigeria was formed by "companies and corporate interest" was vital. This debate would be incomplete without pointing to the fact that Nigeria is a union borne primarily out of the venture capitalism of individual companies, not a grand design of British Government Policy whose only inital involvement was to issue charters to any Seafaring Pirate brave enough to conquer land and fortune in the King's name. I would have given other examples of autonomous people who were split just because they fell into the hands of different companies eg the Banda Islands, the SeneGambians etc.

Overall, Katsumoto gets this.

Well done guys!

You both did well.

I know Katsumoto, so was not surprised with his excellent presentation, but really was very impressed with Obinoscopy, prolly cos I dont know him too well before now. I thought Katsumoto will have an easy walkover but Obinoscopy really gave a well matched opposition. You guys did justice to the topic.

Thank you guys, thank you all.

BTW, what happened to Afam4ever and Ikengawo? Chickened out?

dayokanu: I must say I was impressed by the way Obinoscopy handled the topic, He picked a topic thats considered a poisoned chalice and he delivered with it

i was quite impressed too.....
obinoscopy's piece was more interesting - he delivered a good read from the onset and he was consistent all through! katsumoto(the japanese rebel) just went for the jugular with tonnes and tonnes of information and facts to process(there should have been a word limit)!

overall, it was a quality debate.....congrats to the both of them!

Even though I already felt that the amalgamation was a mistake before the debate started I duff my heart for Obinoscopy. At a point he was already convincing me but the point where Katsumotu highlited the fact that as a result of the amalgamation there were too many diverse interest as per religion, ethnicity, political ambitions won it for me.

In conclusion for me the issue of the amalgamation will always come up because of the faulty political structure we are operating.

Once again, congrats to the two debaters they did justice. It was insightful.

Malcolm-X:


Tajistikan don't need the EU, it has enough resources for self-sustenance. However, these countries are way ahead of sub-Saharan African countries in terms of developmental index

No country on earth "has enough resources for self-sustenance". You will always lack something you need, so will your neighbours. That's why we have international trade.

I wonder what "development index" you used to arrive at your conclusion.

I meant young countries, most of these countries are young republics. And you can't compare any level of internal autonomy with full independence, those are two different things.

How did the fall of the soviet union aid the rise of democracy in African countries? Are African countries really democratic?

Many African dictators were Soviet-backed e.g. Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia. Indeed Mengistu was chased out of power barely one year after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Mobutu was kept in power by the US for 32 years because of his strong anti-communist stance, and so the US had no reason to keep him in power once the Soviets were gone. The Angolan civil war was in reality a proxy war fought by the Soviet-backed MPLA and the US-backed UNITA. I can go on and on.

Anyway I think we've had enough debating for the day. The official debate was breath-taking enough.

Interesting discussion. Good job, guys.

Kudos to all

Quite interesting debate. Both of you won the debate,in my opinion the amalgamation was purely a historical mistake by the British as put forth by Katsumoto however,i strongly refuse to agree that the amalgamation is the cause of the rot and backwardness of Nigeria but a result of incompetent leaders as put forth by Obinoscopy.Yes,Obinoscopy i like your reference to Somalia as a Mono-ethnic and religious country yet it is a failed state.

proudlyafrican: Quite interesting debate. Both of you won the debate,in my opinion the amalgamation was purely a historical mistake by the British as put forth by Katsumoto however,i strongly refuse to agree that the amalgamation is the cause of the rot and backwardness of Nigeria but a result of incompetent leaders as put forth by Obinoscopy.Yes,Obinoscopy i like your reference to Somalia as a Mono-ethnic and religious country yet it is a failed state.

Katsumoto:

The birth of Nigeria can not be compared with that of the US. 13 states joined together and declared independence from Britain. It was an agreement and not a forced union. The US acquired the other states by either winning them in war or buying them.

It is incorrect to state that only one ethnic group comprises Somalia. Somalis are the majority but there are other groups such as the Bantus, Bajuni, Benadiri, etc.

People
Nationality: Noun--Somali(s). Adjective--Somali.
Population (2011 est., no census exists): 9.9 million (of which an estimated 2 million in Somaliland).
Annual population growth rate (2011 est.): 1.6%.
Ethnic groups: Somali, with a small non-Somali minority (mostly Bantu and Arabs).
Religion: 99.9% Muslim.

Regarding this "largest power in black Africa" argument...a few comments:

1. As others have already stated, this ignores the right to self-determination.

2. Unless this size actually delivers benefit to the nation involved, then what value does it have? Implicitly, this argument relies on the premise that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But in the case of Nigeria, does anyone actually believe this to be true? There are no special synergies created from us being together. There weren't any in 1914 either.

3. Moreover, can't this argument also be used in favor of merging all of Africa into one country? The US and Canada? All of the world into one nation?

Sometimes bigger isn't really better, when it comes to nation-building.

[size=15pt]Abeg make una pick pure water nylon littered all over the place before leaving oo [/size]

Obinoscopy ur presentation was cool...katsumoto u'r good..
Excellent debate.
Mehn... I cud c brains at work..
Wonderful...

coogar:

i was quite impressed too.....
obinoscopy's piece was more interesting - he delivered a good read from the onset and he was consistent all through! katsumoto(the japanese rebel) just went for the jugular with tonnes and tonnes of information and facts to process(there should have been a word limit)!

overall, it was a quality debate.....congrats to the both of them!

Thanks coogar, and you were right about Katsumoto, he's truly a rebel

Well I knew most Nigerians are of the view that the amalgamation was a mistake thus I knew I had to be more persuasive, but I evidently dwelt more on persuasiveness to the detriment of the other factors to be considered in the debate

What an interesting debate.
In my opinion, the almagamation wasn't a mistake at all. Reason; there were already inter-group relations in Nigeria and Lugard capitalised on it to almagamate the north and south.
There were inter-group relation between the Yoruba groups and Nupes, as well as Nupes and Hausa Fulanis.
There were also inter-group relation s between the Igbo groups and Tiv, Idoma and Igalas north of them, also there were inter-group relations between the Igbo groups and Ijaw groups south of them.
These inter-group relations had prepared the soil for Lugard's almagamation. The only mistake of the almagamation was Lugard's idea of building separate quarters for Non Hausa non muslim groups (Sabon Garis).
This his idea led to tribalism in Nigeria.

Katsumoto:




People
Nationality: Noun--Somali(s). Adjective--Somali.
Population (2011 est., no census exists): 9.9 million (of which an estimated 2 million in Somaliland).
Annual population growth rate (2011 est.): 1.6%.
[b]Ethnic groups: Somali, with a small non-Somali minority (mostly Bantu and Arabs).
Religion: 99.9% Muslim.

[/b]

Thanks for the correction,however a country with about 99.9% people sharing the same faith and a small minority as you have mentioned should have been better off a country like Nigeria with 50.4% Muslims, 48.2% Christians and 1.4% adherents of other religions and over 200 tribes.

proudlyafrican: [b][/b]

Thanks for the correction,however a country with about 99.9% people sharing the same faith and a small minority as you have mentioned should have been better off a country like Nigeria with 50.4% Muslims, 48.2% Christians and 1.4% adherents of other religions and over 200 tribes.

Very true. That was the point I was trying to make