Damitism:
Holy Jesus! And you said it is only a debater who the question is directed to that can answer it! What a .......! What a waste of my time, never again, never! It has been a while i felt so cheated. *stands up, shake head, and walks out by unfollowing the thread thinking something is fishy about the result*

Check up on that thread, and lookout for the contestants response to the judging result they got,and stop being so vexed over an e-debate that you weren't even too sure of coming tops!

FrancisTony: You can read my signature and ban me for the least i care. IDGAF about posting on Nairaland again.

Disappointed I am!

agrovick: From the Judges desk
UNIBADAN ended up with a grand total of 73 marks out of the available 100 while DELSU ends up with 78/100.
Going by this result, I hereby declare DELSU the winner of this debate

NB: i will post the breakdown as soon as possible

Epaul: wow! We won, we won! ~wipes tears of joy with the back of palm~ So elated. First and foremost, i want to thank the organisers of this debate: Fynestboi, boay et al.
Damitism i must commend u for your piece and i must quickly say its however sad you didn't display the spirit of sportsmanship going by your comments against the fairness of the Judges. This was not a do or die affair. On the contrary, it was an avenue, a platform to learn and increase in knowledge. I must fess up that I learnt so much today. @Snoppy and Maclatunji, i doff my cap for you sirs. I intend taking lessons from you on how to ask trickish questions.

boay: Our audience we will love to hear from you

Abu Mikey:

Team UI..

Your loss on today's match-up didn't kick you out of the competition, just take a seat and watch other debates go down,those progressing to the next round are being judged by the points they garnered and not the wining positions they got.

agrovick: JUDGE 1
UI (Damitism)
1. Presentation - 3marks
2. Logic of arguments - 3mrks
3. Strength of facts, examples, cases - 4mrks
4. Persuasiveness - 4mrks
5. Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject - 5mrks
Total - 19
UI (aysuccess)
1. Presentation - 4marks
2. Logic of arguments - 3mrks
3. Strength of facts, examples, cases - 2mrks
4. Persuasiveness - 4mrks
5. Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject - 3mrks
Total - 16
sum total : 35
Delsu (E-paul)
1. Presentation - 5marks
2. Logic of arguments - 4mrks
3. Strength of facts, examples, cases - 4mrks
4. Persuasiveness - 4mrks
5. Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject - 5mrks
Total - 23
Delsu (Dr. Amanda)
1. Presentation - 3marks
2. Logic of arguments - 3mrks
3. Strength of facts, examples, cases - 4mrks
4. Persuasiveness - 4mrks
5. Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject - 4mrks
Total - 18
sum total : 41


JUDGE 2
Debater
School
Presentation
Logic
Strength of Facts
Persuasiveness
Demostration of Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
TOTAL
AySuccess 99
UI
4
4
4
4
4
20
Damitism
UI
4
4
3
3
4
18
E-PAUL
DELSU
3
4
3
4
4
18
DR. AMANDA
DELSU
3
4
4
4
4
19
School Totals
U.I.
38
DELSU
37

GRAND TOTAL
U.I - 73
DELSU - 78

snoopy:

we are not allowed to know the identity of the judges with their respective grades?

boay: Judges please post your comments and criticism

boay: Our audience we will love to hear from you

FrancisTony: How come Dr. Amanda got that point when she didn't answer any question?

♥Dεs•Chγκσ♥:
Great job guys.. Honour to whom honour is due, I'll love to evaluate the work of Epaul, and generally, the DELSU team, which I feel is best here.

Epaul, I'll have to say you're completely amazing, a blessing to your people. You surely know your onions. Your unique style of introduction shows you know we're more interested in your argument, not your identity. Your foolproof arguments and rock-hard evidences were a joy to behold. You bring something new and amazing to this debate. It's a honour to have experienced you.

However, you'll need to devote a little more time to thinking some points all the way through. Those Death facts were weak. Death is inevitbble inspite of your disposition in life. And your mathematical calculations were quite befuddling. Also, the 'poor preparation/accomodation' argument needed one final nail to drive it home.

One thing I'm sure of is you'll only get better.. TEAM DELSU.. Congatulations!!

Omolola1: Congratulations to the DELSU team. You guys deserved it.

However, both teams (UI and DELSU) need to improve on their use of english and punctuation. There were so many grammatical blunders which made the essay difficult to read. UI's essay wasn't properly spaced out as opposed to that of Delsu.

Also, the points made in UI's arguments were very weak, they kept on repeating the same thing over and over again, thereby contradicting themselves.

Delsu's delivery on the other hand was excellent. Infact, I learned a lot from Epaul's essay.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Delsu won this debate with very WIDE margin...

UI, there's something called sportsmanship, accept this defeat and move on.

Cheers!!!

maclatunji: TEAM DELSU

@Epaul, you made a great observation that the Post-UTME goes against the act establishing JAMB but failed to quote the section verbatim. You would have probably won with me had you done that. It is not enough to mention it, tell us what exactly the act says next time. In addition, you kept attacking people not the topic, when you use the word “you” in a debate, you are not attacking the issue but somebody.
By the way, you are in a debate to give answers not ask questions, some of the other debaters also did this, but you are the most culpable in this regard. Statements like: “It is above my head to apprehend why POST UTME should be conducted in the first place” and “I am yet to come to terms with the fact” have little or no value in a debate. They imply that you do not know what you are talking about.

One more point for you, big words do not win debates, clear, logical and articulate presentations do. Go easy on the big words, they will only get you into trouble because you might and did misuse them.

I like the fact that you also referenced your work and made some very good points.

@Dr. Amanda, I call your presentation, “short and sweet” but it was just a little bit too short, you could have quoted sources and provided references at the end of your presentation.

Of all the four debaters, you are the only one who did not provide references. Had you done that, the debate would have ended in a draw on my score sheet but you did not.

Congratulations to the organisers, debaters, judges and readers for a worthwhile event.

Thank you.

Epaul: lol, I beg to differ sir, in as much as I read from the same hymn with you on some of your observations, I do not agree with you on some.
Firstly, You were wrong when you opined i was using big words. I'm afraid there's no big words as it were in my debate. Except you want to tell me my audience were pupils in primary school. We are all scholars here - undergraduates and graduates. If I can not use such words and dictions here, i wonder where i would be able to use them. Perhaps, In the market while buying garri?
Secondly, you were way off point when you asserted that in debate you are not meant to ask question. Let me ask you, what is rhetoric? Is it not a form of questioning? Most of my questions where rhetoric questions which did not seek an answer as the answers were already apparent. In debate, you are not only require to provide answers, you are also require to prove that a particular answer is wrong esp. for an opposing side.
Thirdly, you are quite right when you said i was attacking people. Be that as it may, this opinion of yours is also quite mendacious. I wasn't exactly attacking anybody, i was driving my point home and at the same time addressing the issue.

In all though, thank you for your observations. i must say i have picked useful tips from