slam7000:

That dude is smart,he simply repeated himself,that wasn't cheating.if you think its easy to operate under so many aliases and ntt found out,you try it and see..hes same person as isaac olawale or OLaheavy,brixtonyute,baddmaan.

Oh yeah? D real Olawale ought to see dis

He must witness d shymexiar shymexing

The judges can't even answer the question.

There's nothing called plagiarism in a debate..

This isn't a coursework nor dissertation, it's a debate for crying out loud..

shymmex:

Fam, you're ignorant..

How can text typing be used to ascertain an individual's level of intelligence?

I see why most of you are bamboozled by big words, ignorant clowns..

I'm not even on your level, bruv.

So what is a DEBATE?

Moreso a DEBATE carried out entirely in TEXT?

Shymex you lack intelligence, and that is why you had to resort to shymextical behaviour to stand any chance competing with someone like coogar for instance.

The more you talk, the more you expose yourself...

It is better to be considered a Shymmex, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...

P.S. I am not your 'Fam'

This attention seeking cu.m bucket is just trying too hard to get noticed..

I can't even see you.

shymmex: This attention seeking cu.m bucket is just trying too hard to get noticed..

I can't even see you.

Says the Shymexxer who went and shymmexed somebody's work in a desperate bid to win a competition...

Anyways I'm out...Chai I'm gonna have to shymmex to my babe tonight on the reason i'm coming to bed late...

jackbauersballs:
So what is a DEBATE?

Moreso a DEBATE carried out entirely in TEXT?

Shymex you lack intelligence, and that is why you had to resort to shymextical behaviour to stand any chance competing with someone like coogar for instance.

The more you talk, the more you expose yourself...

It is better to be considered a Shymmex, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...

P.S. I am not your 'Fam'

Obviously, I'm not your 'fam' - I don't hang around homoerotic people who name themselves after a next man's balls, jackbauersballs.

But when are you going to get jack bauer's balls out of your butt, butt pirate?

We don't even belong in the same league, and you're an attention seeking id.iot.

Sharply...

Judges! Where is Shymexx's Score na?

We need to stop all forms of godfatherism and shymmexism...

Please release Shymex's score..

Goodnight y'all...

Jarus: Good one.

Just a few comments as a Judge in this contest.

NEWACCA
Your arguments are sound and persuasive. I also admire your tenacity. But I deducted 0.5 from your content score because you referred to Ahmadu Bello as a former Sultan of Sokoto. He was neer Sultan of Sokoto, he was Sardauna of Sokoto. The current holder of that position is Alhaji Abubakar Dan Alhaji or Alhaji Sheu Malami(can't recall exactly for now, and no time to consult Google). But altogether, you did a very good job.

COOGER
You raised the intellectual bar in the debate. I admire your command of English. Your versatility is no doubt impeccable. But you were too general. You hardly dwelt on specifics.

BREEZY
A fresh breeze. I like your calmly disposition. You were the dark horse in the race. You also did very well in logical analysis of the topic, but you would have done better if you backed up your arguments with more facts.


Altogether, all the contestants did well.

@ Jarus, u shouldn't fault Coogar for not being too specific. Debate like this ought be from d purview of generalized notions not narrowing to much examples that could sPark controversies and sentiments

jackbauersballs:
Says the Shymexxer who went and shymmexed somebody's work in a desperate bid to win a competition...

Anyways I'm out...Chai I'm gonna have to shymmex to my babe tonight on the reason i'm coming to bed late...

You have been outed already, go play in traffic, mate.

You should have come down the last time you were running your mouth on NL, and get ya faced smashed in.

I don't know you - stay away from me with Jack bauer's balls in ya smelly mouth, booty warrior..

I don't do that homo shyte, silly cu.nt!

shymmex: Even the judges can't answer my question...

How can someone plagiarize in a debate?

This question is for the judges!!

I'll like to debate the judges now.

Please note that I am not speaking for the judges.

What you did was very sneaky and just totally uncalled for. This was an online debate, where no prices were to be won and yet you had no qualms doing what you did. Makes me wonder what you would if there was something at stake. There is no deny we have had our issues in the past, Shymmex but in spite of that, I still looked at you as someone who had something to say. I actually enjoyed reading you posts because more often than not they echoed my thoughts.

Dude there is no denying that you are fccking SMART, you could have easily done this on your own. . .there was no reason to plagiarize. Gah!!

And seriously, How do you copy someone else's work word for word yet ask how that was plagiarizing? Come now!!!

I'm probably gonna have someone respond to my post with a "it is just an online debate, what is the big deal" and to that I respond. . .If we can't be trusted with the small small play stuff, why do we think we can change the big important matters? How can we accuse our leaders on being cheats when we are doing the same?

Anyhoo, big ups to all the debaters, other judges, organizers. . .especially CUDDLEMII, this was a great idea and we hope to have more of it.

Off the soapbox now, let's party!!!!

So Newacca. . .where the party at? Did. . .did I mention I got a new dress?

Elueme: @ Jarus, u shouldn't fault Coogar for not being too specific. Debate like this ought be from d purview of generalized notions not narrowing to much examples that could sPark controversies and sentiments

nigerians love overflogging the specific thus losing sight on the other pressing issues. the topic itself cuts across so many issues and it's logical to attack the issues generally!

coogar:

probably because you are a fucking idiot!

yep. the general opinion yesterday was that yours was a shitty debate. 5 judges got it wrong yesterday, 4 judges got it wrong today. you on the other hand, spot on! that's why yours is a position nobody farkin remembers. grow up you fvkin failed abortion. you came here believing were better than everybody else. yet two debates, and two judgements later, you've proven beyond doubt that you're ability to articulate your point is inversely proportional to the substance of the point in itself. now go eat a manliness you filthy $2 LovePeddler. idiat.

fagamite: If Newacca can maul Plato, Abramovich, Marx and Pareto, how much more you?

lmao

In the interest of transperancy. . .these were my comments on the debaters from the first round (nobody should take offense oh, remeber I LOVE YOU ALL and. . .and. . .I bought a new dress for this )


Reasons for Scores
Cooger – While I admire Cooger’s ways with words, I felt he said a lot without saying anything. He didn’t state fact or figures. I will be very interested to see how his opponents will rebut his argument because I don’t think he gave them anything solid to hold on to.

Shymmex – Like Cooger, he does have a way with words but unlike Cooger, he was able to show what he thinks about the motion and why he thinks that way. Referencing is always a plus. (This of course was before we found out. . .well you know)

Chucky234 – While he gave a convincing thought on the matter, he lost point for lack of adequate supporting material.

Chedderking – By far the most impressive of the lot. . . he was convincing in his argument and had enough material to back up his stance.

Breezy – Going again a generally accepted way of thinking is very hard so I was really looking forward to reading the argument from those against the motion. While I admire Breezy’s audacity to go against the motion. . .I felt his write up lacked some depth. I’d rather a debater not go with the assumption that “I know something” already. . .No I don’t, that is why I am listening to you. It is your job to convince me something is the way it is.

Newacca – His argument against was convincing and he had some very strong points to make. His lack of sufficient evidence to back his argument cost him some points.


SECOND ROUND

In general all had very solid points to make compared to the first round.

Newcca – In my opinion, his backup and examples pushed him to the lead position.

Cooger – Once again, while I admire Cooger’s prowess with the written word, I believe he will do well giving lectures than debating

Breezy047 – Although it was a struggle for him to rebut Cooger’s argument, considering the latter never really had a solid stance on the matter, It is my opinion that Breezy047 still managed to hold his own.

@sisi kill

I can't party now. Ramadhan fasting mode activated! Gotta Bluetooth a bucket of champagne with flute to you. ENJOY!

Sisi_Kill:
Please note that I am not speaking for the judges.

What you did was very sneaky and just totally uncalled for. This was an online debate, where no prices were to be won and yet you had no qualms doing what you did. Makes me wonder what you would if there was something at stake. There is no deny we have had our issues in the past, Shymmex but in spite of that, I still looked at you as someone who had something to say. I actually enjoyed reading you posts because more often than not they echoed my thoughts.

Dude there is no denying that you are fccking SMART, you could have easily done this on your own. . .there was no reason to plagiarize. Gah!!

And seriously, How do you copy someone else's work word for word yet ask how that was plagiarizing? Come now!!!

I'm probably gonna have someone respond to my post with a "it is just an online debate, what is the big deal" and to that I respond. . .If we can't be trusted with the small small play stuff, why do we think we can change the big important matters? How can we accuse our leaders on being cheats when we are doing the same?

Anyhoo, big ups to all the debaters, other judges, organizers. . .especially CUDDLEMII, this was a great idea and we hope to have more of it.

Off the soapbox now, let's party!!!!

So Newacca. . .where they party at? Did. . .did I mention I got a new dress?

I understand where you're coming from. Basically, I was going to use the article and a couple of other articles for my scholarship - but I was just too busy yesterday to do that, hence why I lifted part of the article (the first and second paragraph) - but the bigger chunk of my scholarship was written by me. I didn't even get marks for the parts I allegedly plagiarized, according to the judges' analysis.

And there's nothing called; plagiarism in a debate. Normal judges would've overlooked that - and focus on the contents of today's debate.

Professor PhysicsQED

is there anything called 'plagiarism' in a debate??

newacca: @sisi kill

I can't party now. Ramadhan fasting mode activated! Gotta Bluetooth a bucket of champagne with flute to you. ENJOY!

Oh Ramadan. . .of course!!

Don't worry, I can wait.

Carefully takes dress off and hangs it in the "TO BE CONTINUED" closet

jim jones:

yep. the general opinion yesterday was that yours was a shitty debate. 5 judges got it wrong yesterday, 4 judges got it wrong today. you on the other hand, spot on! that's why yours is a position nobody farkin remembers. grow up you fvkin failed abortion. you came here believing were better than everybody else. yet two debates, and two judgements later, you've proven beyond doubt that you're ability to articulate your point is inversely proportional to the substance of the point in itself. now go eat a manliness you filthy $2 LovePeddler. idiat.

you are a consummate simpleton!
look at the sty occupant with spermflakes in his brain cavity trying to embarrass himself on a public forum! 5 judges didn't get it wrong yesterday, only one did. 3 judges gave me 8, one judge gave me 5......it simply means there was no consistency in the grades awarded. I would have been more comfortable if all the judges scored me 3....then I would know the fault was with me.....

Now back to you.......I normally don't engage in a verbal intercourse with a sap head like yourself but i would break my own rules tonight to put you back in the firewood background you came out from. you are the spermhead your mother should have swallowed with a glass of guiness stout and 25g of alabukun powder....

Cuddlemii ain't even saying nada..

Next time, make physicsQED and Katsumoto the judges..

Your judges are inept for something as logical as this.

shymmex: is there anything called 'plagiarism' in a debate??

You kind of have a point in that references to previous scholarship are sometimes necessary for debating certain topics, but you took multiple sentences of the guy's work word for word.

If you were a member of a debating club at a school or university somewhere, and it was the finals in some debating championship, would you actually do what you did just now - reproduce some scholar's work word for word without attribution to make your argument look more polished - without considering that cheating?

And if you were on a debate team and someone from the opposing team did that, wouldn't you be pi[i]s[/i]sed off?

The argument is a slightly a bad one - in that there is no concrete end to the solution. If Godfatherism is to thrive successfully in a country like ours its needs corruption and ruthlessness(deep occultism) of the highest order. Meanwhile corruption needed little or no support from Godfatherism to grow.

So therefore, I would say Godfatherism and corruption are twin brothers, where Corruption is the elder brother. On the hand, I would also assert that the end point of any government be it good or bad, boils down to the moral character of leader, be it of evidence he came through a godfather or on panes of corruption.
I would call that the character effect.

In a country like ours it is sad to see people ignoring typical sentiments in a multi-ethnic enviroment like ours. The ugly process of corruption we are going through today is as a result of a plethora of biased acts:tribalism, enthnicity, regionalism, unforgiveness of political harm done to my region by a member of the other, high connections,fame, the quest for power tussle (born to rule) etc. All of this have a role to play in the build up of corruption. Let me round by using just an adage that say The evil that temporarily overcomes good, is bc good men refuse to stand up to it. I really thank the contestants, but pinpointing a particular cause of corruption in this diversified country that has practiced corruption for 50years now with so much hatred for opposition is flawed. God bless Nigeria.

Sisi_Kill: In the interest of transperancy. . .these were my comments on the debaters from the first round (nobody should take offense oh, remeber I LOVE YOU ALL and. . .and. . .I bought a new dress for this )


Reasons for Scores
Cooger – While I admire Cooger’s ways with words, I felt he said a lot without saying anything. He didn’t state fact or figures. I will be very interested to see how his opponents will rebut his argument because I don’t think he gave them anything solid to hold on to.

Shymmex – Like Cooger, he does have a way with words but unlike Cooger, he was able to show what he thinks about the motion and why he thinks that way. Referencing is always a plus. (This of course was before we found out. . .well you know)

Chucky234 – While he gave a convincing thought on the matter, he lost point for lack of adequate supporting material.

Chedderking – By far the most impressive of the lot. . . he was convincing in his argument and had enough material to back up his stance.

Breezy – Going again a generally accepted way of thinking is very hard so I was really looking forward to reading the argument from those against the motion. While I admire Breezy’s audacity to go against the motion. . .I felt his write up lacked some depth. I’d rather a debater not go with the assumption that “I know something” already. . .No I don’t, that is why I am listening to you. It is your job to convince me something is the way it is.

Newacca – His argument against was convincing and he had some very strong points to make. His lack of sufficient evidence to back his argument cost him some points.


SECOND ROUND

In general all had very solid points to make compared to the first round.

Newcca – In my opinion, his backup and examples pushed him to the lead position.

Cooger – Once again, while I admire Cooger’s prowess with the written word, I believe he will do well giving lectures than debating

Breezy047 – Although it was a struggle for him to rebut Cooger’s argument, considering the latter never really had a solid stance on the matter, It is my opinion that Breezy047 still managed to hold his own.

this is the funniest assessment I have ever read on this site.....i didn't state facts and figures? what facts? like the one shymmex pilfered from olabowale's back pocket? debates of this nature cannot go that route....this is more or less a SPAR debate....the focus should have been on persuasiveness/wit/logic/presentation/style rather than content or research!

shymmex: Cuddlemii ain't even saying nada..

Next time, make physicsQED and Katsumoto the judges..

Your judges are inept for something as logical as this.

What would I say? I am trying to play it civil!

PhysicsQED:
You kind of have a point in that references to previous scholarship are often (but not always) necessary for debating certain topics, but you took multiple sentences of the guy's work word for word.

If you were a member of a debating club at a school or university somewhere, and it was the finals in some debating championship, would you actually do what you did just now - reproduce some scholar's work word for word without attribution to make your argument look more polished - without considering that cheating?

And if you were on a debate team and someone from the opposing team did that, wouldn't you be pi[i]s[/i]sed off?

Bear in mind, that was just the introduction - the real debate was done today. They should have overlooked that because it wasn't like I uplifted the whole article and pasted it on NL... I had only 20mins to prepare my argument, and that was why I couldn't really be arsed to paraphrase what I lifted from the article.

I just wanted to present an argument to get through to the next round, and get into the real debate...

These guys are bad losers!!

Its been two days of fun,using this opportunity to say a big thank you to Cuddlemii for this great idea and our judges for their immense support,you guys were wonderful.

To my co-debaters, you were all worthy opponents and I look forward to locking horns with you guys in subsquents debate on NL,Shymmex,Newacca,Chedarking,Breezy and Coogar
You guys were damn smart and intelligent,great efforts from you guys.
Our audience were great as this debate wouldn't have achieved its aim without your imput, Freecocoa,Odunno,Jones,Sisi_Kill,Fagamite,Jackbauersballs you guys were wonderful.

Thank you all and good night.

Everybody relocate to another thread please,this one is closed.

Btw Cuddles,when will the ladies have their own debate? I suggest the topic should be "multiple partners is the best for any woman"

shymmex:

I understand where you're coming from. Basically, I was going to use the article and a couple of other articles for my scholarship - but I was just too busy yesterday to do that, hence why I lifted part of the article (the first and second paragraph) - but the bigger chunk of my scholarship was written by me. I didn't even get marks for the parts I allegedly plagiarized, according to the judges' analysis.

And there's nothing called; plagiarism in a debate. Normal judges would've overlooked that - and focus on the contents of today's debate.

The bolded is a big lie.

I checked your entire work, and the only original bits where the 3 sentences representing your case study.
Anyone reading your case-study would immediately notice the difference in writing style and intelligence of ideas....

If everyone did what you did, the judges would simply be judging articles on the subject matter, freely available on the internet. Your main sin was posting the man's entire article word for word and claiming it was 'Your Scholarship'

The truth is, honestly I've always respected your views on NL, if you even check one of my early posts on the thread, I was backing you to win sef...

But truthfully that post didnt match up to the level of intelligence you have previously displayed on NL....It was like seeing a 5 year old present a homework on calculus to his teacher...it doesnt add up...

Stop Shymexxing...

GROW UP...

PhysicsQED:

You kind of have a point in that references to previous scholarship are sometimes necessary for debating certain topics, but you took multiple sentences of the guy's work word for word.

If you were a member of a debating club at a school or university somewhere, and it was the finals in some debating championship, would you actually do what you did just now - reproduce some scholar's work word for word without attribution to make your argument look more polished - without considering that cheating?

And if you were on a debate team and someone from the opposing team did that, wouldn't you be pi[i]s[/i]sed off?

he wont because he was probably doing the same thing.

chucky234: Its been two days of fun,using this opportunity to say a big thank you to Cuddlemii for this great idea and our judges for their immense support,you guys were wonderful.

To my co-debaters, you were all worthy opponents and I look forward to locking horns with you guys in subsquents debate on NL,Shymmex,Newacca,Chedarking,Breezy and Coogar
You guys were damn smart and intelligent,great efforts from you guys.
Our audience were great as this debate wouldn't have achieved its aim without your imput, Freecocoa,Odunno,Jones,Sisi_Kill,Fagamite,Jackbauersballs you guys were wonderful.

Thank you all and good night.

Thank you my prince,you did wonderful,have a lovely night and dream of me. Muah.

shymmex:

I understand where you're coming from. Basically, I was going to use the article and a couple of other articles for my scholarship - but I was just too busy yesterday to do that, hence why I lifted part of the article (the first and second paragraph) - but the bigger chunk of my scholarship was written by me. I didn't even get marks for the parts I allegedly plagiarized, according to the judges' analysis.

And there's nothing called; plagiarism in a debate. Normal judges would've overlooked that - and focus on the contents of today's debate.

Yeah, you are partially right. . . in the context of an oral debate, there is no such thing as plagiarism as it applies in writing but the advent of new medium of communicating (such as debating online, which will be done by writing) brings a paradigm shift which forces us to apply the rules that govern writing an essay to "writing a debate"

Any debater who wishes to be taken seriously will do well to be aware, respect and apply this new shift.

cheddarking:

The bolded is a big lie.

I checked your entire work, and the only original bits where the 3 sentences representing your case study.
Anyone reading your case-study would immediately notice the difference in writing style and intelligence of ideas....

If everyone did what you did, the judges would simply be judging articles on the subject matter, freely available on the internet. Your main sin was posting the man's entire article word for word and claiming it was 'Your Scholarship'

The truth is, honestly I've always respected your views on NL, if you even check one of my early posts on the thread, I was backing you to win sef...

But truthfully that post didnt match up to the level of intelligence you have previously displayed on NL....It was like seeing a 5 year old present a homework on calculus to his teacher...it doesnt add up...

Stop Shymexxing...

GROW UP...

Just how can he stop shymexxing when that is his identity?

That will be quite tough,let him start with a name change at least.