kandiikane:

Excuse me, did you go to school? Who told you this rubbish? It's not like he quoted a sentence or paraphrased a sentence and referenced the author. He lifted whole sections of it and pretended it was his. If this was a university coursework, he will fail it because he cheated

antitpiah:
First of all, let he who has no sin cast the first stone. Judge not lest you be judged. I dont know why you are getting all worked up over some stupiddd debate where all the participants cheated. Shymmex was just unfortunate to have been caught. It is not as if the other contestants didnt cheat. They all did. They all plagiarized, in one way or the other. Secondly, this is not a university, and it will be stupidd and pompous of any of us to judge them by the same standard universities use. The rules of the debate were vague and wasnt well articulated from the start. Not sure if even the judges know what plagiarism entails. Thirdly, it is a freaking debate, I mean, you didnt expect him or anyone else for that matter to come up with an original idea, do you? He has to rely on other people's work, which frankly they all did. Fourthly, the ideas they all presented are already in the public domain. Simply stated, there is nothing they said that is not already out there, which raises he question: Whose truth is it anyway?

kandiikane:

Excuse me, did you go to school? Who told you this rubbish? It's not like he quoted a sentence or paraphrased a sentence and referenced the author. He lifted whole sections of it and pretended it was his. If this was a university coursework, he will fail it because he cheated

You Need To Read These! After Aborting 3 Times For Him, He's Set To Marry Another Lady This Month.

21 Reasons He Hasn't Proposed to You Yet

16 Regular Mistakes Singles Make in Relationships

25 Warning Signs of a Possible Break up in Your Relationship

16 Raw but Bitter Truths Ladies Must Know

Cuddlemii: Shymmex's Argument-

Rhapsody!:
The debaters did good and I must say I learnt a thing or two. While I agree that all the debaters had to add other peoples ideas to their own to make their arguements richer, it is completely another thing to lift paragraphs of another person's work without any form of acknowledgment. All the same, the idea of this debate is to share ideas, learn and generally have fun.
On that note, it is totally childish to allow something like this denegerate into name calling. My English teacher then used to say, "Whether you pass or fail, do so honorably". It was just a debate! That you did not come first does not mean you are no longer intelligent. Plus, I am sure some of the debaters were not too familiar with the topic anyway. So acting like a sore loser (although in the real sense, nobody lost) is something you expect from kids not adults. So could the swords be sheathed now, please? Thank you.
Hope there will be more of this. I enjoyed it. Kudos to the organizers.

D-Explorer:


@ the bolded, YES! and that 'rubbish' came from a professional view. If you read my comment again then you will see that i used the word "IF". I repeat, there's NOTHING wrong in copying someone else's work, if credit is duly attached. This' called a debate and i think every 'weapon' to defend and aid points should be granted. No doubt some fuss was instigated as an 'attack' against his content and i refuse to believe that the judges were manipulated because of that.
[p] My friend, we all know there's NOTHING wrong in copyright so far it's copied RIGHT!

shymmex: Kandiikane's IQ is definitely below 20 - this is the same slut who claimed she's Sierra leone/Gambia...

This compulsive liar don't even know Sierra Leone and Gambia are two different countries..

And how the fvck did Senegal/Gambia become Sierra leone/Gambia?

This girl is a re.tard - I bet she slobs everywhere like a down syndrome having scrounger.

Chimp faced cu.nt.

shymmex: Kandiikane

Look at the mongrel who's running her mouth, why didn't you get selected? At the end of the day, I was debating a topic I don't really know much about - but I still did a damn good job..

Graduate from uni before you start comparing yourself to people who have gone past the stage you're right now more than 5 years ago. You're still in your second year in uni, and probably the dumbest in your class - based on the level of intellect you exhibit on NL.

The only talent you've got, is writing about your sexual experiences on NL - stick to that, and stop following me around like a dog, slag.

kandiikane:

Ok, so they can give you an assignment and you can copy whole sections of an author's work as long as you say it's from so and so?

WTF? I laugh in chinese!

Like I said, it's not like he quoted or paraphased to support his own argument, he lifted whole sections of it and made it his argument. There is a difference.

debosky: Interesting outcome - could the judges, for the sake of transparency indicate if they have a view on the subject matter?

I'm not trying to impugn the integrity of our judges, but it would be interesting to know if they held a view either way. In future, it may be beneficial to select judges from both viewpoints as it were (if we can't find neutral judges that is) to ensure people feel there is a sense of balance.

Great work to the organisers sorting everything out. Unfortunately I couldn't participate this time; maybe next time.

jay bee: The contestants were judged and allocated appropriate scores against each of the following criteria:
Content
Delivery
Logical Argument
Factual Back
Persuasiveness

I held no view prior to the start of the debate and my scoring was solely based on the delivery of each contestants against the criteria set out by the organising committee

debosky: ^^ Of course are allowed to be convinced.

I just wanted some insight into how a judge would set aside how he/she felt or was convinced and judge strictly on the merit of the arguments presented. Being a very emotive subject, objectivity is often difficult when political arguments are involved as people are often unable to extricate themselves from their views and thus examine everything through this lens.

End of my latest attempt at psychoanalysis.

Sisi_Kill:
3. Delivery - How did they lay out their overall argument. Usually what is judged here is their interaction with the audience. Sure this is a faceless forum and making eye contacts and measuring the pitch of your voice etc does not come into play but other things do. . .things like word usage. Are you using words your audience will need a dictionary and thesaurus to decipher? Are you assuming your audience knows the things you know?

In short, Delivery is where the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle applies.

Please note that I am not saying these things are set in stone but that is the basic gist of it.

coogar:

sisikill, you need blood tonic - that is all!

Sisi_Kill: Based on the various the research done online

1. Logical argument - Does the person state logically every step of the logic that leads to the choice?

2. Persuasiveness - Does the person do a good job at tying everything together to make a sound, logical, argument that could convince someone that their stance is correct?

3. Delivery - How did they lay out their overall argument. Usually what is judged here is their interaction with the audience. Sure this is a faceless forum and making eye contacts and measuring the pitch of your voice etc does not come into play but other things do. . .things like word usage. Are you using words your audience will need a dictionary and thesaurus to decipher? Are you assuming your audience knows the things you know?

In short, Delivery is where the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle applies.

Please note that I am not saying these things are set in stone but that is the basic gist of it.

breezy047:

You are a woman.
And perhaps a very emotional one because I find from your role as a judge that the other points 'Logical arguement and delivery' are automatically over-ridden and do not count much as long as you have been strongly PERSUADED.
. .
I would rather prefer an OBJECTIVE female judge who can suppress emotions and strike a balance.

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.

Pharoh: This was a wonderful thing to do ( wanted to do stuffs like this as well ) and thanks to everyone who made it happen and to the project coordinator ( don't remember me again i guess ).

Hope we can all take a retrospective view of the past events and see how we can make this debate better going forward. In my personal perspective, i think shymexx should have not been banned if he did not break the debating rules ( was there any rule concerning plagiarism before the debate commenced? ) and also i think some posters will like to make some suggestion to the debate and or see how it can be expanded and reorganized with adequate inputs.

Thanks everyone and keep the discussion going but with less fighting please .

Sisi_Kill: How you tie those two posts and came to your conclusion is astounding!!

Dude, you will give a frog a run for its money when it comes to leaping.

By the way I take serious offense to that "You are a woman" bit