Assessment of the Carrier-Wanchick debate

This is the link to my, and others' assessment of the Carrier-Wanchick debate. Wanchick has expressed disappointment that the judges did not more closely follow what he thought was agreed to, that we have to go by the points actually made in the debate, and if a point was made that is fallacious but not effectively rebutted, it should go to the person who made it anyway.

I had a short space in which to write my report and a relatively short time to write it, but I didn't think I was simply supposed to create a mechanical point total. I looked at the debate in terms of how well the arguments were understood and presented, but also to what extent the debate aided our understanding of the relevant issues.

What's appropriate in college debate, such as putting out a lot of arguments in hopes that some points will be dropped and you can win a few that way, is just, to me, inappropriate when we are trying to, hopefully, not just win debater's points, but actually give people in doubt a rational reason for accepting one's own position. In this area Wanchick was a worse offender than Carrier, altough I think even Carrier could have done with fewer arguments. I thought the parties were stronger on defense than on offense, though I thought Carrier's repsonses to the cosmological arguments were not adequate. However, Carrier effectively showed the danger of debating based on scientific authorities.

On the whole, I was not a happy camper in being a judge for the debate. But I am reasonably convinced that both sides made worthwhile points, but that neither side won.