Apêx (Kisame) vs Konohas Copy Ninja (Minato)

[KCN]

I didn't do my veredict according to the numbers of arguments won or lost, i did it by picturing how this fight would be given these arguments. Minato would have 3 advantage areas while Kisame would have two, but overall the battle would be 50% each one. Sorry if that kind of judging is not correct, this is just my second time judging. Next time i'll do it like magatsu izanagi

Which means you believe I made the overall better points, does it not? This isn't about who wins the fight, it's about who explains it better and with you believing I presented more advantages for the character I'm defending, surely that's gotta mean something? And it's fine. It's not that serious, and I understand you're new to this type of thing. Thanks for judging nonetheless.

 

[Apêx1]

Which means you believe I made the overall better points, does it not? This isn't about who wins the fight, it's about who explains it better and with you believing I presented more advantages for the character I'm defending, surely that's gotta mean something? And it's fine. It's not that serious, and I understand you're new to this type of thing. Thanks for judging nonetheless.

He's saying Minato would be stronger in 2 areas of this fight. He could be stronger in all of them and that still wouldn't mean you won if he found my arguments more convincing. Wrong way of judging, but I'm surprised I was capable of convincing someone that Kisame is able to stand up against Minato in a fight.

 

[Beans2]

The way a debate should be judged is not by the number of correct points each debater had. If someone was debating Itachi vs Ay and the guy debating Ay made better points in almost every area but could absolutely not counter his opponent's proposition of Itachi one shotting with Tsukuyomi at the very start of the battle then the guy with Itachi would win. A debate is supposed to be judged by which debater made a better case for their character winning the battle. So EZ's judgment atm does not swing either way.

 

[NSUNSR]

The way a debate should be judged is not by the number of correct points each debater had. If someone was debating Itachi vs Ay and the guy debating Ay made better points in almost every area but could absolutely not counter his opponent's proposition of Itachi one shotting with Tsukuyomi at the very start of the battle then the guy with Itachi would win. A debate is supposed to be judged by which debater made a better case for their character winning the battle. So EZ's judgment atm does not swing either way.

Ezequiellosses has to cast a vote for one debater or the other, if not, another judge is going to be needed.

Why would there need to be a tie breaker, when only Apex has been given a vote from a judge?

 

[Beans2]

Why would there need to be a tie breaker, when only Apex has been given a vote from a judge?

I thought the debaters wanted 2 verdicts but yeah, now that I think about it, it makes more sense to just go off Magatsu's judgment. So scratch the last part of my previous post.

 

[Apêx1]

The way a debate should be judged is not by the number of correct points each debater had. If someone was debating Itachi vs Ay and the guy debating Ay made better points in almost every area but could absolutely not counter his opponent's proposition of Itachi one shotting with Tsukuyomi at the very start of the battle then the guy with Itachi would win. A debate is supposed to be judged by which debater made a better case for their character winning the battle. So EZ's judgment atm does not swing either way.

Yep. If the guy had absolutely no way of countering an ability then he'd lose the debate since that would become the focal point of the arguments. Unless the opponent also had absolutely no counter for one of his opponent's abilities as well, in which case it would become a matter of who argued better. Although I feel if my points were actually strong enough to make him feel the fight would go 50/50, and Kisame was the underdog, then my overall arguments would be more convincing, no?

 

[Beans2]

Yep. If the guy had absolutely no way of countering an ability then he'd lose the debate since that would become the focal point of the arguments. Unless the opponent also had absolutely no counter for one of his opponent's abilities as well, in which case it would become a matter of who argued better. Although I feel if my points were actually strong enough to make him feel the fight would go 50/50, and Kisame was the underdog, then my overall arguments would be more convincing, no?

I have no idea, I didn't read the debate. But you won because the score is 1-0.