www.ditl.org

Topic: Should the Federation treat the Marqui as a terrorist organisation?

Judges: Mikey.

Judging: Points out of 100 for each post, teams consist of 3 members so total score for each team will be 300 points total.

Mikey will be judging on use of logic, use of evidence, ability to counter, and ability to make your position clear/rhetoric. Don't waste your word count by discussing your opponents' techniques, because it won't help you - rather, spend your time supporting your points and defeating the opposing ones. Grammar is important only inasmuch as he can understand what you are trying to say; likewise spelling.

Barring unforeseeable circumstances the results will be posted 48 hours after the last post. Any formal complaints by one team about the other (ie posts to long, dubious references) must be made with in 24 hours of the debate. The points for each post will be made public to assure no corruption on the judges part.

No comments or criticism are to be made in the debate thread during the debate by anyone apart from the Judges and the team Captains, comments should be kept to official business. Any queries can be made in the debate prep thread.

Rules: Alternating turns. 1000 word limit per post, 1500 words for the openers and closers of each team. This word count includes outside quotes and references. All information you wish to include in your post must be posted in your post. You cannot give a link and expect people to read it. It is up to the judges whether they accept these as fact so be careful from where you get them from.

For this debate Seaforts affirmative team are the first to post.

Images: Limited to 3 per post.

Speaking order ect is decided upon by the team.

Canon only. This only includes the 5 series and 10 movies as shown on TV or the theater.

The replying post must be made with in 24 hours of the last post. Since the person designated to go at any given time (ie Opener, 2nd, Closer) is up to the team, if the person designated to post cannot for some reason post in time, the captain of that team may make the post in their position. They will suffer a 50 point penalty for this though. Or they can pass on the turn, they will not suffer the penalty but nor will they gain any points at all.

This debate will commence on 24th of April GMT, Seaforts team must make the first post anytime during that day.

In order to determine whether the Maquis are, in fact terrorists, we must first define what a "terrorist" is.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 8th Edition, states the following:

terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.

The UK's Terrorism Act, 2000, uses the following definition:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The US State Department uses the following definition:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Thus, terrorist organisations can be identified by a number of key characteristics:

1) They have political goals.

2) They employ violence and intimidation to achieve their aims

3) This violence includes attacks on non-combatant targets.

4) They are sub-national groups.

Having defined terrorism, we must how analyse the actions of the Maquis, to determine whether their actions fit the above definitions.

They have political goals

Eddington wrote:We were winning. The Cardassian Empire was falling into chaos. The Maquis colonies were going to declare themselves an independent nation.

While this refers to the later period of Maquis operations, it demonstrates a clear political aim, in addition to their common theme of fighting Cardassian forces in the DMZ.

They employ violence and intimidation to achieve their aims.

The destruction of the Bok'nor ("The Maquis, Part 1").
The attack on the colony of Bryma ("The Maquis, Part 2").
The attack on Gul Evek's Vetar ("Pre-emptive Strike").
The biogenic attack on Veloz Prime ("For the Uniform").

These examples illustrate a clear trend of the frequent use of violence by the Maquis to achieve their goals, in addition to the frequent and repeated attacks on Cardassian military and civilian assets in the DMZ referenced throughout all Maquis episodes.

This violence includes attacks on non-combatant targets.

The Bok'nor. The Yridian convoy set up as bait in "Pre-emptive Strike". Veloz Prime. All civilian targets, all attacked or planned to be attacked by the Maquis.

They are a sub-national group.

See Eddington's quote above - they were going to declare themselves an independent nation. This demonstrates that at the time they were not.

The fulfilment of these factors demonstrates that the Maquis are indeed a terrorist organisation. To further reinforce the fact that the Federation should treat them as such, Maquis attacks on Federation assets and personnel should be considered. Such attacks demonstrate the Maquis are not merely an anti-Cardassian group, but pose a threat to Federation citizens and assets, providing a further reason for the Federation to consider the destruction of the group a priority.

The theft of medical supplies from the E-D ("Pre-emptive Strike")
The theft of industrial replicators from DS9 ("For the Cause")
The attack on, and crippling of, the Defiant ("For the Uniform").
The attack on, and crippling of, the Malinche ("For the Uniform").

The Maquis use violence to further their political goals. They have a track record of attacking civilians. The pose a threat not just to the Cardassian Union, but to Federation assets. The Federation should therefore consider them a terrorist organisation and deal with them accordingly.

The question at hand is not whether the Marquis are aggressive, or whether they are attacking the Federation as well as the Cardassians. The question at hand is whether they should be treated as a terrorist organization.

History has shown us time and time again that groups who only wish to claim what is theirs from people they see as unjustly claiming and controlling "their" lands are labeled as terrorists.

The American war of independence, according to the definition given by the opposition would have George Washington and the American militia that fought that war would be classed as terrorists.

The Irish war of independence (1919-1921), in which armed civilians much like the Marquis formed into unofficial armies and fought a war. They too attacked non military targets (such as Resident Magistrate John C. Milling) and could be considered terrorists by the definition given. The original Irish Republic Army was even known by the same initials as the more modern day "terrorist" sect the IRA.

The Israeli's fighting to retain what they consider their land from hostile neighbors much like the Cardassians. Their neighboring countries do not recognize them as a state or even their right to existence and would thus consider their wars and self defense acts of terrorism. The Cardassians do not recognize the Marquis as an independent group as they so obviously wish to be seen, much in the same way as many Arab nations no not recognize Israel.

Great Britain now recognizes that these groups the "old IRA" and the American revolutionary army are not terrorists and never were.


We have to explore the motives for the formation of the Marquis to understand their desire to be recognized as an independent body and their right to exist, which would remove the tag of "terrorist" which they have so unfairly been labeled with.

The Marquis are made up of former Federation colonists from the Cardassian and Federation demilitarized zone (DMZ) along with several Federation officers who resigned their position and joined up as well as several other individuals.

Due to the close proximity of several Colonizes of the Cardassians and what would eventually become the Marquis, Tensions rose leading to the Cardassian wars, eventually the Treaty of 2370 in which the DMZ was formed barring all large warships from both sides and the ceding of several colonies.

In the face of vehement protests by the peoples of the Federation controlled territories to not be relocated, and expressing their wishes to stay on what they now consider their homeworlds, some of whish had deep spiritual meaning such as the colony at Dorvan V which was home to a deeply spiritual group of Native American the Federation brokered a deal with the Cardassians to let the colonies remain but under Cardassian jurisdiction.

After this deal the Cardassians ran a campaign to terrorize, oppress and general harassment of the Federation colonists who they had agreed to allow to stay and who the Federation had abandoned.

So we have a group of colonists who have expressly shown their wish to be left on the planets that they have colonized in a peaceful fashion. We have a group that was then abandoned by the government which they at the time recognized themselves as citizens of. We have a brutal an oppressive regime that broke agreements and persecuted these colonists, who then finally formed themselves into a group known as the Marquis for their own protection.

Up to this point I cannot see anyway in which they could be considered terrorists or treated as such, certainly not by the government who had abandoned them to their former enemy.

The Marquis view of the Federation is summed up by Lt. Michael Eddington in the episode "For the cause"

Eddington wrote:Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation...You know, in some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it.

This statement nicely shows the Marquis opinion of the Federation, although I would like to point out that they did not so much leave as were forced to leave, due to them not following the orders of a government that had so obviously let them down. And as we all know "I was just following orders" is an excuse often given to justify acts of evil.

Even Captain Benjamin Sisko a Starfleet officer shown to be against the marquis doubts if they really should be. From the episode "The Marquis"

Sisko wrote:The trouble is Earth. On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. It's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the demilitarized zone all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people - angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not.

I will now look at several of the actions of the Marquis that the opposition have or may claim is terrorism.

The destruction of the Bok'nor ("The Maquis, Part 1").

The Bok'nor was reportedly carrying weapons to the Cardassians in the DMZ to further their campaign of oppression and intimidation against the Marquis., it was even stated by Legate Parn in "The Marquis" that they are aware that a group have been smuggling weapons into the DMZ. This is clearly not a terrorist attack, it is a pre-emptive strike to stop weapons from being delivered to their enemies. Weapons that are a violation of the agreement brokered by the Federation.

The attack on Gul Evek's Vetar

Is an attack on a warship of an aggressive and violent oppressive species that had repeatedly broken agreements. Their options were to attack or to bend over. Again this is hardly a terrorist attack. It was raised by the opposition that they should be labeled terrorists because they favor attacks and violent action. But when words fail sometimes there is no other option.

The biogenic attack on Veloz Prime ("For the Uniform").

Is a retaliatory attack against the oppressive Cardassians. It is not made clear in the episode whether anyone died and we can assume they did not given we saw they evacuate. This is a similar policy to the "scorched earth" policy employed by numerous armies through history.


Again I would like to reiterate that the question is not whether or not the Marquis have attacked both the Federation and the Cardassians, although it is plain to see the Cardassians are their main target and they only attack Starfleet when need be. In fact they are shown to go to great lengths to avoid injuring Starfleet personal, an example of this is when Lt Eddington disabled the Defiant yet didn't attack and destroy it as he so easily could have(as shown in the episode "for the uniform"), numerous times Starfleet personal and equipment were at the mercy of the Marquis and time and again they showed mercy. Here is a quote From Lt Eddington when he held the Defiant at his mercy:

Eddington wrote:"You know what your problem is, Captain? You've made this personal. It didn't have to be. It wasn't with me. I have no animosity, no harsh feelings toward you."

The question is whether the Federation should see them as terrorists.

From the evidence we have and from the lessons learned through history we see that to look at the Marquis, a group fighting for the most fundamental right of any creature, a home, as terrorists is not only wrong but amoral.

I will leave my portion of the debate with this fact; The Marquis are reportedly named after the French resistance during WWII.

Seafort wrote:A group that:

1) They have political goals.

2) They employ violence and intimidation to achieve their aims

3) This violence includes attacks on non-combatant targets.

4) They are sub-national groups.

The Germans undoubtedly considered them terrorists. They certainly fall under many of the definitions the opposition raised, yet what rational human being in this day and age would consider those people who fought for their homes "Terrorists"?

The Opposition has gone to great lengths to show us that the Macquis are not Terrorists by virtue of their similarity to other groups in our history with similar goals but these comparisons are out of place since hindsight is 20/20 and both of these events occurred over 100 years ago. Even so, in both cases a formal Declaration of Independence was issued early in the conflicts and in the case of the American Revolution, a formal army recruited, equipped and trained.

We have to explore the motives for the formation of the Marquis to understand their desire to be recognized as an independent body

They have no official desire to be free, it is not until the very end that were getting ready to declare their independence.

The Marquis are made up of former Federation colonists from the Cardassian and Federation demilitarized zone (DMZ) along with several Federation officers who resigned their position and joined up as well as several other individuals.

Resign, from what he have seen in DS9 these Officers didn't so much resign but committed Treason by using their position to either gather information or steal supplies.

So we have a group of colonists who have expressly shown their wish to be left on the planets that they have colonized in a peaceful fashion. We have a group that was then abandoned by the government which they at the time recognized themselves as citizens of. We have a brutal an oppressive regime that broke agreements and persecuted these colonists, who then finally formed themselves into a group known as the Marquis for their own protection.

They choose to live among the Cardassians, they were not forced to and were told very early that they would loose their claim as Federation citizens (Journey's End). The idea that the Macquis are a defensive organization is a nice but but clearly untrue, we know that to protect themselves they are killing to kill their own (For the Uniform) that they are willing to use Weapons of Mass Destruction on a planetary scale (For the Uniform), that they poses Missiles capable of cloaking, clearly an offensive weapon (Blaze of Glory). They also engage in acts of Piracy against the Federation (For the Cause) along with other Civilian Groups (For the Uniform) when it suits their needs and are more than willing to kill an entire ship full of innocent people fleeing their reign of terror when it suits their needs (For the Uniform).

Eddington's statement that they have never done anything to harm the Federation is also patently false as listed above, he himself used his position to plant a series of viruses which could completely cripple a Federation Starship, and a Starbase filled with innocent civilians and owned by an unaligned Planet.

Is a retaliatory attack against the oppressive Cardassians. It is not made clear in the episode whether anyone died and we can assume they did not given we saw they evacuate. This is a similar policy to the "scorched earth" policy employed by numerous armies through history.

It was not retaliation it was attempted Genocide, they used a weapon which only effects Cardassians and is quite deadly, once they were off the Planet the Macquis no doubt intended to settle it. Also assuming that since we didn't see piles of Cardassian bodies on the ground doesn't mean that no one was killed, the Macquis intended there to be causalities and were quite happy if some did occur as evidenced by their willingness to cripple a freighter and leave it to certain death just to get away.

After this deal the Cardassians ran a campaign to terrorize, oppress and general harassment of the Federation colonists who they had agreed to allow to stay and who the Federation had abandoned.

They were not abandoned, they choose that life, it is not as if Starfleet kidnapped a group of unsuspecting people then beamed them down to a Cardassian City , leaving them to fend for themselves, they tried to convince them to leave, they even tried to force them to go but in the end they fought back and refused to leave (Journey's End).

The final decision as to whether or not they should be treated as Terrorists by the Federation must be based on their actions along with their motivation for those actions, and from what we have seen the Macquis enjoy employing excessive violence to those who disagree with them.

With due respect to the opposition, the argument fails to consider the fundamental nature of what the Maquis were fighting for; not for political independence, but basic self preservation.

KuvahMagh wrote: They have no official desire to be free, it is not until the very end that were getting ready to declare their independence.

While there was no formal declaration of independence, the goal of the Maquis was clearly to defend against Cardassian territory. The Maquis had an agenda against those (both Federation and Cardassian) that they felt responsible for the unjust repartitioning of their territory. ["Journey's End", "The Maquis"] Simply put, the Maquis were defending the right to maintain their livelihood on lands they felt were unjustly taken from them.

This is a theme that has been reflected throughout history. The actions of the Maquis reflect those actions taken by Palestinians who had their traditional homelands taken away by a larger governing body (the United Nations), and distributed to another group (Israel) without any considerations to the reprocussions that it would have on peoples native to the land. Many Palestinians, then, have found it necessary to use violence against both arab and Israeli alike for the sake of preserving their rights.

Similarly, fighting over the Punjab, as well as Jammu and Kashmir, along the Indian/Pakistani border has led to the rise of groups tha tthe opposition would undoubtedly, though incorrectly, refer to as terrorists. Groups of militant Sikhs have emerged to fight both Pakistani and Indian military presence in these regions. While the majority of the militant Sikhs have fought Pakistani attempts to control these regions, they have also taken up arms against India when Indian military presence has disrupted the Sikh way of life. These Sikhs do not seek independence, but rather, are lashing out against a border war between two nations (think Federation and Cardassians) that has left a group of people trapped in the middle (Maquis)

It must also be stated that not only are the Maquis reflective of the above groups, felt (much like the Palestinians) that fundamental freedoms were being threatened by coming under the power of an oppressive government.

Based on what we have seen in the various Star Trek series, the Federation has allowed, at best, relative autonomy to independent planets. If nothing else, we have not seen any indications of a strong totalitarian state. Thus, it can be argued that those living in the territories that were eventually given to the Cardassians, lived in relative freedom.

This would not be so for those former Federation citizens living in lands given to the Cardassians, who have clearly been shown as a totalitarian state. Those in the Maquis were essentially "traded" along with their lands, from a nation who assured relative freedom, to a nation who has historically shown no desire to assure basic rights to those who were of different species.

The Maquis acts of self-preservation must be taken into account when considering their status as terrorists, as the label "terrorist" could then be unjustly given to any group fighting for the maintenence of their ways of life.

Bryan Moore wrote: While there was no formal declaration of independence, the goal of the Maquis was clearly to defend against Cardassian territory. The Maquis had an agenda against those (both Federation and Cardassian) that they felt responsible for the unjust repartitioning of their territory. ["Journey's End", "The Maquis"] Simply put, the Maquis were defending the right to maintain their livelihood on lands they felt were unjustly taken from them.

They were told by Starfleet to evacuate those worlds, and were offered full Starfleet support in relocating to new homes. When some of them refused point-blank to do so, they were transferred with their worlds to Cardassian jurisdiction ("Pre-emptive Strike"). They willingly accepted this transfer, despite the Cardassians' notoriously poor record in the field of sapient rights, and for attacking civilian targets (Setlik III).

This is a theme that has been reflected throughout history. The actions of the Maquis reflect those actions taken by Palestinians who had their traditional homelands taken away by a larger governing body (the United Nations), and distributed to another group (Israel) without any considerations to the repercussions that it would have on peoples native to the land. Many Palestinians, then, have found it necessary to use violence against both Arab and Israeli alike for the sake of preserving their rights.

Israeli abuses in the occupied territories do not in any way legitimise the steady drizzle of tactical rockets Hamas rains on Israeli cities. Likewise, Cardassian atrocities in the DMZ do not legitimise Maquis attacks on civilian targets, and they certainly don't legitimise attacks on Federation starships. This principle applies to all such conflicts.

Based on what we have seen in the various Star Trek series, the Federation has allowed, at best, relative autonomy to independent planets. If nothing else, we have not seen any indications of a strong totalitarian state. Thus, it can be argued that those living in the territories that were eventually given to the Cardassians, lived in relative freedom.

This would not be so for those former Federation citizens living in lands given to the Cardassians, who have clearly been shown as a totalitarian state. Those in the Maquis were essentially "traded" along with their lands, from a nation who assured relative freedom, to a nation who has historically shown no desire to assure basic rights to those who were of different species.

They were not traded. Their worlds were ceded to the Cardassians, and they were offered Federation assistance to relocate to other planets. They refused this offer, and willingly agreed to be transferred to Cardassian jurisdiction in return for staying put.

The Maquis acts of self-preservation must be taken into account when considering their status as terrorists, as the label "terrorist" could then be unjustly given to any group fighting for the maintenence of their ways of life.

When the group in question has a track record of attacking civilians (most notably Eddington's attempted genocide in "For the Cause"), and third parties to their dispute (the E-D in "Pre-emptive Strike", the Defiant and the Malinche in "For the Cause") they are terrorists. Their aims are utterly irrelevant.

First lets start by looking at how the real world defines terrorism through it's treaties on and regulating war. As the Federation is analgious to the present UN, this should be our point of comparison rather than any individual nations definitions of the term.

First The Hauge Convention defines combatants as such:

CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents
Article 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Art. 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 3.

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

If we look at Art. 1. we find that the Maquis meet the conditions save one: they do not have a distinctive emblem. However if we exam the entire article we find that militia and volunteers are considered an army. The Maquis meet this condition.

Now upon examination of Art. 2. We find that in fact the Maquis qualify as Belligerents based on the fact that they were a reaction to Cardassion occupation of their homeworlds and subsequent atrocities. They also carry their arms openly and seek to follow certain standards of war.

Art. 3. Shows us that the Maquis are in fact entitled to be detained in a POW camp rather than a civilian prison.


Now the Geneva Convention which supplements the Hague Convention tells us:

GC PI wrote: Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War
Art. 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Here we see that a military force counts as such even if not recognised as such by it's opponent. The Maquis were not recognised by the Federation (TNG:Preemptive Strike).

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

Here we see that the forces of the nation were permitted to engage in hostilities. Which the Maquis certainly did.

Now for some of the specific claims of the opposition:

Captain Seafort wrote: They were told by Starfleet to evacuate those worlds, and were offered full Starfleet support in relocating to new homes. When some of them refused point-blank to do so, they were transferred with their worlds to Cardassian jurisdiction ("Pre-emptive Strike"). They willingly accepted this transfer, despite the Cardassians' notoriously poor record in the field of sapient rights, and for attacking civilian targets (Setlik III).

In fact we see that in Journey's End the Proto-Maquis colonies were given assurances in the very treaty itself that they would be unmolested. And Gul Evek stops a building atrocity on the surface of Dorvan V saying:

Jounery's End wrote: GUL EVEK I had three sons, Captain. I lost two of them in the war. I don't want to lose the last one.

Captain Seafort wrote: When the group in question has a track record of attacking civilians (most notably Eddington's attempted genocide in "For the Cause"), and third parties to their dispute (the E-D in "Pre-emptive Strike", the Defiant and the Malinche in "For the Cause") they are terrorists. Their aims are utterly irrelevant.

The Maquis are hardly alone in their choice to commit warcrimes, we have in fact seen several Federation incidents involving the same or worse:

ST:INS: the Baku are to be forcibly relocated

DS9:For the Uniform Sisko uses an NBC device to poison the biosphere of two MAquis planets

DS9-Various Episodes: The Federation attempts to wipe out the entire race of Founders with a biological weapon. By far the most grevious crime committed by the Federation.

The commision of warcrimes does not automatically invalidate the Maquis right to Belligerent status. Numerous governments in history have done similar things and their armed forces were still treated in accordance with the established treaties.

The Central Powers in WWI: use of gas

Nazi Germany in WWII: systematic slaughter of minority groups and POW's.

USSR in WWII: Systematic slaughter of dissidents and POW's.

Imperial Japan in WWII: Wholesale abuse of POW's and systematic slaughter and abuse of the Chinese and Korean populations.

Iran/Iraq 1988: Wholesale slaughter of civilians on both sides.

Kurdish Genocide: Iraq attempted to eliminate the Kurds as a threat.

Ottoman Empire in WWI: Armenian Genocide.

[quote="KuvahMagh'}
They have no official desire to be free, it is not until the very end that were getting ready to declare their independence.[/quote]

Getting ready to, yes. However it's obvious from their actions that the Maquis government was always working towards this goal.

KuvahMagh wrote: Eddington's statement that they have never done anything to harm the Federation is also patently false as listed above, he himself used his position to plant a series of viruses which could completely cripple a Federation Starship, and a Starbase filled with innocent civilians and owned by an unaligned Planet.

It's also apparent that if Eddington had intended any actual harm on the starbase that he could have done far worse than cripple it's systems. He went out of his way to avoid harming them.

I now pronounce the first official DITL debate closed. Congratulations to both teams.

The two team captains know have 24 hours to submit any formal protests or complaints about the conduct of this debate in this thread. After 24 hours or both team captains pass on laying formal complaints (which ever comes first) the judge will then post the results as soon as they are ready.

As captain of the negative team I have no formal complaints to make about this debate.

rules wrote:The replying post must be made with in 24 hours of the last post. Since the person designated to go at any given time (ie Opener, 2nd, Closer) is up to the team, if the person designated to post cannot for some reason post in time, the captain of that team may make the post in their position. They will suffer a 50 point penalty for this though. Or they can pass on the turn, they will not suffer the penalty but nor will they gain any points at all.

I also wave the 50 point penalty that would have been imposed on the other team for having their captain post in the place of Monroe since he had RL issues and this was our first run through.

No complaints here. Now we wait for Mikey to total up points and produce the result.

Teaos wrote:I also wave the 50 point penalty that would have been imposed on the other team for having their captain post in the place of Monroe since he had RL issues and this was our first run through.

Much obliged. I think such a principle regarding RL issues preventing posts should be included in the official rules, with a proviso that a request for extension and/or captain's post should be made well in advance of the deadline, as Bryan and Monroe did.

Agreed. We are in this to have fun, first and foremost, and we certainly don't want technicalities to interfere with that or to have anyone sweating because something came up. As long as notice is given, as Seafort mentioned, I think we can all act like adults.

I'm going to go back over my notes, compile everything, and post an abbreviated tally in the comment thread tomorrow. For analysis, questions, or comments, reply to that - for a more specific, personal comment, feel free to PM me.

I'm posting the results here for ease of acess in the future if someone wants to look back at past debates.

Judge wrote:Captain Seafort (1): use of logic - 25
use of evidence - 15
ability to counter - N/A (I used a median of 13 pts.)
rhetoric - 20

Teaos: logic - 20
evidence - 10
counter - 25
rhetoric - 15

KuvahMagh: logic - 10
evidence - 20
counter - 20
rhetoric - 10

Bryan Moore: logic - 15
evidence - 5
counter - 15
rhetoric - 15

Captain Seafort (for Monroe): logic - 15
evidence - 10
counter - 20
rhetoric - 15

Cpl Kendall: logic - 10
evidence - 20
counter - 25
rhetoric - 10

At 100 pts. available per post, I simply weighted each of the four categories (which I had previously specified) equally at 25 pts. available in each. Any suggestions toward amending/improving that method are welcome.