Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#616

Yoda technically won his duel with Sidious in Revenge of the Sith

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1489
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This was actually fairly good!

So, I don’t think there was any contest of pros primary points that Yoda was the better fighter. There were two exceptions; that Yoda was also disarmed (which I must accept), and that Yoda fled the fight. I feel that pros reasoning about why fleeing a flight is okay was light, though the understanding that he couldn’t deal with sidious and the empire by himself was good enough to make me consider the final retreat as not part of the battle.

I also think there was really any contest that Yodas mission was a failure. Con portrays the failure of the duel based on the outcome and stated goals, pro makes it clear he was talking about the physical fight itself and who got the better of who.

So this comes down to framing, what consistutes a win of a duel, key for me, is that I feel it is inherent in the resolution that pro is not talking about full victory, but a technical victory. Pro argues that a technical win, is fighting better overall. Con argues it is falling short of killing the opponent.

At this point, I could either go with “fully bests opponent”, which would award the debate to con, or “boxing win on points”, which would award the debate to pro.

I could go either way, so that indicates to me that the debate is a deW. So I’m going to score this even.

Resolution is king; both sides needed to do more to ground what a technical win would look like: and contrast it with their opponent.

For example, in my view pro needed to argue something like: “a win would be a kill or a knock out; but in context a technical win is like winning on points in boxing”, and con along the lines of “it’s a duel to a the death, a technical win should be when one side clearly bests the other short of a kill”, and then go onto refute or construct based on the baselines each set themselves. Without this, both sides simply argued the other side didn’t match their criteria, without selling me on their criteria.

All points tied.