Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Allow me to introduce myself. I go by many names, although you should feel free to address me as Doctor. I am the reigning champion of RHP Debates, as of March 2006, where I displayed superior skills against a worthy opponent in the realm of ideas and arguments. Those same skills which I leveraged to win the title will I bring to bear in judging t ...[text shortened]... ainst which you wish to be competently judged, then you will appoint me to the panel.
While I don't have credentials as impressive as Scribs here, I have been on a college level dabate team, and would consider myself an expert in critical thinking, strong in use of language and argument design. And even though I admit to being the good doctor's inferior in overall debating ability, I would like to point out that judging is not neccesarily done best by the best debator. I can likewise be impartial and decisions will be based entirely on logic and rational argument. I leave all my personal opinions at the door, and start by assuming nothing. So, for example with this argument. I would not assume the Bible is neccesarily the word of God, as many do, but I would not assume it was false either. I would have to be persuaded one way or another, or leave it as irrelevant. Within the argument, I am willing to act as though I know very little outside what is presented by the debators. If I know something said was false, but the opponent refuses to point it out, and it is not obvious from outright logic, I will have to pretend I do not know, so as not to bring my (extensive) knowledge into the decisions, which would likely favor one side over another.
I will attempt to be as fair and unbiased as possible, but I have a perchant for logic, so illogical arguments will not persuade me.
If this is the kind of judge you want, choose me.