Towards the start of this debate, I was uncertain on who to vote for; I felt that while Zed had stronger debating skills in general, Wartooth was pulling out some excellent points, in particular his arguments about the risk of loss of human life. However, at the end of the debate, Zed made some smooth rebuttals, and provided a very strong conclusion... I was expecting to see more strong arguments from Wartooth to match this, but I was disappointed to find only a brief and lacking closing statement.

After careful consideration, I have made the difficult decision to vote for Zed in this argument.

Wartooth, I'd recommend working on your closing statements in future, as this time, it has let you down in my opinion.

Overall though, great work from both of you.

Quote from devilkingx

guys is it still only you 2 who can post because i have an intresting albeit different opinion from you both

this is part of a debating tournament. this is round one, zed vs. wartooth. your opinion is not wanted or needed. if you would like to discuss it further, make a separate thread open to the public.

Well, it doesn't really matter who I vote for now I guess, but here are my thoughts anyways. You both made strong arguments. Due to his knowledge of economics, Zed did have an upper hand on that part, but Wartooth was able to find other good reasons to postpone colonisation, such as the unknown affects it might have on us. While I do think that conclusions should generally be short and concise, hitting the points on the head, I agree with the other judges that you needed more flesh on yours, Wartooth, in order for it to be stronger, and thus your final argument does seem weaker than Zed's. I vote for Zed.