DeletedUser
Guest
Team "We Need To Decide" apologizes for the delay, some communications issues occurred.
MOTION: This house believes that each Tribe should have only one Duke
The proposition affirms the above resolution.
The proposition wishes to achieve the ultimate goal of tribewide success. Thus, in order to win, the opposition must prove that tribewide success in a world is better achieved by the use of multiple dukes per tribe.
The parameters for this debate will be as follows:
1) Most, if not all, arguments must be hypothetical. Because the goal of tribewide success has not ever been maintained long enough to win a world, and because examples clearly deadlock in the case of "who" succeeds (both tribes with 1 duke and with multiple dukes have succeeded for any amount of time), the hypothetical situation is the only method with which one can determine what works best.
2) Tribewide success is defined by the maximum amount of time in which a tribe can control a world. Thus, the two arguments being pitted against one another is:
A) A tribe with one duke.
B) A tribe with multiple dukes.
Keep in mind that both must, hypothetically, be facing the same tribes in the world they are placed in. To assume one would face harder opponents than the other clearly violates any fairness in the debate.
My first contention is that a tribe with 1 duke has a clearer command chain.
A tribe with 1 duke is a tribe with less risks, as the other person on my team will elaborate on.
However, a tribe with one duke is also more efficient, in that the duke can easily specify whosoever he wishes to take what positions he chooses. To have one duke makes the tribe's leadership easier to spot. For example, a tribe with multiple dukes would likely divide all the work between said dukes. In that event, players would be unsure of which duke they would have to go to in order to have their issues solved. Whereas a tribe with 1 duke who specifies multiple barons for their jobs is easier to run.
To expand on the aforementioned point, there is no need for multiple dukes. The job of a duke is to effectively make the choices for the tribe, and to be highest in the chain of command. When you specify multiple highest powers in the chain of command, you confuse the members of said tribe upon joining. In addition to simply confusing the members, the job could just as easily be accomplished with multiple barons, not dukes. As such, there is no clear reason for multiple dukes.
To spike the arguments my opponents may come up with, I'd like to provide counters for the following points:
Opposition: But what happens if a duke gets overworked?
My answer: A duke with a strong command structure, including multiple barons, etc., should never be overworked. But should he be overworked and wish to take a break, he/she can appoint a temporary duke. Thus, there is not more than one duke in the tribe, and there is never any "overworking issue".
Opposition: But what if the duke doesn't know what is best for the tribe?
My answer: This is a hypothetical situation, correct. But it is double-pronged. Conversely, if a duke does know best and the other duke(s) disagree, then there is more chance of him being overruled. In addition, with multiple dukes, a dangerous position is put in, during which a single duke could influence the others based on dislike for another, etc., etc., and bad decisions would likely follow. Thus, the benefits for the proposition's case outweigh over the benefits for the opposition's case.
Opposition: But what if a duke quits unexpectedly?
My answer: The chances of this happening, first of all, are very slim. However, the argument is hypothetical, and I would be hypocritical not to challenge it due to my own previous arguments. If a duke goes inactive, a baron is allowed to promote himself to duke. While some would claim it would be easier to have multiple dukes, one could easily disagree. If one duke specializes himself in one area and neglects to improve by working in other areas of the tribe, and he quits, then the tribe as a whole suffers just as much. When one area of the tribe is lacking, all the tribe is lacking. Thus, the harms are very similar. And because the proposition outweighs on benefits opposed to harms in other areas, the proposition should thus have the stronger arguments.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote proposition.
MOTION: This house believes that each Tribe should have only one Duke
The proposition affirms the above resolution.
The proposition wishes to achieve the ultimate goal of tribewide success. Thus, in order to win, the opposition must prove that tribewide success in a world is better achieved by the use of multiple dukes per tribe.
The parameters for this debate will be as follows:
1) Most, if not all, arguments must be hypothetical. Because the goal of tribewide success has not ever been maintained long enough to win a world, and because examples clearly deadlock in the case of "who" succeeds (both tribes with 1 duke and with multiple dukes have succeeded for any amount of time), the hypothetical situation is the only method with which one can determine what works best.
2) Tribewide success is defined by the maximum amount of time in which a tribe can control a world. Thus, the two arguments being pitted against one another is:
A) A tribe with one duke.
B) A tribe with multiple dukes.
Keep in mind that both must, hypothetically, be facing the same tribes in the world they are placed in. To assume one would face harder opponents than the other clearly violates any fairness in the debate.
My first contention is that a tribe with 1 duke has a clearer command chain.
A tribe with 1 duke is a tribe with less risks, as the other person on my team will elaborate on.
However, a tribe with one duke is also more efficient, in that the duke can easily specify whosoever he wishes to take what positions he chooses. To have one duke makes the tribe's leadership easier to spot. For example, a tribe with multiple dukes would likely divide all the work between said dukes. In that event, players would be unsure of which duke they would have to go to in order to have their issues solved. Whereas a tribe with 1 duke who specifies multiple barons for their jobs is easier to run.
To expand on the aforementioned point, there is no need for multiple dukes. The job of a duke is to effectively make the choices for the tribe, and to be highest in the chain of command. When you specify multiple highest powers in the chain of command, you confuse the members of said tribe upon joining. In addition to simply confusing the members, the job could just as easily be accomplished with multiple barons, not dukes. As such, there is no clear reason for multiple dukes.
To spike the arguments my opponents may come up with, I'd like to provide counters for the following points:
Opposition: But what happens if a duke gets overworked?
My answer: A duke with a strong command structure, including multiple barons, etc., should never be overworked. But should he be overworked and wish to take a break, he/she can appoint a temporary duke. Thus, there is not more than one duke in the tribe, and there is never any "overworking issue".
Opposition: But what if the duke doesn't know what is best for the tribe?
My answer: This is a hypothetical situation, correct. But it is double-pronged. Conversely, if a duke does know best and the other duke(s) disagree, then there is more chance of him being overruled. In addition, with multiple dukes, a dangerous position is put in, during which a single duke could influence the others based on dislike for another, etc., etc., and bad decisions would likely follow. Thus, the benefits for the proposition's case outweigh over the benefits for the opposition's case.
Opposition: But what if a duke quits unexpectedly?
My answer: The chances of this happening, first of all, are very slim. However, the argument is hypothetical, and I would be hypocritical not to challenge it due to my own previous arguments. If a duke goes inactive, a baron is allowed to promote himself to duke. While some would claim it would be easier to have multiple dukes, one could easily disagree. If one duke specializes himself in one area and neglects to improve by working in other areas of the tribe, and he quits, then the tribe as a whole suffers just as much. When one area of the tribe is lacking, all the tribe is lacking. Thus, the harms are very similar. And because the proposition outweighs on benefits opposed to harms in other areas, the proposition should thus have the stronger arguments.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote proposition.
.