Hype Survivor SHH Survivor 30: Big Brother (Week 6) - A Redneck's Point of View

[Spider-Fan]

Up to SF. He seemed to want to enjoy being a smash up judge. That's hard to take away.

I wanted 3 sets, so I coul still use them...how fast can you do it?

 

[Matt]

I'm cool letting SN score and including his if he can do it quickly.

 

[Spider-Nerd]

Give me 30 min and I'll bang it out. I'm listening to a lecture on federal criminal law at the same time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Give me 30 min and I'll bang it out. I'm listening to a lecture on federal criminal law at the same time.

I'll wait for your scores and add them to what was already posted

 

[Spider-Nerd]

I'll wait for your scores and add them to what was already posted

alright, give me a bit.

 

[Matt]

First, let's grade Submission #1. That submission was by team: Hunter Rider, Cmill216, Byrd Man, and Specter313

Marx:

Spoiler

Submission #1

Persuasion: 5
Validity: 5
Argument Structure: 5
Comments: Very simply put, this submission was incredibly well done from start to finish. It had a very clear argument and a structure outlined with bolded fonts. The only thing that I wish would have been longer was your conclusion. It was very short and did get the point across, but I would liked to have seen a little more depth to it than a single run-on sentence. That being said, great work. It is always hard to argue a position like this. (Trust me, I know. )


Total: 15pts

Spider-Fan:

Spoiler

Persuasion - 4.5: I feel your conclusion could have been phrased better, but otherwise, very convincing.
Validity - 4: Your section on stalking gets a little outrageous to the point where it seems like a waste to stalk you that long. Makes that point seem less valid. Otherwise, great.
Structure - 5: You stayed on topic and made great points

Total: 13.5

Grand total: 28.5 points

HAving hosted both games Marx played, I can confidently say, that if a judge gave a team that he was not on a perfect score, he would be the first one *****ing (in fact, I think he did last game). Just sayin'

 

[Spider-Nerd]

I gotta judge every single rebuttal? Hold steady people.

 

[Spider-Nerd]

DONE. I think.....

 

[Spider-Fan]

Thanks to Spider-Nerd for providing a 3rd set of judging

I'll start by posting his views on the team submissions:

Submission #1:

Spoiler

Submission #1: Persuasion is solid here, that's for sure. You've got plenty of good stuff here that leads me to believe that social networking will lead to the downfall of society. Buttttt, where are the citations? You couldn't link me to a news story or anything? Come on, back it up! 3.5

Validity: 4.

Argument Structure: 3. Maybe it's the law student in me, but you're using some nice little anecdotal stuff and you weave from one topic to the next. I don't know where exactly you're going at the beginning and you finish off with a 1 sentence wrap up at the end. Thesis people!

10.5

Grand total: 39pts!

Submission #2:

Spoiler

Submission #2:

Persuation: Wow, connections to the outside world??!?! To actual news events and whatnot?!?! I love it. A statistic that isn't cited on the # of people who actually met in online relationships?!?! Well, you tried so points for you. 4.0

Validity: You start out by telling me that you don't have a facebook page. Great, so why should I care about anything you have to say about the medium? 2.5

Argument structure: Nothing negative here. All I have to do is read your first paragraph and your last paragraph to see that you're on track. 4.5


11 Total

Grand total: 36pts!

 

[Spider-Fan]

Now onto the rebuttals. First, Hunter Rider's:

Marx:

Spoiler

Hunter Rider's Rebuttal

Persuasion: 4
Validity: 4
Argument Structure: 4.5
Comments: 'Instead of being long winded', I'll just say that this was a pretty good rebuttal. I would like to have seen a bit more teeth to it, if that makes sense. I always think a good rebuttal should really hammer the original submission on all points. This had all of the elements of a good rebuttal but didn't really have that bite.


Total: 12.5pts

Spider-Fan:

Spoiler

Persuasion - 4: Good points, but I feel you needed a tad more detail.
Validity - 4: Again, I feel more detail would have made your arguments more valid
Structure - 2.5: Way too many grammar errors and run on sentences to ignore. You had commas where colons should be, commas where periods should be, and just never stopped your sentences. Most of your paragraphs are just one long sentence.

Total: 10.5pts

Spider-Nerd:

Spoiler

Hunter's rebuttal:

Your big thing is that social networking causes problems than it solves and the world was just fine without it for so many years. That might be true, but isn't that what people said about that phone, tv, and the internet when they were first invented? You pick out a few points and counter them and sum up well at the end.

Persuation: 3.5
Validity:3.5
Argument4.0

11 total

34pts Rebuttal...34+39=

73pts Hunter Rider

 

[Spider-Fan]

Next, Byrd Man's Rebuttal!

Marx:

Spoiler

Byrd Man's Rebuttal

Persuasion: 5
Validity: 4.5
Argument Structure: 4.5
Comments: This was a very good rebuttal. I loved that you threw Craigslist in as part of your argument. That being said, you made a very convincing case, I just wish it would have been longer. I also wanted to say that I took off a half point because of the overall flow of your rebuttal. It could have been a little smoother.

14pts

Spider-Fan:

Spoiler

Persuasion - 4: Needed more broad focus. You argued against 2 sites for the whole of the internet. Needed to broaden your argument.
Validity - 4.5: Despite lacking broad focus, your points are valid
Structure- 3: You also had tons of run ons and grammatical errors. But, you used more correct punctuation

11.5 total

Spider-Nerd:

Spoiler

Byrd Man's

Good stuff here. Sure we're networking, but with who? How do we actually know the person on the other side is who they say they are? We don't. That's big.

Persuasion: 3.5
Validity:3.5
Argument structure:4.0

total 11

36.5pts total...36.5 + 39=

75.5pts Byrd Man

 

[Spider-Fan]

Next, Matt's rebuttal:

Marx:

Spoiler

Matt's Rebuttal

Persuasion: 5
Validity: 5
Argument Structure: 5
Comments: I'm not really sure what I can say. This rebuttal really speaks for itself. It has all of the things that I think make a great rebuttal. It pretty much fires on all cylinders.

15pts total

Spider-Fan:

Spoiler

Persuasion - 5: Great points, nice detail, and very convincing.
Validity - 5: Your points never come accross as shallow.
Strcuture - 4: NEVER START A SENTENCE WITH "A" or "AND!!!"

14pts

Spider-Nerd:

Spoiler

Matt's

Take your opponents argument and pick it apart piece by piece. Take their strong points and make them look weak. This is a solid rebuttal. Highly persuasive, excellent points, excellent counter points, and a strong summary at the end.

Persuasion: 4.5
Validity: 4.5
Argument structure: 5.


total 14

43pts...43 + 36=

79pts Matt

 

[Spider-Fan]

Last, but not least...KALEL114's Rebuttal:

Marx:

Spoiler

KALEL114's Rebuttal

Persuasion: 5
Validity: 5
Argument Structure: 5
Comments: Like Matt's, this rebuttal also speaks for itself. It does everything it needs to to blow apart the original submission.

15pts

Spider-Fan:

Spoiler

Persuasion - 5: You dissect the opposition well.
Validity - 5: Your counter arguments are very sound.
Structure - 5: You properly start and transition sentences, and I love the use of multi-quotes and bolding points you specifically want to refute. Makes it easy to follow your argument.

15pts

Spider-Nerd:

Spoiler

Kalel

You also pick out specific points from your opponent and pick them apart. That's the way to go IMO. But I'm not a huge fan of the way you just underline certain sections and brush them aside. They're just half-truths, okay but tell me why. You almost got there but if you were clearer it would have been even better.

Persuasion: 4.0
Validity: 3.5
Argument structure: 3.5

total 11

41pts...41 + 36 =

75pts KALEL114

Matt is our new Head of Household! Congratulations to Matt! You have 12 hours tomake your nominations!

 

[KALEL114]

Congrats Matt.

 

[Marx]

We've waited long enough...results time!!!

I want to note before I start, I only got judging from 1 person: Marx. But, I decided to serve as a judge for this challenge. However, I didn't get 1 set of results I was told I'd get yet, but since I am going on 2 days of waiting, I am just doing it with the 2 sets of judging...if you don't like me judging, TOUGH!

Thanks for judging this challenge, Marx...believe me, I appreciate it

You're welcome man. It was definitely alot to read through, but I'm glad I was able to help out.

 

[Byrd Man]

Way to go, Matt. Besting me again in the HoH challenge.

Also, big ups to Kal for tearing my argument to shreds.

Did it have anecdotes that I can't prove? Yes, but that further proves my point that you can't trust anyone on the internet! So, could I get some more points from the judges maybe?

 

[Hunter Rider]

I had no idea we were being graded on a scholarly level when it came to grammar. .....Anyway, congrats Matt, finally being an argumentative bastard has paid off.

 

[Matt]

Thanks guys.

 

[Matt]

I had no idea we were being graded on a scholarly level when it came to grammar. .....Anyway, congrats Matt, finally being an argumentative bastard has paid off.

After I give you a shout out.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Way to go, Matt. Besting me again in the HoH challenge.

Also, big ups to Kal for tearing my argument to shreds.

Did it have anecdotes that I can't prove? Yes, but that further proves my point that you can't trust anyone on the internet! So, could I get some more points from the judges maybe?

With that grammar, no

 

[Spider-Fan]

I had no idea we were being graded on a scholarly level when it came to grammar. .....Anyway, congrats Matt, finally being an argumentative bastard has paid off.

It's part of structure!

 

[Byrd Man]

With that grammar, no

....That was satire.....yeah, satire.

 

[Matt]

Thanks to Spider-Nerd for providing a 3rd set of judging

I'll start by posting his views on the team submissions:

Submission #1:

Spoiler

Submission #1: Persuasion is solid here, that's for sure. You've got plenty of good stuff here that leads me to believe that social networking will lead to the downfall of society. Buttttt, where are the citations? You couldn't link me to a news story or anything? Come on, back it up! 3.5

Validity: 4.

Argument Structure: 3. Maybe it's the law student in me, but you're using some nice little anecdotal stuff and you weave from one topic to the next. I don't know where exactly you're going at the beginning and you finish off with a 1 sentence wrap up at the end. Thesis people!

10.5

Grand total: 39pts!

Submission #2:

Spoiler

Submission #2:

Persuation: Wow, connections to the outside world??!?! To actual news events and whatnot?!?! I love it. A statistic that isn't cited on the # of people who actually met in online relationships?!?! Well, you tried so points for you. 4.0

Validity: You start out by telling me that you don't have a facebook page. Great, so why should I care about anything you have to say about the medium? 2.5

Argument structure: Nothing negative here. All I have to do is read your first paragraph and your last paragraph to see that you're on track. 4.5


11 Total

Grand total: 36pts!

I'd just like to say for the record that I originally did cite the source about 30 % of marriages meeting online complete with a news article (it was either the LA Times or NYT, I can't remember which), but somewhere in the editting that got taken out. Thanks Kal!

 

[Matt]

I don't want the nominations to get bumped.

 

[Matt]

So I'll burn one more post.