Originally posted by souro
If providing citations was difficult or almost impossible for the side which would choose the Indian mom then I'll say that the choice of topic is to be blamed.
If the topic is such where one side practically has nothing to defend itself with and the other side has almost all the ammo, then ideally there shouldn't be any debate. If in such a scenario, someone uses emotional appeal to go ahead and defend and actually does a good job of grabbing people's attention (in a good way), then I'll say they have utilised their resources (limited as they were) very effectively.
I am averse to bollywood kind of appeal. Still, I can see the need to use that when it comes to parent-child relationship. Us Indians are very emotional and tightly knit on that level. What I don't get is making a case based on cooked up stuff - like outrightly disregarding the bad law and order situation in india etc. That, for me, was more 'arguing' than "debating" --- more of a circus than parade.
Do I think such arguments would've been successful in convincing a diverse audience (as in audience comprising people from various countries) that being born to a single mom in a small town in India is better? Most probably not. It worked because most people here are from the subcontinent and felt good seeing arguments defending their country/ region. The likes of the people most probably got biased and strayed from practicality. But even then, the judgement of the side defending the Indian mom has to be commended because they successfully gauged the audience and arguments that will pull them.
Bingo on bold part. I do commend their efforts - I just happen to find ajnu's approach lot better than others on the same side. She handled the debate with maturity and finesse.
So, overall I'll say that they did do a very good job even when the odds were against them and they had very limited space in which to manouvre.
I think all the pros and cons were considered by Sarina. May be this is why first place went to the emotional appeal devoid of much logic. I may disagree with the 1st prize award but no hard feelings there at all.
Irrespective of the scope his side had, I feel Karan did a thorough job of forming and presenting his points. We can not undermine his hardwork there.
In any contest, there will always be some who will feel they were shortchanged. Some come out winners despite losing and some come out as losers despite winning. Deep down, we all know when we deserve a win and when we don't. May be this is why we saw some lengthy justifications after the winners were announced.