Verdict+Ashley

//As many people will probably also do, I will stick with my original verdict.// Why do I feel Position Two won the trial?

I feel that those arguing for position one are doing so because they feel it is easier to argue for a negative position over a positive positions - since being negative is often associated with being realistic. However, I disagree as it seems as though position 1 has no real logical foundation. For instance, one of the arguments was that since Grendel found the Dragon by accident, that this illustrated that the entire world is an accident. This was one of the most ridiculous things I heard in the entire trial. Firstly, it demonstrated the position one's limited knowledge of the text as Grendel actually set out purposefully to find the Dragon, as it even states explicitly that: "I made my mind a blank and fell, sank away like a stone through earth and sea, towards the dragon." This shows that Grendel went to go see the Dragon on purpose - not that he accidentally stumbled upon it. Furthermore, the point itself makes no sense. Simply because there is one accident - which it was actually not - it does not mean that the entire world is an accident. This, in fact, goes against the Dragon's beliefs which they are trying to defend, since the Dragon dislikes it when people apply what they know only in a limited situation to something of a much wider scope. In fact, he says that this is human ignorance. Their arguments that God does not exist are mere speculation, as there is no concrete proof that God does exist. The fact that a part of their argument is based on speculation makes it rather doubtful, and thus position two did not base their argument on such matters, and instead based it upon more concrete things such as the manner in which everything is influenced by something else - the cause and effect relationship of nature.

Not only were position one's arguments invalid and flawed in may places, but their witnesses also failed to answer the questions properly. Initially, their arguments were poor enough to cause the lawyers of position two to have an abundance of counter arguments to ask them in order to question what they had just stated, Then, when they asked these questions the witnesses of position one could not answer with satisfactory responses. Taking one example of many, there was an instance when Lawyer 5 asked Grendel why the fact that God doesn't talk to him disproves the entire basis of God. Grendel, is in fact a descendent of Cain who was punished and condemned by God. Even those who devoutly follow God do not always get the honour of speaking with God - so what makes him think that such a heathen would get this honour? However Grendel answered very vaguely, and in fact specifically answered with a question - "What makes you think that he does? Does God talk to you?" This did not answer any part of Laywer 5's question. This was by no means the only instance of this and there were numerous instances where this happened, such as the time when the Dragon said that the fact that he sat on gold did not have anything to do with anything, when in fact it was a very important piece of evidence against him/

Although this may sound a little subjective, I think that the lawyers of position two were better. Our opening statement, although a little illogical in some places, was more animated and spoken with more conviction. Although position one was hindered by the fact that their lawyer was not there and had to thus do it through video, it still remains that it weakened their argument. Furthermore, I think that some of the questions that the lawyers of position one asked position two's witnesses did not serve to either build up their arguments or to disprove ours - rather, they seemed like general facts and wonderings. I think the lawyers of position two did a great job questioning the witnesses of the other team, because they were able to ask very specific, probing questions that threw the other witnesses off guard - making them incohesive and vague.

The witnesses of position two were much better prepared than those of position two, and they were able to answer the questions of the lawyers of position one very well. I feel that Beowulf did an especially good job, and used solid facts and logic to discredit their questions. Although he faced some hard questions sometimes he never became flustered and always stood by his argument with great conviction. Yet it was not just Beowulf, and the witnesses of position two all talked with great conviction - such as the Shaper, who stated his arguments with great confidence. I think that this is an especially amazing feat since most of the people in position two did not actually want to be in position one, and most of the people there were the ones that did not get their first choice, or were ill and so did not get to choose. At the beginning they were thus not motivated to research, however they presented their arguments so well that those of the other team even began to thought position two's argument was easier - even though when they were presented with a choice they believed they wanted to argue position one.

Thus I believe position two ultimately won the trial. However, they were not without flaws, and perhaps sometimes the witnesses could have been more definitive in their answers, and the lawyers should have waited at times for the witnesses of position one two finish their ridiculous answers :).