i agree, if the judges were partial to swift, brief, and simple rhetoric then it’s understandable.
ILP RELIGIOUS OPEN has changed it’s scheduling:
Matches will follow the below listed time-line:
This can be found in the Explanation (READ 1st) thread.
This allows the matches to move more flexibly with everyone’s schedules.
From the explanation:
It’s as though the arguments on offer are the only arguments that exist in support of the religions in question, and the judges have to decide based on that. Scientology is batshit in the general scheme of things, but in the context of the game, a better argument was made for its believability than for Catholicism’s.
Greater garishness wasn’t a good premise? 
Yeah, and that’s one thing that everyone should keep in mind for the later brackets. I cannot speak for the other two Judges, but in my Judging, each particular thread is a clean slate. Therefore, any argument for Scientology that was used against Catholicism doesn’t exist anymore when the next Debate for Scientology starts.
Seconded.
What Pav is talking about, was the discussion that was had about how to go about this whole thing.
Each match is as if it is the first time we have ever heard of either religions or the arguments for or against either.
I would be interested to hear the breakdown of how the judges came to decide on Scientology?
Sure thing:
Oh, and there may be many factors that come in to making up a Judges mind, but for the sake of brevity (because we don’t want judging to be a debate in it’s own right), we are restricted to a brief sentence, and one (at most 2) posts cited as the most influential in our decision.
Daaammmnn Yooouuu, Scientology-bot!!!
(I would hasten to reiterate, though, the question as to whether Scientology has any anti-demonic incantations, which remained unanswered… but, hey, I’m putting my money on Rasta-by-default now anyway 
)
Criminy Crackers!!! I’m a curse to all religions I touch… hmm, maybe that explains my atheism: I’m simply doing Religion a favour by avoiding it in real life.
LOL
Or, you do it a favor by giving a benchmark of challenge for the opposing sides. 
ya, …how Christian of me, no?
wait wait wait, i made posts AGAINST Scientology…
lol, were my arguments so bad that Scientology looked good?
HMMM, or perhaps my arguments were simply applied to RC’ism better than scientology?
I need closure on this issue dammit!!!
How can I put this?..
just give it to me straight please…
you are all suppressive persons for enturbulating my state of clear!
No…
I seriously don’t understand how i was the determining factor in the Scientology debate. If i chose to defend Scientology would RC’ism have been selected?
do i just defend whichever religion i want to lose?
o.k, so i was a bit high and there were a few grammatical mistakes, but i don’t think i almost converted oughtist on the spot, i think oughtist simply wanted a good debate and wanted to rebuke my post.
i call shenanigans! …
We’ll see who laughs last. Scientology will perish under the cruel might of the True Rasta way
(am i off to a good start? GRADE ME!!! 
)
A-
You don’t exactly have to make a post FOR a religion for your post to be leading factor into why a judge voted for the religion.
Sometimes, it’s the opposing argument that ends up pushing it toward the vote against that opposing argument.
Oh…and Rasta lost, in case you hadn’t checked on that yet.
On an unrelated note:
I’ll get the tournament board updated tonight with the changes, and all of that.
We’re getting close to some more exciting anticipation…we’re on our last bit for Round 1; woohoo!
next time i’ll be sure to go a bit further in depth. Scientology doesn’t even classify itself as a religion (it might have changed that notion in the last 6 months, i’m not sure).
My lawyers will be in touch.