Which side makes a better case?
avatar
86 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 3 years ago

    chelseagOfficial Tournament Judges: @elibowman @chelseag @citizenthom @israelanderson @briandubdub . Welcome to Category 1 of the QallOut Tourney Final!

    Please leave a 'video comment' as a reply here and announce the winner based on who 'makes a better case'.

    Please explain your rationale for selecting the winner in the video comment.

    Good luck @agent00mama & @theantifeminist

  • 3 years ago

    Can we make sure the competitors have a full 20 minutes despite the initial technical issues? Any way to extend the debate that way.

    • 3 years ago

      I feel like we need some definitions from both sides here because I think both have a different understanding of what the ban is saying

      • 3 years ago

        you should define what is unethical

        • 3 years ago

          Go @agent00mama !!!!

          • 3 years ago

            The way the ban was carried out was definitely unethical. It isn't unethical as it's written because the government is mindful of that but the inplementation is definitely morally wrong

          • 3 years ago

            @agent00mama I'm interested in your take on the actual legality of the ban. Do you think it was legal?

            • 3 years ago

              @elibowman Well according to federal judges in NY, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington it isn't. It is also in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act. Article 9 states No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.

          • 3 years ago

            @theantifeminist So basically, I'm a legal citizen in a country with all the given rights, I go on holidays, I come back and I suddenly have no rights? I mean it's not just unethical, it's also illegal and that's what exactly the courts decided

          • 3 years ago

            And why isn't Saudi Arabia included in the ban? Individuals from Saudi Arabia have killed more Americans on US soil than all of the other countries combined. Why not include them?

            • 3 years ago

              @ldempsy I agree. Saudi Arabia should be on the list.

            • 3 years ago

              @ldempsy No it shouldn't have been. The purpose of the temporary ban was to fix vetting in places where it was difficult as defined by the previous administration and in SA, it's not the case. Beyond that, It's called DIPLOMACY - they are strategic allies who we stand to lose a lot of money from with complications among other things.

          • 3 years ago

            agent00mama is making some good points but a lot of her points are based around idealism and not reality

          • 3 years ago

            @theantifeminist The courts decided that you are wrong

            • 3 years ago

              Each person regardless of refugee or normal immigrant all are vetted. No one just decides to wake up one day and say I want to go to America and gets on the plane the next day. The people have already been vetted. And there is no proof that the vetting in place is not effective.

              • 3 years ago

                @genuine_504 Uh no. The purpose of the temp ban was to fix vetting in places where vetting was more difficult as defined by the previous administration. Beyond that, what you consider "successful vetting" is relative, we've still experienced terrorist attacks from people of those countries that were completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. Beyond that, we still have thousands of people in the U.S. with ties to radical Islam that we've lost track of.

              • 3 years ago

                @boredddddd666 You state that "we've still experienced terrorist attacks from people of those countries" please offer some evidence of that.

                The fact that there have been no attacks on this country from the people on that list makes the list noneffective. The fact that countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia are not on the list are, make the EO noneffective.

                The argument that these countries are unable to properly vet their refugees is crazy considering the governments who are said to be able to vet their people are the countries that the terrorist come from.

                The ISIS fighters in Syria are not from Syria, they're from other countries that have been chased into Syria.

              • 3 years ago

                @genuine_504 "The fact that there have been no attacks on this country from the people on that list makes the list noneffective."

                As Donald Trump would say, "WRONG." Are you forgetting the ohio state attack by Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan? Dahir Adan? Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar? And again, we don't measure the threat of radical islam by successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. We see the attacks everyone in the world, we know these countries have problems with terrorist groups, and we know we already have thousands here with ties to radical islamic groups. It's specifically through vetting and government measures that we stop terrorists from doing what they want to.

                The fact that you argue Saudi Arabia should be on the list shows your know ZERO about the order and are just regurgitating leftist talking points. The premise of the order was to fix vetting in countries where it was difficult, the temporary travel ban was a preventative measure until then - Saudi Arabia doesn't apply. Beyond that, it's called diplomacy, Saudi Arabia are strategic allies who we'd lose money with because of complications among other things.
                Vetting has been difficult in those countries, as Obama and intel agencies recognized and if the order had stayed, it'd be just about over around now. You have no reason to oppose it other than political bias.

              • 3 years ago

                @boredddddd666 lol, "leftist talking points", lol hilarious. I know alot about the travel ban. It is obvious you don't know anything about anti-terrorism.

                You can't secure your boarders by vetting people from some countries without increasing them from other countries.

                You can claim that Saudi and Jordan have things in place to properly screen their travelers. However, 9/11 and the recent attack in Paris shows otherwise.

                When Iraq was at its worse the way the insurgency was fought was something called "The Surge", U.S. forces were doubled and tripled to not leave any safe haven for the terrorist to seek safe haven.

                That is the way to fight ISIS. Screening six countries is only causing terrorist to get passports from other countries instead. It is not preventing anything. It is simply causing the terrorist to come from other countries.

                In order to be effective to truly combat terrorism. Screening needs to be increased throughout. Not to mention most of our terrorists have been homegrown anyway.

              • 3 years ago

                @genuine_504 You're not bright - you didn't understand the most basic premise of the executive order, being about fixing vetting. It's spelled "borders" firstly, and the rest of the sentence makes zero sense. Saudi Arabia do not have the same intelligence difficulties with vetting as those 7 countries and 9/11 happened over a decade ago and was the reason for tightening security in the first place, you don't randomly use 9/11 as a reason to include saudi arabia in a list of countries with poor vetting. That's just stupidity.
                The rest of your comment is intelligible dribble, a travel ban stops people and radicals from trying to get in when they announce vetting is getting fixed, if they try to come through other countries then we also have measures against that. Your argument is a parroted leftist talking point.

              • 3 years ago

                @boredddddd666 the amount of ignorance you're showing towards me is astounding. You throw insults at me like "I'm not bright" and call things I say show stupidity.

                How about this. Why don't you create a debate on the topic and we can debate the topic.

              • 3 years ago

                @genuine_504 @boredddddd666 That would be awesome and the only way to settle things, if you dare.. :-) Looking forward to it!

            • 3 years ago

              Trump called for "extreme vetting" right after he signed an Executive Order freezing Government Hiring. Who is going to do the "Extreme Vetting" and what exactly is this new vetting that is going to happen.

              • 3 years ago

                Anecdotal evidence is insufficient. I would love to hear more stats since I really haven't done my homework on the ban haha

              • 3 years ago

                And "The name of the Countries came from Obama" is a poor excuse to implement an EO. When my daughter tells me the neighbors kids did something first, it doesn't make me suddenly change my mind.

                • 3 years ago

                  @genuine_504 haha well said!

                • 3 years ago

                  @genuine_504 I was stating that merely because she kept listing off the 7 countries, like it was Trump choosing them to discriminate, and a lot of people don't know he adopted those countries from the Obama administration.

                  I don't think that in itself means much, but it definitely takes away from the whole, "Trump is discriminating against these countries!" Because, no, he isn't. He was placing a travel ban, with the TS knowledge he as about national security for probably the same reasons Obama did.

                • 3 years ago

                  @theantifeminist However Obama utilized Congress and made it legislation. This is because he reacted off of credible actionable evidence at the time from the Intelligence Community.

                  Trump did his as part of a "I promised to ban muslims during my campaign" thing. The fact is Obama's regulation had already increased the vetting on these 7 countries. Was there any need to increase it even more??

              • 3 years ago

                If any person from those 7 countries had been banned from the United States from 1492 until today. Not one single attack on the United States would have been prevented. To ban people from a country because some people live in the same neighborhood as bad people is unethical.

                • 3 years ago

                  Saudi Arabia and Jordan people have attacked the United States yet they aren't on the list. Trump Industries has business deals with the governments of those countries. Another point that shows Trump had an unethical motives about the ban.

                  • 3 years ago

                    @theantifeminist what are you talking about??? if they used fake passports then they would make them to be American or whatever. The people detained had visas and green cards! Dude, zero arguments today what happened?

                    • 3 years ago

                      I hate the "Look at Sweden Defense" hey there's a huge AIDS epidemic in Africa no one is banning sex over here or making unprotected sex illegal.

                    • 3 years ago
                    • 3 years ago

                      The @theantifeminist was the more sound and presentable debater overall.

                    • 3 years ago
                    • 3 years ago
                    • 3 years ago

                      What?? I almost want to challenge @theantifeminist right now on the same point.....

                      • 3 years ago

                        @genuine_504 Feel free to do that! I'm pretty sick and that was all the juice I had in me. I had about two dozen pages of statistics and articles open and never got to use any of them, for the most part. So, I'm more than happy to be challenged and bring those statistics into my next debate.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @theantifeminist I got dibs. Judges vs. tournament competitors/winners should be an entire category on here. Kind of like Beat Bobby Flay.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @theantifeminist It's ok. I would've rather like to do it right now. The new Executive Order comes out tomorrow I think. That would only go to add more awesome evidence for you. But I will give you a few points though that make it unethical.

                        1. You can't say a ban is needed in order to provide safety for the people of the country when no one from a country that attacked us is actually on the list.

                        2. The countries that have attacked us since 9/11 have either been from the U.S. or other middle eastern countries not on the list.

                        3. "Obama did it first" is not a legally acceptable justification for calling for increase vetting on seven countries.

                        4. There is no evidence that the vetting the refugees were going through was not sufficient.

                        5. We are not Sweden we have different laws than Sweden and our police have different laws than Sweden.

                        6.There was a bomb in Paris from a person from Jordan yet Trump didn't include Jordan on the list.

                        7. Trump has either a hotel or golf courses in Saudi and Jordan. Saudi and Jordan made up over half of the people who attacked us on 9/11 yet they weren't included.

                        8. All the countless times Trump said "I'm going to Ban all muslims".

                        9. Rudy Giulians saying "Trump asked me for a legal way to ban all muslims".

                      • 3 years ago

                        @citizenthom I feel like the cute new guy at prison. I would join all your gangs if I could. ;)

                        But seriously, once I've fully recovered I'd be more than happy to debate for shits-n-giggles. This isn't something I'm that passionate about and I did play devil's advocate more than I have in previous debates.

                        I prefer debating things I fully agree/disagree with so maybe if one of my debate topics piques your interest we could tackle one of those! :)

                      • 3 years ago

                        @theantifeminist, lol, how about the "ok" new guy in the prison. Because all the cute ones are taken, lol

                      • 3 years ago

                        @genuine_504 Oh my.

                    • 3 years ago

                      everyone has a different set of ethics so not everyone will agree on what is ethical

                      theantifeminist stuck to the topic and his argument was more grounded

                      • 3 years ago
                        • 3 years ago

                          @chasuk This seems to just be a criticism of the epistemology of ethics. Of course you can debate ethics, in fact ethics are totally constructed by debate as they only seem to formally exist linguistically.
                          The main issue here is an is/ought fallacy. You're correctly observing that the status quo IS that people disagree and won't change their mind on certain issues, but that doesn't mean they OUGHT not to. In fact people ought to believe the best argument and a good format for that is debate :)

                        • 3 years ago

                          @benmouse42: for the most part, I agree with you. I seldom use the word "OUGHT" myself, but when I do, I use it as you have used it here – in the sense that one should follow evidence and logic to wherever they might lead. I further agree that debate is a good format for exploring arguments and deciding which is the most likely truth. Actually, in my opinion, it is the best format that we have.

                          However, I don't believe that the proposition of this debate could be decided by debate. Not pragmatically, not literally. I don't believe that OUGHT questions can be decided rationally. Unless you believe that human well-being is a valid criterion. Which I do, by the way, but that's the consequence more of possessing empathy than of logic.

                          For me, neither interlocutor could support their positions without resorting to OUGHT, and OUGHT arguments, are, by their nature, logically inarguable.

                          Thank you for the insightful comment, whether we ever agree or not.

                        • 3 years ago
                        • 3 years ago

                          @citizenthom: If I seemed to say that I equated legality with ethicality, then I goofed. I definitely don't equate the two.

                          I didn't realize that the powers that be were so united in their legal opinions against Trump's travel ban. Googling it now, I'm convinced of my error. I made the mistake of reading the US code directly, and IANAL. I goofed again!

                          Thanks for your polite correction. :-)

                        • 3 years ago

                          @chasuk Good times!

                        • 3 years ago

                          @chasuk On ought questions being decided rationally:

                          I think human well being and survival is definitely a valid criterion. While it's difficult to nail down the exact specifics, we enact a rough idea of what it is/isn't every day.
                          For example we would probably agree that pointless pain and suffering for everyone all of the time is about as far away from well being as you can get. Once you accept that, you've already constructed a low resolution scale of what well being looks like and you could probably articulate a few markers to another person.

                          As we scale up to higher resolution problems i.e. 'is a specific law ethical?', the challenge of articulation increases, however, there is no clear reason why it would become impossible.

                      • 3 years ago

                        "It's discrimination" is not an argument. Plus, antifeminist has a crazy straw so this was an easy decision.

                        • 3 years ago

                          @theantifeminist I don't know how you stayed patient and respectful with this one. Well done.

                          • 3 years ago

                            @deusvult Well, part of it was being sick. The other part is that I don't let my emotions control how I debate. I've had people slander me on my race, gender and even my personal life and relationships. None of it really bothers me because these people don't know me.

                            The difference, in my mind, between a debate and an argument is that emotions control a argument whereas in a debate, emotions should be left at the door.

                            The biggest problem liberals in general have is the fact that the majority of their arguments are based on emotion, not logic or rationality. When you're debating from an emotional stance, it's hard not to use your emotions as a reason to justify your thinking.

                            Thanks for the kind words!

                        • 3 years ago

                          lmao "I don't like it," being rude and being hysterical are all not arguments.

                          • 3 years ago

                            LAWS ARE SLAVERY lmao

                            • 3 years ago

                              Aright, so I am voting draw on this one, here is why. agent00mama was arguing the correct point, however was not arguing it effectively. Clearly theantifeminist is better at debating, and was able to win the argument even if he is wrong. The fact is every "terror" event that has taken place in America since 9/11 (an inside job), has had FBI involvement with the suspect prior to the attack taking place. So there is no "ISIS boogeymen" sneaking into America and if they are, the CIA likely walked them on the plane. Secondly, the countries that sponsor terrorism the most were not blocked on the list, Saudi Arabia is the heart of Wahhabism terrorism and Israel funds it and Mossad is directly tied to 9/11 as suspects via the dancing Israeli's. Trump wants to talk about "Muslims celebrating 9/11 en masse" but doesn't acknowledge the dancing Israeli Mossad agents who clearly had foreknowledge of 9/11. This ban is unethical bullshit because it doesn't do anything but block refugees from war torn countries, that have been ripped apart by our own foreign policy objectives. You cannot create a massive refugee problem by funding the "free Syrian Army" then turn your backs on the entire country you helped destroy. The end.

                              • 3 years ago

                                @imperatortruth Clinton and Obama did that, it's not our responsibility to allow unvetted mass immigration from war-torn countries. They are surrounded by nations that share their culture and customs, do you really not find it the least bit strange that they are choosing instead to immigrate ONLY to Western countries, which hold completely incompatible styles of government with their culture?

                              • 3 years ago

                                @deusvult 1) Clinton / Obama you mean the USA Government, let's not get it twisted, they might not have been your choice for representatives but what they did, they did in your name. So just blaming them for all the crap they did and saying, well not our problem anymore is not going to fly.

                                Secondly the "only migrate to western countries" um excuse me? Are you joking, what moron did you get that talking point from? The largest masse of migration has been from Syria to Turkey a non western predominantly Muslim country. So what the F are you talking about?

                                Thirdly you did not address the Saudi Arabia, Israel or the FACT the FBI is always in contact with these terrorists before they ever do anything. They have a perfect track record of creating false flags to justify these types of ridiculous fear tactics that people like you beg for because you are so scared of some fake boogeyman on fox news / Infowhores / Israeli Breitbart News, dressed in black pajamas coming from Syria to cut your head off, rofl. When these same fake boogeymen are funded, armed and trained by the west.

                                If they really wanted in to America they would just come over the Southern Border. The only people really being blocked are actual refugees trying to escape a war zone created by our own government. This idea that all these refugees are rapists and terrorists is just alt right fear porn.

                              • 3 years ago

                                @imperatortruth Go tell that to the women in Germany and Sweden being groped and raped by them

                            • 3 years ago
                              • 3 years ago

                                She had no argument whatsoever. Laws are not ethics and basing your claim to something being ethical because 'the UN said so' is absurd. Then when he disagreed she got triggered and angrily replied "ok, buddy."

                                • 3 years ago

                                  @theantifeminist Wasn't that great of an argument but you win anyway since the other person is an idiot who thinks they're a slave if Muslims can't travel across the world to visit them.

                                  • 2 years ago