avatar
46 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 3 years ago

    QallOut RJs have been requested..
    Judges, please reply here with your video comments

    • 3 years ago
    • 3 years ago

      @ninadabit Inrefuted each one of his claims. As I told @yaz, after the technical issues, and my time being taken by my opponent, I exited out of my notes and was ready to reschedule the debate.

      My opponent kept spouting the same few points that I rebutted and debunked as conjecture and hyperbole right from the start.

      I continued the debate ONLY because I assumed we would just have this one for fun and move onto another one once @yaz responded to me about the technical issues being, what should be, immediate cause for a redo. Which was echoed during the debate by @citizenthom, who has debated against me in the past.

      My opponent refused to a redo because their points had been all shown to be conjecture and hyperbolic. @alot_like_locke is behaving in a way anyone who cheated at something, or took advantage of a bad situation, would. He refused to redo the debate because he knows he would lose and him frantically, and with more and more emotion, say the same things over and over, it doesn't change the fact that l refuted each one soundly. I'd be happy to do it again WITHOUT technical issues and having my full notes.

      On a more personal note my newborn niece was there for a very short period, which is why I messaged @yaz during the debate and let him know we would have to reschedule because the issues were not short and they took BOTH of our time. I didn't imagine in my wildest dreams that technical issues lasting several minutes would not be enough to immediately qualify for a redo.

      I believe I won the initial debate based on disputing all of my.l opponents arguments. I would be more than happy to do it again where we both have equal time and I can use my sources as originally planned.


      If my opponent or Qallout does not allow us to re-debate this, they are setting a VERY dangerous precedent for future debates, especially tournaments, where time is lost on either side lasting a few minutes and it's still considered to be valid.

      The reason I agreed to this tournament and to debate on Qallout at all was the fairness and uniqueness of this site and it's staff.

      I rarely speak out about things like this but the precedent being set by this debate is a dangerous one. How many of my fellow debaters would be okay with a debate of theirs being judged when it was incomplete or unfair one way or the other?

      I hope a decision is made to correct this error or @alot_like_lock, backs up his confidence in his arguments and his "win" by debating me again.

      That or I've lost faith in the fairness of this site.

    • 3 years ago

      @theantifeminist First off you are an unbelievably sore loser. You never debunked a single argument, you literally just said "you wrong." Then the statement of my emotions is beyond pathetic, every debater knows that projection of pathos is extremely important in collegiate debate, AjGibson as well as Ben do something very similar. You lost the debate, I smashed you and your pathetic arguments. Go away if you have to act like this. Also, I beat you in my spare time without a way to do any research but 10 or so minutes before the debate.

    • 3 years ago

      @alot_like_locke Then why did you refuse to debate me again?

      It sounds like the only way you were able to win was by taking a little bit of my time for your rant, through a technical error, and having yourn inane ramblings muted for a few minutes.

      We both lost time, you more than me, but I still lost time and my notes because I wasnt under the impression technical difficulties during a time structured debate were something this site would shrug off as nothing.

      If you're so confident in your arguments than you should redo the debate instead of allowing yourself the pompous and condescending attitude of victor. You didn't win in a fair fight and you know you couldn't.

      Your tongue being held was the only thing that had saved you and if we both had equal time I could have refuted more of your bogus and baseless assertions.

      I'm not a sore winner. I just don't think I'd calling "losing on account of technical issues" to be a loss. More like a dangerous precedent being set by staff because you refuse to redo it (because you know you'd lose again, see votes), and avoiding hurting your feelings because it's clear you don't care about fairness. You care about winning.

      At least I'm fighting not to have a dangerous precedent for ALL future debaters. You're so selfish and conceited you can only focus on retaining your fraudulent victory.

      Sad!

    • 3 years ago

      @theantifeminist In this case, your opponent clearly indicated that he'd like to continue with the debate and not reschedule, leading me as a judge to continue on. I personally judged this debate based on what I actually saw, and competitive debate is usually a case in which both judge and debaters should roll with whatever is coming up, particularly as the one with difficulties conceded his time lost. A further development of the main points you laid out in your opening statements with evidential support would've served you well. Judges are used to form impartial decisions based on a comparison of the two sets of arguments and, unfortunately for debaters everywhere, their view of a how a debate went will not always be the same for those watching, and often relies on having a fully understood argument in their head that does not become clear and fully fleshed out for an audience when speaking. I can only speak for myself as a QallOut judge for this debate not for the platform as a whole.

    • 3 years ago

      @theantifeminist there are two choices:

      We redo the debate
      We don't redo the debate

      your opponent @alot_like_locke , who is the one who actually lost most of the time, doesn't want to to do a redo.

      If you think we're setting a dangerous precedent by not doing a redo, i firmly believe that we we're not. In fact, I believe we would actually be setting a far more dangerous precedent if we do a redo for this particular situation.

      3 min were lost from a 30 min debate. In soccer, basketball, and pretty much every competitive sport, if team A has an injured player for a few min, you don't see team B asking for a redo. The game goes on.

      If this was a formal debate on stage and debate team A drops their mic on the floor and it leads to a few minute of technical difficulties (or whatever), and team A's losing their own time, you don't see team B (who might lose a fraction of their time) saying "I want a redo".

      You stayed on camera after your suggestion to do a redo, you assumed (on your own) that this debate will continue "for fun" despite the fact that no one said that, you deleted your comments - that was your choice, and again, it was your opponent who lost most of the time and he still wants to keep the debate.

      You're an RD and a TC, it would be great if you exemplified the sportsmanship expected.

      I'm happy to debate you on live video right here on whether a redo (for this particular case) is the right thing to do.

      It's not, not when your opponent - who lost those minutes - doesn't want a redo.

    • 3 years ago

      @ninadabit The issue I have it never should have continued. I messaged @yaz to let him know I'd like to reschedule. As I keep saying in my comments, I was doing it for fun without any notes at that point. I didn't think it would be allowed to be considered an actual tournament debate since I NEVER agreed to concede the time I lost.

      The only reason my opponent was fine with it was because his arguments were repetitive and baseless conjecture. I disagree with your ruling, I disagree with the sites current stance on letting one person decide if a technically glitched debate where minutes were lost to be valid.

      My opponent was drowning in his arguments and, had I not given up and said we should redo this so I could go spend time with my newborn niece, I could have heard more of the same to rebutt.

      This whole situation reeks and I hope the dangerous precedent being set today won't stand. It's not even about me, it's that this should not be acceptable in a tournament setting.

    • 3 years ago

      @theantifeminist Your opinion of your opponent's argument is not what matters in winning and losing a debate, and maybe I did not make that clear enough in my judgement. As a debater I've disagreed with rulings plenty of times, but that is not reason to question the validity of the debate as a whole when your opponent was the one losing time. Like I said prior, you lacked evidentiary support. Phrases like "he's the president" do not prove to an audience that tweets were the way in which that occurred. You or I or anyone else can believe that as people having watched the election but sans a full argument of how those tweets outweighed any other campaign activity the argument doesn't stand strong against clear stated cases from your opponent. I understand that debating can be frustrating and there are plenty of times to be upset, but being a good sport can go a long way in growing as a debater and learning how to continually do better in the future.

    • 3 years ago

      @ninadabit I lost time as well. I'm not okay with the time he used from my timer. Even if you're okay with letting him losing time slide, I am not okay with me losing time.

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

        I can't hear you

        • 3 years ago

          Not getting @alot_like_locke 's audio anymore

          • 3 years ago

            ok, i thought i was the only person. I was checking my cables.

            • 3 years ago

              @theantifeminist Your clock is running but you are not talking

              • 3 years ago

                Refresh

                • 3 years ago

                  The clocks are completely FUBAR. Right now @theantifeminist's clock is running even though @alot_like_locke is talking. I think a do-over is well in order.

                  • 3 years ago

                    @citizenthom They're trying to pass it off as a legitimate debate. I agree there should be a redo but the staff isn't having it and because my opponent is a coward, he refused to re-debate.

                • 3 years ago

                  When did he introduce term limits? That I would remember.

                  • 3 years ago

                    This is a really interesting topic to debate, although I feel that both sides could have used better arguments to make their case.

                    @alot_like_locke , you won the debate in my opinion, however you could have mentioned the very simple fact that Trump's own team seem to be misaligned on the characterization of Trump's tweets. Spicer calls it 'officials presidential statements', while Gorka and Conway are unable to defend it as such. Instead, they call it 'nothing but social media'.

                    This dilution and subjectivity alone implies that Trump's tweets cannot be helpful for his presidency and cannot be taken too seriously (because if they were taken seriously as presidential statements, they would harm his presidency).

                    @theantifeminist, if I was debating your side of this debate, I would have emphasized that Trump's Twitter account allows him to distract from headlines that chase and harm his presidency, such as the Russia probe for example (which, regardless of its truth or accuracy, are not the best headlines to surround his presidency).

                    Yes, you did mention that he 'controls the media' with what he tweets, but don't forget that sometimes he controls the media in a way that harms him (for example, covfefe was a distraction from his own agenda, his own accomplishments). Just because he can control the media with his tweets, does not mean the buzz he creates is good for him.

                    Thank you both for this debate, I really enjoyed it.

                  • 3 years ago

                    @alot_like_locke given there was a technical issue for a few min during your turn, would you like to redo this debate? Option is yours

                  • 3 years ago

                    Requesting Judges

                    • 3 years ago

                      Because I am also a participant in this tournament, I am abstaining from voting at this time. But I did watch this debate live, and frankly @alot_like_locke I find it extremely ungracious that you refuse to redo the debate. In reality I am not sure you lost all that much time, because the clock malfunction also allowed you a LONG stretch where you spoke uninterrupted, in which you were able to spout your arguments in machine gun-like fashion.

                      @theantifeminist and I have had a VERY heated debate in the past, and I have a personal bias against his viewpoint here, but the technical issues made this debate a total mess and it's impossible to say that either the topic or the competitors received a fair shake.

                      I'll add that in this debate, I have had opponents unilaterally cancel and reschedule debates after no-showing, and this was accepted without my ever being asked for consent. I see no reason why one competitor should hold a veto over an executive decision in this case when no such veto exists for the party who SHOWS UP versus the party who no-shows.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @citizenthom Thanks a lot for chiming in

                      • 3 years ago

                        @citizenthom don't you think we'll set a more dangerous precedent if we allow a re-do *against* the wishes of the user who actually got disconnected and lost his speaking time?

                        a) this will allow users in the future who feel they're losing a debate to just disconnect and demand a rematch. judging that will be a nightmare..

                        b) how do we justify a redo, when the user who actually lost the time doesn't want to do a redo? both users still got equal time (more than 12 min each, actually, theantifeminist got even more)...

                        I just think of sports and other competitive games, there's never a redo for a few minutes of unforeseen circumstances (e.g. injuries, weather, audience trolling, etc...) as long as both teams still have a fair and equal chance to win, then the game goes on.. no?

                      • 3 years ago

                        I think it's a much more dangerous precedent to leave the decision up to the debaters instead of the moderators, regardless of what the moderators decide.

                        To take on your comment about sports, consider the following:

                        -A few years ago in the Super Bowl, the Superdome lost power right after halftime. The Ravens were up 35-0 on the 49ers at the time, and I'm sure THEY would have voted to call the game--especially considering that the 49ers nearly came back to beat them on second half points alone.

                        -All soccer games have stoppage time tacked on to the end to account to pauses in the action during regulation play. Teams that get beat in stoppage time frequently complain about the amount or even the existence of the extra time.

                        -Florida cancelled a football game at its home stadium unilaterally last season due to weather forecasts that turned out to be inaccurate. Florida then tried to get out of rescheduling the game, which would have harmed LSU's chances at making the SEC Title game (and conversely would have benefitted Florida in the East).

                      • 3 years ago

                        @citizenthom but who are the moderators in this case? If we redo, this would be based on the decision of one of the debaters... if we don't redo, this would be based on the decision of the *other* debater... there are no moderators , or am I misunderstanding?

                        The analogy to sports is that in most games, unforeseen circumstances that take place *during* the game, not before it, which lead to delays or lost time, almost never justify a redo. The game goes on as long as it's fair for both teams.

                        we would have happily accommodated for a redo if Joe wanted it too, but he lost the majority of the speaking time and he still didn't want a redo, so I have no idea how to justify a forceful redo in this case.

                        Thanks in any case for your input,
                        Thomas!

                      • 3 years ago

                        @yaz Your arguments are not invalid. Thanks for considering mine to the contrary. I am mostly waiting for my play-in debate.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @citizenthom

                        https://www.facebook.com/groups/QallOutH2H/permalink/261674507569789/

                        Clarified here, let me know if you still think they're not valid and if they're still not, I'd love to discuss them with you in a casual head2head if that's ok with you, as an opportunity for us to get feedback from a seasoned attorney and Tournament Champ :-)

                    • 3 years ago

                      The pro side gave Donald Trump won election due to tweets (1 help example).
                      How about those like myself who supported Trump despite being unaware of his tweets and media details of his tweets?

                      To the negative side How has James Comey using tweets as defense harmed Trump? You explained your belief but what about how it harmed him? Isn't he still in office?
                      Negative side gave approval ratings drop as a negative of tweeting I wish you further elaborated on this point to make your case stronger was this poll based on voting of 128,838,341 people or 128,000 or 1,280,000. Con side gave (Trump tweets helped judges to have a basis to block his ban of Muslims entering the country) Did he tweet that or mention it at a campaign rally on December 7th, 2015 in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina?

                      • 3 years ago

                        @bashee7 You cannot attack the veracity of a poll in this debate situation if it comes from a reputable source it should stand. I doubt I or any other participant is going to say that the tests done were improper or were baised by survey, population sizes, or demographic area. The Court document directly referred to DT's tweets as the main reason. How it harmed him is my entire fourth contention, it takes away from his ability to properly lead the country.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @alot_like_locke You said "You cannot attack the veracity of a poll in this debate. How did I attack the veracity of the poll? Can you further explain that? All I commented was "I wish you further elaborated on this point to make your case stronger. You could have contacted the pollsters and did a little extra work and found out how many people were polled? And in what areas were they polled? I am not convinced it should stand because if that poll is based on 100 random people polled in the inner city communities of New York or Chicago or California I wouldn't expect those people to speak favorably as if those polled were living in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And last question what is your basis for determining sources that are reputable or not?

                        You said "The Court document directly referred to DT's tweets as the main reason". That's what the court says I am asking for you to provide verifiable information what date, time did Donald Trump tweet a proposal for a Muslim ban? We have to start here I am challenging you to explain yourself this way you come off as more convincing rather than someone just spewing out rhetoric.

                      • 3 years ago

                        @bashee7 I honestly do not care what tweet they used, that is irrelevant for what the court found. I use the court document stating that it was DT's tweets. No matter the issue or what was said matters here. Secondly, what is a reputable source, many a debate can be had about that and not something that can be easily passed off as absolute, but we should be able to take most pollsters, articles, and court documents as they stand. Attacking the veracity of evidence bogs down a debate. There are methodological problems in almost everything that if you fine tooth combed it there might be a structural problem.

                    • 3 years ago

                      I was one of the 31% that called it a draw. I won't justify my reason for the "Draw" I'll just say that I've had two debates where I've had technical difficulties. The first my opponent and I immediately closed out the debate and started a new one. And the second one my opponent and I continued the debate.

                      I feel if you continue the debate until completion you are choosing to accept the outcome come of th scoring or judges decision.

                      But, playing devils advocate I don't see why anyone would turn down a rematch debate on a debate website. Especially when the "draw" column is th second highest column scored.

                    • 3 years ago

                      With this debate, I think each debater has good points to offer, but a these are a few things that changed the course/direction of the debate:
                      ~evidence is such a big part of the debate process and in the case where sound evidence was lacking, the argument could not hold.
                      ~the understanding of the motion. What is plainly written versus what is implied makes the world of the difference. It is understandable how implied reasoning could affect the debate (and may even be to an extent logical)but for debate, its a rule of thumb to stick to what we're reading and not what we're feeling.

                      • 3 years ago

                        I know the tech problems had to be frustrating, I gave up on watching. But I agree @alot_like_locke deserves a win here. Overall, he was more on point.