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

    Judges, please reply here with your video comments. Please provide your analysis and announce the winner at the end.
    The debate will feature guest judge @chasuk

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @ninadabit There are several issues with your evaluation of the debate.

      1) You mention the con's responsibility is to refute the pro's plan. However, when the pro doesn't understand the topic and comes prepared for a different debate it is clear I can't refute what he presented because he didn't present anything. Essentially it came down to him refuting my case and I don't believe you explained at all what his offense (arguement that the opposing side extends throughout the entire round) was.

      2) REALLY IMPORTANT. You said that me talking about feasibility is going against me. Well if debate doesn't involve feasibility I could literally say if a student gets an A in Algebra we should give them $10000. Doesn't sound feasible right? It would solve economic division, problems in school, and I would be sure as hell motivated to get an A. BUT that is ridiculous because it's not feasible. Unless pro can actually prove some sort of feasibility there is no reason for you to weigh his arguments let alone dock me for it.

      3) You mention that I should have refuted standardized testing as a metric, but when the opposing side throws it into the debate on a whim with 4 minutes left it is very hard for me to have a substantial argument on a topic that needs some much more time for discussion. Debates are not about sneaking in points in the end but rather having a fleshed out discussion.

      At the end of every judgement you give, you mention that you will accept questions, yet never respond to me. You have voted against me every single debate in which I end up winning every single time. I understand you have a very fluid judging approach that seems to change pretty much every round, but if you could clarify any of the previous decisions you have made it would be helpful for me to prepare. I understand there is no "rubric" at QallOut but as a judge you should follow some sort of conventional debate rules.

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport
      1)The Pro very clearly did present a possible case. I'm not here as a judge to completely rehash the debate, the audience can surely watch it for that, I'm here to say good and bad and deliver a judgment.

      2)Feasibility is a dead end in debate. If I were to rely on whether or not a case was feasible in judging, then most debates could not occur at all. What matters is that something is a reasonable interpretation, and I had no reason to believe that either side necessarily had an unreasonable interpretation of what the method that this resolution could be carried out in. If one relies on feasibility with debate, one side will always be at a disadvantage, and it's virtually impossible to have a truly fair competition. This is something that has run across every debate adjudication or coaching that I've ever received. The activity simply doesn't stand if we rely on that. When I say I count it against you, I mean I merely don't give you credit for that as an argument to counter the pro's point.

      3) The opposing side mentioned this pretty early on in the debate, but honestly, it's no side's job to necessarily have presented an example or possible solution in opening statements, especially when it's being brought up as a refutation. My point about this serves to tell you that if you have something good to say about it, which it sounds like you would've, you should say it and develop it rather than mentioning it that you won't and moving on.

      I am open to accept questions! I've only actually seen one debate with you prior so I'm not sure where this is coming from? I didn't see a question from you in that debate but it honestly must have gotten lost in notifications so I'm very sorry if I've accidentally ignored you.

      As far as judging, I normally judge in a set style but essentially the guidelines given by QallOut are just "who makes the better case." I don't have specific things I'm looking for as a judge because honestly each debate is different and in a format without a clear style, I don't have a way to be looking for anything specific. Essentially what I'm following is my own experience and what I consider to be persuasive in an overall comparison of two debaters. Even in a debate with a rubric, when you go into any level of final rounds, it becomes difficult because both sides will clearly fulfill the rubric. That's probably why QallOut is using more judges in further rounds: to account for this. You're definitely an excellent debater, but you've also been against other excellent debaters. The best advice I can give you, or really any debater for that matter, is make sure to be adaptable to what the round brings and be able to think on your feet.

      If you'd like any of this clarified or to discuss this further, let me know.

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @singalport Hey I ordinarily wouldn't jump in but just have to clear up one thing.

      "Pro didn't understand the topic" - It is completely legit by whats known as "prop fiat" for the proposing side to model a debate however they would like as long as it is in the spirit of the motion. Obviously you can read a topic multiple ways and I did you the courtesy of thoroughly engaging with your conception of the debate instead of just insisting that you engage with the plan I presented. Furthermore it's pretty obvious that I understood your conception because I was able to engage with it pretty quickly (the same way you were able to engage with mine pretty quickly also, which is why I wouldn't accuse you of not being able to understand the debate).

    • 2 years ago

      @ninadabit All good. Your judging style is pretty standard in university and high school debate circuits so the way you evaluate arguments is very familiar to me (I also happen to think it is the most logical and persuasive way to adjudicate debates also)

    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 My apologies that's a fair assessment. Congrats on the win!

    • 2 years ago

      @jacksonk Cheers. To clear up the argument that didn't make sense about standardised tests. I meant it in response to the idea that teachers would artificially lower the difficulty of tests to increase marks.
      Having said that very easy to understand how that got lost in the mix and it's on me to make that more clear so cheers for the good feedback!

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport Cheers man, you were definitely a tough opponent! If the draw went the other way we could have ended up in the final

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @chasuk thanks for a great evaluation and very interesting to hear your personal experience as a teacher.

    • 2 years ago

      @chasuk Hey I wouldn't ordinarily respond but since you asked I'll clarify.

      Firstly on strawmanning: The studies con referenced all are based on certain aspects on the policy I don't have to support. Like visually handing out cash, like the cash rewards being too small to provide any educational benefit.

      Secondly on Climate change analogy: It's just a reason as to why you cant rely on studies in debate as you can pretty much find a study to support any position.

      Thirdly: On conflicting studies. I referenced several well-known educational theorists (Bill Rogers, Canter&Carter). In general studies have no place in the debate, they are impossible to verify, the conclusions could have just been made up, they often reference controlled experiments with conditions completely different to what the pro is actually proposing.

      Fourthly: Your personal experience is interesting but poor judging, obviously debates are not supposed to be decided based on the lottery of the judges background. It is also reliant on the flawed assumption that what you tried is the same thing as what I would be putting forward in the debate.

      Lastly: I'm disapointed you didn't really cover any of the actual arguments made in the debate. Stuff about higher impact of money on poorer students or how currently extra curricular's (which are more accessible to the rich) stand in for "wholistic assessment"

      It seems you just didn't understand a lot of the arguments. Could me on my presentation could be on you. Either way a decision is a decision, I hold no grudges haha.

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      Siq debate, well done @singalport I guess we'll wait for the judges verdict

    • 2 years ago

      Now that I am OUT of the tourney, and because I have no firm position in this debate, I feel like a pretty neutral party in voting after watching the two of you live.

      @singalport IMO you lost the argument when you got flustered about the fact that @benmouse42 waited to address standardized testing until "13 minutes in," when you had a total of FOUR MINUTES left on the clock. He exposed the weakest part of the pro argument--metrics for assessing payment--while you had a full segment and a half left, and rather than jump on it to make all your "con" points, you set the argument aside for the most part and continued on to your other, less persuasive points. It was like he made an unexpected move that left his King exposed, and rather than going for check and checkmate, you continued on with your predetermined strategy.

      I was not especially swayed by either side's arguments in general, but this failure to address the one dispute I think is especially decisive was a fatal error. Therefore my vote goes to the Pro side.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom while you may be right, I do not think that it's sufficient to look at this segment to judge the full debate.

        Con had the easier side to defend, in my honest opinion. I just did some research on the topic after watching this debate and found that most studies do in fact discourage money as a motivator for students.

        Pro did not provide any studies for his case, either, while Con provided at least a couple: The Stanford study and the case study from Dubai.

    • 2 years ago

      I'm happy to see a debate on this topic, at least something refreshing and away from all the politics. Kudos to both of you, Con won the debate in my opinion - his arguments were stronger but to be fair, Pro was prepared for a different debate and still did a great job continuing the debate.

      Excellent arguments on both sides but I was left convinced with Con's side of the debate.

      Thank you both.

      • 2 years ago

        Well done guys! Interesting arguments from both sides!

        • 2 years ago

          I'm a high school teacher and I can tell you this will never work. Students do value money, but it is not a sustainable option. I'm also not sure it's healthy to confirm to kids that money is the biggest motivator.

          • 2 years ago

            I'm a big fan of @benmouse42, but I think he was done in by the cultural divide on this one.

            @singalport is correct that when you google this topic, you do see articles talking about whether we should incentivize grades by offering financial incentives to students, so his interpretation has more reason to be believed.

            You guys could have presented arguments or definitions to discuss the topicality/resolutionality of your interp of the resolution, but instead you argue based on an even/if scenario. That being said, Neal's interpretation had an actual reason to prefer it, because his interpretation is the one you see when you google this issue.

            This is where Ben gets in trouble. He wasn't prepped for that debate. He argues that this education issue is his speciality, and that there are conflicting studies on whether incentivizing students with money works. However, since he wasn't prepared, he doesn't bring up any quotes or examples. He just says they exist. Perhaps Ben is correct that conflicting sources/case studies exist, but he doesn't bring any up. Neal easily wins this point by presenting multiple sources and relevent case studies proving his points. Based on the evidence presented during the round, it seems clear that offering monetary incentives to students who get good grades is a net loss.

            For that reason, I would say that the con wins.

            But actually, I'd probably vote con even if we accept Ben's interpretation of the resolution, because I agree with Neal's response that employers do not/should not just care about numbers on a resume. They should care about you and how you conduct yourself.

            Straight A students don't actually accomplish as much later in life as some of their fellow students with lower GPA's, because getting straight A's isn't actually a measure of intelligence or creativity. It's just a measure of your ability to follow instructions. It's a good sign that you can do that, but it's not necessarily an indicator of being the most valuable addition to a company.

            It doesn't make sense to tie salary expectations to GPA, when there are much much more important factors/variables that should be considered.

            So imo, Neal's interpretation of the resolution was correct, and he won on that interpretation pretty handily, but even if we accept Ben's interpretation, I think the con's position is better.

            Nice work to both of you on figuring out how to deal with a case you weren't prepped for on the spot!

            • 2 years ago

              FANTSTIC debate @benmouse42 killed it.

              • 2 years ago

                To argue that students should be paid based on their grades invokes the notion that a one size fits all education system is appropriate for all students.

                I was a tremendously awful student. Literally D's and F's because I could not for the life of me function within the system as it was designed.

                My goal is to be President of the United States (hopefully the youngest ever).

                To reward those who already succeed in a system that works for them, whilst punish those who are already failing in a system that doesn't work for them.. That's literally a recipe for disaster.