@gigi judges requested here
@benmouse42 thanks Ben. The problem with this debate is that I did realize until it was over I did an entire initial rebuttal is not audible: " I don't know what happened but I'll keep going". Which is the frustrating thing here. Its where I do give an anonolgy of someone who filed a small claim against an insurance company for medical bills, but the insurance company refuses to settle,as it has no problem burning money the person doesn't have on depositions etc. even years later, in spite of the police report clearly being in the Plantiffs favor. It cost less than settling, So it's an extra burden of evidence they now also have to pay for in addition. And I say that if you investigate 100 terrorist suspects you have to arrest 10 to convict the actual one. So I see why that sounded confusing later. But hey it's over now. I can't and wouldn't ask you to judge what you can't here. But I think you get it. I also site the Dow Chem case that set the Legal reasoning because both sides brought in countless experts forcing the court to set a standard for what's science and what's not to which the response is "ya ya yaaa" later. If you could make it out... and case how problems with things like breath test would carry over. Always appreciate your feedback. And I accept the outcome however this goes.
@benmouse42 Thanks, Ben! I really appreciate the feedback. And yes, I did mean physiological!
@alidia Thanks, Alidia! I'll take your feedback into account for future debates!
@julian yep that reasoning makes more sense. Time and technical pressures are a total pain but yer I can only judge what I hear.The breath test analogy is interesting because that is still admissible, I think you would have to explain why breath tests shouldnt be asmissible at all for that argument to hold
@sararose Hey! Please check your email inbox.. we sent you the new topic survey for Round 2..check emails from QallOut Debate Tournament , thanks!
good point @shootingstar213, the topic is: Lie detectors should be used to *support* the legal process, so they don't have to be 100% accurate to support the legal process and improve it.
@drsteve does that really answer for how they violate the 4th,6th, and 14tg amendments in regard to legal process and liability?
@julian perhaps, fair enough.
but a person's testimony under oath is not just an opinion
yes exactly @shootingstar213
@julian is right that is why they are not used in court in the first place I mean thats obvious argument
@qallout requesting judges.
@julian judges requested... but to be clear, pasting tons of text below does not help the case , the debate will be judged based on the above h2h video only
@qallout understandable. But just my giving references, not adding additional statements. There's nothing in there I don't reference in the debate. I include text to make it easy for the judges as suggested in manuals. Please remember how the use of references influenced judges in the previous tournament.
@qallout. Edited to reflect as only sources for evidence presented in the debate.https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10 http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/polygraph.aspxhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8153539.stm, https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/scheffer.html http://kfor.com/2016/09/27/oklahoma-supreme-courts-decision-could-render-breathalyzer-results-invalid/link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010708225/OVIC?u=cmlweb&xid=cbae9c06.
I like the idea of the use of Lie Detectors in court cases, not because of the use of accuracy but how the person would answer the questions.. such as she stated about timing and other psychological ticks... It could be useful in the idea of helping solving the case and opening the juries mind up a little more--- "Why did they take so long to answer that question?" Etc. Because a witness or testimony doesn't clarify how the person answers the question etc, it would basically make the jury feel as if in some way they were there when the sides where questioned which I feel would be more useful than listening to how one person describes what they seen or heard.... Considering witnesses can forget what they have seen and aren't really that accurate--- which has been proven (however I don't know what sources I have seen it on.) So they could possibly miss out on important details. However I think it would be only fair if the test (method) was called something else and used on both sides of the case...
If anybody would be interested in debating this topic lmk. I believe that lie detectors shouldn't be allowed