• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          I'm pumped for this debate.

          • 2 years ago

            Commentary mid debate: I love the use of visual aids haha.

            • 2 years ago

              This is an awesome debate. Both teams have great arguments and analysis and are professional and respectful.
              Pro has a super good case from the get-go. Nice structure, good organization, and solid analysis. You clearly are an experienced and competitive debater. As a speaker my only knock against you (which isn't really a negative for me, but could be for other people) is that as a speaker you can come off as kind of dull and lacking charisma. I don't care about this at all as i vote on the arguments, but for a lot of people this can be a turnoff.

              Initially I buy the argument about the stability of bitcoin. He argues for the bubble crash happening and there is an inevitable collapse. Con initially doesn't respond to this notion very well well IMO, and instead he focuses why bitcoin would HAVE been good if you'd invested in the past at least in the beginning. He does say that if a crash would happen, it should have happened by now (which IMO is a clever response) but the con never gives a threshold for when it should have happened and doesn't really refute the analysis of the pro on this point. The empirical data of the dot.com example is awesome evidence to support why it will happening and it goes unrefuted by the con.

              I LOVE the argument about how etherium is a superior alternative to bitcoin. Pro clearly has a good understanding of the topic and thats evidence by his warrants. The flashcrash argument by the pro is really awesome. Con has a good response to it, but pro comes back with the chinese government intervention analysis was BRUTAL. I love the links made here.

              Cons advantages of bitcoin are actually really good, but I think more his point is about cryptocurrency in general being good, and less about why personal investment in bitcoin is a good thing.

              Con seems to be more focused on why USING Bitcoin right now could be good, and why investing in it in the past would have been good, which isnt really the debate imo.
              Pro takes us back to the debate at hand I think and wins on these issues handily with his numerous and in depth responses to Con's case as well as the strong argument for why investing in it is a poor idea. I side with pro in this debate.

              This debate was awesome, nice work to both of you.

              Great debate by both of you, keep up the good work!

              • 2 years ago

                @metant3 Great analysis, appreciate the time you took to write it out. I will definitely try to work on my speaking style. Thanks!

              • 2 years ago

                @singalport No problem man. And the speaking thing isnt really a big deal haha, i happen to be a debater who is more technical like you and less charismatic as a speaker so I know whats it like, but just trying to help as much as I can. I hate when I lose access to certain judges because my opponent is a captivating speaker but makes horrible arguments.

              • 2 years ago

                @metant3 Your comments are much appreciated. I just want to point out I mentioned why using Bitcoin is so important to support the reason behind it's increasing and developed attraction since it's been introduced. Because it serves so many purposes and a globalised medium of exchange it's value has increased up to this point. It's limited supply supports the idea that this price increase is not slowing down anytime soon because more and more people are going to want bitcoin and it becomes more and more difficult to obtain.

                I never heard of China owning bitcoin and devaluing bitcoin, but I've read the opposite
                Which is another key point I discussed about bitcoin as a safeguard of inflation. If Chinese currency inflates, bitcoin only become more valuable if China starts using Bitcoin more to buy goods and services.

              • 2 years ago

                I agree with you that cryptocurrency is a valuable tool for currency exchange on a global level, and its even the future. But Bitcoin in particular has huge problems in term of long term investment because its so new, so unknown, and sol volatile.

                The chinese point was a general point about government intervention devaluing it and creating a race to the bottom scenario, wether it was the US gov, or the chinese gov, I think its inevitable that at some point they get involved in it.

                To your point about its limited supply means the price increase wont slow down. I'd point you to the housing market bubble, and the dot.com bubble. Bitcoin's price increase right now isnt due to anything inherently valuable about it yet. IE, its insane value right now is not because bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, or because of anything it has to offer inherently. Right NOW its value is all artificial because people think they can make money on it when they buy it. Well eventually we'll see that artifical valuation pop like a bubble and it will come crashing down. (And all that is assuming they dont get hacked or the government intervenes first.)

            • 2 years ago

              Both premises were well devised and easy to construe. Great job to you both. Now...I didnt agree entirely with Pro because he's predicting a flash crash (or ENSURING rather) of the bitcoin which historically in the last year alone, has shown a substantial increase of monetary value and inflation due to demand. Flash Crashes more so coincide with the acquisition of declination. If a business is thriving, and efficiently promulgating itself with correlation to high demand and In Bitcoins case, limited supply.- the demand will continue to increase as the number of circulating bitcoins decreases. The increased use of exchange worldwide using this e-currency creates a uniformed adaptation entirely and the simple fact that it's value has had the biggest inflation within the last year should tell you that it's use is becoming more commonly orchestrated with exchange of goods and services. Everyone is entitled to their opinion- this is my own. Great job to you both. Thanks

              • 2 years ago

                @jordan3039 Very well thought out response, your feedback is very much appreciated. I'm glad you understand the point I was trying to make about the demand factor that it key to understanding the price movements of bitcoin not necessarily the blockchsin aspects of it. The idea of a flash crash doesn't quite fit the picture I agree. Yes, it may dip, and it has, but he kind of contradicted himself when he mentioned bitcoin being hacked and causing a crash while also mentioning previous occurrences of hacking. Since those instances bitcoin has recovered stronger than ever, near it's all time high.

            • 2 years ago

              As someone who knows only the very basics about Bitcoin, and wishes he'd mined it back when he first heard about it 8 years ago, this was fascinating to listen to.

              It's also a little harder to judge because I have a hard time evaluating some of the claims. There are claims it can be hacked, and claims it can't and that is a pretty key question in this debate. I'm not sure which is the more credible claim. I suspect if it were possible to hack it someone would have done it by now, but tech always holds surprises for us.

              I am persuaded that it is possible for Bitcoin to collapse, and even that it probably will happen some day. If for no other reason than given enough time, most things that can happen do happen.

              I am also persuaded that bit coin is a lot more likely to increase in value than fall in value generally. And if you are an investor, that is exactly what you are interested in.

              So as an investor I have a commodity with a proven track record of increasing dramatically, and sound economic arguments for why it will continue to do so. On the other hand, I also have a lot of uncertainty over whether it will have a dramatic crash and when. Potent risk.

              The two sides are set on pursuing their course Pro says it is risky and will collapse sooner or later. Con points out you can make lots of money and assures us that collapse is not as sure as Pro claims.

              Both debaters were skilled, articulate, and know this subject better than I do. Pro could do with a little more animation and variance in his speaking as a means to improve his persuasion skills. Con could be just a tad more organized and focused on bringing home the win with a summary case for his side.

              Both debaters need to work on those clock skills. Nearly everyone on Qallout does. Keeping your argument concise really helps. And if you feel you nailed it, pass the mic and use your opponent's time to plan your next response.

              Con needs some help with that camera, I got to where I was trying to read the label on that lotion bottle or whatever it was. :) Con's graph was great. As an Econ grad, that was gold right there!

              I'm finding that most Qall out debates kind of tail off half way through and become a back and forth over key contention points. People do more and more elaboration on their main points. Perhaps save some supporting evidence for one of these, not a new attack but a real wowser for support.

              Anyhow a decision is needed so back to that investor looking at this high growth, but high-risk commodity...

              Neither Con nor Pro really considered this mindset. They were focused on making it look all bad or all good they didn't give me guidance if I felt it was part good and part bad. So I have to sort that out for myself.

              Basic investment wisdom tells me that high risk / high reward commodities can be good investments if you hedge them with other investments that perform well in conditions where they are likely to crash. It also says they are good if you seek growth and are not as concerned with risk. There are ways to minimize risk such as periodic divestment of increased value in the commodity moved to a safer store of value.

              So on this basis, I'm voting Con. A truly bad investment is one that is unlikely to gain value or is sure to fail immediately. One that is bad at some indeterminate point in the future but has a trak record of strong returns still has real value to an investor.

              • 2 years ago

                @sigfried Thank you for your feedback! First debate on qall out and I really enjoyed it, although I found myself with so many points my disorganized style weakened my arguments. I invest in stocks and have been watching commodities for quite some time which makes the idea of investing in bitcoin so appealing. Digital currency market have recently be tapped over the past few year which is when I was one of those speculative investors that wasn't too sure where it would go. I'm glad you enjoyed the graph. I think i should have discussed it more indifferent to the gold boom where government invervention with the Gold Standard completely regulated the precious metal markets and it sits where it is today nowhere near it's all time high. Bitcoin complete avoid that from occurring through it being decentralized. Versus the U.S gold reserve which is over 70% of gold in circulation, clearly controlling to price. I see it as a bad investment if you hedge against bitcoin and start invest in Yuan.

            • 2 years ago

              10 points for the Bitcoin logo drawn on the supply and demand chart

              • 2 years ago

                @mitchellcrl :raised_hands: beer + elasticity graphs, flashback from my uni days

                • 2 years ago

                  @mitchellcrl, you missed a great opportunity to shoot down @singalport's argument on the ranking of cryptocurrencies based revenue growth.

                  The other cryptocurrencies have a much lower absolutely revenue, this makes their growth in percentage much higher relative to Bitcoin.

                  To illustrate:

                  While $10m revenue growing to > $100m in revenue is 10x growth in revenue, it's an increment of $90m


                  $100m in revenue growing to $200m revenue is 2x growth (lower in growth in % compared to the above), but, it's an increment of $100m, higher than the previous.

                  That's analogous to cryptocurrencies compared to Bitcoin, they have a lower revenue as a base and are therefore more likely to grow in percentage terms, but that's misleading. Bitcoin is the leader in terms of absolute revenue, so it's harder for it to grow in % compared to its peers.

                  His conclusion in terms of other currencies being better, is therefore incorrect and misleading.

                  Also, just because other cryptcurrencies are better than Bitcoin or have higher growth, it does not mean bitcoin is a bad investment.

                  They can all be good and all have growth potential, but the growth potential is lower for Bitcoin compared to Ethirium and other cryptocurrencies.

                  It still makes it a good investment if it's growing over x%, x could be the American Treasury Bond rate, the average stock market index, or any other alternative...

                  The alternative to bitcoin as an investment instrument is not JUST other cryptocurrencies. It's any other instrument.

                  Good debate you both, my vote goes to @mitchellcrl mainly for his argument about the stagnation in its supply, leaving demand alone to increase its price going forward into the future (I was not convinced with the hacking potential, risk of security or the discouragement of miners as counter arguments nor am I convinced that the dotcom crash is comparable to cryptocurrencies.)

                  • 2 years ago

                    This is the vote I feel the least confident about out of any of the votes I've cast so far this round, but for this debate I voted pro.

                    I don't know anything about Bitcoin, so it was rather difficult to keep up with all the lingo you guys tossed around, but as a debater, there were a few points I did grasp onto that made me believe the pro side had won.

                    1. If Bitcoin has a cap on the amount of miners, then there is a ceiling on the investment, which already says this is not a great long term investment. And if that cap will result in an eventual crash in value, then the long term investment opportunity is risky.
                    2. If Bitcoin is ranked #13 out of Cryptocurrencies, then comparatively, investing in Bitcoin is a bad idea, since there are faster growing places where I could put my investment.
                    3. If there is the potential for a Bitcoin crash in value, or if Chinese hackers were to hack into Bitcoin (I don't know how this would work and I can't picture it but apparently that can happen?) this means there is significant risk involved in an investment.

                    I agree with @metant3 that it seemed like Con was trying to prove that Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are a good thing, rather than proving that an "investment" in Cryptocurrency, specifically Bitcoin, is a worthy investment.

                    I do believe the Con successfully proved that Bitcoin has been successful in the past, but past success is not proof of investable value. He also had an interesting point where he said that investing in Bitcoin right now is good for the investor, even if there is risk involved. Ultimately though, if the uncertainty could strike at any time, and is all but guaranteed to hit eventually, then the investment doesn't seem like a smart one to me.

                    So those are my thoughts. Feel free to correct me if I said something wrong, but overall it was an interesting discussion about a subject I didn't know much about.

                    • 2 years ago

                      I respect your decision, however I just want to point out a few things I had mentioned as rebuttles but may not have explained myself well enough.
                      1. The amount of people mining bitcoin is not what establishes the value, rather its benefits and usefulness as a currency. There is no cap on the amount of miners, and the full 22 million of bitcoin will not be circulation for another 100 years. This article concisely explains the idea about bitcoins value which the Pro side of the argument did not understand based on his focus on mining.
                      2. Bitcoin has the largest market cap at 77B which I pointed out as well which makes it the most stable as a long term investment given its price stability since it being introduced. That is like comparing investing in Google, Apple, or Amazon, versus investing in stocks. Much smaller market cap with much less price stability.
                      3. In any investment there is risk, but there question is how do you leverage your risk. For China to hack bitcoin they would be inflating their own currency because they own so much of it so it would be counterproductive. A crash would have occurred already, which I briefly stated, but more importantly Ethereum has experienced already and Bitcoin is not as I had referenced in the debate. Bitcoin has a better infrastructure and more important has socio-economic benefits that have scaled bitcoin to the price level it currently sit at.

                      Ultimately, I wanted to focus on the price history to gain the confidence of those that would speculate investing in bitcoin. Explain why it has increased to this point(the supply-demand chart). And, why we really only have a snapshot on what the value of bitcoin really will be considering its global socio-economics benefits and growing popularity over recent years that will continue to push the price higher.

                    • 2 years ago

                      @mitchellcrl I think my main issue with your case was simply that I didn't ever see why Bitcoin, in comparison to something else, was worth my investment. You talked about why Bitcoin was good and attempted to fend off any criticisms from the Pro about Bitcoin, but you never really went on offense.

                      If I'm going to make an investment, I want to know why your product is not only good, but why it's BETTER than the alternative. All I gathered from this debate is that one side thinks Bitcoin is good, and the other side thinks Bitcoin is a risky investment. I heard nothing about why Bitcoin is preferable to other Cryptocurrencies, or why it's more stable, or any of the sort of questions I feel like Shark Tank investors would be asking. I think the main issue here is simply that the Pro was talking about the "investment", and you were talking about the "product".

                      You might be right that Bitcoin is stable, and as someone who doesn't know much about either side, I can't really say one way or the other. But the Pro was able to raise points about potential risk, and you didn't ever show that Bitcoin is better than an alternative, so if I was a Shark on Shark Tank, I can't picture myself investing in your product based off of this presentation.

                  • 2 years ago

                    Pretty crazy in just a couple days the China arguement actually came to fruition: http://www.businessinsider.com/initial-coin-offering-china-bitcoin-ethereum-peoples-bank-of-china-law-all-crypto-illegal-etoro-2017-9

                    • 2 years ago