Sorry for the internet connectivity problems (not sure if the problem is happening just with my playback), I'm realizing that the beginning of this is cutting a bit so please let me know if there's anything you can't hear that you want clarified!
@ninadabit thanks for the feedback and for judging. I hope your technical woes are fixed soon!
@ninadabit I could not really get anything, because the brokenness of the video.
@josecaballero @josephemcgowan So sorry about this! I'm going to go ahead and type this through from my notes because my internet connection is still presenting some problems and I'd rather give you something solid to read at this point rather than something I may have to redo once again. Hopefully these issues will be resolved soon. Pro: I really like your style of argumentation and your organization, it's very easy to follow and useful when looking to compare arguments. I also really like your argument about the tax burden; you don’t spend too much time on it but it was still intriguing and really novel in terms of arguments that would typically be made for this debate and I found it very interesting. I do agree that this is not necessarily a policy debate, but I like that you present a policy regardless, although the policy itself is kind of having your cake and eating it too in the sense that you designate that even a minimal burden is grounds for them to be fired, which is not the level at which free speech is protected and is more consistent with the con's arguments. Your argument saying there is a precedent for this is fair but you need to go forward and argue why values wise this is particularly important to protect and why your audience should care particularly and push to promote this change. You also need to show me why people are necessarily going to be killed, and why I should care about this specifically when this is a problem we face regardless when people aren’t accepted and are prone to violent action. Con: You're criticized for dropping arguments, but I don't know if this is a problem, considering that some arguments weren't as strong and potentially weren't substantiated enough to spend the time refuting. I like your overall value of freedom and pointing out the flaw's in pro's argumentation in the sense of freedom of private businesses to operate how they choose. I also like your discussion of what the first amendment does guarantee and analyzing what the rights of a private entity should be considering these protections, especially when we're talking about a policy that could directly implicate a business, such as causing boycotts of a business and hurting their profits. I do wish that you had developed more arguments in general, but I think you end up only needing your one main thing, however, I wish there was more to go off of and more reasons to vote for you. As far as voting, I am voting for the Con because I believe that in the sense that the value of this debate has become freedom, he is able to tell me more about protecting freedoms of employers and the employees that work for them, in response to the Pro providing some claims that are somewhat unsubstantiated under a definition and policy proposal that does not tell me why this policy specifically must be implemented. Let me know if you have questions! And again I'm sorry for the technical difficulties!
@ninadabit Thank for your feedback
@matthewhidalgo thanks Matthew! Great comments and criticisms.
@matthewhidalgo Thank you for this. I am starting to understand @qallout and the differences from college debate. Time is also a new thing to play with more as well considering we only have 3 minutes and not the cushy 8 - 7 minutes in college to set your case.
@lupita Thank you for your feedback I am really getting qallout more.
@lupita Thanks Lupita. Great feedback. You are totally right about me making an extreme example by going for Nazis, I expected more pushback than I received when I went there.
@benmouse42 thanks for the feedback!!!
If I were Pro, I would set a standard and say "extreme Nazism" is not a "political belief" but rather something else.
@josephemcgowan Great debate it was fun :)
@josecaballero Wish it hadn't been so messy. Apologies.
@josephemcgowan It's fine I lost that minute top of case and I think that affected the flow. Thanks for giving that minute back at the end.
@josecaballero Only fair thing to do. :D
Interesting debate from both of you. Very respectful and good points on each side. Jose your speaking style is calm and well organized. You're a pleasure to listen to. Eli I love your accent haha.I don't really know how to vote on this one. Each of you believes the debate is a different type of debate, but ultimately both sides accept the concept of freedom as the goal, so I'll just call it that and then we don't need to worry about policy or value. Interestingly enough, the only actual issue that wound up mattering to this debate is the question of freedom.Pro's advantages are really weak. He presented no data or evidence for any of them. He says there will be less workplace homicides, less fired people on the government's payroll, and more freedom for employees. The workplace homicides and fired people on the government payroll are really unconvincing to me, since pro never presented any evidence or studies saying this is a significant problem. The con correctly pointed out that the pro is calling this a policy debate and then never actually proved either harms or advantages from his policy. I think theoretically these things may be problems, but I've never heard of them being a big deal in my personal experience, and pro presented me with no data suggesting these are significant issues, so they don't factor into my vote. The freedom of employees point actually has warrants behind it though, so that one I will focus on.The Con really has one argument, which normally would be a bad thing, but that one argument is also the Pro's main argument, and the question this round comes down to. As a voter, the question you both have told me to ask, and the issue you each took the vast majority of your time to talk about is: "Will stopping employers from firing people for their political beliefs help, or hurt freedom?"On the one hand, @josephemcgowan points to Nazi's who were fired after marching in Charlottesville, which is a great application and I don't think the Pro ever responded to it. Con also points out that there are certain political ideologies that are inherently worse than others. An ideology rooted in violence should not be upheld in the same way that other political ideologies are. But on the other hand, if employers are firing employees just for having different views, well 50% of the country is immediately about to be fired. Pro correctly points out that there are a lot more employees in the country than there are employers, so by total amount, protecting those employees best protects freedom. Ultimately, I think based on what was said in the round, I agree with the con that freedom of association is at stake here. If Nazi's or KKK members are going to work somewhere, that's fine, but if those KKK members act in a way that is detrimental to the company, then the company should have the right to fire them. Ultimately pro did not have a convincing refutation to this point, and so I am voting for the Con.@josecaballero, I feel like this debate was yours for the taking, had you come a little better prepared. If you had some evidence for any of your advantages, or some studies showing the impact of your claimed harms and advantages, those would have immediately gone from afterthoughts, to clear winning issues for you, and you would have gotten my vote. But without any such proof, there's no reason for me to believe these are significant issues and thus they don't really factor into my vote. I also would have voted Pro had you shown more of the impact that occurs from people being able to fire anybody for political beliefs. You really could have hit that point home if you say "so Democrat employers can fire ANYONE at their office who's a Republican. Republicans can fire Democrats. This would likely lead to only Republicans working for Republican companies and Democrats working for Democrat companies, thus further dividing our already divided country." Or something like that. If you have some evidence and some impacts ready to go, then there's a lot of room for argument here, but I didn't hear that from the arguments you presented this time around.Good debate overall, and good luck to you both :).
If you take notes, then @josecaballero wins hands down on a number of levels.(1) IF this was a policy debate, @josecaballero wins because his benefits outweigh ....no disadvantages articulated by the con. So (A) saves lives by giving legal protection to employees, (B) saves taxpayer money by reducing burdens due to unemployment and social services,(2) IF this was a value debate and the criterion is Freedom, then @josecaballero wins. All @josephemcgowan gains is Freedom of employers to fire people (not enumerated in the constitution.)(A) Pro increases Freedom of political expression of employees(B) Freedom of Speech protected(C) TURN Around, Con actually limits Freedom--BOOM! (drop the mic)About Nazi's: Nazi's should not have the right to fire people. Con protects Nazi's firing people that do not concur with their beliefs. If a person performs their job ineffectively, then they can be terminated for just cause (as @josecaballero so eloquently stated).Debating 101 hint, not responding to contentions and dropping them means you concede their point. Pro had 2 strong arguments that Con dropped (1) Pro increases Liberty of employees and (2) Pro saves taxpayers money.Speaker award to @josephemcgowan, but the debate on both policy and values level goes to @josecaballero.-Kevin Beiser National Forensic League, Lifetime member. Past Debate Coach
@beiserkevin well, on Qallout the rules are a little different. It's very similar to NFL or other debate leagues, but the question that is asked is which side makes the better case. The debaters get to choose how to do that.For me personally, I was taking notes, and I wrote my thoughts in a comment above. Con probably should have done more to delink the Pro's advantages, but he certainly did point out the lack of evidence, which was all the response that was needed. Without any reason to believe these issues are happening or that they're statistically significant, when I weigh the impact calculus I barely even consider them.Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, I just don't think it's as clear cut as you try to make it seem.
@beiserkevin thanks for the speaks! You're right, I didn't address his advantages, because I didn't believe he had presented harms that would hold water, but a more careful approach would have been to rebut them anyway.
@beiserkevin you should join the next tourney...! What's taking you so long? :grinning:
They shouldn't, that is true. However, people who use this to defend Nazis who get fired after their beliefs get made public (often as a result of the Nazi's own stupidity) are making the frankly childish mistake of viewing Naziism as "just another opinion." It isn't. Being a Nazi is an inherently violent act by its very nature because it's end game is ALWAYS ethnic cleansing, which is just the PC way of saying genocide. And frankly, I think any company that sells products to non-whites, Jews, and LGBTQ people has every right to not want people in their employ who openly (be it on social media or at rallies while carrying tiki torches and chanting "Blood and soil!") call for people like those customers to be forceably removed from their country and/or killed.Now, if we're talking about something that is actually an opinion, then absolutely companies should not be allowed to do that. I mean, if you do find yourself getting shitcanned from a supermarket or warehouse job because of your opinions on the top marginal tax rate, or your views on what the size of the military should be, I think you've got a lawsuit on your hands. Assuming you don't work in a state with one of those Orwellian-named "Right To Work" laws, but that's a rant for another time.
@arkle you're thinking of "at-will employment" states - which is 48 or 49 of them, where you can be terminated for any reasons.Right to Work is a different issue, it's where you can't be compelled to pay union dues. Only 28 of those states.
This was a strange debate. Battle of the Joses (well ok one is a Joseph..). Both @josecaballero and @josephemcgowan treated each other with great respect and consideration. BTW: one way you can resolve the time issue is to pass the mic to Con and Have them pass it right back to give you a full 3min to do your opening.Also, another mic tip, you don't loose time for passing early. At one point Con got a little lost in his notes and ate some time trying to figure out where he was. You could have just passed the mic early and used that time later when you had a direction to go in.Is this a policy debate or a values debate? Both and Neither. It's kind of whatever you make it. Really it's about persuading people to accept or reject what the resolution says. If you can use the benefits of a policy to persuade, then that's what you argue. If you think it is more theoretical, then go that way. But either way, I don't think it comes with the conventional requirements developed in debate theory. Qallout is free form, "the mixed martial arts of the debate world." The two approaches used here do make it a bit hard to judge though.Pro's case is about looking at the benefits of making a law to prohibit firing based on political beliefs. This benefits the workers who keep their jobs and still profess their beliefs, and perhaps it means fewer unemployment benefits paid. Con's case is that it is a burden on employers and violates the spirit of the first amendment. He also points out that Nazis are bad and it would suck to have to just accept them at our workplace.They fight it out on whether people will get violent in the workplace under both scenarios and neither makes a very compelling case on these grounds.On everything else, they are more or less talking past one another. I agree that employees would have more liberty to be themselves, and I agree that employers would have less. Yes, there are more employees than employers. I think con missed a huge counter argument to strengthen his side against the numbers argument. In the job market, you can usually find another job, but if the government passes a law, there is no escape for employers. So on one side more suffer, on the other fewer suffer more. But con didn't make this argument so Pro gets to win this liberty angle on the numbers.Con still has the fact we have to put up with Nazis on the job. That does suck. He pointed out if affects both bosses and fellow workers and customers. Pro could have shot back that this also protects people we might not normally fear, say a leftist who happens to work for a Nazi boss. But Pro didn't so Con has a solid point on his side.Pro has the taxpayer argument, but it was presented without evidence, and it just doesn't ring true for me. People get different jobs and I find it pretty rare people get fired for their politics at the office. The less hostile work environment really rolls into the freedom argument for me. It's just a different aspect of the freedom to express your politics.My sympathies definitely lie with the Con. I wouldn't want Nazis working for me, and I've never really had an issue with an employer bothering with my political views. I don't really see a huge problem to be fixed.As a judge, I'm willing to use my own views, especially on the quality of a claim, when there is clash on a point. But here, I think the Pro side tipped the scales with their employee numbers = greater freedom argument. It's not super convincing, but neither was Con's case. I think both could have been more persuasive if they were just a little more grounded.I think both debaters were a little caught up in scoring ponts and a little light in persuading me as a concerned citizen in making a decision about which would be wisest, to protect workers from persicution for their beliefs by employers, or to preserve the liberty of workers and employers to work these differences out among themselves as most citizens do.
Employees should be protected as long as it doesn't affect their work.