@elomtet Thank you for the judgment! I've been checking out a lot of the RJs comments on various debates and I quite enjoy yours particularly.Thanks for all the insights here. This format does make it challenging to develop a complex position like the police state one I advanced. Something I need to keep in mind in future.
@sigfried @singalport 2-1 so far!!!! so much suspense 😱😱😱 we hate to see one of you goLet's see who the next RJs will pick
If you have any questions about my assessment please comment, and I will respond! Again congrats to both of you and good luck!
@lupita Thanks for the excellent Judgement Lupita and for the good advice.Question: How did you weigh the disadvantages I presented: Police state, Racism, Poverty impact, liberty degradation, and use of law enforcement resources against the claimed benefits of the texting fine (fewer pedestrian accidents)?Just to explain my intent with the driving while texting evidence: There no strong evidence yet from the current texting while street crossing bans as they are quite new. But there are a lot of studies on the driving bans. I felt it was similar in that it is a common activity, involving texting, that poses a public risk. I tried to make a link that the behaviors of the perpetrators and law enforcement were similar and thus we could expect enforcement results to be similar. I expected that the audience would find them naturally analogous. I agree it did open me up to the counter evidence for Jaywalking which I hadn't encountered in my research.
Hi @sigfried , yes, your driving point made complete sense, but as you just said the disadvantages of texting/walking policies are not thoroughly researched in that respect. So to try imposing the studies of drivers on pedestrians is stretching the scope of driver related incidents/studies. Police State: I think the idea that we become a police state from a rather simple legislation was a bit excessive. I agree that it does give more power to the police and government, but it is their job to protect the greater good which is what this legislation aims to do. It also is not one sided, and by that I mean, it is not just aimed to punish text-ers, but mostly to protect pedestrians who text, other pedestrians, and drivers. The fines come as a way of enforcing the safety regulation. At least that is how I understood the framing of the issue in the way that the arguments were presented. Racism: In my video, I covered this and did agree that racism was a very important issue that I think the Pro should have addressed much more and it gave you a slight upper-hand. Only slight though because again, I agree that this is at least worth a try and if issues portray themselves later then we try to address the legislation again. Poverty Impact: I saw this as one of your weaker points as poverty is not a strong enough reason not to pass legislations for fines. Unfortunately, everyone is subject to a multitude of fines no matter their background. The ridiculous fines for mowing lawns were a good example of unnecessary fines, but I did not see that you developed enough reasons to see fines for texting as ridiculous. It is a personal safety hazard in this debate and very different from not keeping your yard gardened. (Honestly, those other fines should be better addressed though because they do sound quite insane.) Liberties: I could agree that it is limiting, but only very slightly. The resolution and policy would not completely limit texting as you can still text once home or you’re no longer “walking in Public”. Also, as the way the resolution is stated, if something is so urgently needed to be text, you could call instead (no fines then). Police Resources: I again saw this as an exaggerated issue. I don’t think it will distract very much from police jobs and judges attentions. I think if you would have presented more evidence it would have been stronger. Overall though, you are a strong debater and your points are great. I just could not see them outweighing the potential good/ saved lives and the fact that this law is already going into effect in certain states. Perhaps when there is more evidence (from future studies) showing actual harms from pedestrians we can revisit this and see whether it has helped or not. Thank you and I hope that I cleared things up! Good luck in your future debates.
@lupita Thanks for the explanation. It's always good to get insight into what judges and others think so I can hone my messages. One of my reasons for being here is I am interested overall in the act of persusion in public settings so getting inside audience perceptions is important. This is kind of a rare situation where I can ask people why they were or were not persuaded by certain arguments.BTW: None of what follows is meant as persuasion, just sharing my thoughts and experiences. Only read if you are curious on my thinking behind the case.My insight from your comments is that the impact of these disadvantage arguments depends a great deal on what kinds of perceptions and experiences people have with them. That's one of the reasons I used a bit of a shot gun of policing impacts as I suspected some would find fertile ground with different listeners. For you, it seems the racism concern is the strongest. For me, the police violence impact is the most meaningful and concerning as I've been studying the issue closely as of late. I've also had the police pull guns on me at a traffic stop when I made the mistake of leaving my car (it was the first time I ever got pulled over so I didn't know what to do.)The poverty one I can speak to first hand. I was broke in my college years and got into issues with the court on fines for not having insurance. Being pretty well broke, but needing a car to get to college I had to take that risk, and I got caught. I couldn't really afford the fees but had to stop driving which ended up causing me to be late to a court hearing to contest them. I arrived 5 min late, and they refused to let me in the courtroom. This means a much larger fee for non-appearance and a warrant issued for my arrest. I told them "um, I'm right here, I guess you could arrest me, or perhaps you could please let me in any way?" I persuaded them to let me in to do my turn before the judge. But the fee only made it harder for me to afford the insurance, licensing and other costs. I'm a clever lad so I managed to get myself out of all that, but I reflected how other poor people, less familiar with the law or as persuasive or less even tempered could end up in a spiral of trouble all starting with one ticket and ending with them in jail.And I agree the resources issue is a bit exaggerated. ;) But I thought there may be some folks that find it persuasive so I included it.Police State was probably not a good term for me to use. It's a nice way to sum it up but I mostly mean there to appeal to libertarian minded audience members. I'm about half libertarian so I tend to be against protecting people from themselves but for protecting one person from another.Anyhow, no need for any further clarification, I just like to analyze things "out loud" as it were.
@sigfried I would highly recommend you share those examples! Perhaps in later debates, you might consider sharing such ideas like those. It would have added a good touch of pathos/ethos to the overall arguments (logos)! But you would have to find a balance as some would take it too far and the argument becomes too "pathos" without enough logic and cited authorities. Great work again and I think your approach overall was wonderful!
@marisa_noelle Thanks for the very thoughtful judgment!Good tip on using the Drug War as a parallel. It just didn't occur to me but I agree, it could have been an effective line of argument once it was brought up.I also felt this debate should be (both in the debate and in real life) about weighing the harms and benefits. I went into this one knowing I couldn't contest the fact that some people do get hurt or killed due to this behavior. It's the truth. But can it be solved, and what will be the cost in trying to solve it? Those are up for grabs so I focused there. The topicality argument was meant to be an attack on the value of the resolution itself. AKA saying, what we SHOULD do is something other than the resolution. It's a bad idea compared to this better idea. But I didn't quite anticipate Pro's very narrow call to action/plan. When I heard it, the argument morphed from an attack on the resolution to an attack on his narrow version of the resolution. That's partly because his narrow version solves the reasons why I think my counter proposal is better than the resolution as written. That forced me to try and attack his narrower version to hold my counter proposal... kind of a mess. You probably made the right call just accepting his scope.
@alikapadia12 Thank you for the insightful Judgement!You picked up on a couple of my opponent's points that I missed during the debate. It's always a bit hard to listen well when you are debating, but always very important! Taking notes on the last point or organizing your response while paying close attention to your opponent is a real challenge. Something for me to keep working on.
Many thanks to @singalport for a very challenging and substantive debate. I hope everyone learned a bit more about the issue! I'll save any comments about the content of the debate until after the round is over, but feel free to share as I'm always interested how others heard the arguments presented by both sides.
@sigfried You are a really great debater and I enjoyed that one the most out of all the ones I have done on QallOut. Looking forward to hearing what the audience has to say.
@singalport Wow, thank you, that's high praise. In preparing for this debate I watched a number of your prior debates here. I knew this would be tough because you are skilled, cool under pressure, do your research, and don't make mistakes (at least so far as I could tell). You debated brilliantly in this one as well!
The pro essentially appeals to authority a bunch of times, actively attempts to move the goalposts and claims ignorance to the potential feesibility of laws like these when there is vocal precedent by the Con. The Con should have pointed out the failure of the drug war.