Thanks again, that was a great time. Definitely a good experience to start off with on this site.
No one touched on the severity of the crime or class of felony or minors or repeat offenders or misdemeanors. And neither focused on the "Army" since it is a specific branch of the military. Coast Guard is not a branch anymore it is under DHS. No one defined the major difference between reserve, guard and active and deployment and non deployable and conus and oconus. If someone defined a specific agenda they could have support the pro side. Con side didnt know the levels of crimes and jurisdictions or branches of service or different categories. Draw
@sngbm87 Hey, thanks for watching and for your comment. I just want to clarify though. It seems that your reason for calling this a draw is that neither debater talked about the issues you would have if you had been the one debating? Am I somehow misreading this?
Great job to both of you! I voted CON,My voting issues: - Advocacy press - goes NEGNever heard aff present advocacy, neg did press this issue. Military anti-advocacy was clearly established- Impacts - goes NEGNeg sufficiently undermined the advantages of aff by showing that there was no support for the rehabilitative nature of military service. The disadvantages of compulsion, inflicting ptsd, and targeting the disadvantaged all stuck.- Masking DA - goes AFFThe link and impact for this DA were admittedly unclear. I saw little reason to believe that aff's policy would obscure our prison crisis. There was no compelling reason in this DA to pick no benefit over an undetermined benefit.
Both speakers here are good at delivering their arguments. This debate was easy to follow and engaging to listen to. Con especially has a nice delivery that is clear and persuasive. Pro is incredibly honest, earnest, and fair in his claims and arguments. That can hurt you to a degree in a competition, but I definitely won't hold it against him here. The way you two passed the mic and interacted was great. Passing early to go over a specific point from time to time really helps clarity and keeps the debate focused. So a fair number of points went back and forth, but for the interest of time (and so many round 1 debates to listen to) I'll keep it short.Pro did a good job making me feel like something needs to be done, and military service could be a good option for someone to reform rather than rot in prison. He could have done more to really focus on why the military is a superior option. Con highlights this weakness. Pro does shoot down some of Con's lines of argument effectively such as the "masking" an argument I always find dubious to begin with unless that is the intent. But Pro shoots it down well.Con's strength is to show us all kinds of reasons why the military is not ideal for reform, either for prisoners who could be killed and the military who has to accept this disruption for reasons outside thier mission.Pro makes this a stronger argument by saying the military could adapt and focus more on non-war efforts. That only highlihts that the military is not really the ideal solution to the prison system, more a half measure at best.So I'm going with Con, I'm persuaded that while this is a possible option, it is not a very good one on balance.
Congrats @sasanak000 ! You win and go through to the next round, stay tuned for the next emailHard luck @grsw31, better luck next tournament.