Please DM me or reply to this post if you have any questions.
@kelleykrook This judge said he didn't like the "tit for tat" style, but another judge said she liked the back and forth style in a different debate. Now I'm confused at what judges are expecting...
@jrdncttr Hi there! This is the freestyle of debates with main objective to convince audience and judges that you made a better case :-)Our judges have diverse set of debating experience that they bring in while the review the H2H debates but we avoid imposing strict rules on their judgement. You can have a look at the p.8 of the handbook including further details on judging principles.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my comment. The back-and-forth style of the debate was not a factor in my decision, which is why I put it as a general comment rather than a substantial critique in the body of my assessment. I try to gear my judgments towards the arguments presented, and I strive to judge the debate that the debaters want to have rather than force them to comply with my personal preferences. I may suggest certain methods or techniques, but at the end of the day the debate is about the exchange of ideas. I believe that the debaters should have primacy in the decisions of how that exchange takes place within the stipulations set by Qallout.com instead of the judge dictating how they must debate, especially since this is "freestyle debate" as Georgia mentioned.
They say atheism is a religion anyways so isn't this whole debate bunk?
@jdh03 that's a great point
There are religious atheists and non-religious Christians. Perhaps the debate could have been worded "Religious people have more morals than non-religious people"
@jdh03 the pro side's definition for religion precludes atheist views. Con would have had to contest that definition and offer a superior one to make this argument effectively in the debate.
I think there may be some confusion between morals and ethics.
@ta1 This would have been a good avenue for con to pursue. The idea being that while religious people are provided a wide range of ethics, they may ignore many of them in their own moral choices. It would have to come with some backup that leads us to think they ignore them to a large degree or that atheists have a strong set of ethical guides (which you could use secular law as an example).
This debate was very one-sided on argumentation so I'll focus on tips and observations.New debaters would do well to study @lewisoflime's opening case and use of definitions to control the ground of a debate. He thought about the topic and interpreted the resolution in a way that was favorable to the facts on the ground. This makes his case almost impossible to refute without attacking his definitions, or thinking well outside the box. This is probably the most powerful way to approach a topic in competition.Con takes a far more intuitive understanding, trusting that the audience shares his view of what the resolution means. But Pro was there already and demanded we look at things through his viewpoint.This is called Framing, it is about telling us how to view something. It is an incredibly powerful rhetorical technique, possibly the most powerful. --A marked style difference here is how Pro speaks to the audience. He uses the term "my opponent" and that shows he is talking to us.Con is talking to his opponent, saying "you" treating this as the face to face conversation Qallout promotes.Con's style is more personable, and better for a good conversation, but Pro's is designed to win over an audience and that's how you win a debate, and influence society at large. Both are legit, but it is worth thinking about what your goals are and which style of speaking serves them better. For a competition, Pro's style is superior.--Note: As the debate goes on, I think Con improves his arguing, starting to explore different angles at undermining Pro's contentions. He starts to break down the ideas and look at them from more angles. This is how you attack someone's framing, making us look outside of it explicitly. I actually really like that you all passed the mic more than is required. It makes for a much more in depth back and forth on single points.
How can i join this tournament?
Not sure what complexity has to do with this, but it would have been interesting if Con bought up Christian atheists, atheists that believe in all the teaching of Jesus, except the supernatural parts.
The problem in this debate is that it is being approached in different ways and neither side is inherently wrong in their presumptions in relation to each other. That said, LewisofLime's points are erroneous. While religious people have constricting moral edicts set down by their religion, non-religious people and Atheists, have a much more wide ranging and diverse set or morals that define the individual. Some of which maybe shared, but most are unique. The shared nature of the religious morals actually limits the number of moral avenues the religious people choose to follow. This limitation is not experienced by atheists and non-religious people. Thus, if we're talking about limiting conditional rules of conduct or belief, the diversity of non-religious people produces greater moral diversity.
Furthermore; morals shouldn't be defined as LewisofLime defined them; there is an inherent difference between religious edicts and rules, and morals. A moral is defined as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." But can further be defined as " Concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society." & "[attributive] Examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct. ‘moral philosophers’"The inherent flaw in LewisofLime's argument is the basis of his definition of morals and their conflation with religious edicts or dogma. The intrinsic religious codes of conduct are not inherently indicative of a moral sense, just as secular governmental laws are not inherently indicative of moral conduct.