avatar
45 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

    @jrdncttr Just wanted to say thanks for the debate. I really do appreciate the time and effort you put into debate prep. I really hope to see you again in future debates, even though I am hoping I won this tournament debate.

  • 2 years ago

    Why do all the thumbnail scenes from my debates always have me in some weird position. How come I never get a cool pose.

  • 2 years ago

    This was my first debate people give me some love! (I wonder who that one person was that voted for me...)

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr I thought you did well for your first debate. Your points and reasoning were good. Your organization could use some work, and there are a lot of debate tactics that you could work on to sharpen up your arguments.

      AKA you have the talent but could work on your craft/art and become a pretty formidable debater!

      My main tip would be to try and put all your arguments in the context of an overall story that tells us the resolution is wrong. So in this debate, your story might be like this.

      "By subsidizing people in high-risk areas, we are throwing good money after bad, encouraging people to put their lives and property at risk. We do so at the cost of those who made wiser choices. This makes such subsidies both foolish, dangerous, and unjust."

      You would open with that, and close with that, and gives every argument supporting it extra weight and power.

  • 2 years ago

    @the_peoples_champ nice t-shirt!

  • 2 years ago

    As someone from Oklahoma when speaking about evacuating I agree with Jordan. When there is a tornado I do not have a week or two notice, I may have 5 minutes and even that is unpredictable because they have no idea what direction it could turn next. We have seconds to grab our loved ones and hide in a closet or a bathroom or even an open hallway. Those spaces will in no way shape or form keep us safe 100% of the time. No matter what fancy windows or siding we put on our homes. In a time of survival objects are not what is important. If given a weeks advance I would not try and board up to save what can not be saved by just wind. Hurricanes are wind and water and if you live even remotely on the coast there is no saving what you have. The government is not obligated to make sure people are alright. It is our jobs as neighbors and family to do so for those around us.

    • 2 years ago

      @loragandy That is literally the job of the government to do what is in the best interest for its citizens.

    • 2 years ago

      @loragandy if dirt poor people living in the Great Depression can move everything they have halfway across the country than people on the coast can move themselves inland for few days, no question. I thought it was a strong point...

    • 2 years ago

      @loragandy It is completely insensitive to say because you were able to evacuate that every has the means to. Almost 1,000 people died from Katrina, are you saying they were stupid? Do you think all of them had the means to evacuate and just didn't. What about the people in Puerto Rico? Is it their fault that they couldn't afford to pay $1,000 of dollars for flights out of Puerto Rico? And then go where? What hotel room would they go to? Please don't imply that your conditions recommend the conditions of everyone.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr the problem with that, is that your point is speculation. You imply that all the people have cars, all people have some kind of way to make it out of their neighborhood. As I pointed out with Puerto Rico, How should they "drive" to evacuate??

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ I could see it as the State's job to provide for those citizens who reside there but not the Federal Government. Citizens of any other State than the affected State should not have to pay for those, as you call them, basic needs or the rebuilding of the affected State. I do not expect someone from Florida or Mississippi to pay for my house that was demolished by a natural disaster in Oklahoma. Personally I believe that the responsibility of rebuilding and making sure that myself and my family are taken care of reside on my shoulders.

    • 2 years ago

      @loragandy you can say that you don't expect the federal government too. The fact is that the Federal Government does pay for the rebuilding of every state that declares "State of Emergency". Whether it be earthquakes in California, Tornado's in the Midwest, or Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. States do not have the funds to rebuild that. I would rather see my tax dollars go to helping a tornado destroyed city in the mid-west than building a boarder wall in Texas.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ the government exists to preserve our rights. Deficit spending on 3% of the population isn't exactly in the best interest of the citizens of the U.S. as a whole. Buying people water before a hurricane isn't much different than buying it afterwards except that water after the fact won't get destroyed in the hurricane. Either way, water won't protect you from a hurricane.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr I do understand where you're coming from. I really do. But the money is already being spent. I would rather it be used as a cost sharing way than waiting until after the hurricane hits then the government is footing the entire bill.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ You can spend all the money you want beforehand, but you'll still be picking up the pieces afterwards. Normally spending money on prevention is better, but you can't prevent a hurricane. I don't see any evidence that this would save FEMA a dime.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ If the money is already being spent, what difference does it make if you distribute supplies before or after the disaster? Obviously these numbers are WAY smaller, only for the purpose of this example. If you have $1M allocated for hurricane relief, and the repair cost is $2M, where does the rest come from? Borrowing? Okay. Option 2: So, let’s take $200k from that $1M (this is for the previously mentioned basic needs) disaster hits, and now repair cost is $2M.. but now, we’re borrowing even more because of the money we spent beforehand, that wasn’t even the government’s responsibility in the first place. So now, we are all responsible for covering the debt of that $200k because the citizens of the affected area didn’t assume the responsibility to take care of themselves. They choose to live there. Do they not realize they live in a hurricane zone? I would think those supplies would be top priority.

    • 2 years ago

      @kenneth_989 That was what he spent the entire debate talking about. Did you watch it?

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 yes I did, but I’m still confused as to why he thinks it’s a good idea.

    • 2 years ago

      @kenneth_989 @the_peoples_champ can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point was that in the time immediately following a hurricane, there is a period where the victims are in extreme danger, and they need to access clean drinking water and food and rations. The United States already has money allocated for such events, but before the money gets sent, Congress and the President have to essentially "unlock" it, which is a process that takes several days, during which time people in these hurricane stricken places are literally dying.

      So Pro was saying that when we see the hurricane coming, the government should now approve these supplies in advance, so that when the hurricane hits, we can immediately send the rations and water and other such necessities, rather than leaving people to suffer.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 perhaps I just misunderstood what was being said then. He said “I would rather it be used as a cost sharing way than waiting until after the hurricane hits then the government is footing the entire bill.” “Then the government is footing the entire bill” specifically led me to believe he was stating that using some of the allocated funds beforehand would somehow save money in the end.

  • 2 years ago

    Nice debate Gentlemen! @the_peoples_champ did his best debate I've watched yet. His opening case was really clear and well structured, and he employs his usual charm with a bit more structure and discipline. I think he's got just the right mix here.

    @jrdncttr also makes a good showing and has some good strong points right off the bat. I think he falters more as the debate wears on. Clearly, the direction of Pro's case caught him a little off guard.

    Pro's arguments
    I think his case direction, that subsidizing basic supplies that can save lives and limit damage in a disaster will protect people and lower costs afterward is a very good approach. It's easy to understand and as it seems like good common sense, doesn't require a lot of evidence to back it up.

    The only part of the opening that didn't get much traction was the outline of the burden you gave for your opponent. I didn't necessarily buy that that was the only way Con could win. I'd rather let him define the ground he wants us to judge by, then you can compare that if you think it is a problem Not that this is a bad tactic, but it didn't impact this debate.

    Good use of the current events in Puerto Rico to illustrate your points, and continuing your case in second pro worked great here because part of your case countered one of the con's primary arguments without really needing a rebuttal. That makes for a super efficient use of your time.

    A little later you could have done to highlight a "turn" on your opponent's argument. A turn is when your opponent's argument can actually support your case. Con argues that the feds are spending too much money. Your case asserts that this spending actually saves money when a disaster hits. Thus your plan can actually net save the government money and thus alleviate the Fed's spending problem but some small measure at least. This is intrinsic in your case, but it's always good to highlight these things when they come up as it really drives home a winning point.

    BTW: the hat switch thing was great. Doesn't affect the outcome of the debate of course, but it made me pay close attention to what you said next, and that is a powerful rhetorical move, especially late in the debate when attention is flagging.

    Con's arguments
    You have a lot of good individual arguments running in this debate. Some you do a great job of forwarding, others you lose a little as the debate goes on. Try to keep an outline of what you think is your strongest 3 points, and remember to touch on them in every speech to keep the audience with you on each. (this is something I need some work on myself!)

    You raised the wealth transfer argument up front but didn't follow up on it much later. Pro never really addressed it either so that is a point of vulnerability. And it is a fair critique. Rhetorically, it would have been good to carry this forward more often.

    You argue this should be done by state and local governments rather than the feds. There is a fatal flaw with this argument. The resolution doesn't specify the feds must be the ones doing this, "The Government" could be states or cities. And Pro never really specifies directly which part fo the Government is doing these subsidies. By saying it would be better if they did, you are treading really close to actually arguing for the resolution as written. Pro didn't rebut this argument really well, but since his case was not specific, he didn't really need to. But I won't count it as you arguing for the resolution. However, Pro could have turned this on you and caused me to look at it that way. The lesson is, don't make assumptions about the meaning of the resolution.

    Another point you start with but don't carry forward is that subsidies encourage people to stay in dangerous areas. It's a good point, one Pro doesn't address much, but neither do you. Always look for arguments of yours that the opponent ignores or struggles with and advance them.

    You do spend a lot of energy on government costs. And you make a good point, but Pro's case is claiming (on well-reasoned grounds) that he actually saves money in the long run. His cheap subsidies have bigger payoffs when disasters hit. That turns your argument on its head and you never question that claim by Pro. This was the part of the debate most fatal to your position.

    BTW: Good choice to pass the mic when you find yourself struggling to order your thoughts. You could have done it a bit sooner but you did do it and that's the right play.

    The last line of argument is that people could just do these things for themselves. And presumably many do. But to win this point, you need to give us an impression that subsidies won't show a marked improvement in whether they actually do. It's logical that subsidies will encourage more people to do the smart thing and prepare. you need to go from they could do this, to it would be better if they did it on their own, or that Pro's program won't actually motivate them.

    • 2 years ago

      Judgement- Pro

      I felt that the basic argument that subsidizing critical but basic supplies could save some lives and save the government money. Pro helps establish that saving money would be a really good thing the government needs.

      Con does land some hits with the unfairness of money transfer to people living riskier lives and the notion that this could encourage such risky lifestyles, but he doesn't really drive these points home compared to saving lives and saving money.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried great analysis. I really appreciate the input, but i have to take issue with one thing.

      "Pro never really specifies directly which part fo the Government is doing these subsidies."

      Pro did specifically say the federal government and that's why I responded the way I did.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I don't recall Pro driving home any savings points. In fact, I don't recall any rebuttals to my spending arguments. Only that the money is "already spent" (which is the case for 99% of government spending) and we should spend it before rather than after, which doesn't imply savings. Especially since the things he mentioned were food and water, which aren't even hurricane safety products. They are just necessities. And they wouldn't necessarily save lives either. People drown and get killed by debris, they don't die of hunger and thirst. Of course, I should have made these points during the debate and I failed to do so, but I still think you are giving Pro a little more credit than he deserves.

  • 2 years ago

    @yaz, c'mon I have to get credit for merchandising. For the first few minutes of the debate the QallOut logo is front and center.

  • 2 years ago

    @jrdncttr joining October tourney? (If you already have, ignore this message ...)

    • 2 years ago

      @qallout No. Didn't have much interest in the topics for that tournament.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr What kind of topics do you like??

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ hmm...that's a surprisingly tough question to answer...I'm most passionate about issues of war and criminal justice. But I've definitely been drawn to debates regarding civil liberties, religion, history, and economics.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ I didn't have much interest in our topic. I wanted the next one to be something I was actually passionate about.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr I perfectly understand that. I agree sometimes it is hard to choose from the debate topic list for the tournaments. How about this, write down three debate topics you think should be included in the next tournament. @yaz and @gigi are not so unapproachable that they would not consider topics from new debaters.

      That's one of the Pro's about @qallout they really do listen.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ thank you :-)
      @jrdncttr Let us know your suggestions!

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi "we should not have used nukes on Japan in WWII"
      "Obamacare is bad for America"
      "Abe Lincoln does not deserve to be in the list of best presidents"
      "a federal 15/min wage is a bad idea"
      "Milo, Bannon, Shapiro etc. are not Alt Right"
      "prosecutors and law enforcement are not regulated enough"
      "The drone war is immoral and counterproductive"
      "The federal government is too big"
      "forcing Christian cake baker to bake and design cakes for gay wedding offers no benefits to society as a whole"
      "regardless of one's religion, the bible is not useful in making a moral judgment on homosexuality or the definition of marriage today"
      "Wheat is not good for you"

      Just a few off the top of my head. Not necessarily worded like that. Wording is everything. I wouldn't mind just having a concept as the debate topic and you are either for or against it so nobody can try to use the wording of the topic to give themselves and unfair advantage.

      for example: "Obamacare" or "the drone war" or "federal 15/hr min wage" and you are either for or against those things.

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi I would love to debate the "Russian interference" thing, but the problem is that I don't have a specific claim to defend. I just like giving counter-arguments when it's brought up. Debating the Steven Avery case would be interesting as well.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrdncttr These are awesome, thanks a lot!!!!!