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

      @marisa_noelle, I am going to respond to your criticisms in the order you bring them up.

      1. I understand some debaters write notes, some do not require this, especially those well antiquated with devil's advocate arguments. Most of my debate structure was preconceived on the majority of talking points I had expected from this debate.

      2. If I am asked to debate properly I am required citations. If those citations are not mentioned the term for that is plagiarism. I would also ask that those I debate have citations available.

      3. Asking me not to debate the topic of subsidizes by showing how they failed, when I was specifically told that corruption is a problem of just private organizations, again do not understand your point.

      4. Telling both of us we need to work on speaking skills as we may confuse the people listening, but asking that I myself not explain how the information I gathered is relevant again makes for more contradiction.

      5. An argument that is not substantiated does not need to be refuted. (Please look up Hitchens' razor). Asking me to debate a point that was 100% hearsay would make Christopher Hitchens roll in his grave.

      6. At 5:45, and skipping around a few times I found another instance at 13:42 that I explain why private companies are incentive.

      7. I would suggest you look up the legal definition of a person to understand why I am in my own right to represent the government as such. The precedent was also set in the debate when the debater for the pro argument was implying that 44th president himself helped. When in your own words "there are many agencies involved".

      8. That is at best a straw-man, pointing to a man that living in a high risk area may lead to consequences is not "Blaming the victim". Would you as a person honestly walk up to someone that built their house on quicksand knowing that at some point that their house would be gone that it was out of their control? Life has choices and consequences, but others should not be forced to pay for those choices.

      9. The golf cart argument as stated above was an answer to the corruption jab made by the pro debater. To make an argument that a private company is unable to be trusted because humans run it, so put trust in a government that is run by humans, makes no sense. If I show that subsidization can be misused such as with the green energy program and that due to the nature of subsidization requires open capital, I prove that the point is moot.

      10. Lastly looking at the title of this debate which you are basing mostly your choice on specifically states "flood protection programs" nothing about preemptive programs. Flood insurance is used for "protection" from loss. Showing failure in systems already in effect is a great way to show that going further will not help the taxpayer.

      In conclusion, watching your response I have to ask myself if you actually watched or not, as in any proper debate citation is needed. At no point were there any citations to why subsidies would be a benefit to taxpayers (Again find Hitchens' razor). If I am to debate on this platform it would be wiser for those not coming into judge be openly bias towards a talking point, especially when the platform is based on the best debater. Your response was utterly useless to bettering myself and I would have accepted any of your criticisms if they were not all rife with contradictions, also in your own words "too vague".

    • 2 years ago

      @dominicus Hi there and congrats on completing your first QallOut debate. Thanks a lot for your thorough feedback and thoughts on the judgement. It is true that lots of the times debaters feel that they sufficiently proved their case; unfortunately, the audience not always gets it!
      QallOut is the freestyle of debates and even though basic debating principles are being applied, the debaters are responsible to convince the audience using logical reasoning, strong persuasion skills and clearly explain their thinking process. Here is the link to the Tournament Handbook (https://ispri.ng/5DDY6) for further info and I also highlighted below some key aspects of our Tournaments:
      - This is the street fighting of debating and debaters can choose their own mix of pathos, ethos, logos with the main objective to convince the audience
      - The burden of proof is not assigned to the PRO only; both sides need to bring relevant and effective arguments supporting their stance, clearly show how these are linked to the specific resolution and effectively refute their opponent's arguments
      - Sources and research methodology are important elements but will not win the debate. Logical reasoning, persuasion and a clear explanation of how arguments and rebuttals are linked to the resolution will
      - The audience will not necessarily understand what the debaters might mean and how their arguments are relevant; saying that "your argument is unsubstantiated" is not enough, you need to explain why!
      - Our judges are college students with multiple years of experience in debating and debate competitions. They are incentivized and rewarded based on their objectivity and they are getting assessed and evaluated after every tournament

      I hope this helps to better understand the QallOut Tournaments and encourage you to watch a few more as well as participate in the next one. It is true that lots of professional debaters struggle at the begining with the freestyle format of QallOut but soon get addicted to it :slightly_smiling_face:. Given the numerous different debating formats out there, we deliberately avoid extremely strict rules and focus on "Who made a better case?" which is closer to the real world interactions.

      Please reach out if you would like to further discuss, we appreciate the feedback from all our users especially as we are growing the community and the tournaments.

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi this is such a terribly canned response, I'm just gonna respond to the bits that caught my eye since it greatly misrepresents my point (a straw-man).

      The burden of proof is placed on the person making the claim. If the person that made the claim provides no evidence, the point is moot. That's basic debate 101, the debate format doesn't matter in this case at all. I could make a great argument for anything if I didn't have to prove any of it. Logical reasoning would require that the statements made be factual. If this is how Qallout is sold, it really should not be called debate.

      Congrats you also made an appeal to authority in your canned response. If the person telling me that the best point made by my opposing debater is also the one with literally no evidence provided, what is their to argue? That isn't a great sell on top of it all that your judges with "multiple years of experience in debating" don't even understand the importance of Hitchens' Razor. That's is sad at best. I honestly thought this was going to be a nice place to actually debate to remove the echo chamber but that is obviously a broken cause, since facts need not apply.

    • 2 years ago

      @dominicus I'm sorry you feel this way and if my response didn't help to better understand the competitive type of debating (open to everyone not just professional debaters) that we do on QallOut. We tried to communicate the above to all participants so they are prepared at least for the tournament since our social debates are mostly for people willing to challenge/ test their beliefs and advocate for issues they are passionate about.
      - Burden of Proof: We focus on who made a better case rather than one side to only have the burden of proof. We believe this is fair for participants with or without debating experience (so even people who don't have knowledge of debate 101 or the classic debate theory but they can still construct logical arguments and persuade the audience)
      - Facts and evidence: Extremely important to support debaters claims and argument but not enough to win a debate, logical reasoning does. It's up to the debaters to challenge unsupported claims made by their opponent. Here is a debate between two of our users debate this exactly topic: https://www.qallout.com/debate/2662-qallout-debaters-should-not-be-judged-as-winners-if-their-facts-are-wrong

      Our community is very open and we do encourage our users to give us feedback and help us grow to the right direction. If you would like to further discuss I invite you to a public debate to talk about all the above, give you further background on our mission and hopefully get some constructive feedback. Let me know or just a create a debate with a topic of your choice and we set up a time to discuss.

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Okay obviously somewhere in your reading, what you had saw caused a switch to turn on and you forgot what you had read.

      At no point did I claim that one side is required to show proof as if it is only their burden. You keep acting as if I did, that again is called a "Straw-man" you arguing against something/someone that doesn't exist. I don't even know why you are tagging me because I have never even said the things you keep claiming. I said "The burden of proof is placed on the person making the claim", that means if anyone claims anything it needs to be verifiable. If I claimed that Qallout was biased towards a group of people and said YOU had to claim otherwise you'd look at me as if I was daft. That is why every time you reply to this thread I feel you are daft, this is not a hard concept to understand. At this point you are either highly stupid or ignoring what I say because it fits your position better.

      I don't want another response from yourself or anyone else with this Straw-man garbage. If I honestly have to come into this thread and lecture those responsible for the platform, basic debate there is an issue. I would have no problem with you changing this website into a "discussion hub", but to call this a place for debate is disingenuous at best.

      The worst part about this entire thread is how completely misguided it is, the link has nothing to do with my concern. Took me reading the link to figure that out. I am going to quote myself again just so we understand each other, because for whatever reason you conflate me asking for both sides to support their claims as me saying "The burden of proof is not assigned to the PRO only" (again never claimed this ever) or "debaters-should-not-be-judged-as-winners-if-their-facts-are-wrong" (again not my claim).

      "An argument that is not substantiated does not need to be refuted. (Please look up Hitchens' razor). Asking me to debate a point that was 100% hearsay would make Christopher Hitchens roll in his grave."

      If you wish to tell me that Hitchens had no idea how to properly debate I have no reason to go any further with you. If you want to tell me that this is a place for debate, but supporting evidence for claims is unnecessary. Then I would tell you that one can not have their cake and eat it too.

      Telling me "I'm sorry you feel this way..." is probably the most condescending and fake thing I had to read other than your great attempts to misrepresent my argument. At this point I imagine to make it look like your platform actually holds real debate, what a knee slapper. Glorified discussion board if this is honestly the stance this website holds.

      Last thing I will say on this matter (code for don't bother replying, I don't care), why would I waste my time on a platform where my words are forever lasting, even with that evident the people themselves that work for this platform will straw-man me. I'd honestly have better luck reasoning with a Youtube comments section. At least there I don't expect intelligence, that I can live with.


      EDIT: "QallOut is an impartial debating platform that aims to demolish echo chambers and put an end to the ever-growing bullshit epidemic."

      Thought this was hilarious, (just saw it on the e-mail notification) considering it's pretty hard to "end...bullshit", when either side can spew it with no need for supporting evidence. "Impartial debating platform" is kinda hard to claim when the first opening remarks to come out of the judge is "Through my liberal eyes".

    • 2 years ago

      @marisa_noelle Thank you for your great feedback! I will take it with me into my next debate. :)

    • 2 years ago

      @dominicus our October Tournament is open for registration if you'd like to give it another go.

  • 2 years ago

    Looks like a guy from the matrix

  • 2 years ago

    Don't know what happened but you were muted for me had no issue hearing anything else on the computer. Besides a few misunderstandings I feel this was a really good debate and that you used your time pretty well. Thank you

    • 2 years ago

      Just watched the last bit seems nothing was registered audio wise at all

    • 2 years ago

      @dominicus I don't know what happened at the end either, but I basically summed up my points and said my side of the debate. I believe that is was productive and allowed for great conversation, and you used your time great. Thank you for a great first debate on Qallout!