Check out the Tournament Ladder
@essie thanks so much for your feedback. I absolutely agree that my weakest point was the lack of an alternative a. If I could change anything about the debate, I'd add that in.
@drewster236 Sorry I'm a bit late in response, but I'm glad you found my feedback useful! Good luck in the future!
@drewster236 @calvinwhorne We have a tie between community votes and our first judge so we will bring a second judge soon to make the final decision!
@matthewhidalgo Appreciate your comments. Your feedback is super helpful and I definitely understand how I'll be able to improve.
@drewster236 Thanks for the response! I'm sure I'll be seeing you around :)
Great job guys, you managed to divide the judges :-)@calvinwhorne Congrats for advancing to the next round!@drewster236 Hard luck on this great debate. Hope to see you at November's tournament - registration is open:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
@drewster236 The NCRI was at one point classified by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Group. Why would the US use their information (which hasn't been proven by non-biased investigators) especially when it would cause inter Iranian conflict (backing a highly volatile faction of Iranian parliament) and potential nuclear development from what you claim to be a dangerous state?Edit: Looks like NCRI was delisted a few years back as a terrorist group, but still maintains their ties with MEK (the militant parliament faction advocating violent overthrow). My B. Edited the comment to reflect this.
@mar If that point was brought up, I would've argued it. Since it wasn't brought up within the debate, and the point of making a decision on a debate is to make it based on what was discussed within the round, I'd urge you not to use your argument in the round.If that argument WAS made in the round, here's what I would have said: In 2012, Secretary of State Clinton took the NCRI off the terrorist list. They've appeared and testified to Congress as late as 2015 and are respected currently.http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/240701-why-america-must-embrace-the-iranian-resistance
I see your edit now :) Again, I would've been happy to argue why they were a credible source if my opponent had challenged their credibility.
@drewster236 Don't worry, I'm not using that as a voting mech. I'll write out a more detailed RFD in a bit.
In addition, the Joint Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) of the nuclear agreement between P5+1 and Iran is crystal clear in stating that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html
Thanks to @calvinwhorne for a phenomenal debate.
@drewster236 @calvinwhorne this might be the best debate on Qallout! Seriously!
@julian High praise !! :)
@drewster236 thanks for a great debate!
Amazing argumentation from both sides!Pro played a great hand, however Con came with more credible arguments with better sources such as the IEAE UN Atomic Energy Agency as opposed to admitted think tanks. So as much as Pro talked a good game his failure to illustrate real world advantages and problems became apparent. Accusing Con of saying "they are developing" is opposed to "could develop" didn't come off smooth.Overall, well played. I couldn't argue either side better myself!
@julian Thanks man. I should've emphasized more that the IEAE wouldn't be able to detect them because they were hidden from their inspections. That's on me. I also should've emphasized more the difference between developing and developed. My argument was that in 5 days, they'd be at the same level of development then they were pre-deal. But that's on me for not making that more clear. Thanks for your helpful critique. It lets me know the arguments that did and didn't connect.
@drewster236 no problem. I think that the secret sites is strong argument, however Con was able to illustrate the IAEA doesn’t believe so. Cons link to the IAEA Directors statement (wasn’t in the debate) that the deal increases inspection sites was more convincing. The five days thing was convincing, although Cons suggestion that its only more reason to negotiate needed an answer. I’ve never heard anyone argue your side so well. I’m sure you’ll come back in another round soon.I was supposed to debate this tonight but my opponent never responded. Of course, I hope to debate it next week, although I do have an Iran Deal RD challenge of you ever want to do it again. I try as hard as I can to just listen to who is arguing better. I hope my reasoning is clear. I know how much effort goes into these matches and it’s only fair.
@julian Right. I totally understand and respect your logical conclusion even though I disagree with it. Thanks again for explaining your points in detail. It helps me a lot!