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

      @domperaino @the_peoples_champ Sorry for the anticipation, this is close...! So at the 24 hours mark the votes were 23-23, so we have a tie and we will bring at least one more judge soon!

      • 2 years ago

        @gigi, @yaz

        One question.... how is it a tie?

        Community vote equals 1 point, Judge equals 1 point.

        At best my opponent has 0.5 points which is half the community vote should since it was a tie.

        I have 0.5 of the community vote and a judges vote which would equal 1.5.

        So my opponent has 0.5 and I have 1.5 how is that a tie?

        Actually if you brought in one more judge and that judge voted for my opponent THEN you would make it a tie. Because then both would have 1 RJ + 1/2 Community Vote.

        But as it stands in know way is it a tie right now.

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ Hey, so it's a tie on community votes, not the overall judgement. Not sure if it's clear enough but the winner in each debate needs to get 2 votes to advance in the next round. Hence, in this case, you got 1 so far and if the second judge votes for you then you advance, if not then a 3rd judge will come in to make the final decision. DM if you have more questions!
        @kahnwiley Thanks a lot for the perfect clarification! :-)

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      The judges have spoken!
      @the_peoples_champ Congrats for advancing to the next round!
      @domperaino Hard luck on this one! See you in November's tournament?
      https://www.qallout.com/tournament

      • 2 years ago

        Once again I would like to thank my opponent @domperaino for a lovely debate.

      • 2 years ago

        Ugh! @domoeraino there is NO “Popular vote.” If there was the entire election would have been conducted entirely different.
        Also, an understanding of statistics shows that found correlation is not actually correlation. You bring up one bad study that means nothing.
        So I think corporations should be held to the same limits of individuals, which should be none, but is $2500. But that’s not the debate.
        You are also wrong on your limits of speech claims. Speech itself is unlimited wrt govt reaction but it’s outcomes that one can be held accountable for if it’s a “call to action.” You are very much able to yell fire in a crowded theatre, especially if there IS A fire but also if not if everybody laughs at you and watches the movie. It only comes into play if your false claim results in death.
        “Pragmatically they’re bad” is purely subjective so it means nothing. .

      • 2 years ago

        Pro mentions a few cases to show corporations aren't 'people.' HOWEVER - if PRO wants to be thorough AND honest, PRO should mention the case "Buckley V. Valeo" - (USSC - 1976) that basically indicated that donations are equivalent to speech.....and "Citizens United v. FEC" (2010). The government (FEC) wanted to limit free speech of a non-profit group that wanted to put out a video on Hillary...based on McCain-Feingold Law. Those arguing in favor of McCain-Feingold even had the temerity to suggest that the government could limit/restrict putting out a book or voter guides....expanding restrictions on the 1st Amendment. (What part of 'Congress shall make NO LAW ..., or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... does PRO not understand. )

        PRO never mentions the most blatant case of political donations that should be regulated, but isn't....UNIONS. Union membership is never 95% 'left/Democrat' - yet union donations tend to be 95% left/Democrat. If we are to restrain corporations, then it should include UNIONS also not being able to make political donations. Why not include this? (Unless one wants to hamper money that tends to go more balanced to both sides...while protecting leftist donations.)

        Restraining corporate donations might be good if, as CON suggests, MEDIA CORPORATIONS could be evaluated for 'fairness'....and in the 2016 election, the media was HARDLY fair to Republicans, while the same media tended to ignore the many foibles (and even crimes) of Hillary? Would it not be better to just leave things as is...but any donations MUST be reported quickly, ON LINE.

        PRO suggests that donations = victories....like the heavy corporate donations (especially financial houses, banks, etc.) - is why we now have President Hillary....because she raked in FAR more corporate donations that Trump. [CON properly refutes!]

        PRO erroneously assumes that CON not addressing the many arguments he put forth is equal to conceding. As far as I could tell...CON didn't have time to address all the many points thrown at the wall hoping things would 'stick'. It might take 5 seconds to make a point that is false, but it might take 3 or more minutes to refute...and one side can spew lots of false or irrelevant points that, failure to refute each and every point does NOT mean the points are conceded!

        PRO's argument is that bad things might happen because of campaign donations. I could make the same argument about how the PRESS doesn't report fairly or honestly about Congressional spending and our nation is now $20 Trillion in debt because we don't get an INFORMED electorate because the media did not do their job....so we ignore the 1st Amendment and we mandate proper coverage (as I or other 'approved' representatives) would mandate. I love these restrictions if I can control things!

        PRO loves the word 'pragmatic' (and variations..) BUT - I would substitute 'Constitutional' for 'pragmatic'...

        AND - a final remark....in a way - money DOES buy votes. For the past 50 years, rampant government spending and promises of more big handouts has bought votes for the Democrat party -and as a result, we are $20 Trillion in debt. Politicians buy votes by promising big government programs.....and these 'promises' distort the voting far more than corporate donations. Maybe if the people who win elections (and those who vote for them) had to pay for the many non-Constitutional programs out of their own pocket...maybe we could get money out of the election process.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard To be fair, Pro doesn't mention unions because the topic doesn't address unions. The topic is Corporations so that is absolutely what he needs to focus on to win the debate. Remember, the debaters don't make these topics and they have to stick to them to win.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried I understand that there is a perceived difference between the two - but realistically - there is none. Leftists like to shut down one side, but it is hypocritical of leftists to give unions a pass....especially since they are donating money that is forcefully coerced out of union members.... AND - if I was debating on the CON side, I would bring it up.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried a union is a corporation.
          -"a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law."

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian Unions are not corporations under US law. They have their own special designations and legal definition.
          https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/labor-unions/

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried Yes, they have their own special and enormously beneficial politically based designation but they are in every way, aside from the government's legal designation, a corporation and as such are definitely a necessary part of this debate.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian BUT - the leftists who seriously try to prevent corporations from donating (and I am not pointing fingers at debaters on QallOut..) - do try to obscure the fact that unions are nothing more than 'non-individuals' (what they claim corporations are....not individuals) - like corporations. EXCEPT - corporations give of corporate money that is owned by the PEOPLE (persons...live, breathing people) and therefore is 'people speech'....while unions force high dues, extracted involuntary if the state is not a 'right to work' state - and they donate the money to leftist politicians and causes. If corporations are to be restrained, the unions must be equally restrained!

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian Members don't own stock, they don't make profits, they don't collect dividends, they don't have boards of directors, they are not considered legal persons, Unions are required by law to run democratically (corporations are not), they are not publicly traded, they cannot be bought and sold. So, tons of reasons they are not like corporations at all.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I agree that if corporations are restrained from contributions, labor unions should be as well. I tend to feel than nether should be.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried not all corporations have publicly traded stock not do they collect dividends (most don’t). Many are privately owned. Unions do change hands and often merge with other unions. Members have no say in much of what the union does, their political actions are paid through forcibly taken money and members have no say in where it goes, so they’re not actually democratically Run at all and membership is often required- not democratic at all. If you’re not a member you’re not able to work I. The entire industry in some cases.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I totally agree. You have the option of not working for an employer within an industry but if you want to work in the industry you probably have no choice but to be forced to be in a union or at least pay the union dues. In education the union takes dues whether you’re a member or not and spends them at the behest of the union execs and against the will of much of the union members. Union members are ~30-40% conservative yet the union spends 99.9% of Political
          Money on anti-Conservative causes.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian none of that refutes the fact that they are no corporations.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried By basic definition, legal definition or practical definition? Clearly by the definition of corporation as provided above and by practice they are but by government's legal definition they are not. So for the purpose of debating what ought to be it is good and correct to say unions are corporation

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian By a legal definition. By a functional definition, and by a practical definition. They are not the same thing. Not really even close to the same thing.

          Teh topic is not "entities that you want to ban from making political contributions" it is specific to corporations.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried However....a great way to provide a rebuttal to the PRO is that focusing ONLY on corporations is a way for a biased shutdown of 'categories' where contributions might not favor leftists, and avoid dealing with the very same thing (money flowing from 'rent seekers' to political organizations, buying votes).

          In fact - if you look at states that are having budgetary problems (NY, CA, IL,...and now more recently, CT) - you will find that the strong government unions (and their big dollar donations) - have bought wonderful benefits like working conditions where it is hard to fire incompetent people, and glorious retirement benefits that far exceed anything available in the private sector AND are basically unaffordable to the taxpayer (but- the taxpayer is told to bend over, because 'here it comes again!').
          Seems to be hypocritical to be in favor of ending some type of 'entity' to 'buy politicians' - while ignoring the huge elephant in the room -the big entity that has successfully bought politicians and brought many state economies to the brink of disaster.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I agree that it would be a good Con position. You could argue that it would heavily slant political donations left, or that it would strengthen union grips on politicians leading to the types of problems you mention.

          Generally, I think unions are very important for balancing the negotiating power of employers and employees, but... I think that they are very problematic in the public sector where A. the government generally pays well on principle, and B. there is a kind of hostage-taking with the people who set labor laws. And I'm not a big fan of pensions for any organization. Though if you make such a bargain... well it is yours to follow through with. Companies sometimes do well in the short term on pensions but usually in the long run, it's a bad idea because companies don't always grow.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried Off the top (my memory) - outside of government - unions represent about 6% of workers. They had their purpose, and if they want to survive, they need to lower costs and do a bit more 'balanced negotiations' (similar to what I have been told exists in some EU countries). You can't 'bludgeon' a company to the point that it can no longer survive through big demands, strikes, etc. At some point, the company shuts down and closes up shop, maybe it off-shores, maybe it just goes out of business.

          OTOH - your statement about 'bargin'...I strongly disagree. You and I are 'taxpayers'...and when politicians and government unions 'negotiate' - the politicians are not negotiating in good faith representing YOU and me and taxpayers...they are 'selling out' for votes and union money. Ultimately - we the taxpayer are left with a huge bill that, realistically - is tough to pay. Look at some major cities where almost 1/4 to 1/3 of the budget goes to pay pensions.....and critical needs (fire, police, schools, water system, road maintenace) are gutted to bare bones...and taxes go up....and then those who CAN afford to leave this high-taxed area (with minimal police and fire protection) - DO SO...and the people left behind are stuck with even HIGHER taxes. I think that all retirement salaries should be evaluated on 'fiscal soundness' and whether or not the benefits were negotiated in good faith on behalf of taxpayers...and if not, then the retirement benefits that exceed "reasonable" benefits should be taxed at 90% - with the money to go into the retirement fund. This way - one can say...we didn't 'cut their benefits'...we just added and extra tax!

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I already told you I think public service unions are problematic, not sure why you felt the need to argue further on that topic.

          Bargaining is, however, the whole purpose of unions. And in the private sector, individuals have significantly less bargaining power than their employers in most professions.

          It is true that it is not in the interest of a union to make its employer uncompetitive. But there are companies that have very good relations with their unions and work quite well together. That is the ideal situation, when the company has its workers interests well in place, and the workers have the companies interest well in place. If that happened all the time, there wouldn't be much need for unions. But it's often not true, so there is such a need.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried I believe he gave series of businesses that are not corporations. But more so this is not a "legally defined corporations" nor did anybody say such, but also that the Pro continually said "pragmatically ...." So since we can see that unions act in nearly every way as a corporation unions should come into play within this debate.
          More so, if one is afraid of the donations of corporations, which was his view, clearly they ought to much more greatly fear the influence the corporate unions yield through vastly greater political donations.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian That is some pretty tenuous reaching and justification you are doing there.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian AND - it would be far easier to show that the accumulation of $20 Trillion of national debt (and lots of state on county/city debt) that has come into existence due to satisfying the desires/demands of very active UNIONS that have donated big money to politicians, to buy support for big handouts.

          Recall that it was JFK that made government unions legal (by a 1962 EO; maybe that should be rescinded?), something that even FDR had declared was something that could never be 'countenanced'. AND - with federal government unions...not too long - we had the first big crack - the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act that made it impossible for a President to withhold spending if he thought it was wasteful, plus lots of other things that contributed to the mess we are now in.

          I would be hard pressed to find anything approaching this from 'corporations.' However, I am sure some leftist would come at this challenge by suggesting that a corporation asking to keep more of its money and to ask to not have crushing regulations that would put the corporation out of business is somehow bad, evil, and should not be permitted to happen.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried well again if Pro is saying they should be banned because why’re big then that doesn’t fly given that they’re really not big at all, relatively.

      • 2 years ago

        Got to watch when my man @the_peoples_champ is on the mic. Glad I did, it was an entertaining debate with some good arguments on both sides. That said, not the best debate it could have been so I've got critiques.

        @domperaino Nice work, especially your opening case, but also good follow through on most of the rebuttals. You do a nice job addressing the audience and trying to guide us through the debate. On the technical side, you out-debated your opponent with better clarity and focus on the resolution. That said...

        I think you needed to carry your case structure forward more often. I often forgot what your leading 4 points were, and you didn't signpost them consistently making it more confusing. You'd do well to package them up into an overall narrative for us that explains the disadvantages of corporate donations. You get distracted by Con's arguments and focus much of your time on them. Heck, you often explain them more succinctly than Con does for us. Strategically, that is granting Con an advantage in our mindshare and memory.

        I understand that pragmatism is a value you have, but I'm not sure it is a good one for the case you present. Is it pragmatic to have more or fewer voters, pragmatic to have equal or unequal speech? Pragmatism is about effectively and efficiently achieving an outcome, but what is the outcome you want to achieve? It seems like your real values should be democracy / equal political representation. That seemed to be implied but never really stated. It makes your whole case kind of "muddy" to vote on.

        Also, better to have your notes such that you are looking into the camera more or less while reading. No big deal, just a presentation niceity.

        @the_peoples_champ While you have some very good arguments, your style and organization still need a good bit of work to match up to the competitive debate crew. It's good to do a little study of formal debate theory and style to pick up some techniques.

        I'd say, work on moving from citations to analysis and vise Versa. You want to either introduce a citation, telling us what it's going to demonstrate, then read it. Or read it and then tell us what it means. I like the former. If it is complicated, tell us the importance of it, read it, then offer your take on what it demonstrates.

        You also need to do more "connecting the dots" on some of your arguments. I think I got the picture on most of them, but sometimes Pro actually clarified your arguments for you, made them into better sound bites. So, for the Soros argument. You show that Soros is bitter than any corporation. Then tell us why that matters for the debate. AKA "If disparity matters, individual donors are more significant than corporations. Getting rid of corporations only makes individuals like Soros more powerful and distorting." That makes it more than just a counterpoint, its a turn to say that Pro's plan makes what Pro complains about worse, not better on his own criteria. Same evidence, but a more powerful impact by connecting the dots.

        You need to be more consistent about making sure you hit the points you want to hit. Your SCOTUS line of argument got dropped for a while. You bring it back at the end. But you should try to hit any main point you think is still strong at least every other speech to keep it alive, especially if your opponent rebuttals. Not easy to do of course but something to work on. Also on that SCOTUS line, it's not quite enough to just tell us what the Pro proposes is unconstitutional. It's a good start, but you should tell us why we should care. AKA "The constitution is the heart of our body of law and tradition. Anything countermanding it needs a very strong mandate to consider." They say the opponent's case doesn't meet that test.

        I thought your best speeches were at the beginning and at the end. You had kind of a mushy middle with a lot of dropped lines of argument and you often introduced arguments without putting them into good context on the resolution for us. At the end, you did some better summary. (except for Baylor bla bla bla.... dismissiveness isn't very persuasive most of the time except to those who already agree with you).

        • 2 years ago

          How to decide...

          Presentation wise, Pro does a better job here. More organized, more focused, though Con ends up dominating the agenda of the last half of the debate anyway.

          Pro makes a case that corporate donations are inherently unfair, distort outcomes, and lower turnout. Though his emphasis on pragmatism as a voting paradigm makes this confusing impact wise. Con weakens outcomes with his Hillary argument and 2016 turnout. Pro manages to hold something on this argument by appealing to the overall trends rather than individual cases. But exceptions still damage the argument at least a little.

          Con gives us an argument that we have a constitutional mandate for corporation speech, and gives us a rational case asking why should more than two persons in concert be banned when one person is not? He also shows us that individuals can have the same effects corporations have, and may well be bigger players in the problems pro cites.

          So I've got competing values. Pro argues that corporations are essentially undemocratic by having an unequal voice and that their participation distorts and darkens elections. Con tells us that in principle of law, corporations deserve a voice as much as anyone else, and says that it is actually individuals that are more of a force for undemocratic impacts than corporations.

          I don't buy con's minimizations of the impact of money in elections. Or give much weight to con's case for disclosure since pro countered it.

          Pros final speech was actually a little undermining for his case, hate speech is ok, but speech with negative consequences (like corporate donations) is bad. I'm pretty sure hate speech has negative consequences. And con showed that individual contributions have negative consequences too if disproportionality is key. And both agreed that all parties are seeking personal interests so the rent-seeking is a bit less unique.

          So, I'm voting Con, because we have individual speech as bad, vs Corporate speech is bad. It leaves me doubting that we really address democratic values, inequality of voice, though banning corporations. I'd still go Pro, but Con also has a constitutionality argument, which I don't see as Tautological. We can change the constitution, but we should have a strong reason to do so. Since I don't see a strong reason, more a grey one, I will stick with the status quo legal wisdom.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried, @debateme13 So just to let you know and I'm not making excuses. If the Pro wins then the Pro wins.

            The middle was a little mushy and my ending because I only had my opening comments at the beginning of the debate complete. I finished my mid term about 30 minutes before this debate. This debate was just about all off the top of my head.

            Also, the Pro had a bit of an advantage. He had the same topic for his round two victory last week. So he had the same debate two weeks in a row.

            Yes, I was given the choice to switch but I already had my opening comments done and didn't have time to switch topics mid-week. In plus I wanted the challenge of facing someone who had already debated the topic and won.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried Your decision is your own and I understand why you would make it, I'm also not trying to influence your vote in anyway since you already made it. I also think you are a really good debater so I'm just wondering something and hoping it could get cleared up.

            From my (biased) point of view, it seems like a lot more benefit of the doubt goes to con here. I think that we both agree my impacts of voter turnout and policy impacts make it through the round, even if they have been kind of sloppily sign posted. That being said, I kinda feel like con is getting the benefit of the doubt here when you say "I'm pretty sure that hate speech has negative consequences" yet I don't really feel like I am extended the same when talking about my impacts that (to me at least) seem pretty universally positive.

          • 2 years ago

            @domperaino Honestly, I'm biased too. I try not to be, but I believe no one can totally escape their biases in something like debate judging.

            So the bit about hate speech was mostly to point out you muddy the waters some on your own case. You say that the impacts are universally positive, but your focus on the word Pragmatic called that into question. I tend to agree that voter turnout is good, and proportional speech is good, but you didn't sell those values as much as pragmatism (which while aimed at the court challenge, was supposed to be supporting your other points) I found it muddled.

            I felt you needed a stronger answer to the individuals contribute unevenly argument that Con puts forward. You rebutted it by saying that you don't solve all the problems, but at least it is an improvement. That's true, but it minimizes your impact. It would be better if you could respond that the total value of corporate money was more (not sure if it is) or that corporate money is somehow worse than a big single donor (also not sure if it is). Or perhaps outline how corporate donations are wholly different in nature than individuals, the one being simply moneyed interest and the other a mix of financial and political. So I'm left wondering, will this really fix inequality or drive out negative campaign adds? Will individual rich fat cats just take up the slack? I'm not sure. Again muddy waters here. I'm left not being confident in your claims of solvency for the stated problems.

            Mind you, I'm likely reading in some of my debater focus into Con's case. He isn't great about targeting his attacks in the way I outline here, but again, my mind kind of picks up a little of that slack and takes his arguments and applies them to some degree more than he explicitly does. But they aren't big bridges. He made the arguments, I'm only comparing them.

            So you had a small upper hand in that area, but on the issue of constitutionality, I thought your reply was too weak to have a lot of meaning for me. I don't think it amounts to a tautology to argue that we should respect legal decisions to some degree. I am a big fan of many of the amendments to the constitution, so it's not a given they can't be opposed, but they do have weight as a value to weigh in a round. And they are what tipped it over to Con for me.

            If I were voting in real time, I'd probably have you for the first 2/3 of the debate, and then switched to con in the last 1/3. I didn't really make up my mind until I sat down and tried to do "the math" on the round, comparing the lines of arguments to see what countered what and so on.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried Thanks!

        • 2 years ago

          This debate gets pretty messy in the middle; like @sigfried, I mostly blame the con. @domperaino does a pretty decent job of reiterating earlier arguments and presenting comparative values of pragmatism vs. status quo constitutionality. @the_peoples_champ does significant work on the internals of his arguments/his opponents, but I find the "first amendment" argument ultimately unconvincing because it is dependent upon the definition of corporations as people (which I view to be part of the circular justification implicit to the legal argument here). We can strip corporations of their legal personhood and first amendment rights under the resolution, and I just don't see how that would affect ACTUAL persons' rights (and the justification under Citizens United is largely this sort of nonsense).
          Also, the whole Hilary vs. Trump thing just seems like a red herring here; pro is entirely correct in saying this is an anomaly (Ferguson's Investment Theory of Politics bears this out), and is probably the result of unique circumstances. But both sides spend an unnecessary amount of time on this topic.

          To both sides: Soros may have given more money than any ONE corporation, but the influence of corporations financially on modern gubernatorial elections is overwhelming, especially in the wake of Citizens United. And corporations still gave more, as a whole, than individual contributors.

          Messy, messy, messy. I guess I'll just buy the pragmatism value and assume that trumps the whole legal justification. Plus voter turnout and the downside of corporations influencing elections here. I really think the whole con argument is correctly identified as a tautology from the beginning by the pro, and the pragmatism thing gives me a great way out of this circular reasoning. The only downside to this is the potential that we have to rewrite the first amendment, but that's not really true, as I've indicated above. I feel like I'm doing a lot of work here and maybe even having to reason outside of the arguments presented outside of the debate, and honestly, it could have been made a lot simpler by some organizational improvements in the middle. The roughly even split of votes (50-48%) at the time of writing this seems to indicate that both sides could've done a better job of comparatively evaluating their case with their opponent's.

        • 2 years ago

          40 Votes and Counting. I am at 50% with 40 counts cast. That means I have had 20 votes. There are entire debates that don't get 20 votes.

          • 2 years ago

            @qallout what is the official end Time??

            • 2 years ago

              Ok, I checked. The debate ended at about 1930 CST. It is now 2042 CST. So the popular vote window has closed. So I guess I can stop bribing my family and friends.

              • 2 years ago

                So at 0041 CST, there are 56 votes on this debate, and I am winning with 50%. That is 28 votes for me. I'm pretty proud of that.

                • 2 years ago

                  @the_peoples_champ @domperaino we'll check the final vote but if it's 50/50, then we'll bring in as many RJs as needed to conclude a win based on best of 3.

                  @gigi should chime in about that soon.

                • 2 years ago

                  @qallout if the community vote is 50/50 that would be a tie. Then who ever the judge votes for should win. If we were solely going off community vote, and it was a tie you’d bring in a judge for the tie breaker. How is this any different?

                  Pro has: 0.5 ( 1/2 community vote)= 0.5 total points

                  Con has: 0.5 (1/2 community vote + 1 (point from RJ) = 1.5 total points

                  Pro has 0.5 < Con has 1.5

                  That is not a tie

                • 2 years ago

                  @the_peoples_champ According to my reading of the rules, the votes would be calculated in binary fashion: The community vote can only equal one or zero for either side. Assuming the community vote is evenly split, that means BOTH sides get a 0 for that one "judge." If the second judge provides a win to either side, that is tabulated as a 1. So con has 1 vote in this scenario; since only one vote is insufficient to meet the tournament criteria of "best of three," resident judges should be called in. You are correct that it is not a "tie" in the true sense of the word, but that is only the case because there is no sufficient binary means to calculate an absolute tie in the community votes.
                  I've run tab in debate tournaments before and having a judge in outrounds give a double loss or double win (which is essentially what has to be done in this scenario) is a nightmare. Luckily, QallOut's format permits much more leeway in dealing with this situation because RJ's can be called in at will and at any time after the debate. Very cool!

                • 2 years ago

                  @kahnwiley thank you. I understand, I just have to give @qallout a hard time. I’m very passionate about my debates and I can’t help but let that show at all times.

                • 2 years ago
              • 2 years ago

                So this is just the first thing that came to mind from watching this and is regarding your actual debating.
                @domperaino is perhaps the most annoying debater I can think of. Ending every sentence with "Right!" or Right?" is not only extremely annoying but rather condescending and it seems intentionally so.