Check out the Tournament Ladder

  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

    @scottishmaniac Congrats for advancing to the next round!
    @mhoover Hard luck on this one. Hope to see you in November's tournament - just opened registration:

    • 2 years ago

      "The social contract was theorized by John Locke, Rousseau, and Frederic Bastiat..." ----@scottishmaniac

      This was the definitive moment where the debate turned from being a toss-up, in my mind. Addressing what the social contract is, the conceptualization of it, and its operation is the most essential part of this debate. Whoever controls this aspect, controls the flow and direction of the debate.

      I voted for the AFF @scottishmaniac. The voting issue I voted on was "my opponent never addressed why social contracts exist." Emily succinctly explained why, where, and what the conceptualization for SCs is. @mhoover dropped this argument. I also thought the voter issue that the NEG provided was extremely insufficient. Essentially that argument was: “Rights are not innate, because individual human beings isolated from humanity don’t have rights.” That doesn't work, logically or philosophically. It's not able to be tested, and it isn't expanded upon or explained at all. There needed to be more explanation of how humans don't have rights if there's only one.

      First off, the NEG really doesn't have any evidence to back up his claims. Granted, this is a highly philosophical round, but still. There *are* philosophers who critique things like this. Giorgio Agamben and the theory of biopolitics is the first thing that comes to mind. I would have loved some evidence, just anything really, that I could weigh.

      Secondly, I need an explanation of why meta-cognition is a non-issue, and why Westernization is inherently bad. There are explanations. Explaining that this is WHY she thinks that rights are inherent doesn’t tell me why that’s bad. Without weighing the value of why Westernization is bad, I can't really use that as a voter issue. Literally any type of kritik can be used to criticize Westernization----settler colonialism, queer theory, anti-blackness theory, anti-capitalism theory (Slavoj Zizek being an excellent resource here), Giorgio Agamben and his kritiks of the State and commodification, etc.

      All in all, great debate y'all! Good luck in future tournaments.

      • 2 years ago

        @iantreyparish contracts, social or otherwise, require an agreement between two or more people. It is the contracts that establish rights. I thought I addressed this multiple times, but judging by the voting not well enough.

        Thank you for your assessment.

    • 2 years ago

      Thank you for the debate @scottishmaniac. It was a learning experience for me.

      • 2 years ago

        I wish at least some of those voting would comment. I’ve only done speaking debates on qallout, so less than ten, and I still appreciate constructive criticism. Hard to learn when no one says anything. Lol.

        • 2 years ago

          @mhoover I would have used her logic as to why rights exist to prove the existance of other absurd things

          I would have asked what the animal rights movement is about if the rights are a part of humanity

          I would have gone deeper on how rights conflict and by their own definition are in they are in tension with eachother which would be odd for a pre existing phenomena.

          You're doing fine,, you just pick really hard topics haha

      • 2 years ago

        Great job guys