Check out the Tournament Ladder
@vkate I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm worried that what's getting overlooked is that con's argument, as I pointed out at the end of the debate, requires the pre-existence of something to be transferred from one person to another, and that, while Con properly demonstrated that government violates one person's rights to grant rights/privileges to someone else, he failed entirely to meet the burden of proof that this was an act of creation (as I pointed out in the debate, to transfer something, something must already exist). Con also suggested that the burden of proof was on me, when that isn't quite the case with the wording of the debate subject. "...and are not created by government" is a negative statement, and it's not my job to prove a negative statement, not by any debate or burden of proof standard. If Qallout regularly expects debaters to attempt to prove negative statements, then it's not a place for serious debaters to participate. The statement is that "Rights exist." That is as all we know for certain. There are two possibilities to this: that they are created or that they are not created. If we had a debate here on the existence of a deity, would I be expected to demonstrate that a deity did *not* create the universe? Or would the other side, regardless of how the debate title is phrased, be the one with the burden of proof, because they're the one making the positive claim? The default position regarding rights is simply that "they exist," with no regard to whether they were created or have always existed. In fact, it is Con making the assertion that they were created, and therefore Con's responsibility to demonstrate that. I did not broach this topic in the debate, granted, but that's because it's a meta-debate matter--a debate about who has the burden of proof isn't very interesting. However, it is most certainly Con here who is making the positive claim (that rights are created, and that it's government that creates them), which he failed to demonstrate, as, by his own admission, government merely takes rights from one person to give to another, which isn't creating anything.The burden of proof could not have been on me, since, if rights are not created, they must pre-exist by default. The burden of proof would be on the person making the claim that they are created. It's similar to the 'creation' of the universe, in fact. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that the universe was NOT created, by a deity or something else; the burden of proof would be on the person making the assertion that the univierse (or rights) came into existence, as opposed to always existing.
@vkate Thankyou for your thoughts and feedback :)
@ariadimezzo86 I agree that QallOut motions are often worded very poorly.But if I am unable to fulfil my positive burden that they are created by the state, the default is not that they pre-exist, there could be some other entity. That imports a positive burden on you. Also the Qallout guidelines say that there is a positive burden on both. Also, like, please stop mischaracterising (intentionally or otherwise) what I said in the debate, it's really dishonest and I dont think it's persusasive at all.Good luck in future competitions.
liamm You said it on at least two occasions, and I pointed it out in the debate when you did it. You can watch the video above to see it. It's not a mischaracterization, unfortunately--it's your argument. As I pointed out then, you phrased it as "violating this person's rights" to "bestow them onto someone else," which, as I said, is transferring, not creating. This was said during the debate, and you said it during the debate. The judge above referenced this, as well. You described it as "interplay between rights" initially, and ultimately admitted that it's violating one person's rights to "bestow" "rights" onto someone else. Phrasing it as an "interplay between rights" didn't really matter when you ultimately admitted that it's a violation of one person's to subordinate them to someone else's "rights."Using the example of the doctor and hormones, you agreed that the government can only give me the "right" to be prescribed hormones by violating the doctor's rights. That you reword this into an "interplay between rights" is irrelevant since you admitted that it's violating one person's rights by subordinating them to someone else's will. The "interplay" you talk about, you ultimately admitted was "violating one person's to grant 'rights' / privileges to someone else."
@ariadimezzo86 I didn't concede your arguments, as I say explicity, its not the violation of rights but the REDRAWING OF THE BOUNDARIES of the rights, when the government decides to infringe upon them, and that action is core to the creation of rights.I don't see this relitigation of the debate being fruitful so this will be my last comment on the subject.Regardless of the decision of the second judge, I hope I get to debate you in future though, all the best :)
@liamm I'm not trying to rehash the debate. I genuinely don't get how you don't see this. Let's remove the pronouns from what you said. "It's not the violation of rights... when the government decides to *infringe upon rights*, and that action is core to the creation of rights." [Emphasis added]You don't see how that's saying exactly the same thing I said--that government violates / infringes one right to transfer to someone else? You said "It's not the violation of rights. It's violating rights to create rights..."
@ariadimezzo86 I've been reading this back and forth and I just don't understand your objection.It seems that you are taking a the quote about government "impinging on rights" and assuming that con meant that they were impinging on rights that were external.I would put to you that governments are capable of impinging on rights that they created, which I believe was con's claim. Specifically I think con was claiming that rights are often limited by government when they contradict each other. This suggests that there is no natural hierarchy or pre-existence of rights, rather, that government is necessary when adjudicating this interplay. This requirement for government adjudication gives an inductive reason to suggest that rights are created by government.I would also like to address your statement on burdens, I think this quote sums it up nicely:"The burden of proof could not have been on me, since, if rights are not created, they must pre-exist by default."I would put to you that this statement also functions in reverse, see:"The burden of proof could not have been on me, since, if rights do not pre-exist, they must have been created by default."Therefore this argument actually doesn't make any sense since the same logic proves both its conclusion and its negation simultaneously.Your comment about serious debaters is odd, this site hosts debaters who have competed internationally (such as myself) and consider rising to the challenge when asked to prove a negative statement. TBH I don't really understand how the debate could function if you didn't have a burden to prove anything, otherwise catch all arguments such as "what if we are all brains in vats" or "what if everything is deterministic" could be sufficient grounds to object to any positive claim. Obviously that would be silly.
@ariadimezzo86 Thanks a lot for your comments. Your questions are valid especially if you are referring to the formal debating structures that you usually have in collegial debate.Not sure if you had a chance to read our Handbook (https://ispri.ng/lYNzr) but QallOut promotes "freestyle" debates (UFC for debates!) where debate enthusiasts bring their own art of persuasion aiming to prove to the audience and the judges that they "made a better case" compared to their opponent. Regarding the burden of proof, we encourage debaters to develop their own debating strategy and support their side of the resolution as well as rebut their opponents argument effectively, trying to avoid logical fallacies. Hence we do not assign the burden of proof on one side only.Please DM if you would like to further discuss.
@benmouse42 As I pointed out, the default position is simply that "rights exist." Any statement beyond that immediately invokes a burden of proof. As I further pointed out, the positive claim is that rights came into existence. Again, this is why I referenced universe/theistic debates. "The universe exists" is the furthest we can go without assuming a burden of proof. Such arguments typically are that "A god created the universe," built directly from the assumption that the universe did not always exist. Neither the universe nor "rights" have been shown to be finite, and, in the absence of any evidence otherwise, the claim stands: they exist. Asserting creation is to make them finite, with a finite existence, which must be demonstrated. Otherwise, the default is that they exist. If they are not demonstrated to be finite in time), then they must be infinite (again, in time). If you don't know how a debate can function without both sides having a burden of proof, then I would point you to any debates with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, or Christopher Hitchens--they do so all the time (the latter until his death, at least). In fact, a debate where both sides have a burden of proof is not a debate; it's an analysis of facts. All debates require either that neither side have the burden of proof (opinion arguments) or that only one side does. Both sides have to make arguments and support their case, but that's a very different thing from having a burden of proof. I play at instantchess.com, and I have played in FIDE-sanctioned international chess tournaments, but this doesn't make me a grandmaster, nor does it mean my chess games at instantchess.com are proof that the site abides FIDE standards and protocols. I, too, have debated internationally, and have been doing so for 15 years. There's no need to get into a penis-measuring contest, not when the standard of debates regarding burdens of proof pretty easily demonstrated. Whether the site uses special rules regarding burdens of proof or not is another matter, but the logical and standard position is most certainly that the side making the positive claim has the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)If Qallout uses a special standard where both sides have this burden, that should be stated much more plainly, as it evidently can only be found by digging through the site. And that's fine--their site, their rules. But let's not pretend that's standard, common, or customary. Because I expect that participation would plummet if it was stated more plainly that negative claims were expected to shoulder a burden of proof.
@ariadimezzo86 On default positions:-First thing, you've jettisoned your earlier logic, I'm not usually a fan of those who just have a shopping list of easily debunked claims and just switch claim rather than defending any.-Secondly: Your new justification "until they are shown to be finite, they exist by default." Well just trivially, no right is infinite because they often conflict and at that point one gets limited. I.e. the right to freedom of movement often clashes with the right to private property, clearly trespassing shows that rights are not infinite (I could come up with one of these for nearly every right)Your claim about Hitch/Dawkins is patently a lie.-Dawkins frequently argues inductively about why evolution is true, he does not simply assert that "it exists"-Hitch does the same about the existence of god, see his arguments concerning the likelihood of an omnipotent god choosing the uneducated middle easterners as the ones to be emissaries of his prophecies.On dick measuring contests:- I would remind you that you were the one who tried to assert authority when you intimated that no 'serious' debater would play by these rules, I was simply correcting the record.- You personally may not like arguing this format, you have no grounds to assert that you speak for all 'serious' debaters, nor do you have grounds to decide who qualifies serious.
@ariadimezzo86 There are at least 4 National Champions from different debate leagues around the world, who actively take part in these tournaments. I agree with you that there are certain ways topics could be reworded, but to act like serious debaters wouldn't accept Qallout structure is false.Actually, what I see quite often is that the serious debaters on this site will select topics strategically, paying close attention to the wording and then focusing on framework/definitions to truly define their ground. That's one of my favorite things on the site, the gamesmanship of debating not just for policy/value, but also for strategy. It's a new element and I personally find it addicting. Lastly, burden of proof in any debate league has always belonged on whoever introduces a contention. There's a common misconception that burden of proof belongs to the affirmative, but that's only the case if the affirmative is presenting a change to current policy. In any form of logic, the accurate position is that burden of proof rests on whoever advocates a change from the status quo. Sometimes on Qallout the Pro will be the side defending the status quo, hence why Qallout correctly does not put burden of proof just on the pro. Both sides have the responsibility to build up and prove their case, however they may choose to create that case.That's all me just explaining why I like the current standards, but regardless, you seem like a cool person with a lot of good perspectives that would be cool to learn from. I look forward to seeing you in future tournaments, and maybe we'll get the chance to debate :D.
The judges have spoken!@liamm Congrats for advancing to the next round!@ariadimezzo86 Really great debate, thank you for participating and hope to see you in the next tournaments!
18:00 onwards :exclamation::grey_exclamation:
@ariadimezzo86 did I just see a pi tattoo???!!! I have one too :-)
@gigi You did :)
@ariadimezzo86 Great debate, :)
@liamm indeed.@ariadimezzo86 welcome to QO and i'm glad we managed to sort out the tech issues , * please always restart the browser before any QO debate * (it's Google's bug not ours..!)Good luck to u both
@liamm Thanks. You too. Maybe next time we can cross paths when I'm not arguing a position contrary to what I actually believe. :D But that did make it more interesting for me. :)
@ariadimezzo86 I'd prefer that aswell :)
Not that it matters, but the reason I got tripped up over the power argument is that I don't actually hold the position that rights pre-exist. lol. I've actually written a book arguing exactly the opposite, so I was arguing for a position I don't actually hold, which was probably unwise, but I didn't agree with either of the positiosn Qallout offered, and "pre-exist" was the one I disagreed with least.
@ariadimezzo86 That is incredible that you've written a book for the opposite, aha!
@liamm I'm a Nietzschean Anarchist--and that's what I've written the book about. It's very similar to egoism, except the focus is on the Will to Power rather than the actual power itself. But yeah, without a doubt, rights are human constructs. We did define them to mean "innate," but that was done by majority, a power construct itself. I don't typically make emotional appeals during debates, as you can see from when I debated Matt Kuehnel on the limits of self-defense. But there wasn't much left after "tautology".
@liamm I wrote this about it just a few weeks ago. lol:Nowhere in nature do anything resembling rights exist. The wolf does not respect the rights of the rabbit. The bear does not respect the rights of the fish. The walrus does not respect the rights of the walrus. The hurricane does not respect the rights of the Texan. Like property, rights are a human invention. They are artificial falsehoods that are only real as long as we treat them as though they're real. You only have the right to stay alive if you ultimately have the power to stay alive. If I choose to stop believing in rights, power again becomes the only thing that matters. You have no rights if I can take them from you, if I do not respect them. The will to power is the only thing that's real, because nature herself demands it.For millennia, people had no rights. Rights did not exist. It was not until about the 15th century that the idea of rights began circulating seriously in western society (well... There's some caveats to that). Until the Glorious Revolution, even the nobility did not have rights. They had to take them--with power, because power is all there is.Today, if the federal government chose to abolish the notion of rights, it could do so--easily. In two generations, the idea would be non-existent in the United States, except in very small circles of people who were considered kooky, anti-government, anti-social, amoral lunatics (like libertarians). The whole of human existence has been a struggle to move the exercise of power out of the equation. In fact, we basically define "civility" as the conditions where raw power is not a factor. It's why we call despotism uncivilized. We consider polite cooperation of equals, regardless of relative power, to be the height of civility, and, therefore, civilization. This is why the Black Market is condemned--it is a place where the watchful eyes of society are blind, and where the only thing that matters is power.The social conventions that we have today regarding property and rights are the end result of thousands of years of human suffering and the conscious, deliberate decision that there must be a better way for intelligent beings to interact than power relationships. Because we realized that begrudgingly respecting other people and cooperating with them was multitudes better than exerting power against power (destruction of resources), we eventually conceived of property and natural rights. Property did not exist for early homo sapien. If a caveman (colloquialism alert) wanted to keep his mammoth kill, then the only way to do so was with power. If he wanted to keep his cave, then the only way to do so was with power. If he wanted to keep his mate, then the only way to do so was power. We moved into tribes and small clusters, and the conflicts about property escalated accordingly. War was born, when one collective pit power against another collective.Casting off these ideas would not merely be backward. It would be reverting us back to the very beginning of prehistory, when the only thing that mattered was power.
@qallout Is it permissible to mirror this on my Youtube Channel?
@ariadimezzo86 it was a great debate! worth sharing for sure..may we suggest you make a short youtube video talking about this debate, but providing the link as a sticker and in the description to link back here? happy to provide u with a 10-sec clip from this debate (choose your favorite, give us the time stamp) so you can put in as a teaser..works for u? :)
@qallout Sure, I'll do that instead. I'd say 6:15 to 6:36 as a clip.
@qallout There will be actual judges in on this, right? Because Con ceded all of my arguments, and yet is winning the votes, which doesn't make sense... I mean, he literally said on three occasions that government isn't creating rights and is only transferring them. There was some confusion in my experience with a friend who is on Qallout, and it isn't clear whether the "panel of judges" are automatically brought in, or are only brought in if requested.
@ariadimezzo86 please check the 'format' button of the debate, yes there will be judges together with the community votes.
@ariadimezzo86 lol... I didn’t confederations any of your arguments. You conceded mine. Debating doesn’t function if one side says ‘dictionary says this, therefore I win’. I pointed out in Con1, this debate is a question of fact not what we believe.
@liamm I'm not surprised you think I said "definition says this, so I win" given that you never addressed any of the other arguments. But yeah, in a debate about whether government can create rights, what a "right" is happens to be important to the discussion.
@ariadimezzo86, this may not have been your particular point of view, but I think you still won the debate.
@the_peoples_champ Thanks for the support. :)
@ariadimezzo86 What's the link to your youtube channel?
@the_peoples_champ mobile wouldn't let me link it directly, but it can be gotten to through this video: https://youtu.be/r9axukPV5MA
@ariadimezzo86 @liamm Amazing debate!!!We had a tie on the community votes (17-17) on the 24 hour mark upon the completion of the debate so we will bring a second judge to make the final decision!
@liamm IP was not created because of the internet. It existed long before that. They originate back much much farther than that, especially patents, copyright was created around the time of the printing press.
@ariadimezzo86 Great presentation and clarity. I don't agree rights are innate or inalienable, but you make a very compelling argument, and again, with great clarity. You started out on an incredibly strong foot and maintained your position with absolute consistency in the round. You also have more mastery of facts than your opponent and are more careful in your language. You use that very effectively against your opponent.@liamm you also have great style, Incredibly clear and precise. You break down arguments very well. I think you should have come with your own definition of Rights to challenge the one offered by pro. It would help you support the Con side of the argument.In nearly all respects this resolution is a definitional one. If rights are innate, then they clearly are not created or bestowed, if they are not, then some power must grant them. I find Pros lines of arguments far more compelling and consistent. Con feels a bit more like he's playing the debate game than always making an argument.Con has a good challenge in asking, what does a right mean if it isn't respected by anyone. But, I don't feel like he takes this home and presses to undermine Pro's possition. Though on considering the resolution, there is a special weakness in that it specifies government rather than society. It's quite possible that rights are not innate, but are recognized pre-government by other people. Con's best line I think is to challenge Pro to show pre-existing rights. But I think she did that by showing common appeal to rights and the calls by our own government to respect rights that pre-exist the creation of the US.So, I think Pro wins this debate.