Check out the Tournament Ladder
@the_peoples_champ Congrats for advancing to the next round!@josecaballero Hard luck on this one, hope to see you in November's tournament (last chance to qualify for a free entry to Dec' $5,000 Championship):https://www.qallout.com/tournament
@the_peoples_champ can't see you!
I can't see you
@the_peoples_champ great debate first top of case debate I have had on @qallout
I'm Voting for Pro - @the_peoples_champ largely because I think he got the upper hand on the definitional side of the debate. (will explain below) and given that, he had more strong examples of protests that resulted in violence having a significant positive impact.@josecaballero does good work here, but I feel like he doesn't meet the definitional challenge head on. Pro has grounded his definitions on solid dictionary definitions. His thoughtfulness to include the definition of Riot as a counter definition was brilliant and powerful. Con did not directly attack these definitions or offer us alternates.Instead, Con went to argue he had no ground to argue on. That's a good argument but... Pro gives him specific ground, protests where no violence occurs. There are plenty of those around. Con needed to tell me why that is not enough ground, rather than keep repeating that he has no ground at all. He keeps sidestepping that rather than addressing that and its the fatal flaw on his side. He even gives us, as one of his examples a presumably no-violence protest to examine. It more or less disproves his own contention (though Terrance does not pounce on this)Pro and Con make the point that protests that turn violent against the protesters are great for positive results, that's not in contention. But the definitional win grants all those advantages to Pro.Con does have the Civil war as a counterexample, and Pro waits until the waning seconds to address it (A strategic mistake). He does speak to it, somewhat weakly, but it's enough because I think it's not a good example of a protest, and Con doesn't do any work to convince us that it is a protest, just states that it is. The impacts are huge, but at least Terrance points out this is a war we are talking about. The other factor that weakens this, (and pro mentions this standard early on) is that we are not talking about negative results, only positive ones. And even if we did... war is bad, ending slavery is good. So what's the impact here? I know I'm sort of arguing for Pro on this a bit, but really, I find the argument that this is a protest kind of dubious and I think the definitional ground is most key in the debate.So, somewhat close here, but Pro just has a much stronger definitional argument, even if it paints Con into something of a corner (but not one with no ground). If Con wants out of that corner, he needed to do more to escape it.