Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
31 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
  • a year ago

    @burnsstephen16 @kahnwiley
    With community votes 7-6 in favor of the PRO and our first judge voting CON, we have a tie so we'll bring a second judge to make the final decision!

    • a year ago
    • a year ago

      The judges have spoken!
      @kahnwiley Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @burnsstephen16 Hard luck on this one! Hope to see you at November's tournament (last chance to qualify for a free entry at Dec' $5,000 Championship):
      https://www.qallout.com/tournament

      • a year ago

        .. I would have understood this resolution as Hollywood actors discussing politics in public forums (e.g. statements made in movie award events, Twitter, etc...)

        but glad that both opponents seem to be aligned on their own understanding of the resolution!

      • a year ago

        @burnsstephen16 Good debate. Not really sure what effect the pre-Debate disclosure had, but at least we didn't spend the whole time talking about Harvey Weinstein.
        P.S. I didn't get the Meryl Streep thing. I guess I don't watch enough TV. . . :wink:

        • a year ago

          Another great debate! Gangbusters tonight, I keep watching the openings and getting sucked in.

          @burnsstephen16 gives a great opening presentation, especially style-wise. Super engaging. And I really like the backdrop, it gives you some gravitas and visual excitement. Not a big thing, but from a pure persuasion aspect, that's great showmanship and I'm a fan of perusing every vector of persuasion.

          @kahnwiley also launches out of the gate with a fantastic rebuttal, that feels totally off the cuff, yet is incredibly well delivered and reasoned. A real shotgun of logical doubt on a host of vectors making Pro's job to firmly establish the resolution really really hard.

          The resolution itself is unfriendly to Pro in the way this debate plays out. Pro makes a good case that unnecessary political considerations are not wise, that entertainment is the end all be all of Hollywood (and I agree). But... the resolution says they should stay out... to me that tends to mean a moratorium. Con clearly shows that there are instances where politics are the entertainment or at least the context for it.

          Pro does later make some arguments that he's not approaching the resolution in this absolutist way, and Con doesn't press him so I'm inclined to not hold him to what I think the resolution claims on its face.

          Still, even with that, I find that Con has many more lines of argument that are not effectively rebutted, instead of Pro simply stands on his main contention for clarity, that over politicization is a bad thing. And I agree, but it's marginalized as a position by Con who shows that politics can be profitable when done well and that it can be artful and meaningful. Con also badly undermines any economic arguments which Pro leads with by highlighting how impossible it is to demonstrate causality. Comic books are used as an example, which is good, but is that Hollywood?

          So in short, great debate by both sides. I really liked the first half. Second half was mostly repeats of the arguments in the same form which is fine, but just not as fun to listen to. But ultimately, Con's shotgun of strong points defeats Pro's fairly narrow focus on one line of reasoning.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried he couldn't actually back any of his points... I wouldn't consider it a strong point of him saying no you're wrong without actually providing evidence to the contrary... He repeatedly mentioned that I "only had 2 examples" like it was some bad thing but never actually disproved that evidence... I think he used some strong rhetoric and sounded good but if you get into the meat and potatoes he "shotgunned" points with no backing of his own... I should have pointed this out during the debate but I guess I was hoping others would see that on it's own

          • a year ago

            @burnsstephen16 What points need to be backed up? You couldn't show causation between politicization and decreased ratings. You even admit that it's a correlation rather than a causation. Piracy and home viewing are also salient factors in decreased ratings. In my view, that means there are other factors to be considered and a one-cause approach to analyzing the problems of the movie industry will fall short of actual explanatory power.
            You also admit that we should allow low-budget indie flicks with potentially politically-charged narratives. As @sigfried indicated, I did a bad job by not indicating that this is a critical concession under the rubric of the resolution, which I would also perceive as advocating a wholesale moratorium or exclusion of politics from the entertainment industry.
            You also don't deal with the fact that there is no clear standard about what is "too political" for entertainment, or that information and entertainment blend together in many forms of media. That lack of a brightline indicates no clear standard for evaluating HOW the entertainment industry COULD stay out of politics. . .

          • a year ago

            @kahnwiley I admitted that there Is a correlation and tried to prove causation. Your piracy was your only real backed up point with a source and even in that article, it admits that it only really affects low budget filmmakers. You continue to miss my point. The crux of my argument is that Hollywood should stop making movies that are advertised as purely entertainment politically charged. It is the wolf in sheep's clothing and movies or shows, or late night programs that do it are less successful than movies that stick to entertainment. I never argued that there is a real "standard" for what is too political as that is darn near impossible to define. but as for HOW they could stay out of it plenty of solutions are simple... late night comedians stick to comedy and not practically propaganda talks (Jimmy Kimmel and his healthcare talk written by Chuck Schumer just to name one of many), movies that are intended for entertainment could just stick to it. avoid overtly political statements in casting or in the message that could polarize an audience. These moves in practice are simply wise business moves that are proven to be more profitable. I believe these individuals have the absolute right to make whatever movies they want and send whatever message they want... but it isn't always a wise business move and is can be proven by the fact that profits of blockbusters and ratings for shows had been steadily increasing until recently and can definitely be shown by big blockbusters that flopped and were unpopular with the public because of their political moves like in the recent ghostbusters flick

          • a year ago

            @burnsstephen16 Look, dude. The round is currently a tie according to the community votes. Now I'm not going to claim that I did a great job in this debate (I didn't--wrote the wrong case out so I had to ad-lib the whole thing), but as you say, you haven't met your burden of proof to indicate CAUSATION. That alone indicates politicization of movies might not be the problem. Whether or not I have a pile of sources to back up that position, it is pretty obvious on face that there are other issues going on. That alternate causality argument is good enough to call into question whether the politicization of media writ large is the source of declining ratings.
            Once again, you only provide two examples: late night-talk shows and Ghostbusters. I could even concede your point that those individual examples could be connected to the political content, but that doesn't deal with the other hundreds of movies and programs released in any given year. So yeah, Ghostbusters was a mistake and Jimmy Kimmel sucks; conceded. Still a lot of "political stuff" out there getting a good reception.

            I understand what your argument is. I am arguing that you need to prove CATEGORICALLY that "political content" is the only issue (or a primary cause) for the decline in the entertainment industry. You also still haven't dealt with the fact that there is no brightline between "entertainment" and "news"--what about entertainment news? Or the film "Hotel Rwanda?" It seems to be a false dichotomy.
            These aren't trivial questions to be dismissed--they illustrate a central issue: what is politics and can it be divorced from entertainment? Without a standard here (other than "no more Jimmy Kimmel"), you can't really provide a set guideline for the entertainment industry to follow.

            P.S. Sources don't win debates--good reasoning does. You seem to think I should lose because I don't have a list of 20 sources, but my analytical arguments are based in common knowledge, reasoning, and they are at least mildly persuasive. I provided that one source because you disputed my claim that piracy is affecting the movie industry; this isn't a dubious claim at all, but I found it necessary to at least counter your assertion there.
            I assume you're a policy debater, considering the bevy of sources you supplied. I've won plenty of policy debate rounds with ZERO evidence to support my side because the arguments were good. I've also lost plenty of policy rounds with TONS of evidence supporting my side, because I didn't make good arguments. In the QallOut tournament format, less evidence seems to be better because of the inherent time limitations. I made the mistake of using way too many sources in my first tournament round and it was simply too confusing for me to collate all the arguments cohesively. But if you want to keep source-dumping on your opponents, feel free. I just don't think it's a winning strategy in these parts.

          • a year ago

            @burnsstephen16 I found Con's arguments to be rational, and to ring true with my knowledge and experience. When that happens, I don't need as much citation to back them up or me to find them plausible and worth refuting. It's one of many places where the Judge's own character and knowledge are inevitably going to impact a decision.

            What he said rang true, there are many movies that become popular largely due to their political content. It's not the mainstream of Hollywood, but occasionally a movement movie will be a blockbuster, and there are many examples which Con pointed out.

            You also make an appeal to a judge's reason and experience. You don't have strong causal evidence to say that it is PC decision making that is killing their business. You show it is declining, but for causation, you point to some examples and invite us to share your rationale. And it works with me, but only a little way. I am persuaded that sometimes they make PC decisions that turn out badly. But Con also shows me many other reasons, which I think are true, where they lose the audience for other reasons, and I find those to be more powerful reasons. I think with different judges, your case will have a stronger force of appeal.

            I don't think you could have made your case better than it was on the same ideas you made it, and if your opponent were weaker, you very likely would have gotten my vote. But I found Con very persuasive and clever. And he had lines of argument, such as film for art, that you didn't have a direct counter to.

            I watched four debates last night and in three of them, I ended up voting for the side that proved the most flexible in making their own position, while not leaving any of their opponent's arguments un-countered I some fashion. They didn't beat their opponent on every line, but they at least weakened all of them and had at least one of their own that their opponent simply didn't address.

          • a year ago

            @kahnwiley The evidence thing is interesting. When I did policy, there was a major over-reliance on evidence. But then again, high school kids kind of need evidence because they often lack the life experience and knowledge on serious issues. But when I was doing policy, if you didn't have it written on a 3x5 card, it didn't mean shit in a debate. I hated that because a lot of what was written on those cards was just bullshit someone else said.

            But I do like a good piece of evidence. It can go a long way in refuting someone else's logic. Sometimes what seems logical is actually just a common myth, and busting that sort of thing is where evidence really shies. It's also great at establishing some fact without having to go back and forth on nay-saying a truth claim. I'll take the evidence over a nay-say any day.

            But the number of citations per side doesn't mean much. It's where they are aimed and how. I agree, that in the time frame here, citations are time sinks if they aren't gangbusters on topic. But if they are, then they are worth the time.

          • a year ago

            @kahnwiley I think ultimately where I failed is that the debate was about all of the Hollywood industry and my points were about a smaller group in Hollywood which I will maintain are true.... But there are plenty of other groups where your arguments ring true and so that's where I think you shined

          • a year ago

            @sigfried I love evidence myself. I was, in fact, a pretty terrible debater in high school but I loved the research aspect of the activity. Now that I'm no longer involved with debate in any serious manner, that's pretty much all I do with my free time: seek out new evidence in new subjects.
            It's funny you bring up the 3x5 card thing. Our coach was always harping on the fact that when we read "cards" it's just a holdover phrase from the good ol' days before speed-reading was a thing and you damn kids and your kritiks, etc. etc. Now I feel old because (1) computers weren't even allowed in rounds when I was debating, and (2) we actually had to "cut cards," like, with scissors and tape. Man, I really wish we'd had effing computers in round. Would've saved a lot of hassle not having to lug six damn rubbermaid tubs full of paper around. . .

            @burnsstephen16 TBH, I felt really stupid because you disclosed your strategy to me in that PM and then I wrote a whole case on a different interpretation of the resolution (free speech-oriented) because I'm an idiot. Really enjoyed that angle on the debate rather than the other interpretation that I think people were expecting. GREAT DEBATE! :sunglasses::flag_us: