Check out the Tournament Ladder

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

    @liamm Congrats for advancing to the next round!

    @ellbar Great job and hope to see you at November's tournament (last chance to qualify for a free entry at Dec' $5,000 Championship):

    • 2 years ago

      lol the last few jabs are always the best :)

    • 2 years ago

      @ellbar Fun debate, even if subjective - I hope to see you in the future rounds :D

    • 2 years ago

      Happy to concede this one. I wasn't keen on the debate, due to the subjectivity of it's nature. I don't think there's very much to argue on the con side, and had prepared to take the route of abusing the format of the proposition and arguing that one could not be proved better. However, when Liam framed the debate in a way which would force me to take the side of LoTR, I agreed as I thought it would be more in keeping with the spirit of this debate. I was unprepared, but this is not an excuse as I agreed to his format. He clearly demonstrated his side in a much more convincing manner across almost all points and I am forced to vote pro on this one. Thanks for a great debate @liamm, @qallout maybe have a feedback system for the debate propositions in advance?

      • 2 years ago

        @ellbar Thankyou :).

        I agree that a lot of the qallout motions, while I love the platform are very poorly phrased and I think there are a lot of easy ways to fix it. A good start would be using the standard pre-fix nomenclature used by the Australasian Debating circuit.

        For value judgement motions:

        That we regret (THR)
        That we celebrate (THC)

        => Arguing whether or not something has been net good or net bad by some set of criteria.

        For policy motions

        That we should ...
        That we support...

        => Arguing for and against a policy.

        Further, standardising the burdens to put the burden on Pro, and an inverse burden on Con would be better than these half-measure motions that allow the con to sit in the middle ground without making an argument.


      • 2 years ago

        @liamm Couldn't agree more - it's perfectly plausible to maintain the freeform style of the @qallout community and its debates whilst simultaneously raining in unspecific and inadequately structured motions.

      • 2 years ago

        @liamm I certainly agree that a lot of resolutions haven't been worded as fairly as they should be, but I don't think the resolutions should become as formal as any debate circuits currently make them. Maybe this is just me, but I think one of the draws of Qallout is that these don't have to be "debate club" resolutions. These are real world topics that people can approach in their own way.

        To me, I think this resolution is actually great. Yes, determining a "better story" is a subjective question, but you can use objective standards to determine it. Pro you did a great job determining a framework through which you can weigh one vs. the other.

        It would then be Con's job to either agree with Pro's framework and show why the Lord of the Rings side outweighs on those points. Or Con needs to present a counter framework and show why his perspective is preferable. This is just a more determined way of having the common debates you have with your friend all the time.

        It's a perfectly fair resolution, each side gets the opportunity to define what exactly makes a book "better" and then argue for that side. In this round, it appears Pro did that better, so objectively he made the better case for his subjective perspective.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 Yeah, I love the informal nature of QallOut, dont get me wrong - but I think it leads to some undebatable motions.

        Some of the most recent offenders:

        'it's possible the earth is flat' (which you did I think)
        'we should extend the month of february to 30 days'

        So while perhaps a formal motion pre-fix system doesn't need to be adopted, I think motions should be framed in a way that allows for a debate. So when you claim 'must show which framework is prefferable', I fully agree - but there needs to be reasonable grounds for a framework - and i dont think 'better story' is reasonable grounds.

        Consider the following version of the motion:

        That game of thrones has done more harm than good
        That game of thrones has had a larger impact on literature than lord of the rings

        Still a very subjective area (which is why i prefer policy debates by far); but I think provides a little more clarity in what the pro and con are standing for.

        I understand the goal is to maximise freedom of expression, BUT the motions inherrently limit freedom of expression (as they request you to argue for something) and once that is identified motions ought be constructed to facilitate that limited expression as much as possible.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 I would perhaps agree with you if it weren't for the crucial aspect of timed responses. In what, usually, is five three minute rounds with no real chance for extended discussion, you are often forced into accepting the framework of the person who first dictates it, or the entire debate could easily be expended merely arguing about the framework of the discussion itself.
        Had I chosen not to accept Liam's framework, at least in part, the entire debate would have been him arguing for his framework and me arguing for mine, which would have never converged as I would have argued that it is not possible to demonstrate the superiority of one over the other.
        As I said, I tried to maintain the spirit of the debate and essentially forfeited the competition rather than spend our time arguing semantics.
        Therefore it would be expedient to either allow long-form debates in which semantic issues can be hammered out or make minor alterations to the motions in order to bypass these issues in the first place.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 Thanks a lot! Once again you portrayed very well where we're coming from!

        @liamm @ellbar Thanks a lot for your great and fair suggestions!
        As you probably both know there is a number of different official/ collegial debate formats, ways to phrase resolution etc.
        Our objective with QallOut and the tournaments is to actually create a new freestyle debate activity accessible to people with previous debating experience or not and also help our debaters create awesome content that more and more people will enjoy.
        We deliberately avoid the formal phrasing of resolutions as per college debates and also try to have topics on trending topics and current affairs so that our debates are relevant to wider audience and you guys get the recognition you deserve :-)
        Having said that, we do recognize that there will be topics that might not be phrased in the best way hence we are doing the following:
        1) Have a variety of topics available and allow the debaters to choose the ones that they feel they can defend (usually not an option at collegial debates)
        2) We have 2-3 of top QallOut users and debaters reviewing the topics and help us fine tune the wording

        Thanks again for your suggestions and happy to have a further discussion on how we can improve this area!

      • 2 years ago

        @gigi I fully understand and appreciate the amazing work you all do.

        In any case keep up the good work, as I said before I think Qallout is an excellent platofmr :D

      • 2 years ago

        @liamm can u give an example of this please:

        "standardising the burdens to put the burden on Pro, and an inverse burden on Con would be better than these half-measure motions that allow the con to sit in the middle ground without making an argument."

      • 2 years ago

        @qallout he means not putting things like "it is possible that..."
        Rather just saying
        "X is Y"
        "x should do y"

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 @qallout What ben just said is exactly what I mean. It means its much clearer what each side is standing for.

    • 2 years ago

      I don't know the answer to this. I'm genuinely here to be convinced.

      • 2 years ago

        I waited to watch this debate until I watched all 7 seasons of GoT, but this debate didn't actually have any spoilers besides the death of Need Stark, which happens very early...