Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
24 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @lewisoflime @nickochs Great debate guys!

    Please note that the winner will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community+1 judge or 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @matthewhidalgo

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @lewisoflime Congrats for advancing to the next Round! Please expect further details on your next debate this weekend.

        @nickochs 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

        • 2 years ago

          The flow is looking bad for con. Line by line analysis required.

          • 2 years ago

            @lewisoflime @nickochs

            I’m not a QO judge but here are my reasons for my decision to vote Pro:

            I think this debate was significantly closer and much more subtle than Pro implied in their speeches, and woefully uncomparative on both sides (hear me out :P)

            Both sides readily identify that companies have the right to censor and that this is a debate that requires whether or not this action is justified by social media platforms. Con claims that in the application of this censorship, the wrong people will be censured, he gives 3 (albeit under explained) reasons for this: time restrictions on content monitors, market restrictions (e.g. appealing to people), abuses of these systems via spam.

            In addition to this, he claims that in conjunction with those three reasons there is currently a climate of overreaction and re-definition of violence. To be quite honest, I do not think Pro responds to this in good faith, in that Con gives reasons to believe that despite best intentions of the Pro side and the definition of violence, its application will be poor. The problem is, I do not think at any point Con meaningfully produces a harm to this other than vague notions of the ubiquity of social media (in Con’s first speech) and it is really hard to attribute any tangle value to that claim in the absence of that.

            I think Pro falls into a similar trap when arguing about violence; this is where I think this clash is more subtle than realised by debaters. Con concedes that expressly violent acts (incitement, claims) are already monitored right now. The observation that I am making here is that the motion is /violent groups/ - so the burden on Pro ought then be that the existence of the group itself which is tied to violence is worth of censure. I think you both get close to this clash half way through in the sense Pro asks ‘why ever give them the chance to incite violence knowing that they have those tendencies?’ – Con’s implicit response is they have no yet done anything wrong. This time I think it is the Pro that really doesn’t meaningfully explain why the risk that they /may/ post violent content is worth the censorship other than saying violence is bad, which I do not think is a given in the context of policies that have trade-offs, even more so in the context of a business that has no pretense of moral requirements. That said, I think there are implicit claims by Pro that do some work to move towards this burden by demonstrating the revealed preference of social media platforms right now to limit groups like ISIS, which are the extreme end of the scale – it seemingly demonstrates that there is some component violence that these groups care about.

            To conclude, I think the draw option on QO is unproductive to debating – the question of who makes a better case is Pro, but only marginally. I note that QO often posts motions that are absurdly weighted to either Gov or Opp, but I do not think this is one of those times.
            Best of luck in future debates!

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm good stuff. I’ve never understood people who vote draw either. Just make a choice.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm Thanks for your feedback, Liam! People typically vote draw because it's impossible to view voting metrics until you click on a side. Some people vote draw to see where the votes are, and some then watch the debate and change their vote. I don't think very many people watch the debate in its entirety and then say, welp, it's a perfect tie. :)

            • 2 years ago

              @lewisoflime Yeah I think that it should be view-locked so you have to watch the entire debate aha.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm For November's tournament we will only allow people to vote after watching at least the first 6 minutes of the debate i.e. the opening statements @yaz

            • 2 years ago

              @qallout_tournament That's a great initiative!

            • 2 years ago

              @lewisoflime I've voted draw a few times legit. There are some debates where both sides prove the case they are making and neither side gives me a really compelling reason why their case out-weighs the other case vis-a-vis the resolution.

              For instance, on the "Is Walmart good for America" topic, often one side would prove Wallmart creates jobs and gives good service to rural communities, while the other demonstrates they create welfare externalities due to government subsidies and sketchy labor practices. Neither side tells me why one of these is more important than the other.

              Either I just decide for myself, or I admit that the reality is that Wallmart is sometimes good for america, and sometimes bad, depending on who you are and what you think is important.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried That's very fair - sometimes debaters completely ignore the res and fail to prove/disprove it. I think of votes as pro/con in terms of who did the superior job, or who was closer, even if both sides made mistakes.

            • 2 years ago

              @lewisoflime Yep, if I can't decide based on the resolution, I will typically try to award the round to the more skilled or prepared debater.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried Surely that metric is ludicrous.

              If you're in a position that both debaters did equally poorly, you couldn't possibly award it to the 'more skilled or prepared debater', because that implies the other LESS skilled and LESS prepared debater was still able to hold off their opponent to a draw.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm It doesn't always follow that a more skilled debater will win a debate on the merits of the resolution. A low skill debater could simply have much stronger evidence for their side, or a high skill debater could simply bring a less persuasive case or line of argument.

              A good example is when both debaters have equally good arguments, but one presents them clearly and in an organized manner, while the other is sloppy and disorganized. I'm able to understand the sloppy debater as well as the organized one, but it takes a lot more effort/intelligence on my part to do it.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried You misunderstand point. If you have two debaters of different skill levels, but at the conclusion of the debate, you consider it to be a draw.

              Then it would be silly to give the win to the 'more skilled debater', if a 'less skilled debater' was able to hold them off to a draw.

              E.g. in a competitive football match, little league vs. pro team - if that resulted in a 3-3 (i.e. draw), it'd be silly to give the win to the professional team just because they're more skilled, but that skill was not enough to hold off a less skilled team.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm That's what I thought you said. What I am saying is that normally, judging a debate, you are asking "which argument is more persuasive?" And it is entirely possible that the better debater did not choose to make the more persuasive argument. Both arguments can be equally persuasive, despite one of the debaters having better technical skills in debate.

              I should qualify that I am talking about skills revolving around persuasion, organization, and presentation. Not the ability to think or reason well. Some folks can reason really well but are poor debaters overall.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried It seems we agree - I posted because in your first comment you said: "I will typically try to award the round to the more skilled or prepared debater.".... It's now unclear where you stand.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm It was in the context of debates that are a tie. AKA what to do if you were not persuaded one way or another on the resolution itself. The idea was that you would then use debater skill as a tie breaker.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried Yes! I was also talking about in the context of a tie and that it would be unjust to decide on that merit.

              Consider an experienced and accomplished QO debater (e.g. you) and someone with very little debate exerpience (Debater X).

              If you and Debater X were in a debate together, and DESPITE your higher skill level in debating, Debater X was able to atleast make it a draw, that reflects poorly on you (the higher skilled debater), because even with that advantage you were not able to beat them.

              Another scenerio you may find persuasive, is that of white privillege (consider it exists for this example, I am not advocating for or against its existance) - a black person and a white person of equal qualifications. It would be unjust to give it to the white person based on privellege, as the black person has over come more obstacles and gotten to the same level. The same would be true of skill, no?

              So, even if 'skill' is an approrpiate metric (I do not think it is), you should actually preference the lower skilled debater using your metric.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm Interesting. So you are saying that the greater effort in the individual debate, relative to any advantages going in, should be rewarded because we are judging the individual round.

              As where my contention is that given a tie on the topic, the win should go to someone with a greater, let's say, lifetime achievement to date in terms of their total skill and polish in the arts of debate.

              So it is a question of the effort of the moment, vs effort overall.

              I think the reason for my bias is that I'm interested in improving peoples skill in debate and persuasion so I want to reward a commitment to excellence in these skills over an individual heroic performance.

              That said, I can see the rationale in your approach. And I do think I've judged with that frame of mind before (and gotten people a bit upset with me for doing so). I tend to like underdogs instinctively.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried Not quite - I /do not/ think that pre-existing skill or achievement should factor in in ANY way. However, as you have identified, that you think it is a factor - I am saying that if you think it should be a factor it should work in the reverse way you articulated.

              I have never seen a debate that is a draw, and dont believe there could be one, and if they do exist thye're rare.. It should be judged in the totality of the 30 minutes. nothing more. nothing less.

              Importantly I think the argument of life-time achievement is a little bit nonsensical and intutively unfair.

              You could consider this an incumbent advantage (e.g.. you're the current champion) in tennis for example.

              Now there are advantages to being the current champion (on top of your game, more sponsorship, more respect, more fans which electrify the atmosphere of the arena). Those are legitmate. What is not legitimate is the STRUCTURE of the tournament/sport making it easier for incumbents to remain incumbents (e.g. a metric of judging that preferences them over all).

              An example where that occurs (and was rejected) was R.J. Fisher wanting to change the structure of the chess championships to lower the number of games needed to remain champion.

            • 2 years ago

              @liamm Debate is a highly subjective competition to judge. Some debates are easy. Some are close. Some are so close I find it hard to decide a winner. But in some of those, I find that one side's performance as a speaker is superior in specific ways. To me, that makes a good tie-breaker because it shows superior commitment to the art form which is something I value as a judge.

              I think there are decent analogs in areas like swimming or ice dancing where there are both technical requirements to compete and more subjective lines of judgment. For me, the quality of presentation is a factor, just not the primary one.

              BTW: Most professional tournaments do have an intrinsic advantage for known strong performers because they seed rounds. That is, they match known stronger competitors against unknown or lower seeded competitors in early rounds so that you don't get top competitors eliminated in early rounds by other top-seeded competitors and then end up with an anti-climactic final contest.

            • 2 years ago

              @sigfried I agree debates are sometimes difficult to judge - I dont deny the existance of close debates (whether that be for high or low quality), I'm saying the circumstance for a true draw is increidbly narrow.

              Like, in a game of soccer, where it goes to a tie-breaking golden point round, that is a fair metric to judge a winner. The analogous metric on your side is, well Barcelona goes through for free.

              I think the observation about seeding is clever, but I do not think its the same thing. The reason I think that is although it gives /some/ advantage, that advantage is born of skill not of unfairness, e.g. the first seed vs. 100th seed is still just a tennis match, there's not structural benefit given.