Check out the Tournament Ladder
@scottishmaniac @willthelawyer Great debate guys!Please note that the winner will be determined by the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 1 judge or 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @essie
@essie Thank you for your time and your vote! :)
@scottishmaniac No problem!
@essie I've noticed a pattern of recently of some judges stating "you never addressed this" when in fact a debater had. This happened to me recently, I was later given a better explanation of why *the way* I addressed it was not satisfactory, and so that put my concerns to rest a bit, but I had to fight for that explanation. To give you feedback on future judgments, I should tell you that's its frustrating for a debater to be told they *did not* address a point which they *did*, rather than being told how they could have addressed it better if you were not convinced by their argument. The example I will give here is that you claim around 3:30 in your video that Con did not offer a comparison, but only put forward data indicating the current era is bad, without showing how another was better. This is patently false; if you rewatch the debate, in his first speech Will clearly stated around 3:45 what the debt was in the year 2000 (that is to say at the end of the 20th century) and what it is in the current year (that is to say now in the 21st century). He furthermore did the same with incarceration rates, stating what they were in the 1920s (again the 20th centrury) vs what they are today. If these did not convince you, perhaps because he did not use them to clearly indicate "Thus the 20th century was better than the 21st", then you should explain to the debater *why* these points did not convince you, you should not tell a debater that you are judging against them because they made no such point. This gives the debater the impression that you rushed through the debate and made an erroneous judgment on your own terms. It gave me personally that impression; and seeing as you stated you gave the debate to pro because she offered "some" tenuous comparison, and con offered none, it really seems like you missed something. Con did offer a comparison, it seems as though it was at *least* as weighty as pro's. If you offered some rationale for why you disagreed, that would be far better than simply and falsely stating that he offered none.
@scottishmaniac @willthelawyerWith Community Votes in favor of the CON and the first judge voting PRO, we have a tie so we will bring a second judge to make the final decision!
@qallout_tournament Is there a mistake in typing? If both judges voted for CON, how is it a tie?
@enzilag Yes it was a typo, as the judge I voted pro and the community votes are in favor of con so they will be bringing a second judge to help finalize it :)
@enzilag Apologies, typo indeed and the first judge voted PRO.. @essie Thanks for clarifying!
@qallout_tournament No worries :)
@enzilag 100% agreed. I actually really appreciate that you didn’t just follow the traditional “I thought this was a great debate” line that judges say literally every time. I voted the same way as you, for the same reason. I too felt this debate was rather lacking in substance, but that since Con didn’t have a century to prefer, he can’t win with this resolution. Both of these debaters are very talented, but neither case they presented really put their positions in a strong light.
@enzilag thank you for the critique. I realize my mistakes, and I think they were primarily the belief that the burden was on pro to prove this statement was true, rather than I also having to prove it false. I will take the feedback I’ve received and try to do better in my next debate. Great job @scottishmaniac. Good luck in the next round. Carpe diem!
@enzilag Thank you for your time and feedback! :)
@scottishmaniac @willthelawyer (comment while debate is live)It seems really against the spirit of the motion to argue that 21st Century is the best simply because of opportunity of action because it is the present, because if you take that logic it is a quality that ALL eras of history. Which means they are indistinguishable other than the /arbitrary/ temporal placement of the debaters.Surely if opportunity is the metric (a narrow one at that given the context of huge technological and medical advances in the 21st century) then perhaps increased economic empowerment for women, longer life => longer time to act on opportunities, east of travel etc.
and the logical concompitance of that is that it's not a true comparison BECAUSE the quality is indistingushable by anything other than an arbitrary position in time
8:56: debate over
I’m surprised by the voting in this debate. It seems to me that con failed to make any real points and spent most of his time arguing about how he didn’t like pro’s interpretation of the resolution because it basically gives her the win because her reasoning is unarguable.
@mhoover I wouldn't ever trust community votes. Most of the time they're just gained by people sharing the debate with friends, who either vote for their preconceived opinion on the resolution, or they vote for their friend, no matter how good the arguments were.
@debateme13 I refuse to believe anything except that every vote is a direct result of a complete viewing and a considered opinion!
@mhoover see my comment above as to why I voted Con. While Con didn’t think think didn’t truly impact their harms, they atleast had some. Pro defered to literature quotes and a vague notion of ‘opporunity’, and when pressed on that the responses were unsatisfactory and thouroughy uncomparative.
@debateme13 out of interest, how did you vote?
@liamm yeah fair enough, I have no issues with people disagreeing, that's the whole point of debate. It just bugs me that popular vote is so heavily determined by non-debate factors. And I wound up voting Pro, although I wasn't particularly impressed by her stance. I do think there is merit to the idea that we can actually accomplish things now, whereas we can't make changes to the past. It's also a little silly though, since she could have easily pointed to modern day advantages, which are numerous. I didn't really see any reason to prefer previous eras, and there is at least some merit to the idea that we can make a difference in this era, so I voted Pro.
@debateme13 I agree with your you on popular vote, however I think it’s the best business choice for QO to keep it so people feel involved. Plus i don’t think QO judges are at a sufficent standard to rely solely on those. I didn’t begrudge her in my decision for not saying things I would hav said - that would be silly. But as I identified in Luc first comment, the benefit of ‘being avle to change it now’ is not distinct to the 21st century, but rather to all centuries based on the arbitrary time placement of the debaters. An argument of a similar vein would read: the 21st century is a century, therefore it’s the best. Even though,so is every other century.
@liamm But to us people alive today, what is the greatest era? Well technically the answer, by default, would be this era, since it’s the era we can actually impact, which was Pro’s point. I think this is a bit abusive of a res interp, so I'm not giving her my vote based on framing, but more based on advantages vs. disadvantages. I think there are clear changes we can make to our world currently, which is certainly a big reason to appreciate the now. And the impacts from that do have the potential to be pretty large, although they are hypothetical. I would have voted Con if he had shown a preferable era from some past time. I just don't think he did. He's more talking about problems in the current day, and Pro is talking about how the beauty of the now is that we have the chance to fix that, which I think is a valid response and shows that this era is better than it's problems. So on net benefits I vote Pro, even though she's running essentially a values case lol.
@debateme13 But to people alive in the 19th century, what was the greatest era? - See what I mean? It's not an argument its a tautology. That results either, an irresolvable conflict, or one that instantly grants the win to the pro - both of which are unacceptable. That implies there are other metrics to be used. Arguments that define a win are not arguments.Similarly, the fact that we have the opporuntity to good, also implies the opportunity to do bad - Pro gives NO reason to believe that one would happen more than the other. While con's arguments are not fully formed, they're coherrent in the sense that they identify things that are worse (chiefly debt). I do not think they impact them, but they also do not receive a response. Note at no point in the debate does the Pro even attempt to rebut Con.Also, the enormous concession about 8 minutes in about the nuclear destruction of the earth is a challenge to the logic you outlined in the first line - that is all the people alive to day are now dead, and yet it is still the best era. That is one where 'us alive today' are no longer 'alive today' to think its the best era. Therefore that metric falls apart.
@debateme13 Again which is arbitrary temporal placement ^^
@liamm For me I wanted to pick an era that was the best, and if that is the 21st, I vote Pro, if it’s a past era, I vote Con. Con never showed me a preferable era. There may be problems with the present, but there is also opportunity. I was offered no better alternative, so I have a flawed present vs. nothing. I’ll vote for the flawed present.
@liamm by con’s own arguments the era following the nuclear blast where only pro survives would be the best era. Zero debt, zero Wars, zero incarceration, etc. Because he focused not on his own argument but on her interpretation of the resolution, he missed opportunities for a win.
@mhoover .... yeah but everyone would be dead. Which Con thinks is bad. Lol.
@liamm if only he had provided a case for that position.
@mhoover - I can prove not everyone who votes watches the debate. As soon as it ended, Con got about eight votes, when there had only been 1-2 live viewers. ;)
@mhoover thank you for the critique. I thought that the harm from everyone except my opponent dying would be self-evident, but next time I will be explicit in the harms I am presenting. I also take your point about not focusing on my own case. I admit being frustrated by a creative but somewhat tautological case my opponent presented for pro. I need to address my opponent’s argument and then move back to my own. It was a good experience however it turns out.
@willthelawyer I think pro had a novel and interesting take on the resolution. But not a fool proof one. Had you focused on your own case after expressing your frustrations, I think you might of hit on some of her vuneralbilities. All that being said you seem an accomplished debater and I look forward to watching your next debate.
(As an audience member, not as a RJ)Pro correctly points out that only in the present can you solve for the harms of the present or the past. Pro gave a weighing mechanism to see the round through, Con did not. Con spent too much time disputing the acceptableness of Pro's arguments, instead of refuting them. Pro was correct in her closing when she said she compared past and present, and her opponent did not (or at least not to the same degree).Con unfortunately, cleary demonstrated a misunderstanding of how QallOut works. QallOut gives the burden of proof to each side - Pro met hers, Con spent too much time addressing Pro to meet his. He would need to show a superior time to the present to win. He objected that Con used primarily philosophical rhetoric and semantics as evidence, but he unfortunately thought that objecting was enough to win. To win he would have needed to provide clashing arguments himself, not simple objections. Con admitted today would even be the best if a nuclear bomb was dropped and Pro was society's sole survivor. He could have argued that Pro's arguments bordered on truism, but he did not, clearly handing her the win.
My favorite part is when Con references the bomb statement in his conclusion as outrageous (without refutation), when it was his own admission Pro had simply accepted.
@scottishmaniac @willthelawyer great debate y'all!First off, let me just say: I HATE values cases. They're horrid. There's really no advantages/disadvantages.However, I ended up voting Pro, mostly because of the reasons @debateme13 and @eli_mcgowan highlighted in their comments.If the Con had offered up some sort of an alternative, I feel like he'd have a much more compelling case, but there was none offered.PS: @debateme13 your critique on the popular vote is 100% spot on :joy:
There isn't supposed to be any advantages/disadvantages. That's what makes values debate so fun. XD But having a policy background, I get where you're coming form.