Check out the Tournament Ladder
@chriscowherd @scottishmaniac Great debate guys!Please note that winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of three votes (Community + 2 Judges). Your confirmed judges so far: @josh808
@chriscowherd @scottishmaniac If you have any questions, please ask me. What especially might be helpful are my explanations of why certain arguments were confusing from an audience member's perspective as well as why I had a difficult time voting.EDIT: Pro brings up a good question concerning why people are gifted, but ties that more to potential. Had he demonstrated how that specifically is linked to intelligence via some sort of source rather than just attempting to point to it as true without any reasoning, I might have voted for him on that because of the contradictory nature of Con's position. I didn't get enough analysis or warrant as to why the gifting potential refers to current ability (intelligence).EDIT 2: When I talk about women who consume foods they aren't supposed to (e.g. alcohol, raw fish), I meant to say "when pregnant". This was not in any way an attempt at a sexist remark.EDIT 3: Emily, what I meant by "having warrants or reasoning within sources", was to help you give reasons to prefer your evidence. If Harvard brings up an illogical position that isn't warranted, and there's a logical, warranted position without academic source behind it, how am I to weigh? If I'm a common man, my bias might be towards the logic. If I'm an academic, it may sway towards Harvard. Providing warrants helps to curb bias.EDIT 4: Pro, had you talked about premature babies, I think you could have easily disproved the Con’s position with the definition of intelligence as ability.
@josh808 it helps in your judgement if you address all about one debater first, then the other. There were times when it was hard to tell who you were talking about here. Thanks for your first judgement. I think my baby brother was probably briefly in your debate club, since he was a homeschooler on Oahu a few years back.
@josh808 Thanks for your time and feedback! :)
@eli_mcgowan On the general good comments, I was giving comments that applied to both. On the argument level analysis, I needed to move back and forth because that’s how the arguments went. Finally my ways to improve were by Pro/Con. Thanks for the tip though, I’ll try to clarify. Also I was never in homeschool debate, only in the NSDA.
@josh808 Ah. But you work for Ethos now? I did NCFCA, CCA, CCofSE, then NPDA, NCCFA, and ACMA Moot Court in undergrad. I usually divide arguments up by Pro or Con, give them each a couple they won and a couple they lost, so by the time I’m done going through them each, I’ve covered all the arguments. Usually requires a lot of prep, but it’s the method most judges use. I usually spend two hours per judgement.
@eli_mcgowan lol yeah I spent a long time deciding. Only reason I didn’t do that is because basically all the Pro arguments, though he won them, were insufficient to affirm the motion. I felt that Con won arguments but I needed to address how they interacted with each other. Ultimately (people may disagree), I feel the Pro win/loss and Con win/loss route is more difficult to show a reason for decision. I find it most helpful to show how arguments interacted with each other- winning one and losing one means nothing without the back and forth interaction and weighing. Additionally, this allows focus on the key issues- it’s completely different if the Aff wins the DA defensively than if the Aff wins the advantage offensively. Such a method allows me to point out which side wins what offensive points or which points are mitigated. Obviously this is not mutually exclusive with your method but it is harder. If you go watch Sigfried-Ben on drug offenders, you can see my method in practice on a more clear debate.
@josh808 I like the combination of the two. I agree back-and-forth is everything.
@eli_mcgowan yes, I would say a combination would be helpful. On general comments, those can go together. On individual comments, those are usually best addressed in the context of two competing claims, which can be categorized by topic or debater. I will keep that in mind.
@marisa_noelle Thanks for your time and feedback! :)
The judges have spoken!@scottishmaniac Congrats for advancing to the Quarter-Finals!@chriscowherd Great job as always :-) We'll open registration for Dec' $5,000 Championship next week. In the meantime, have some fun with our social debates and accept one of our RDs Open Challenges: https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges
Capability or intelligence?
(Not judging this round)An absolutely riveting debate between two talented debaters. Pro defined intelligence as an ability, but tried to redefine it as including all potential for intelligence when Con expertly demonstrated that newborns have no measurable ability whatsoever. The Harvard expert, Gardner's theory, and various case studies show that intelligence has to be gained during early development interaction, or its potential will be lost. Pro was able to respond in a compelling way with anecdotal evidence about Pascal, Einstein, and others, but ultimately was unable to refute the Con.Even if her arguments hadn't been as compelling as they were, Con would still win under the preponderance of the evidence because of the sources she used and the way her opponent casually dismissed them instead of responding in kind (even referring to Harvard's Center on the Developing Child as "Harvard Law Review" lol).Under Pro's original definition of intelligence as an ability, and the criterion of the preponderance of the evidence, Con clearly wins.
@eli_mcgowan I *almost* said in round that since Harvard publishes research on how there is more than 2 genders, we shouldn't accept their research if it is irrational. And I think the notion that intelligence is not determined by birth is undeniably irrational
@chriscowherd XD That would have been hilarious, and awesome. You thinking that is fine, but in debate, you have to demonstrate.
@eli_mcgowan I would lean more towards if something is logically absurd it should be dismissed. No matter the research behind it, if it is just stupid, it most likely is stupid. Granted, the pro could have attacked the veracity of those claims, especially considering it was mostly hyperbole and not substantiative fo any sort. Not a fan of anyone saying something is a consensus in any social science; however, here the opposite of what is posited by con is actually the consensus.
@eli_mcgowan I agree. I made the mistake of assuming that people just know infants have inherent and unequal levels of intelligence. I also think that unless your evidence says something reasonable, it shouldn't be accepted on its face, which is why I ran the contradictory analysis, saying con claims people aren't all blank slates, but intellectual potential and intelligence are two different things and intelligence is determined by upbringing, not birth. That is inherently contradictory, so I see the evidence as inconsequential. Even Harvard can say nonsensical things
@chriscowherd It’s probably not good form on QallOut to assume anyone who holds the other side of the resolution has to be nonsensical. That definitely contradicts our site mission to tear down confirmation bubbles. People watch debates to her “whys,” not “whats.”
@alot_like_locke I think you’re letting your bias about a single card of evidence effect your view of the round, but I’m glad you recognize Pro missed chances to refute Con.
@eli_mcgowan You keep saying I am biased but I have provided no vote at least publicly. Just merely commenting on something I think should at least be talked about and gave my 2 cents. Then you downvote me, you silly rapscallion, GFY (in really nice terms) :)
@alot_like_locke everyone can see the votes of those who comment. It displays as the colored bar under your profile pic. Gitrekt (in even nicer terms).
@chriscowherd @alot_like_locke I keep hearing that my arguments are hyperbolic and nonsensical. And yet I heard no warrant in round. You may insult my arguments, but that doesn't mean you can refute them.
@eli_mcgowan What does that have to do with what I said? I never publicly stated who won. I voted, and how I voted is completely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. You do not know why I voted, you are assuming bias because I am pointing out something I did not like about a particular case based on my ideology. However, those can and most likely are 2 mutually exclusive things. On a side note you look like me, so when I call you ugly at least you will know I am telling you the truth vs what your mother tells you at night when she tucks you in!!!
@alot_like_locke that’s fair. Glad your vote was reasoned separately from all the feedback you gave here. Sorry for assuming your feedback had something to do with your decision. Haha. You’ve always provided the most entertaining comments of my whole time on QallOut.
@scottishmaniac my warrant is evident reason. I don't accept evidence on its face if that evidence makes no rational sense, especially is the position the evidence is supporting is additionally irrational. For example, the claim that humans are not all intellectual blank slates, supported by evidence that infants have indeterminable intelligence but varying "intellectual potential," is contradictory and nonsensical. If humans are not intellectual blank slates that implies varying levels of intellegence and furthermore the distinction between intelligence and intellectual potential is indeterminable. They are for all intents and purposes the same thing. A Down syndrome child has inherently less intellectual potential then infantile Albert Einstein, and by the same token inherently less intellect. They are the same, and your own analysis demonstrates your case is contradictory. My other warrant is the concept of rejection of reality, meaning you actually claim the only intellectual difference between a baby with Down syndrome and baby Socrates is their upbringing. The only warrant you have for this is the difference between intellect and intellectual potential with doesn't make sense in the real world. Intelligence is determined fundamentally by genetics, and aided by upbringing. Socrates the aristocratic philosopher would still be as smart as Socrates had he been born a slave, he likely would not have soared to the same hights, but still possesses the same inherent intellect. To suggest otherwise rejects evident reason
@scottishmaniac Not trying to refute your arguments, not my debate. I pointed out that I disagree with one of the points you made (13:54 Phelps intelligence on swimming, that is not intelligence). That is not me insulting your argument, I just do not like it and will attack it as much as I can. For the sake of science...The statement of me saying your argument was hyperbolic was mainly about one specific part of the whole speech, one that is mostly inconsequential to the whole debate at 19:31 that it is accepted, which is disagree with. It in its respective field of intelligence psychology is not.
@chriscowherd Let me just sum up your arguments here for clarity: "My opponent's arguments are wrong because it's obvious. Her claim that XYZ is nonsensical. She rejects reality. Her arguments don't make sense in the real world. This is because straw man." If you want to use a warrant, you have to be more specific than that. You can't just say it's obvious that I'm wrong because of an argument that I painstakingly clarified was a straw man.
@scottishmaniac I don't think we will accomplish much of anything arguing further. I do however reccomend you painstakingly clarify your understanding of what constitutes a straw man :P
@chriscowherd "Hey Alexa, what is a straw man?" :sunglasses:
@eli_mcgowan lol you’re voting for your wife and then calling the opposition biased :P
@debateme13 doesn’t make me wrong. ;)
I also forgot to mention the Ravens Matrix which has no linguistic value and can be used for admission into intertel and mensa.
@alot_like_locke I never said that Gardner's theory was the only theory. I merely said it was the most inclusive and that if the most inclusive theory didn't support infant intelligence, then no others would. It is not outright rejected by the academic community. In my research and study experience (my minor in college was psychology), it is often viewed favorably due to its complex nature. You seem to viewing the whole debate based off your beef with a secondary piece of evidence for my case. I'd advise you to consider the arguments behind my actual case, not just Gardner's theory of intelligence.
@alot_like_locke Just btw, your vote is public. It shows in a bar on your profile picture. And while I can appreciate your intention to educate, it doesn't clarify anything for viewers. Again, the point isn't the validity of Gardner's theory. The point is that if the broadest theory of intelligence won't support pro, who will?
@scottishmaniac I mean there is a debate to be had about the topic itself. Do you think it was ethical to set the debate up around babies? I mean if all babies have a IQ of 0 how can the pro prove any claim. That was an annoying bit IMO
@alot_like_locke The pro chose the topic voluntarily. He doesn't get to claim that its unfair that he had to debate this topic this side. That's how Qallout works.
@scottishmaniac That is purely stupid. Just had this issue with my debate, and I personally think it is unethical, unreasonable, and people who are trying to view this from a layman's place do not want to watch it. I have had 3 friends this tourney just stop watching it because of this mess. That being said both debaters should take the most reasonable position and debate it.
@alot_like_locke nah, the debaters should read the resolutions, analyze the resolutions, pick the side of the resolution they can best defend, and then make the case for that side of the resolution. Sometimes that means you need to define exactly how you see the resolution and why that leads to your conclusion. Part of debate is determining the specifics of what is being debated, otherwise your claims won’t clash with your opponents claims because you are talking about different things.
@debateme13 Who the fuck is going to clash about the IQ of babies? It was stupid and no one wants to watch it.
@alot_like_locke you are on fire :-)
@alot_like_locke You are missing the point. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not it is accepted or not. It's the most accepting theory and even it won't validate infant intelligence. If anything, your low view of Gardner's egalitarian outlook supports what I've been arguing: that not even the most broad and accepting theory supports the resolution.
@scottishmaniac I am not, and do not refer to how you use it in the debate. Just commenting on how much I do not like it, it is a garbage hypothesis. You used it well in the debate and it made sense to do that...however, it is still a garbage hypothesis that I will bash at every junction I find necessary
@alot_like_locke @eli_mcgowan @chriscowherd @scottishmaniacJudges don't bash evidence. Haven't watched, but if she used it well and it was debated poorly, then the evidence stands as correct for purposes of the round.
@iantreyparish Never said otherwise
Great job guys. Interesting topic. Chris I think you need more evidence and scottishmaniac I think you’re depending too much on your evidence and numbers, but I watched the whole thing and I don’t even like debate so nice work haha. It does seem like you both get hung up on a lot of technicalities but I suppose that’s the nature of the medium. Also both sides could do without the condescending smirk hahaha but seriously nice job guys I enjoyed it
I don't think @scottishmaniac has an absurd position at all. I've seen debates before about whether intelligence is genetic, or learned. Pro seems to have expected that debate, but then Con's perspective caught him off guard. But I think Con actually is still giving that debate, just in a different way.Con is basically conceding that the potential for intelligence is genetic, but then saying intelligence in general has to be learned. That seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable standard to me. I feel like at birth, I had a pretty good potential to eventually be smart, but had I been murdered, or had I gotten hooked on hard drugs, or had I been born into a home where I'm prevented from attending school, or numerous other examples, I wouldn't have actually reached my potential. Even today, I'm still developing in intelligence, as everyone is. So the question Con is asking is, do babies at birth have intelligence? Con shows me quite a few sources and good analysis saying they don't have intelligence yet, and Pro never showed me that they do. Also Con correctly points out that the initial definition Pro gives of intelligence is talking about ability, not potential. Babies have an IQ of zero, knowledge of zero, and life experience of zero. Babies may have the capability to eventually be intelligent, and certain babies will have more such potential than others, but potential =/= result.For example, I play a lot of fantasy football. At the beginning of the season, all the players have 0 points. It's easy to say on day 1 of the season that the #1 draft pick has more potential than the player you picked up in the last round, but the problem is, potential is different than reality. I had the #1 draft pick this year, but he got injured in the very first game and is now out for the year. Some guys who we thought had no potential have now scored more than the guy I got with the #1 pick. If Albert Einstein had died on day 1 of his life, would he have been more intelligent than another baby who also died on day 1? I don't think so. He hadn't developed or learned yet, so he hadn't reached his intelligence yet. Also, I think there actually is a winning argument @chriscowherd could have made here had he understood Con's point. I really doubt that Con is right that on day 1, babies have exactly the same lack of intellectual ability. Since the brain has been functioning since the beginning of the third trimester, as soon as a baby is born, it already has been learning things. It may have an IQ of zero, but that doesn't mean it has zero intelligence. The baby does have a functioning brain with a few months of learning from the time it was in the womb. Some babies might have better motor skills than others, which they've been developing in the womb. Some babies might recognize voices better than others. Some babies might have immediate emotional intelligence and other babies don't. I don't know the answers here, but I think Pro could have pointed some of this out, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Instead he just focused on a babies potential for intelligence, which is different than the babies ability for intelligence.
Yeah thought so. I just googled "babies intelligence" and numerous sources come up, like this one, which is fascinating and shows that infants who notice novelty will almost certainly get higher test scores later in life, which indicates that the baby even as an infant already had higher intelligence than other babies. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/gauging-the-intelligence-of-infants.htmlAs I think about it, Con's position is actually really really beatable. Just show a couple ways in which babies have differing levels of intelligence. She can only win if she shows that ALL babies have ZERO intelligence, which is a really tough position to defend if someone challenged her head on.
@chriscowherd Apologies, just realized that for October's tournament we will save 3 people who lost at Round 4 to advance to the next round (so that we have in total 8). This will be determined based on the number of total votes that each debater (from the ones who lost) managed to gather during Round 4.We will announce this weekend after all debates from Round 4 have been completed!
@qallout_tournament thanks for letting me know! I had forgotten as well XD
This debate was unbearable because the premise was half-baked and full of holes and the opponent was disrespectful and rude. That being said, genetics undeniably play a large factor in the outcome of one's intelligence. That's not up for debate, it is imperical fact, but that's not the premise being argued here.