@matthewhidalgo Thanks for the decision :). I agree with you that I wasn't as coherent, clear, or structured as I could have been. My day job had been super stressful (the person next to me had been unexpectedly fired), so I had run out of gas before the debate even started, and this was me running on fumes. I wound up mostly just saying what I felt more than what was directly logical and strategic. I think I had some arguments that could warrant a Con win, but if I'm being honest, if I was judging I'd probably have voted the same way you did. Thanks for the detailed analysis and suggestions :)
@debateme13 Of course! I completely understand, as I'm coming off a super hectic week and I was also worried that my judgement would be affected. Thanks for being an awesome member of the community!
@vkate Thanks very much! I'm glad my perspective came across to you. This wasn't how I normally debate, so I wasn't sure if my points were coming through, so I'm glad the emphasis on "moral culpability" rather than just "people should do things" was persuasive. Thanks for the time and decision :)
@debateme13 Having seen you debate several times, I did notice you were debating differently. Life happens. I personally did not feel that it detracted from your case. Great work and thank you for being a valuable member of this community!
Pro sure talks great equivalents...
@julian Thanks for voting for me! But I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. What was he equivocating?
@debateme13 Seemed to me he was implying we must act in every situation and every instance of injustice is the same and talked around situations that my impair the ability as you refuted as well as social justice issues? It sounded misleading.
@julian oh yeah gotcha. Yeah I agree.
This was a good debate.
"Moral" and 'morality'? And , what is justice, and who decides what is just?PRO mentions that a 2 year old is incapable of doing something in the face of injustice, so no moral culpability would be placed on that 2 year old.WELL - in our society - we no longer teach children much about right and wrong, justice and injustice. We have 'snowflakes' going to college and demanding safe spaces and shutting down speakers whose views they can't stand. We are raising a generation of people with no more moral culpability than that 2 year old that was mentioned. Absent training in right and wrong - we have amoral people who are incapable of a distinction of right and wrong.ADD to this that over the past 80 years, we have seen government pick up the responsibility for helping people - something that used to be done by private charities and the people. We are being taught that the solution to any problem is another government program. AND - we now have a society that is being taught to look away and say nothing if a Muslim does something strange (hey - no profiling, and you are a racist if you bring anything up)...or if you see a hairy guy go into the ladies shower room (where teen girls are showering and changing) - and speaking up gets the person 'hammered' as 'transphobic'. If a Muslim wants to beat his wife or daughter...don't speak out...by their rules, that is permitted.NO - as a society, we have descended past this resolution being true. I would agree with it if we had the same moral standards we had 60 years ago. BUT - under today's standards, it is a wrong statement.
@debateme13 @lewisoflime 13:40 'and thats why you're going to be voting for the pro' ... fk that was funny, genuinely lol'd.But thought experiment:Pro claims that if you have no capacity to act, then you would have a choice, and choice confers moral culpability.E.g. baby in crib has no choice to stop robbers vs. observer to crim.Con claims there are inherrent inabilities in people to act (e.g. being unable to consider it). Which seems like just another example of someone who doesn't have a choice.Question - consider the following realise generalisation, for the person walking by the rape in broad day light, if the culture see's rape as a legitimate practice of justice (e.g. jurgas in pakistan) - could you blame people for inaction in that circumstance if they have had that knowledge and standard inculcated in them?It seems that there could be any number of mitigating factors that limit someones capacity to functionally zero and limits this debate to people acting in pure evil.... But those people are tautologically evil.The intutition that supports that - very few people act in favour of good samaritan laws.=========================================Also another observation about Con's case at the 26min mark in the rarity of injustices. I dont think con needed to fall back to the 40% mark... Like explicit racism is something that is /outside the norm of experience/ and would likely cause people to freeze up. note that people freeze up both when they're in a traumatic experience (car crash) and at a surprise party because they're both outside normal exsperience.Also like simple claims of self preservation and risk-aversion of people... at no point (that I picked up) does pro claim you should care for others.=======================================That siad those are both observations that are outside of the debate and obviously didn't impact my vote. This isn't an explanation of my vote just observations on the debate (I did vote pro full disclosure).
@liamm Oh great point. When Joseph was grilling me, I really should have pointed out that literally everyone is shocked even by everyday injustices. That's why people's eyebrows raise when someone says something racist. If you hear it at the supermarket nobody knows what to say or do. That's definitely the track I should have taken there. But I was so exhausted I wasn't thinking straight lol
Con's original stat was that 25-30% of the 40% of people who witness trauma develop PTSD. How did he translate that to 25% of people are brain-frozen and incapable of action in the face of injustice? Wouldn't his statistic more accurately translate to 10+% of people develop PTSD at some point?
@suspenderella That's correct haha. I was exhausted when this debate was going on so I was a little confused. My overall point in the debate was that the resolution isn't true on it's own, that other factors have to be met before we can call it accurate.What the study said was that 40% of people are affected by major traumatic instances. Out of those, 25% will be so affected that it will give them PTSD. I then quoted another study talking about how the primary reaction to trauma is fear, and I was pointing out that if you're being overrun with fear, your mind isn't really thinking right.I wasn't planning on coming back to this point, but then Joseph started using the 25% number, and in the moment I was thinking to myself "is that what my numbers were saying? Oh well I'll go with what he said." haha. But that wasn't supposed to be the argument, and if I was more awake I probably would have clarified this. I did not mean to turn this into a numbers debate at all. I just wanted to say that there are a significant amount of people who are dramatically affected by traumatic instances. And when you're so affected, your brain does not think the same way it normally does, so if you don't act in time, or at all, that isn't your fault. It isn't just "inaction" that = moral blameworthiness. It's "inaction + knowledge". The resolution isn't true unless the person consciously recognized "I should act" and then chose not to. And I was just using the study to show that a lot of people will encounter a significant traumatic event, (which may even be an attack on them) and it will significantly impact them mentally, so to blame them for what they go through is morally unjust.
Here comes the September Champion!!!!!!!:trophy:@lewisoflime Congratulations on your first QallOut Champion title and to many more! :tada:@debateme13 Congrats on getting 2nd place, stellar job as always! I'm sure first place is coming soon :-)Thank you both for your awesome debates throughout this tournament and see you in future tournaments!