Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
36 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      sorry! There was a lot to cover. At the end, in case it cut off, I did say that if there are any lingering questions about how I reached my vote, feel free to ask me for clarifications here in the comments!:)

    • a year ago

      @lupita Thanks for the judgement. As always, love what you have to say and I appreciate you taking time to do so :)

    • a year ago

      @lupita @qallout_tournament Thanks for the pointers, I do find it funny that you'll dock me for not citing my sources, yet you let this one slip by and gave it to my opponent when numbers were critical. He states 34 million african-american citizens were segregated in the 1920's? Funny how the US black population was only 10 million during that time though eh? Less than the 14 million "fetuses" (though my opponent conceded they were lives). There weren't 34 million african american citizens until the turn of the century for crying out loud. Hmm. it seems someone *can* get a good point in on uncited, made up stats.

      Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003, and We, The American Blacks, U.S. Census Bureau, 1993.

      https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population


      No worries, overall a good judgement. Thanks! :)

  • a year ago

    Hello! My name is Arielle, and I’m a residential judge here on qallout. Thank you for both participating in this debate.

    To begin my evaluation, I must say I was intrigued to see how the CON side would formulate his argument against the preeminence of the 21st century. I’ll now outline the two oppositional sides and their respective arguments as I interpreted them. Correct me if I’m wrong in any facet of representation of your thoughts, but I think it’s for the best that I lay them out before I dig into the meat of the argument and decide upon a winner based on the quality of forumulaic argument and communication tactic.

    The PRO’s side was relatively easy to ascertain-- the 21st century has seen the emergence of new technologies, medical equipment, and longer lifespans. Certain viruses such as polio have been largely eradicated, and infant mortality rates have decreased. Women and minorities have been granted rights that were withheld from them in previous centuries of US History. He outlines the proof of his resolution as including criteria such as quality and quantity of lives nowadays.

    The CON side rebutted that the 21st century has not yet come to pass. He rectified the definition of an era to mean an unspecific amount of time which could be shorter or longer in any given context, using the example of a presidential administration’s term.
    He listed a different proof metric- life, liberty, and happiness, in reference to what should constitute a won case. Listing the 1920’s as a parallel era, he addressed the relative signigicantly rapid development of techology- the television and automobile were introduced, and women’s voting rights were granted.
    Dislodging his opponent’s argument, he cited the drug epidemic, rising depression, rising cancer rates and heart disease, and increase in percentage of the population possessing STDs as reasons why the 21st century is not the best in American history.

    I must say, I was surprised neither case discussed political policies of either century. Aside from a brief discussion of prohibition of alcohol, the narrative devolved into a discussion of the disadvantages and immorality of legal aboriton… In favor of the CON side, he was able to utilize this point towards his advantage. He furthered that abortion’s being legal in the 21st century is an affront to life. 41% of Americans in the 21st centuryare pro choice, which he said indicates a deterioration of values. He also cited that on average, there are 700,000 abortions per year in the US, a marked increase. This was an interesting twist, and I felt it negated half of his opponent’s criteria for quantity of life.

    Ultimately, while the PRO side spent much time deflecting his opponent’s arguments, he didn’t convincingly assert his own side’s burden, instead resting upon common sense arguments such as bettered medical care. This is why the CON side was victorious.

  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @metant3 Congrats for advancing to the Semi-Finals! Please expect further details on your next debated in the next couple of days

      @daveykanabus Congrats for reaching the Quarter Finals and qualifying for a free entry in the $5,000 Championship starting in January

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley triggered ;)

      • a year ago

        how can the 20's be the best? Alcohol was illegal. End of story. hahaha jk

      • a year ago

        @daveykanabus Dude. Stop comparing abortion to the Holocaust. You have no idea the level of conscious torture and suffering people experienced.

        • a year ago

          @lewisoflime He's just using it as a measuring amount for lives lost. If he's right that life begins at conception, then abortion has killed millions and millions of people. It's not unreasonable for him to compare that to another event that unjustly stole millions of lives.

        • a year ago

          @debateme13

          Joseph is talking about prolonged torture and inhumane treatment - surely that comes above something that could, at worst be described as execution.

        • a year ago

          @liamm sure it's not exactly analogous, but it's also not unreasonable for him to point to an example of lives lost. I don't think the abortion argument is a winning argument for him, but I understand why he would make the comparison.

        • a year ago

          @debateme13

          @liamm

          It's not a terrible thing to make a comparison, it's just extremely poor form. Just say 58 million people died. Invoking the Holocaust doesn't make it any more persuasive. To folks who have relatives/have been through the Holocaust, it's kind of insensitive, so that's something to think about.

        • a year ago

          @debateme13 I agree its not unreasonable, however I also don't think it's that helpful for Con for the exact reason - its not analogous.

        • a year ago

          @iantreyparish I agree^

        • a year ago

          @lewisoflime While I didn't have time to go into it, and I grant that it was a matter of poor time management on my part; I let the clock take control this round.... Abortion does represent an abhorrent level of suffering as well. The latest findings in prenatal science demonstrate that children in the womb can feel pain well before the point at which a large number of abortions take place; yet have no developed shock response to mitigate it. Even this rather outdated video demonstrates that abortion causes real suffering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

          One may think it in poor taste to compare the abortion epidemic to the Holocaust, but I don't think either my opponent nor myself, who are pro-life, see it too differently. I get the feeling reducing abortion to a quantity of life issue, while effective for his debate, left a bad taste in his mouth.

      • a year ago

        Nice debate @daveykanabus! Good luck in future rounds.

      • a year ago

        @metant3 @daveykanabus Great debate guys!

        Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 5 votes i.e. community + 4 judges. Your confirmed judges so far @lupita @arielle_3558

        • a year ago

          @qallout_tournament Thanks!

          My opponent did a very good job and this is such a large topic which covers a lot of controversial areas. I felt I was fairly strong in making my points, especially at the end though, but we'll see what the judges say! :)

      • a year ago

        @metant3 @daveykanabus Was notified I'd be judging two hours ago. Judgment will be coming this afternoon/early evening, hopefully by 11PM EST. EDIT: Judgment below, happy to answer questions. 2 parter video clips.
        EDIT 2: Stat on pg. 3
        https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/childbearing/20120817_cspan_childbearing_slides.pdf

        • a year ago
          • a year ago

            Davey, I also thought you needed to articulate that murder is worse than dying by natural causes, but you didn't give me that argument specifically so I couldn't give that to you.

        • a year ago

          Congrats @metant3. Good luck in the semi-finals! I don't think I did too bad for my first tournament and you were definitely a skilled opponent. Look forward to debating you again in the future.

          • a year ago

            @daveykanabus Thanks mate. And no you certainly didnt to badly! Our round was a nice one and you were an awesome and respectful opponent, exactly what Qallout needs. Thanks for the debate and good luck in future tourneys!

        • a year ago