Check out the Tournament Ladder
@tara_kade Cheers, very easy to follow, glad the vegetarianism analogy got a mention!
I ran right to the end of 7 minutes on this judgment so please ask me if anything was unclear because I had so much to get through!
I didn't address nearly as much as I would have liked in the way of how all of your arguments interacted with each other. This debate got pretty broad. If you have any questions on how specific arguments functioned in my decision, please comment below so that everyone can see how that argument was evaluated in this judgment. I will say this on the "voting doesn't solve" debate. It went back and forth and there were good arguments on each side, but Pro's arguments about how investors will avoid risk and that people will still avoid the site ultimately win the day. Con makes a good argument about how penalty by voting will be a testament to QallOut's character and will attract investors, but it still doesn't overcome the fact that people will just avoid harassment and is at the very least awash with the articulation that investors will actually just avoid this because they fear the risk that comes with association with a site that allows unsavory individuals to access it. Either way, simply voting against Nazis does not undo the havoc that they wreak.As always, if there are any questions/comments/concerns, just comment below or DM me. Congratulations to both debaters for making it to Quarter Finals!
@benmouse42 Congrats for advancing to the Semi-Finals! Please expect further details on your next debate later today@scottishmaniac Awesome performance on your first tournament! Congrats for reaching the Quarter Finals and qualifying for a free entry to the $5,000 Championship starting in JanuaryIn the meantime, you can have some fun with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges
Great debate @scottishmaniac , glad we avoided the words "Terms of Service" :P (@lewisoflime)
@benmouse42 Same. xD
Both sides clearly have experience debating. There is a lot of time on both sides dedicated to defining parameters and voting criteria. Pro would have been better served by spending more time addressing his stronger body of evidence, which favors him, and less time being sucked into the framing debate, which favors con.Style-wise, early on it was very evenly matched. However, over the course of the debate pro seemed to lose his cool, resorting to profanity and indignation instead of logical progression, while con remained calm and collected.On the evidence itself, both sides raise strong points, though I think pro could have dominated by focusing on the (strong) harassment argument instead of the (much weaker) advertising revenue argument.Personally, I hold the pro view. However, con demonstrated superior framing and temperament, and both indicate that she did a better job within the actual debate. As a result, I vote against my personal views and in favor of con for a superior debate performance.
@ben haha mate if you think profanity is grounds to lose a debate you're clearly not into having any fun :PI'd be interested to hear what actual logical argument you thought won the debate though. It'd be kind of annoying to lose a vote just because someone doesn't like a bit of rough and tumble in discourse!
"True story, I'm an LD debater!"Me: ughhhhhhhhh LD. *shudders**continues to watch policy debate*
(Not judging this round).I think that there were compelling arguments on both sides. This is obviously a high caliber debate. But I think that the issue of framing was too important to ignore. What burden of proof exists is dependent on what type of resolutional framing we use. Con provided a constructive, logical breakdown of the burden of proof that is traditionally accepted in the debate community in line with the resolutional type. In contrast, the Pro abdicated a constructive response to this by simply stating that Qallout was akin to intellectual street fighting. Logic and good form is important in debate, and I don't think that we should be so keen to ditch theory when we bring up important issues like the burden of proof. This reason, in addition to the argument and evidence reasons @ben commented on are why I think my wife (full disclosure) won this round.
I'm not the RJ for the debate. Just a question and comment.@scottishmaniac I am a former policy debater and Lincoln-Douglas debater, familiar with debate theory. I'm curious as to why, in what you dub a policy resolution (X should do Y), Pro must argue a change in the status quo. I understand in resolutions such as "The US should reform its transportation policy" or "The US should increase foreign aid to Africa" why Pro must advocate a change. However, when the resolution is structured in a way that the Pro advocacy refers to the status quo, Pro doesn't need to defend a change. Pro can just advocate for a world in which the resolution is true, and that could be the status quo. (E.g. "The LA Lakers should have Lonzo Ball as their starting point guard" is a policy resolution in which Pro advocates the SQ and Con advocates a change". Or "Facebook should not have a dislike button" is a topic in which Pro advocates the SQ.) When I see the resolution- "QallOut should not allow everyone to debate on its platform" and Pro says that that's true in the status quo because of Terms of Service, why is he compelled to advocate for a change? Isn't it the other way around, that if QO doesn't allow everyone to debate on its platform in the SQ, you have to make the case for some sort of a change? In mainstream policy debate with resolutions calling for changes, yes, that's not your burden. But I don't see that type of resolution being debated here. I don't quite understand the why behind your theory argument, could you clarify if possible?@benmouse42 if your opponent advocates AND justifies some sort of voting mechanism, I think you have to do more to counteract it than merely saying "QO doesn't have set voting criteria". That is true, but in the same way you might disagree and warrant why upholding the economy is not the metric that ought determine winner and loser OR show you meet that metric, you should do the same (and force your opponent to justify their theory or metric). IMO, any debater can justify ANY metric to the judge to adjudicate the debate. They just need to properly warrant it and explain why winning the issue wins the debate. Where this goes wrong is where the metrics/burdens are advocated and not justified, but are backed up because "they are the rules". Does that make sense to you?
@josh808 I agree I cant just appeal to chaos, I felt I made logical arguments as to why there is a recipricol burden. See my first and second speech. I also made an analogy to why her burden push was insufficient (the more than 1 reason to be a vegetarian one) that went unrefuted
@benmouse42 Yeah I totally agree you did that, I was just referencing a later speech (you were probably pressed for time) where she was talking about "Inherency" as a voting issue. @scottishmaniac Read my above post, but "Inherency" (or need for the resolutional advocacy to solve a problem) changes quite a bit when the Pro is advocating the SQ. Arguing the SQ solves the problem is not sufficient. You have to show why non-resolutional action solves the problem (which I felt you were doing in your judging comment), just wanted to make that clear. I thought maybe a one-sentence justification of why it is a voting issue would have strengthened your position and helped you connect with the audience more.
@josh808 Well the inherency argument also fell down because what she meant by it was "there are other solutions"But the only solution she detailed was the voting system which I don't feel actually fixed the problems I was detailing (investors and chilling effect on joining due to harassment threats)
@josh808 This was my question too. I actually ran into the same thing when I debated Ben in the semi's last tournament. I do think if he wants to, he probably can run a policy case where he defends the status quo. As long as he proves the resolution, he wins.In most debate leagues "policy debate" requires that the Pro side must advocate a change, but that's just because it's already explicit in the resolution that a change must be advocated. Nothing in this resolution, or Qallout itself seems to require that the Pro must advocate a change in policy.That being said, I do think Con does a good job tying Pro to "the almighty dollar" so I did vote for her. I'm not really sure why Ben made so much of a focus on investors not wanting to see Neo-Nazis. That's kind of a dumb argument considering he could have just focused on his other argument about how abusive activity means not everyone should be on the site.
@debateme13 @josh808 Ben didn’t convince me he was advocating for the status quo, and his comment up top says he never mentioned “terms of service.” It’s not unreasonable at all for Con to interpret the resolution as calling for a change.
I suppose your interpretation of whether or not "should" calls for a change in the status quo depends on whether or not you think that Pro referenced actions presently in our system. In his first speech, he argued that some types of ad hominems warranted a ban. Now, you might think that this refers to the terms of service and therefore is inherent to the status quo. But please see Pro's above comment. He and I discussed pre-round whether or not his plan would reference the Terms of Service. He assured me that his resolutional interpretation did not. So, as he did not reference a current set of rules in the status quo that ban debaters based on certain types of ad hominems, it is only reasonable to assume that he was advocating for a change. So long story short, I took that context from both the resolution and how he decided to present it in his constructive speech.
@eli_mcgowan If both teams say they have the status quo. Surely, you shouldnt believe one of them randomly.You just compare the policies offeredSecondly: Saying the debate calls for a change means nothing unless the change is proven to be net harmful (which in this case) I have no idea what the harms were supposed to be
@benmouse42 people should believe Con here based on context, not randomly. Net benefits is not nearly the only criterion in policy debate, and you also have all the stock issues in addition to available criterions.
@eli_mcgowan This is not policy debate. It's just debateLets look at the context:https://www.facebook.com/groups/QallOutH2H/permalink/233770653693508/Hmmm looks like I am correct and my opponent was just assuming the status quo was a free for all when it wasn't
@benmouse42 it’s a policy debate, by your own pre-debate admission. My wife showed it to me. She didn’t assume that at all. She was addressing your plan to change the status quo, which you admitted to both explicitly and contextually.
And Yazan’s Facebook posts don’t have anything to do with your case in-round. You have to justify your stance to your audience, and I don’t think you did that in-round.
@eli_mcgowan We mean different things by policy debate.In Australia "policy debate" just means that both sides are advocating for a policy. I'm sorry that we come from different countries but that just didn't translate well.But it's also totally irrelevant whether I want to change the status quo, the question is. Did she prove that the 'change' causes more harms than benefits. In this debate she didnt really prove that.Infact many of her points are contingent on supporting the status quo, which (check the link), if affirming the resolution
@benmouse42 I’ve addressed all these points now. I believe Con addresses all these satisfactorily in-round, and I already addressed the faulty idea that net benefits is the only relevant voter here.
@eli_mcgowan yer except you tried to smear my character whilst doing so by lying about things I said before the debate.Have some class man. I get that there are translation issues here but at least apologise when they are revealed to be an honest misunderstanding.Also you havnt provided any other criteria as an alternative to net benefits so it's a bit hard for me to understand whya) the other criteria is more importantb) what the other criteria even is
@benmouse42 it’s policy debate - stock issues matter, which were brought up in the debate.I didn’t lie or slander about anything.
@eli_mcgowan Let's all give grace where its due here. Maybe something was said that, while true in one sense, is not true in another. I don't know about any of that, but I do know words sometimes change their meanings when it comes to different cultures, etc.I addressed this in my video comment, but what it really comes down to is whether or not PRO is advocating for a change from the system. If so, vote CON. This is what I did.
You admit here that Pro said he wanted a change - “banning more.” Pro made this apparent several times in the debate. I am absolutely unconvinced that Pro is advocating for the status quo, and I don’t agree that he can within the policy framework he was using, and which he said he would use in pre-debate disclosures.
@eli_mcgowan He stated at 7:38 that he will and can co-opt for the status quo, that the con does not have the status quo, and that any argument made for the current status quo on her side is his argument as well.
@alot_like_locke he can say that all he wants, why would anyone just assume that to be true when he implies multiple times the opposite?
@eli_mcgowan Where does he imply the opposite?
@eli_mcgowan Then piss off?
@eli_mcgowan I voted for your wife last round you idiot. I attacked one minor thing she said in the debate, not her debate in general. You inconsistent dweeb
@alot_like_locke LD is far more simple than policy debate, and this wasn’t an LD debate anyway. You’re being ridiculously dismissive to a huge slice of the debate community. I quit watching your video at that point.
@eli_mcgowan That huge slice of the debate community can kiss my ass or actually talk the issue, their choice not mine. Never said it was LD, said the critique was similar to the concerns I have. Don't watch it, I could give a shit less.
@alot_like_locke Good Night, sir.
@alot_like_locke PRO is advocating for a concrete policy action, voting because of a claim of the efficacy of co-option isn't a concrete case. That's a moving target and a clear reason to reject the argument, and if articulated, a clear case to vote down the team. I would just reject the argument, however.
@iantreyparish I do want to make this clear, what Ben, Liam, and a few others view as policy is not the same as you. Their policy debates are based on international and worlds debate community, as he stated earlier in other debates and comments. From my experience learning debate from Monash debate society and a few others is different than American style. This other style also meshes much better with Qallout which is why I have adopted it. It is more entertaining and overall gives the layman a better understanding of the topic.
@benmouse42 @alot_like_locke @josh808 Long story short, I was on two benedryl when I tried to explain myself the first time at 2am. Now it's the morning, so I'm going to address your questions/criticism of the framing issue in one post for organization and clarity:I've already mentioned that context clearly indicates that pro advocated for a change. There are two reasons that this is so. 1. Pro and I had an extensive discussion clarifying the resolutional intent after watching a round with this same res where lewisoflime used the terms of service to argue for a status quo interpretation. Pro assured me that he did not agree with this interp. Now, we can see that the Terms of Service are the only rules on this site. So if he wasn't referring to this in his case, then he had to by necessity be referring to something else. And that something else does not exist yet. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to conclude that someone who argued that he sees the res very differently from lewisoflime's case would obviously be arguing for new rules. 2. But there is a piece of evidence that makes this an open and shut case for the con interp. Pro very clearly advocated for banning people with neonazi beliefs from debate- aka viewpoint discrmination. It's right there in the video. This is obviously not a part of the status quo. So there's no getting around it. Pro wanted a change. 3. If pro was really so keen on defending the status quo, he would have brought up the only rules in existence, the terms of service, and then defended them. But he didn't. So if his job really was to defend the current rules, he did a pretty poor job of that. HOWEVER, even if this was a "street fighter" scenario with an equal burden of proof, con still takes the day. It's the metric of the almighty dollar versus quallout's core principles. And I think it's pretty obvious which one is more compelling.
Also, thanks to @eli_mcgowan for rhetorically defending me while I was too loopy to do it myself. You da MVP, hubsters.
@scottishmaniac ok, that clears things up a lot, I might rewatch later and flow the debate as well. 👍
@scottishmaniac I think the issue is that whilst I was happy to ramp up the model to be the status quo + more stuff, that DOES NOT mean you get to defend the status quo.The status quo kicks some ppl off, my policy kicks some more people off, either one wins me the debate. I merely said I wouldnt run the "we've already signed a ToS" argument. That is not the same thing as allowing you to lower your burden as you've implied
also to build on that last point @benmouse42: be careful with the audience when it comes to swearing :P Personally, I freaking love it when debates get that heated, and I've done it a lot myself, but you gotta be careful 'bout that audience. :P But I love your style man, you're easily one of my top 10 favorite debaters on the site.
@alot_like_locke glad you see the reasonable case for the opposite side and recognized your own bias.
@eli_mcgowan I never said the other case was terrible, nor does debate mean I remove all biases. What I do as a voter is remove biases about the topic to judge. Which I did, specifically saying this is that I overall agree with what the con's saying, but the pro had a more persuasive case overall. The main voting portion I stated was the fact of RJ's being kicked out, which inherently affirms the resolution because that is a part of the word everyone. Dont like my decision dont read it. Defend tour wife, fine I don't care. But for the love of God be a bit less bias.
@alot_like_locke any rational listener would have understood that point of her’s to mean firing judges, not an affirmation of the res.
@eli_mcgowan if she would have articulated that than I would agree, but used the term "kicked out and fired" which implies 2 actions not 1.
@alot_like_locke She’s Southern. She uses hyperbole. She’d have to be a debater totally unworthy of Quarters to have meant an affirmation of the res., and it’s not how she, myself, Ian, and several others I’ve spoken to have taken it to be understood.
@eli_mcgowan Odd cop out statement, especially to a southerner. I do not agree with the quarters level debater is somehow above making a mistake. People make mistakes, its a thing that happens. Others will interprets things differently, that is a part of debate. I think Neal had a pretty big post about this some time ago. I have lost a debate tournaments for simple mistakes like a judge writing down the wrong names, or incorrectly reading a resolution and runningng a neg case against major instead of significant because significant in debate world could very well mean very minor change...etc.
@alot_like_locke Sure. I’ve had that too. We all have. But hopefully that isn’t the case here, where it was pretty obvious to the majority of her audience the actual idea she was communicating.
@eli_mcgowan but it was not, people you spam to your facebook for votes will obviously be more forgiving or be more interpretive of what she is saying than someone who is trying to be objective. Again, people interpret things differently, especially in a heated and close debate. Minor slip ups could be the only criteria to vote on. Even if it is the case that we take that statement as a given, the debate was close enough to have the criteria be best argued and any minor error could be a deciding factor.
@alot_like_locke most of us don’t see it as an error, because we understand human communication in terms of context. Good night.
@eli_mcgowan human communication in terms of context? Most convoluted copout I have heard in a while. You even agreed the statement was hyperbolic, but it is not an error because she is southern. Come on dude, that is ridiculous. Do I as a southern gent receive the same? Absolutely not, if I speak in hyperbole and I accidently say something bad I will pay for it. Again, I understand you are defending your wife, but you are beimg unbelievably biased, and at this point have gone to the depths of irrationality.
@alot_like_locke disagree. Communication is my vocation, a reasonable person would see it the opposite way, but clearly we disagree.
@eli_mcgowan on what grounds would a reasonable person see it in the opposite? How does a random stranger take that phrase as meaning 1 action? When there was specifically 2 actions represented in words.
@alot_like_locke I’ve already explained why, it’s a very common anomaly of speech, especially in debate, to describe something in two ways to get it across to your audience.
@eli_mcgowan There is a difference between that and this though. Again, the words were kicked out and fired, with no other context I find it hard pressed to believe that anyone looks at that and says they are the same thing. Fired means stop being a judge, kicked out means to be kicked out of qallout. Again, other people might interpret this different and people who are already persuaded by her arguments or friends are far more likely to overlook something like that, but being as objective as possible I felt that contradiction was a game breaker for me.
@eli_mcgowan mate you really should calm your farm. I get you wanna bat for your wife. No problems with that. But don't come after people who voted for me. Joe has a different opinion to you and gave a clear reason why, you reflexively go after his integrity. Totally classless.Stop making statements about how debates should be judged that are explicitly in tension with QallOuts guidelines. Youve got a RJ badge. You know you've been entrusted to spread a positive judging ethic on this site and you're breaking that trust.I think you owe Joe and the community an apology.@alot_like_locke
@benmouse42 absolutely not. Joe has harassed my wife over bizarre side issues over the course of two debates, for reasons unknown to me. There are many reasonable reasons for people to vote for you, and many did, but I’ve grown frustrated with Locke’s attitude, and I’ve tried to engage him to find out more about why he thinks and acts the way he does.I like you, I’ve judged in favor of your incredible debate performance before, and I don’t have a bone to pick with you or anyone else. Or even really with Locke, beyond trying to reason with him and understand him.
@benmouse42 @qallout Locke is the one who called me an “ignorant dweeb” among other things. I’ve kept a calm and professional demeanor.
@eli_mcgowan no sir. Nothing in lockes attitude is remotely hostile, he is essentially pleading for a for an understandable format and youve hurled accusations at himThat's not what honest intellectual inquiry looks like and anyone who reads your comments can see that
@benmouse42 A fo?“Dweeb” isn’t hostile?
I admit he gets defensive quickly, but you threw the first accusation
@benmouse42 This particular sub-thread started with me agreeing and complimenting his statement in his third video of admitting to being somewhat biased.
@eli_mcgowan "You’re being ridiculously dismissive to a huge slice of the debate community. I quit watching your video at that point."Your first comment on his vidHardly professional to not even listen to the person you're talking to
@eli_mcgowan doesn't read like a compliment to me. Ill leave that for joe to decide
@benmouse42 that was my first comment to his second video, in a different thread. It wasn’t our first discussion here. Anyway, about it - I’m not under an obligation to listen to it, and I simply wanted to respond to the outright misrepresentative attack he made on a huge (minority) community of debaters.
@benmouse42 that’s the problem with text-based discussions. Once QallOut supports iOS I’ll use video more often.
@eli_mcgowan harassed your wife? I made 2 maybe 3 video comments on a specific topic inside the debate. As I stated in the videos that it was not an attack on her personally but just that overall viewpoint because it is an issue that I talk about on this site quite often. Secondly, still not harrasing her with my judgement especially when it does nothing for the debate itself. It is one vote in a mountain of them, also it was pretty decent analysis whether you like it or not. Lastly, you have not engaged in trying to understand my position. If you read the comments that I have made I have been very empathetic to your position and hers. I called you an idiot because you said I harassed her, which is demonstrably false and stupid. You are using that word in a stupid way, so...I will call you an idiot. Seems like a reasonable position to me. You state that you are favorable of Ben and yet you have questioned his motives before the debate and questioned his character. If anyone deserves the apology it is @benmouse42
@eli_mcgowan when does tucking your tail between your legs and being dismissive = calm and professional?
@alot_like_locke I’ve never questioned Ben’s motives. 😂 I’m the one who told my wife to approach him pre-round because he’s an upstanding and all-around well-respected guy. I have talked about what happened pre-round to try and help frame how Con approached this round, but it was never an attack on Ben.The tone of your (numerous) videos can sometimes be misunderstood, then. And have been by several people who have watched them. I have listened to and engaged with your ideas in them, to the best of my ability. But since you’ve descended to just calling me names, I will not be responding to you anymore on this debate.
@eli_mcgowan I messaged ya last night cuz I read the same thing in your comments. They do appear hostile and aggrandizing. I know you're not like that irl, but these comments don't reflect your true personality imo.Obviously in debates, tempers are gonna flare, so no harm done, but when you rush to assume that people are criticizing Emily when they might just have a disagreement with her points, or that Ben was intentionally misleading her with his pre-debate statements, (this is why pre-debate conversations are so stupid lol) it seems like you're putting your personal bias for her over your respect for the rest of the Qallout community. I get it ya gotta defend the wife (good man) but you might be taking it a bit too far when it starts seeming like you're attacking others. Just my two cents.
@debateme13 I've never thought Ben was intentionally misleading Emily, and I've never argued that. To my knowledge my temper hasn't flared, I've simply tried to take on some very unpleasant remarks and respond to them. @benmouse42 I watched half of his video, enough to see him treat LD debaters as a whole entirely unfairly. I'm not even an LD debater myself, my background is policy and parli, but I have to step in when someone is so dismissive. My tone was never meant to be inappropriate or angry, and I'm again regretful that I did not create a video to try and better get my point across. I'll do better in the future, it's obviously I failed since everyone here has totally misunderstood every idea I was trying to get across.
Great debates, good debate. I never bought Con's attempt to force Pro into a policy resolution. I think it is reasonable to infer one and argue about disadvantages that could stem from it. In a sense Con did, the chilling effect on free speech and the compromise of the site's values. That was ultimately more compelling than any framing that was done here. I don't think pro needs to advocate for a change in policy if the policy already embodies the resolution.Pro talked a lot about the site's financial future, which is relevant, and I can imagine the impacts, but because Con said there could be other ways to mitigate bad behavior I'm led to wonder about how impactful the harms are of allowing everyone to debate and punishing them vs banning them. And that doesn't get discussed a lot here.My gut tells me to vote Pro, I think he's representing the truth, that that abusive debaters don't represent a viewpoint, and that some views are so extreme they could endanger the site's success. But I'm not quite as persuaded by Pro's argument as my own experience with debate sites. But I also didn't feel much compelled by Con's case. It was well spoken, but other than an appeal to free speech, didn't grab me.So a soft pro vote here.
@sigfried thanks for taking the time to weigh in, Sig. I enjoy your RFDs even when they’re oppposite mine.
It is a shame that this debate was quite circular at times - both debaters had good ideas and strong principles. While I personally am undecided on the topic and could be swayed by both speakers, this was ultimately a clear Pro win for the following reasons: - It is a simply absurd notion from the onset that Pro has to have all of his case stand for it to be viable. I don't understand/know LD Debating and perhaps that 'bar stool' approach is common in that form, although in all the formats I know and participate in, it is simply untrue. At the major world competitions, you do not lose a debate because one of your many reasons are knocked out of the debate (with that said, I do think Con won no arguments here, but in the event she was able to win on one point, it does not constitute a logical win). If it is true that a Con can win because they disprove an argument, it is insanely difficult for Pro to win because often no case is perfect - on balance, all that Pro has to do is prove that their solution creates a better environment than the status quo, or at least makes it better in some capacity than Con's burden. - With that said, the weigh-up of harms in this debate is huge. While Pro was perhaps a bit incendiary (for context, in Australia this would hardly be an issue) towards the end of the debate, I can understand the sentiment. At the point in time in which this site exists off funding made by market sponsors, you necessarily need to sell Qallout as a platform for intellectual jousting rather than as a 4-Chan safe space. It is a clear contradiction for Con to stand for an 'equal platform' for Jews and Nazis – the push factors Pro clearly enunciated at the start of the debate means that having Nazis on the site at all actively discourages people from a Jewish/non-Anglo background from joining. - Furthermore, I find it baffling that Con’s solution is to de-platform Nazis by having crowd-censoring and judges actively vote against them. Free speech logically entails a spectrum of beliefs, and Con should concede that Nazis can win debates – it is odd for her to stand by a purist form of free speech but then have crowd-censoring as a solution. At best, you have vitriolic speech shouted down, creating further echo chambers and isolating people more and at worst, you literally do not have a website exist because of market ‘disincentivisation’.- Con fails to understand the strong, principled material from Pro that isn’t all about the almighty dollar – Pro advocates for the existence of a website where free expression is allowed for MOST people, Con advocates for the rights of FEW Nazis to speak at the expense of pushing away MANY people from the platform and risking an entire shutdown.- Another point worth making that is particularly strong from Pro is that abortion/religion are simply different beasts from Nazism. Abortion and religion can be discussed without reference to identity, i.e. you’re not inherently lesser for being religious or pro-choice. Nazism/white nationalism on the other hand actively entails one speaker feeling superior to the other simply because of their birth lottery – at the point in time your ‘free speech’ entails denying others of their existence, that probably should not be a goal for a website such as Qallout that advocates a range of beliefs. Pro contextualises this well when he says that the linking of accounts on Facebook to Qallout can actively promote a toxic environment. If people can’t discuss topics without being hurtful or resulting to potentially damaging Ad Hominem attacks, free speech has failed. Con completely fails to respond to any material that Pro brings regarding this distinction. She also does not respond to Pro’s substantive around the potential for bribery in the platform, although I think this is a relatively minor point. - On a point of clarification, Pro can adapt material brought by Con into their model, so long as it is not mutually exclusive or in tension with the rest of their case. Pro does not radically re-shift his stance, but I thought this necessary to state anyhow. - Con’s main tactic in this debate is to try and weirdly re-frame widely known debating principles, with her strongest material (free-speech rights) tangled up in contradiction. Pro brings two arguments which go un-rebutted and a third which stands at the end of the debate. Con could have fleshed out her solid material more logically and cohesively, however, spent much time addressing irrelevant technicalities which lowered the quality of the debate and Pro defended his burden throughout.
@benmouse42 @scottishmaniacGreat heated debate guys :-) Please note that the winner for this debate will be determined based on the best out of 5 votes i.e. community + 4 judges. You confirmed judges so far: @tara_kade @kelleykrook
@benmouse42 @scottishmaniac Well done you two - left a comment offering my opinion on policy theory and the round decision. Feel free to reply or message me with questions.