avatar
7 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 Thank you for your comments.

      This is my fourth debate here... I've won and lost some... But this is the first time, (and I say this respectfully), that I found the overwhelming percentage of comments in a judging just downright confusing.

      I found this to be particularly so, as it pertain to the comments on staying true to the debate question.

      I don't know of a reality in which the normal course of action for a first date is that one person finds out it is a first date upon the moment the other decides to pick up the bill at the end.

      Maybe it is a generational thing but, in my day, going out on a date is usually something to which both parties agree before going out... and it is not the same as "treating someone to a night out" (which, unlike dating, often is done as a surprise at the moment of payment),

      The resolution does not specify that women should refuse only after the man has offered to pay. The resolution, as written, can just as easily be interpreted that as a general rule "women should not accept..."

      Furthermore the point I conceded was very specifically about a woman deciding to not got out a second time with a man who, at the conclusion of dinner, when the bill comes, springs it on his date that both are paying their own way (and I did so because this is a No BS zone, and I can't imagine any person being OK with that kind of "surprise!", so I didn't try to spin it).

      It wasn't intended to be a larger point.

      All the arguments I made about the benefits of mutually agreeing upon the logistics of a date, how that helps communications, how it frees people from artifice, how it sets people up to ultimately have a better chance to get to know one another, how shared decision-making gives the parties a pre-test on working together, were never mentioned in the analysis.

      The safety argument, though I didn't get a chance to develop it more fully was indeed touched upon when I commented about either party being able to feel more free to leave the date if it was not working well, as well as about the possibility of expectations being created according to: "I paid, so now you owe me something."

      It strikes me that, in this instance, the debate that was had was not the debate that was judged... and perhaps even that the debate was judged against the one it was wished we had had (more competitive than cordial and not interpreting the wording of the subject as "a general rule").

      I'm not saying I would have won if the things I thought were missed had been factored in... my opponent was more than worthy and I'd debate him again anytime, with pleasure... but at least I would have understood the decision.

      Nevertheless, I accept it.

      Submitted respectfully and with no hard feelings,
      Douglas

      PS: On the upside, the comments about maintaining structure through the debate were helpful, though to be honest, I've been finding that hard to do in this style of debates as it is, most often, near impossible to, in a 3 minute segment, fully rebut points made by your opponent and then get back to a structure in time to fully develop a new point. This format is much more free-form. That said, I will work on it.

      Of course, any tips on how to achieve that would be appreciated.

    • 2 years ago

      @calmecam No worries man, I get that oftentimes when you're in one mindset for the debate and then the judge has a completely different mindset, the decision can often seem completely random and out of left field, but that's also part of what you can work to control as a debater, through resolutional analysis.

      In every debate, you have one perspective going in, and your opponent has a completely different perspective. How is an objective observer supposed to determine which perspective to take? If you don't explain what frame of mind you're looking at the resolution through, then you're leaving the judgment entirely up to chance, which is part of why my judgment took you by surprise. But you could have prevented that had you gotten me thinking along your frame of mind early on.

      So I'd ask you, what is it you think you needed to prove in order to win? Tell me that early on. You can say something like:

      "The resolution says that women should not accept for men to pay for dinner on a 1st date. The key words to notice here are "should" and "women". The resolution does not say "all women" so it's just talking about a general idea of how women should act. If I can show that more often than not, women would be benefited by going dutch with a man on the first date, then I should win the round."

      ^ or you could frame it some other way, based on how you interpret what the resolution means. But however you want to frame it, you should at least tell me what it is that the round comes down to. Explain to me what the resolution means, why I should believe your interpretation, and what you have to do to prove the accuracy of the resolution. Then prove that through your points. But neither you nor your opponent did that in this round.

      So here's what I had to go by when determining how to view the round.
      1. You defined women as "any woman on a first date" except for situations of chivalry or the like. This is reasonable, but it's also a high bar for you to prove. When plugged into the resolution, it means that for you to win, you need to show that any woman who is on a first date should go dutch with her partner.

      So you win if 100% of women would be benefited by not accepting a man paying for her meal on a first date. And Con wins if he shows 1+ women would be benefited by allowing a man to pay for dinner on a first date. Obviously this immediately favors the Con, which is why you probably would have benefited by defining the terms more favorably for yourself early on.

      2. You made the case that people should preplan dates, which was the means through which you attempted to prove your side of the resolution. In order for you to win this, you need to show
      a. All dates should be pre-planned with the idea that both parties will go dutch.
      b. All dates CAN be pre-planned with the idea that both parties will go dutch.

      But Con's points about how most dates don't work out with that same preplanning, and how it's not best to put so much of a focus on money/details about the date early on, were convincing to me here. Oftentimes, I don't think it's either possible or beneficial for both parties to pre-plan who will pay for the meal.

      Personally, when I've gone on dates, it's never come up in advance of the date of who is going to pay for things. I've also talked to girls who were taken aback when the guy doesn't offer to pay for her, which made them wonder if the guy didn't really consider it a date, exactly like the Con was saying happens.

      In a lot of situations, people are explicit about how it's going to be a date, but even then it rarely happens that people go "and I will pay for the meal!" before the date happens. Perhaps that occasionally comes up, but it's certainly not a societal norm at least where I come from, or apparently where Con comes from. And even if it is a societal norm where you come from, it still doesn't prove that 100% women should do this.

      You say I didn't mention some of your arguments, but that's because the resolution as you defined it made me ask the question of whether or not 100% of women should do this, and your points were just showing that sometimes it's better for women to do this. Sometimes =/= all women. If you didn't want me to judge off of this high bar, you need to define and frame the rez better and say what you actually need to prove.

      Also, from a style perspective, you need to show me where you're winning, especially at the end, which is a crucial time to show how your arguments made it through unscathed and why they are worth a Pro vote. But at the end of this debate, you didn't show me any issue you were winning on, or summarize how your points stood against the oppositions refutation. You went out with a whimper, (actually you agreed with the Con for your final speech). There was no analysis or synthesis of why I should vote for you, and you didn't point me to any crucial arguments you had that clearly proved your perspective, so I went Con.

      Hope that helps,

      Daniel :)

    • 2 years ago

      Also just ftr, even if this debate had come down to a 51% standard, I'd probably still have gone Con, because I agree with his points that most of the time who pays for the meal is decided spontaneously at the end of the meal, and that it would not be advantageous to pre-plan who pays since that means the focus of the date is on economics and details of the date, which isn't a great mindset to have when going on the date.

  • 2 years ago

    I see you and hear you

  • 2 years ago

    @calmecam @johnsonjoshua04

    Great debate guys! Please note that the winner for this debate will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @debateme13