Check out the Tournament Ladder
@ben @chriscowherdGreat debate guys! Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @josh808
Well done to both of you on an excellent round. Unfortunately, tech problems mean I’m unable to post a video comment, but I will do my best to make this written RFD as clear as possible. So like always, I’m going to focus on what both of you did well, break down the round into the main arguments, weigh them and give my judgment, and finally close with some ways both of you can improve.For the PRO:You had a very clear, well-structured case and delivery. Your refutation wasn’t necessarily absolutely line-by-line catching all of his arguments but I felt you had good counterpoints of your own so that you could focus more heavily on your offensive points rather than getting dragged to far towards the Con’s material. Good stark examples and framework that helped you prove your point (if only one person should be banned then you would win).For the CON:Props to you for your outstanding refutation and analysis, you were incredibly efficient with your words (so much so that I couldn’t believe your speeches weren’t longer than three minutes). Well done as well for taking a hardline stance, that’s a very difficult thing to do but you remained incredibly consistent throughout the debate. I think articulating the alternative ways to solve was smart defense as well.BREAKING DOWN THE ROUND: As I saw it, there are two main arguments that the round boiled down to. Some of these overlap in some parts but I tried to highlight what each means and who won each one, to help you understand my decision.Alternative Ways to Solve: PROCon had an excellent 5-point analysis (Kritik, losses, preventing from debating, etc.) regarding ways that abuse could be countered. This was largely unresponded to directly by the Pro (which in some regards was smart, so he could focus on an offensive response, but in some regards was risky as well). However, if I am looking to which side will stop abuse (I think Pro’s response to Con’s point that QO hasn’t had a problem yet is sufficient), I believe Pro has the best point that on the Pro side there is a substantially lessened risk of people flash debating, threatening, doing illegal stuff, because it will happen once and they will be banned, whereas on Con’s side that can happen every month. Now, we have to look at Con’s major point.
Preserving QallOut’s Principles – PROI was really close to voting Con on this one, you did an incredible job and perhaps if I were judging on presentation alone (as opposed to the arugments) you would have probably gotten the win. However, Con never articulated to me why specifically preserving QallOut’s principles required allowing flash debaters, people threatening others via unconstitutional speech (e.g. fighting words), or illegal actions to be able to be perpetuated on the site once a month. Pro, I think you could have been stronger in telling me what specific harm this could cause, however, your points about monetization being necessary to the survival of the site, and harm to the victim were compelling. Con, I felt you didn’t address these two impacts, especially because although your solutions may minimize harm, you do nothing to stop the perpetuation of the harm that comes from harassment or by scarring a person. I vote Pro on this issue because as Con points out, there are limits to free speech (e.g. no inciting violence or fighting words), and because it is better to have these justified restrictions to allow the survival of the platform in the long run, rather than to not have these restrictions and potentially lose the platform over the long run.As you can see in both of these issues, I vote Pro, that QallOut best achieves its mission and prevents undue harm via the status quo ToS. If you have questions, it is very difficult for me to access this particular debate but DM me if you have any clarifications.Ways Pro can Improve:I think you got caught up in the Con’s argumentation a bit, you kind of shifted away from your original three points. Before the debate, ask yourself where you want the debate to end. Make those your opponent points, so you develop them, and can end strong with developed, fleshed out points that you have killed the refutation to. Additionally, I think you can work on being more precise and concise with your refutation. It was solid, but continue to work on being able to say more with less, you are a skilled debater.Ways Con can Improve:Honestly I thought your performance here was incredible, it was unfortunate you got a very difficult side to defend. I thought you can improve by recognizing the distinction between impacts of the other side and being able to weigh and tell me how your offensive material or your arguments outweigh those impacts. Realize that your 5 point refutation (it was excellent) doesn’t completely moot the impact of his point. He still has an advantage there, people who are banned will be shamed still + they will be unable to cause further damage. Weigh to me how your increase in maintaining principles outweighs that increase in potential damage.Again, great job to both of you, I look forward to seeing more of you on QallOut. @chriscowherd @ben
@ben Congrats for advancing to the next Round! Please expect further details on your next debate in a couple of days@chriscowherd That was a close one!We opened registrations for our $5,000 Championship starting in January: http://bit.ly/2hDadW8In 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
"Even 4chan bans users." X'D
@eli_mcgowan cucks :>
@ben good round mate!
I think I've gotta give it to @chriscowherd , he's basically arguing that the sky is purple. I'm ready to go out and check for myself... Oh, hard choice. This is a rough topic, there is absolutely no way I could have produced an argument like his, but I could have easily emulated ben's. I guess that's the disadvantage of having such an easily defensible position in the beginning- you need to think of topics that extend beyond common sense. Also, huge props for running out of words exactly when you ran out of time Chris. This is not to say that ben's argument wasn't satisfactory. Personally I have to agree with him, but from an objective standpoint, Chris is the man of the hour. Still damn close, good work both of you.
@rightwingviking Thanks for the vote, but how am I arguing that the sky is purple? XD
@chriscowherd lol because I personally feel that a web based society must function within parameters, similar to a national society. To make it clear, I don't agree that someone who masturbates on a live debate should ever get the chance to again. However, despite my initial beliefs on the subject I have to strongly examine whether or not it actually would be okay to have an H2H wank session. When Ben lead off with the stripping down naked point I figured it would be easy business to argue pro, which is why I have to give you points for arguing an unpopular stance so effectively. "Even 4Chan bans users" and 4chan is the spot on the toiletbowl that always seems to have poop on it lol
So, we've done this debate three times now, and we've learned a couple of things:1. If the con fights the pro-status-quo framework, they won't have the judges on their side. 2. If they accept the framework, they have to go to radical extremes to be consistent. Con chose the latter of these, and to his credit, he was extreme and therefore consistent. He stated that he would be willing to allow a debater to flash others without removal from this site. In fact, he said that literally anything goes. This comes off as a major problem to me and likely to most other reasonable people, but con says that it is all worthwhile because his side protects freedom of speech. So does it? Well, pro pointed out that free speech doesn't cover harassment, fighting words, and incitement, the very things for which a debater can get banned. He argued that, for this reason, he too supports freedom of speech. So this is very strong ground to stand on.The fact is, I think that this resolution stinks for con. It's clearly a catch-22. And if maybe con had gone completely k on this debate and argued that the resolution should be denied on that basis, we might have had a stronger argument. As is, the only thing he seems to be defending is nudity and other unsavory acts. And this is problematic. For this reason, I vote pro.
@scottishmaniac your definition of free speech is inconsistent. The Supreme Court erred numerous times and defined freedom as statists often do, with caviots, meaning not free
@scottishmaniac Yep, taking con on this topic is rather a trap. In general, picking topics is one of the more strategic parts of these tournaments. Especially if you take into account the judging and voting communities proclivities.The only good way to run con, in my mind, and it ain't easy, is this...Frame the debate to be about allowing repugnant, disturbing, or ludicrous views to be represented. Defending that ground on the notion that TOS violations and outright criminal activities are non-debatable by any reasonable people. As where arguing about repugnant views gives good competing values to consider.You then have to stake some clear example topics, say, consistently arguing in support of bestiality, incest, anti-Semitism, racism, or other repugnant topics.Then you make a case about freedom of speech and the value of open confrontation over values of a safe community and decorum. Continue to frame it not as a clear choice, but a difficult one, yet one we should ultimately come down on Con's view it is better to debate them than prohibit them.
@sigfried I agree - if I were con I would try to make the case that allowing everyone the chance to debate (once) proves the resolution true. Then it becomes a semantic, values argument rather than a policy one. As it is, it's definitely easier to argue pro, as the weight of evidence supports the status quo.
@sigfriedTo follow on from the last paragraph of that comment - we have reasonable grounds to believe that QO has the capacity to make this (difficult) decision in that they're already at peace with distancing themselves from the views presented by debaters (see: all the disclaimers on every debate that say the views expressed in the debate are not those of QO).Also, I think the in approaching the con to this absurdly low-burden pro motion (RIP @scottishmaniac) would be to avoid being silent on the external standards. In scottish/this debate there is a plausible metric for how people are shamed/talked out of doing bad thing: I think the argument ought be extended to recognise that naturally forms community standards which are then acted upon.
@sigfried I think that we disagree about how the disadvantages of con's proposal weigh against the advantages. And that's ultimately a personal thing, I think. But I appreciate that we found some common ground on the res here. :)
I have to go pro on this one. It took too much of an extreme to prevent conceding here. We choose the topics we wish to debate. It is fine to choose a top that ditches the status quo but the argument was a chosen losing battle by the side of con. One reason the free speech model doesn't work in this type of forum is that old claim during the Schenck v. United States case where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Free speech isn't an absolution of speech even Constitutionally. Also with this being a privately owned site I might add they have every right to create conditions for themselves. I think in an attempt to win here con had to get a tiny bit theatrical and rely heavily on hyperbole. If we didn't have the choice to determine our sides in these debates maybe I would side with con for putting up a good fight. However, he did choose to argue the side of con and may have done well be it was not sufficiently convincing, at least to me. For that, I am gonna have to vote in favor of pro here.
@troysimons31 give me one example of me being theatrical
@chriscowherd Sorry thought I responded I think you using the rhetorical that "Someone should be allowed to get nude that we would stop it." Just seemed to push the burden too far and appeared to be theatrical to me.
@troysimons31 no it's called intellectual consistency. Theatrics is a sophist technique
@chriscowherd I think even intellectual consistency can be theatrical when it's intent is to be a completely immovable object.
@troysimons31 then you do not understand the value of being intellectually consistent
@chriscowherd I understand the proposed value when it is appropriate. I feel it is equally, or in most case more valuable to remain objective. However, you are free to think of it how you wish. I was giving my reason for voting pro. The reality is you chose are hard topic/ side and in my personal opinion didn't provide me at least enough evidence to give merit to your argument.
@chriscowherd You are a spectacularly clear and concise extemporaneous speaker.
@sigfried thank you! I watched your opening statement to frame my negative case and I have the same evaluation of you
Both debaters do excellent work here. I'm especially impressed by @chriscowherd here, but @ben holds up his side of the debate very effectively. Style wise, everyone is aces here.As to the arguments, I'm on the Pro side here. I've got a bias for the pro view. Given that, Chris forces me to consider his arguments through his rhetorical strength and consistent arguments. And he forces his opponent to do the same. But because both sides clash and present their view very effectively, it comes to me to decide which was more purely persuasive. And thus my bias makes this job easier for Pro. Were I deciding based on performance, I'd go Con. He's got more pointed arguments, and Pro misses a few responses here and there IMO as where Con has a response to everything Pro advances (but for framework). But that's not enough to sway me from agreeing with what Pro argues for the reasons pro advances.
BTW: The arguments I wish Pro had used for counterpoints.1. Legal liability forces the administrators to ban criminal and threatening users or face possible financial ruin and/or jail which would likely mean the end of debating for everyone.2. Abusive and truly obnoxious behavior chases away many timed and sensitive debaters from the site. We end up trading jerks and ass hats for thoughtful, respectful, and kind souls. Not a trade off I think is worthwhile for a site with the values we have.
@sigfried thanks for the feedback! I did try to use that second point pretty directly near the end (apparently not well enough though!). The first point was supposed to be more self-evident, I suppose, which is why I kept using the word "illegal." I'll definitely watch for more direct language in the future
This is the graphic I referenced in my second speech. I said I would post it, so here you go!https://m.facebook.com/groups/160720494331858?view=permalink&id=233770653693508
oooh fifty-fifty, who's gonna break that tie??
@ben @chriscowherd great debate y'all! This was probably the best of the three "Qallout should not" debates.A lot of my RFD echoes @sigfried's sentiments, so I won't prattle on too much. Basically, I do buy that it's a false dichotomy, and that you can preserve freedom of speech sans harassment.I've noticed over these past three debates that I err HEAVILY towards CON. It's not that I'm an ancap or extreme right libertarian, but the argument that "the community can punish them" was appealing. We did that type of thing all the time in policy debate --- heck, I even got some helping from a junior in making a "language kritik" that criticized how every time someone used the word "f*ck", they were perpetuating rape culture.So I 100% understand and agree with what CON is saying there, and I realize now that my past votes for CON were bias towards that specific argumentation. So upon a full evaluation of the evidence, and the argumentation PRO uses that it's a false dichotomy, I voted PRO. If the false dichotomy argument wasn't used, I definitely would have voted for Chris.