Check out the Tournament Ladder
@scottishmaniac @jb043Thanks a lot for great debate! 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: @citizenthom
@qallout_tournament I am not buying your argument that both sides had an equal responsibility to make their cases, and that the con side failed because all he did was refute the pro side. The wording of the debate title is "Schools should leave sex education to parents." That implies the pro side must prove her point, while the con side should refute and defend, which he did - in my view, quite successfully. If the title had been in the form of a question, like, "Should schools leave sex education to parents," then, and only then, would both sides have an equal responsibility to make their cases both pro and con. Con acted quite appropriately, according to the title wording of the debate.
@scottishmaniac @jb043 Here's my judgment. If I look and sound like I've been taking care of two sick kids under five all weekend, well, I kinda have, so forgive the 11:59 shadow and such.
@citizenthom We're sick as well, with the flu. Thanks for the entertaining judgement, I'm going to model you in my future RJ opinions.
@citizenthom Thanks for your feedback and your vote! Sorry about the bad audio. Normally I use my apple earbuds with a built in mic, but I had lost them earlier that day. Hopefully that won't be an issue again. Sorry about the sick kids! Can really relate right now. Hope everyone has a speedy recovery! :)
@scottishmaniac Congrats for advancing to the Quarter Finals! Please expect further details on your next debate later tonight@jb043 Hard luck on this one! Registrations open for our $5,000 Championship starting in January: http://bit.ly/2hDadW8
(Not judging).This was a very interesting round on a subject I am happy to have not had to debate.I think Pro flustered Con early on with her unique take on the issue, and her firm academic and historical grounding for her plan. He was never able to recover, or bring any substantive evidence to the table, while Pro was able to efficiently rebut his arguments.
@eli_mcgowan not sure I agree but cool. Btw thanks for the neg criticisms, any constructive criticisms that could actually help?
@jb043 your speaking style is very pleasant and engaging, apart from occasional verbal filler (didn’t hurt). Not much to work on there. Coming prepared with evidence is the single biggest improvement I can think of.
@eli_mcgowan so no feedback on the points or the way they were explained, or like structure/rebuttal or anything?
@jb043 I just watched, didn’t flow. I may rewatch and flow, but I also have the flu. XD
@eli_mcgowan so if you watched but didn’t flow (and subsequently can’t give feedback bc of that) why did you vote? That seems really biased that you’ll watch and then vote without really thinking about what happened in the debate
@jb043 oh, it was very clear who won. If you like, I’ll go back and flow and tell you why.
@eli_mcgowan would appreciate that, I just don’t understand how it can be a ‘clear win/loss’ if you didn’t follow the debate properly. Like, if you can’t provide actual feedback to the content of the debate, that suggests to me you weren’t really listening that intently. In that case, it would seem as if you can’t justify your vote aside from ‘that’s my wife I think she won for x reasons despite not actually following the debate’. So yes, I would like an actual justification of the debate (which btw you shouldn’t need to ‘go back and flow’ bc you should have done that before voting to start with.
@jb043 most people on QallOut don’t flow before voting every round. Sometimes it’s needed, sometimes it’s not. This debate was pretty clear, in most people’s minds. I’ll get back to you.
@scottishmaniac thanks for the debate! Was a blast
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/australian-curriculum/Straight up two websites suggesting the Australian curriculum - can probably cite alot more if anyone thinks it wasn't enough - but I didn't think it was really something that needed to be proven anyway
@jb043 A. None of this ought to play into the round decision because your time to prove your point, including support, ended with your speaking time. Otherwise the debate would go on indefinitely. Basic rules of the game. B. Here's where I found the story: https://theconversation.com/rational-modern-sex-education-is-a-must-for-all-aussie-kids-44226Also see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/03/girls-who-have-sex-are-like-tape-that-loses-its-stickiness-seriouslyhttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/christian-sex-education-program-at-fairhills-high-school-tells-schoolgirls-that-too-much-sex-will-break-their-chemical-bond-20150702-gi3o7g.htmlPlease note that the school in this example, Fairhills High School is a public Aussie school.
I never wanted judges to consider it? But also, I wouldn’t exactly claim that as ‘evidence’ for you, Given that it happened on one occasion and the school removed that organisation and launched an investigation with the DET to ensure it didn’t happen again, so that doesn’t prove anything. My point however, about when parents get it wrong is far more important given that there’s no one to hold them to any standard (see my analysis on the incentive for teachers to do it right vs, parents who aren’t held accountable by anyone)
@jb043 If you don't want judges to consider it, it really isn't worth my time now. The point is, you had a chance to make certain points/support in the round and you didn't. End of story.
@scottishmaniac I just wanted clarification on something calm down, If you’re not prepared to discuss the sources you used, don’t use them. Also I can’t exactly talk about ‘evidence’ that you provided when it’s an obscure newspaper article from two years ago - which is why I’m addressing it now. To say that I could have properly addressed that claim during the debate, despite the fact that it’s not THAT easy to find is a bit disingenuous
@jb043 Oh, I assure you, I couldn't be calmer. Flu medication has that effect on me. The Guardian is a respected, international publication. But I never intended to make your job easy. That wouldn't be very fun for either of us.
@scottishmaniac can u link me to the evidence re Victorian school teaching the wrong facts? I can't find anything about it
PRO's point: individualization > mass info through public schools.CON's point: parents don't know these things.Voting issues:>Uniformity: PRO wins this handily by pointing out the perf con that CON frequently makes.>Flexibility: PRO also wins this. CON was sort of tricked into trying to win both of these, which it can't do to win the round. If it's uniform, it has no flex. If it has flex, it certainly isn't uniform. CON needs to decide on a strategy, and then go for one and saying that it outweighs the other. CON also needs evidence for a lot of the claims he makes.Also, my little editorial comment:As someone who was homeschooled, I ****REALLY**** had to try to suspend my beliefs for this debate. Some of the stuff CON said made me laugh, though. It was a good debate @jb043 & @scottishmaniac
@iantreyparish which claims do you mean?Also that suggests you probably shouldn’t have invested/voted in this debate if you couldn’t be completely impartial at all
@jb043 Oh no, I was impartial. You had good points that weren't responded to (LGBTQ+ claim). That just wasn't fleshed out enough, though. Like, you had that really good point and then you kind of just let it fall to the way side.Also, a lot of the claims in the latter half of the debate centering around the uniformity and flexibility. You tried to claim both things as true. You just can't really do that. The way PRO set up the argument, if she wins uni, she wins flex. One of the claims that really stuck in my mind was: "the parents just don't teach or provide information for something they don't believe in". I didn't give weight to this argument for or against, really, because it wasn't dealt with after that speech, but my background in homeschooling is what made me laugh at this remark. Even if parents didn't provide it, in a homeschool environment you, the student, have the ability to go out and find the info on your own. That wasn't an argument given, but that was something I would have attacked, had I been in PRO's place.
@iantreyparish I mean sure, but we’re not talking about homeschooled kids. Like, it was kids who go to school and just won’t get taught this singular subject - I get where you’re coming from, but the debate just wasn’t in thag context. Also, why can’t they be both uniform with a bit of flex? (Not attacking you, genuinely curious to know your thoughts).
@jb043 Oh no, I know we're not talking homeschooled kids. Just basically a form of teaching your children, individually at home. Being homeschooled just helps me conceptualize both sides better; I was a product of public school for six years, and homeschooling the latter six years. Both sides have very real problems (the big one with the teaching at home PRO is advocating would have worked well was LGBTQ+ issues).I feel as if those are two competing values: if you win uniformity, strict uniformity, you wouldn't really have access to any flexibility. If you're extremely flexible, you don't really have much uniformity, curriculums can change quickly, and lesson plans vacillate day to day. Now, an argument potentially could have been made that public institutions have uniformity in which they have certain stasis points of flexibility, but that would have to be expanded on.And don't worry about it! I love talking about the reason I vote. That is, unless the comments section turns into a war zone. Then I'm out. :joy:
@iantreyparish I’m not so sure I agree that they’re competing, but even if they are. A) uniformity is far more important - for the reasons I stated in the debate. I won that one, quite easily. To suggest that there’s the same level of uniformity with this subject being taught at home is ludicrous (also addressed this in the debate) - see the reasons I gave re no incentive for parents to teach all things (or at least the things the students *should* know. Which is a huge win for that. B) if you think flexibility is more important then all of this: I should have argued that curriculums change on a regular basis etc so schools are still fairly flexible. But even without that - I still win that point anyway;1. Pro literally says in her speech that schools are not uniform (at least in America) and that’s a bad thing, and then also says that parents aren’t beholden to things like the curriculum therefore they’re far more flexible. IF that’s true and you believe that point is true, then the flexibility point falls to me also - on the basis of what I said at the start of the debate re that parents just don’t know those things - but there is (again) far less incentive for parents to teach the right things vs their own personal beliefs. Sure, if you think I can’t have both that’s fine, I’ll agree to disagree with you. But I still win both of them.
@noahdfarley Thanks for the feedback! :)
@noahdfarley It's a ridiculous proposition: "Schools should leave sex education to parents." Think about it for a second. Is anyone seriously arguing parents shouldn't be able to teach their kids about sex or the values involved with sex? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But, in this proposition, pro is arguing that schools SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TEACH KIDS ABOUT SEX. Hence, under pro's proposition kids can only learn about sex from essentially one source - their parents, good, bad or indifferent. Isn't it better to have more than one source? The more info, the better. But, by supporting Pro's position, you are supporting less information about sex....NOT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SEX. The proposition is an either/or false dichotomy.
@dorothy8532 Look at the question right above the voting bar. Does it say: "Which side of the resolution do you agree with?" I'll save you the time. No. It says "Which side made a better case?" Clearly, for the reasons I laid out, Pro did. My personal opinion is irrelevant. That's what judging a debate is about. You vote for the side that bested the other, regardless of what you think about their stance. If Pro had argued that government schools should not exist and that no form of regulation should govern education, but Con did not refute it, I would vote Pro regardless of the patent absurdity of that position.The fact is that Pro outdebated Con, that her essential claims went unaddressed, that she had plenty of backing from qualified sources, and that she controlled the debate to focus on exactly what she wanted to talk about. That's why I voted Pro. Setting that aside, more information about sex is not necessarily a good thing. What matters is what the kid needs to know at what time. I would generally say a parent is the better judge of that. Though I would say that the schools can and should teach basic facts, I would leave the vast majority of sex ed to parents. However, just as I said above, whatever I think is completely irrelevant to my position on the winner of the debate.
@noahdfarley First of all, I'll read the rest of your reply to me in a moment, but I don't see what your saying. You wrote: "Look at the question right above the voting bar. Does it say: "Which side of the resolution do you agree with?" I'll save you the time. No. It says "Which side made a better case?"I just don't see that at all...please copy and paste where it says that...wait, I'll look one more time...No, I still don't see that. Maybe, we're looking at two different things....but I've checked one more time and I still don't see where it says "Which side made made the better case." Although I think we may agree mostly...let me read the rest of your reply to me first. However, I do agree with you that con didn't make the most of his case. Regardless, it does matter if you're on the right side or the wrong side, no matter how good of a debater you might be. And, pro was certainly no pro when it came to arguing her case...but she was also hamstrung by simply being on the wrong side of this argument. I.E. - If someone from the Flat Earth Society argues the world is flat, it simply doesn't matter if she is pretty, or a better debater.........she is just wrong, even if her opponent is lacking. Now, let's go deeper. In your words..."more information about sex is not necessarily a good thing. What matters is what the kid needs to know at what time." You're seriously arguing more information about (ANYTHING) sex is not necessarily a good thing. I'd like to hear you explain that in more detail. Are you implying that less information is better? Clearly, I give you enough credit without knowing you, to think somehow you're not trying to say that...but these are your words, not mine. So please, in your response, address how less information about sex (OR ANYTHING) is better than more information. I thought I was done...but you're not so lucky. Let's face it, we all learn about sex from wherever possible...our parents - in my case, and I suspect in most cases, I suspect we learn very little about sex. We also learn about sex from our teenage friends, but let's face it, they're in the dark as much as we are about sex when we are teenagers. I argue the best and most objective way to learn about sex is through public schools, and research. Hence, the book I read with my girlfriend more than 40 years ago..."Everything you ever wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask." It did away with the BS your parents and/or friends might try to teach you...ie. masturbation will grow hair on your palms. It looked at the cold, hard facts about sex based on research. It sounds to me like you might think that's irrelevant. But, back to my point...the more information we have on any issue - including sex - the better off we are. Maybe we can agree on this...con was not the best debater. Personally, I don't thing pro was that good either. I can see how that could justify your vote for pro. Nonetheless...is that a word...pro is wrong and con is right regardless of your opinion or my opinion. More information about any subject is ALWAYS better than less information...and she is arguing for less information.
Thanks for playing. I am being sarcastic here, but I honestly do appreciate your comments.
@dorothy8532 Go to a debate you haven't voted on and you will see "which side made a better case?"And yes, which side you are on does matter, but voting must happen on what occurs in the round. If not, then there is no point having a debate. The point of the whole voting mechanic is to choose the side that won the debate. That only happens based on the framework and facts presented by the debaters and the counters made by their opponents. As I said, my vote is based on the arguments presented in round, not on the debater's quality or my bias outside the round. That being said, in many cases, less information is better. This should not be a point of contention. The argument you are making is that more information about anything is categorically better. Okay, I presume then that kindergarten students need a full explanation of the details of coitus. I also have gathered that we would not be remiss in assigning a developmentally delayed 13-year-old a worksheet on consent and safe sex. I'm being sarcastic here, but you get my point. Not everyone should have access to all the information available about anything, much less when it comes to the inherent privacy and touchiness of our reproductive systems. Again, I think we both agree that schools have to teach some level of sex ed just so that people know the basics if their parents are deficient. But this is no way affects the outcome of this debate. Pro won, fair and square. You are free to disagree with me. But you must do it on the grounds of what was argued in the debate, not on your own personal opinion.
@noahdfarley Thoughtful points. #1 then we are agreed, I didn't see "which side made a better case." Minor detail. In re: to less information is better when it comes to a kindergartner or a mentally underdeveloped 13-year-old. Two exceptions I will grant you, also "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." But, again I think we both agree more information is better than less with minute exceptions. One personal point I made in a previous post on this issue...when I was 18, I was told by my teenage buddies that "trains pull out on time." Meaning, pull out of her vagina before you ejaculate and she won't get pregnant. That was wrong information, but I believed it because I didn't know any better and neither did my girlfriend. End result - she was pregnant. A clear case of less information or wrong information can have a huge impact on your life. More information would have been better than less, n'est pas, in this case. I don't think you disagree here. Again, pro is arguing that less information is better than more information because in her words, "Schools should leave sex education to parents." (Schools should be banned from sex education.) She is clearly wrong regardless of her eloquence or lack thereof. I not only think you see my point, but I suspect you agree. This part may seem a little nasty, but it's the analogy that comes to my mind: If pro argued that night was day and day was night, she would win the argument if she were debating against a deaf mute, or my pet cat. And, I can see how, yes, you could argue she won the argument...BUT she would still be wrong.
@noahdfarley Also, another - different - approach to refuting pro's argument. The issue is titled "Schools should leave sex education to parents." I suspect it was her proposal since it was in the affirmative. Therefore, it is her responsibility to convince me that "Schools should leave sex education to parents." If she can't prove her affirmative position, she loses, regardless of who she's arguing against. It is her burden of proof. If the question had been posed, "Should schools leave sex education to parents," then an equal burden of proof would have been on Con's side of the argument. But, that wasn't the case. Interested in your response here.
@dorothy8532 Now, I don't know how much experience you have with academic debate, but as someone who has done a fair bit of that and as someone who has done a fair bit of Qallout, there are similarities and differences I have noticed. It is always the case that the burden of proof demands that whomever makes a claim backs it up. In academic debate it is a fair strategy to simply try to refute everything said without taking a position, but in Qallout that is frowned upon. This platform encourages both debaters to stake out positions on the topic. The debate occurs as the proofs given are contrasted. You vote based on whomever better proved their case. That means that if the guy says the earth is flat but better proves it than the guy who says the earth is round, you vote for the flat-earther. Regardless of my opinion on the topic, which I think we mostly agree on, I simply cannot watch this debate and vote for Con given what actually happened here. And the general point about information I think was fairly addressed within the debate. Not all kids are ready for the same stuff at the same time, even excepting the examples I brought up. That's where the flexibility points Pro brought up came in. I tend to agree with that. However, I think that there are some problems with that and so we do need some kind of universal program. But those problems weren't proved strongly by the Con, and so the strength of Pro's case required my giving her the vote.
@noahdfarley I'll let my previous comments on this issue stand without amendment. However, I have never seen where it says on "Qallout that is frowned upon," referring to simply refuting a pro argument's in re: to his or her burden of proof. I'm just repeating myself, but she made the claim, and it's her burden of proof, and she clearly failed to convince me for many reasons we've discussed already. As I read your response, you're not saying that's an unfair way to judge an argument (debate)....what you're saying - if I read you correctly - is that's not how you or most other judges on Qallout judge a debate. Good talking to you. BTW, I have little formal debating background, but I have worked as a radio talk show host for more than 5 years.
Without giving a full review of the debate, the bottom line was that Pro presented varied arguments, backed by evidence and citations, while Con's main tactic seems to be to simply call Pros' claims "ludicrous" repeatedly without presenting any compelling evidence.Con also seems to rely on two contradicting arguments. Either schools all use the same curriculum or they don't. Con tried to have it both ways and Pro called him on it.Advice for @scottishmaniac - Work on your time management; you were never able to get to any sort of closing statement.Advice for @jb043 - Don't say things like "I didn't think I had to prove that", "That doesn't make any sense to me", or "____ is simply ludicrous". Those types of phrases indicate that you believe the truth of your side to be self-evident, when the whole reason for the debate is that neither side is self-evident.Overall, my vote goes to Pro for successfully framing the debate, presenting evidence, and skillfully trapping Con into defending two contradicting points.
@ben Thanks for the feedback. And yeeeeeah. Audio issues and lots of ground to cover was not an easy combo to deal with. Here's hoping next time goes better in that regard.
Initially, I'm opposed to almost anyone who says people "should" or "should not" do this thing or that thing. It's generally a slap in the face against individual choice and freedom. Of course, there are exception i.e. people should not kill, rape, steal or inflict their will on others, etc. In this case though, it seems as though pro would like to inflict her beliefs or will on everyone that - in her opinion - "schools should leave sex ed to parents." Personally, I would be more willing to rely on schools than parents to teach sex education. I think too many parents can't, don't want to, are incapable or unwilling of doing a good job of sex education. One example, is their religious views may dictate to them that they teach only abstinence. However, I would allow for parents who want to - my view - deny their children a more rounded education about sex and to pull them out of sex ed classes on moral or religious grounds. Likewise, I would never deny a parent or a child who wants to get a broader education, to attend sex education classes either. This is very personal for me, and I firmly believe the more young people know and aware about sex, the better. I was driving to college at Cal State Northridge in the mid-1970s every day with my girlfriend. We were sexually active and reading "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask" during our daily trips. A few years earlier, I was told by my male teenage friends - "trains pull out on time." Meaning, pull out of the vagina before you reach organism, to prevent pregnancy. I practiced that method, until one day my girlfriend read a brief section of the book that was titled "trains pulling out on time is a myth!" IT DOESN'T WORK. My lack of knowledge and her lack of knowledge shocked us both because that was our choice of birth control. And, guess what.....she was pregnant...because of my/our mutual ignorance about sex. I'm sure this has happened to tens of thousands, if not millions or tens of millions of people. SEX ED for young people in my mind is a must. Now, if you choose to pull your kid out of sex ed classes in public schools - that's your choice and I would support it. But, I would feel sorry for your kids, and your family because your daughter is MORE LIKE, NOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant and/or your son is more likely, not less likely to get someone pregnant. That's your choice...but don't tell me I shouldn't let my kids attend sex ed in public schools to get all the info possible...just like I won't tell you you shouldn't pull your kids out of sex ed in public schools. Ridiculous argument from the pro side!