Check out the Tournament Ladder

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

    @jacbenj @scottishmaniac

    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: @debateme13 @citizenthom @vkate

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        Also guys, I think there are a couple rounds you guys should watch just because they touch on the issues that this round came down to.

        1. Final round, July tournament. Ben Hewitt Pro, Andrew Gibson Con.
        https://www.qallout.com/debate/2536-breastfeeding-in-public-should-not-be-considered-inappropriate-or-offensive-dollar1500-qo-tournament-final-live-on-july-22-at-1100-pm-est
        Ben Hewitt does an excellent job fending off Andrew’s idea that the resolution requires oppression of those who disagree. BenH is arguing that the overall society will be better if breastfeeding in public is culturally accepted.

        BenJ in this round has a similar perspective, saying that society would be better off if the cultural expectation that men will pay for women no longer exists. He’s not oppressing anyone or forcing them to agree, he’s just saying society would be better off if this world existed. BenH wound up winning this final round on a 5-0, because he successfully showed that saying "things would be better" is very different than requiring someone to agree with you.

        2. Round 2, October tournament. Daniel Sheahan Pro, Merrin Muxlow Con. (but you're watching this for Merrin not me)
        https://www.qallout.com/debate/3506-fake-orgasms-are-white-lies-dollar1000-october-qualifier-round-2-live-on-thu-oct-26-at-1030-pm-eastern
        Merrin does an excellent job pointing out that society will be better off as a whole if individual women were to choose to stop engaging in behavior that will hurt women as a whole. She deservedly picked up both judge votes, because she successfully showed that an individual choosing something that leads to a continued societal harm is problematic, and it would be better for those individuals not to act in this way in the future. Ben is arguing the same thing in this round, and much like Merrin, I think he deserves the ballot.

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @jacbenj @scottishmaniac I was harsh. I hope it's taken as instructive and not as attacking.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom i'm not a fan of commenting on adjudications but i find this one slightly confusing. I think that there is a plausible adjudication for con in this debate (certainly the idea that she's more engaging than me is not in dispute), but i really don't think this is one.

        1- if you thought the logic in the debate is bad, fine- that makes it a bad debate. that is not a reason to disregard the logical discussion insofar as it happened.
        2- your pathos analysis is genuinely strange. i've never heard someone claim 'if your opponent makes unrelated arguments about feminism (i disagree they were entirely unrelated btw) and then you either complain about it or actually become sexist you lose' as a debating standard- at most, those are things to be factored into a wider adjudication
        3- if that is in fact the standard, it should obviously be said by the con at some point so i can at least engage with it
        4-i don't think i'm doing the stuff you describe at all
        a- i don't complain about the feminism stuff, i just note that it's unrelated to the debate (which you equally note) and that it's an ad hominem attack (which is a logical claim)
        b- i don't claim women should dress less provocatively to avoid assault, i say some women do and we should set up society so that situation doesnt arise- it's also unclear to me how claiming women should pragmatically try to keep themselves safe is inherently sexist
        5- i just don't think the logic in this debate is sufficiently poor to throw it overboard- the other adjudication, for instance, had no difficulty tracking the logic in a normal adjudication
        6- i don't think your style (or pathos, apparently) analysis is particularly sophisticated- it neglects to mention almost everything i say (for instance about how women could be put at risk) and also doesnt engage with any of the con's very good rhetoric about liberty

        I know this reeks of being a sore loser, and that's probably fair. I recognize, however, that people can disagree on the results of this debate, and am totally cognizant that this one was close enough to warrant a con ballot. i'm not offended by the harsh language in this (if you really thought the debate was as bad as your adjudication present it as, you were going pretty soft tbh), i just don't think that this adjudication contains either a good faith attempt to engage with the debate nor any constructive feedback.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom Im calling foul here man, I know there arent many rules around adjudicating, but if there is a line, calling one of the debaters a whining sexist is crossing it.

        Secondly the only rule that does exist is that the debate is awarded to the debater who made the better case, you have explicitly thrown that out in favour of a pathos judgement (a standard presumably only you have any knowledge of)

        You should recuse yourself or at the very least offer an a pretty sincere apology

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 @citizenthom I almost always come to the defense of judges and I try to give them leeway to approach the round from their own perspective, even/especially when they disagree with me, but I gotta say, this judgment really strikes me the wrong way.

        Dedicating an entire judgment to pathos is really out of spirit with Qallout’s mission and the core ideas of debate. If we’re judging by pathos, Qallout is no better than a comment thread flame war.

        Nothing in this judgment mentions the debate that was had. You just randomly created this straw man of Pro’s “sympathetic guy” and then you play identity politics on whether or not Pro acts the way you personally think he should act when talking to a feminist.

        Just because you didn’t personally like the arguments each side made doesn’t mean you get to throw them out and vote on something else entirely.

        There were a ton of logical arguments on each side and you could have weighed them against each other and said who came out on top. I don’t mind which way you decide, just as long as you show how the arguments stacked up and what they led to, but you don’t mention the debater’s arguments at all.

        You don’t mention Pro’s fundamental contention about the social norm that currently exists because of men paying on a first date, you don’t mention Con’s criterion of kindness or ask the best way to bring about her value of courtship. You don’t ask the question of how many women would be benefited if they were to stop accepting men paying for them on a first date.

        Your RFD literally comes down to “Con said Pro was sexist and then he said one thing that was sexist, therefore I vote Con.” Sorry but that’s absolutely atrocious. I agree with Ben. You should take this down.

      • 2 years ago

        @jacbenj Perhaps you and the other commenters read far too much into my comment that I was disregarding logos IN MY VIDEO COMMENT. I did NOT disregard it when listening to the actual debate. As I alluded to, this is a minimum three-judge format, and @debateme13 had already done plenty to tease out and comment on the actual argumentation, as had other commenters. The hard logic of the debate was not only part of my consideration but comprises about 75% of my written notes. I did not waste any of my limited time belaboring points others, namely, DebateMe, had already made, because 1.) that would not have been helpful for either of you, and 2.) as I stated, the actual logic was a straight-up wash here.

        Instead I spent my feedback time on an aspect of the debate that other judges/debaters like to pretend ISN'T an element of this site or "proper" debate in general (I'm looking at you, @benmouse42), but that absolutely is: pathos. Audience appeal. How you tug at people's biases, emotions, and identities. Pathos is not only an element of "the case" in a debate, it's the element of rhetoric to which Aristotle devoted the most volume and detail in his work on Rhetoric. You both absolutely employed significant appeals to pathose in this debate, and frankly given the subject matter, you needed to do so.

        You (and Ben and DebateMe) seem jarred by the fact that I even brought up pathos at all, let alone devoted a comment session to it. This is perhaps unsurprising since "smart people" have been claiming to be immune to/above emotional appeals since Plato's "Gorgias." It's also a bad objection. We--meaning both the judging audience and the RJs--are not robots: if we were we would not be debating about proper dating etiquette.

        And you know that. You quite obviously know that. That's WHY you spent much of your debate focusing on the tension and emotion of the first date situation, the coercive nature of the social more, the potential embarrassment of the man who wants to court a woman (BTW, isn't this debate heteronormative as all hell?) but lacks sufficient funds. I didn't just throw you a bone when I pointed out the strength of that approach: it was, from my perspective, a great tactical decision. As I said in the video, your fault was in not only abandoning that appeal but in adopting a rather opposite, unsympathetic tone at the penultimate exchange.

        As for the "sophistication" of my analysis, you can watch my other verdict videos if you want counterexamples. This one was deliberately emotive because it was about emotion. Giving you feedback on pathos wouldn't be especially useful if I didn't emote while I did it. I have yet to record a video that captures every single bit of my analysis of a debate because that's impossible to do in seven minutes. I gave you and your opponent the feedback here that 1.) you most needed to get to improve yourself, but 2.) you had not already heard.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom this is fair and thank you for that explanation. But that being said, if you did judge based on the arguments and those arguments were what led you to your eventual decision, that would seemingly be the most important thing for the video comment to explain.

        I absolutely get making a video to offer feedback on rhetoric and style, but might I recommend that being a second video? I’ve seen a few judges like Ben and @josh808 make 2 videos, one for the decision (which is most important) and then a second with stylistic notes.

        I think what worried me about your judgment was that it initially appeared you were judging simply based on the pathos, since you didn’t give any alternate explanation in the video itself.

        I’m glad you enjoyed my analysis, but I ultimately voted for the Pro, so I’m wondering where you felt the Con’s arguments were superior? Would you be open to making another video explaining how you analyzed the arguments and how they led to your decision?

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 That’s not an unfair request: the genuine question I have right now is, when can I physically get that done?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom well at this point the Con already advanced, so there’s no rush in my mind. But whenever you can I’m sure the debaters would appreciate it, and I know I’m curious myself.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom
        1. The first odd thing you have admitted to here is listening to other judgements before making your own. Your supposed to be adjudicating on what the debaters have said unfettered by the opinions of other judges.

        2. Your reasons for focusing on pathos are not given in the debate. You cant focus on things without the debaters giving a reason.

        3. From the beginning you state that from the beginning con's points were not even adressing the resolution, it is hard to believe then that the logic was a "wash." You are also uncharitable to con as she explictly instructs you in her first speech to judge on kindness as a virtue, arguments (and pro responses) you apparently saw fit to ignore.

        4. You're only reason for not crediting pro's arguments were that he
        a. Pointed out that he was been targetted by a gendered ad hominem attack (oh sorry, I meant "whining", that is the technical term for it)
        b. Asserting that unsavoury pragmatic compromises are somehow sexist.
        Neither of which actually go to the logic of the point. The hypothetical women in the debate didnt get any safer because you thought the pro was sexist, the hypothetical guy in the debate didnt get any less poor because the pro got an ad hominem thrown at him.

        I'm not saying this judgement is bad because it doesnt conform to a particular vision of proper debate. Its bad because it is incoherant and condescending to both debaters.

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 Lest you think I forgot you:

        1. I listened to one other comment video before I recorded my VIDEO. My judgment was already made. We don’t decide who won AS WE ARE TALKING bro. At least I hope not.

        2. I gave my reasons in brief at the beginning and at length above.

        3. Again you equate not discussing something IN THE VIDEO with “ignoring.” Non sequitur.

        4. AGAIN, “only reasons” implies everything on my mind made it into the limited seven minute video. How many times do I have to belabor this point?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom I think part of it is that most people who have done debate expect ballots that are entirely about the decision itself. Since this isn't a debate league, I don't think the judgment needs to be solely about the debate itself, and there certainly is room for style notes. But your video judgment doesn't really say what led you to vote con, except for BenJ saying one thing that was sexist. I'm sure your reasoning wasn't as flimsy as that, but I think what BenH was looking for is just more of an explanation of the arguments that you ultimately voted on.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 There seems to be a line of thinking here that audience appeals aren’t part of “the debate itself” or “the argument.” I find that quite confusing coming from a rhetoric background.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom well, I mean... yeah. If a fantastic speaker who's tremendously attractive and incredibly likable goes and argues for 15 minutes about how pandas are actually computers, it doesn't matter how well they present their arguments, it's just bullshit.

        But if the tremendously attractive, incredibly likable, fantastic speaker has equivalent arguments to their opposition, we'll likely give them the benefit of the doubt and probably prefer their position, so those qualities are very important to debaters. It helps make the audience more open to hearing/believing the debaters points, but audience appeal =/= the points themselves.

        We don't judge off of the audience appeal. We judge off of the arguments themselves. Audience appeal can help package the product, but if one side's product is shit, the judge shouldn't prefer the well packaged turd to the unpackaged diamond.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom look its very simple, if you have reasons to give the debate one way, give them in the video, otherwise why even have the video. Vkate gave it to con, but she at least had a reason and did us all the courtesy of informing us what the reason is.

        Tbh tho when pressed for a reason you keep just going back to this pathos thing.
        1.
        If you were listening to the speakers, the first thing Benj says is "im going to have to be quiet because my brother is asleep in the background". So seems a bit unfair to penalise him for "bad pathos".
        2. pathos is always regionally biassed. Accents and style dont tend to cross borders well
        3. Its not in the guidelines for judging. Even if you disagree with the guidelines u gotta follow em. I (believe it or not) tend to tone it down on this platform and keep things more civil than I do at home even tho it makes me less charasmatic and dominant in the debate, why?, because the guidelines are about cases not style so I focus my efforts there. If you throw curveballs into the judging criteria then ur undermining the integrity of the tournament

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 Your last response is quite disappointing, not to mention potentially accusatory. Do you really not know what pathos is?

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 ^You either Ben?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom I absolutely despise when someone goes "do you not know what ____ is" as an excuse for actually making their point. If you have a different interpretation of what you mean by pathos, then say it. Otherwise you're just talking down to me rather than actually making your own statement.

        If you have good reasons for why you voted, say them. So far you have not. Like Ben said, neither of us have any issues with vkate's decision, because she explained how she measured the arguments and what convinced her. She believes Con made the better case, and I see how she reached that conclusion. Even though I reached a different conclusion, I respect how she reached hers.

        I don't have the slightest idea what you voted on, although it sure seems like you voted on pathos, since that's what you said in your video, and what you keep dancing around in your comments. If you did vote based on pathos, then it's literally the worst judgment I've ever seen on Qallout. Now I am being accusatory. Did you honestly vote for the person who more tugged on your heartstrings?

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 "If you have a different interpretation of what you mean by pathos, then say it."

        I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm really not. But it appears quite clearly that I cannot simply tell you that pathos means "(appeals to the) emotions" because you, unfamiliar with the use of the term in the rhetorical context, somehow translated that into an accusation of voting for someone based on their pleasing appearance.

        Likewise you seem incapable of distinguishing a judgment based on what appealed to ME, versus a judgment that judged, in part, the appropriate and effective uses to the audience AS A WHOLE. This is particularly cloying since I said quite specifically that Con's primary emotional appeal DID NOT APPEAL TO ME PERSONALLY.

        Is there any chance you'd accept a response in which I refer you to the seminal work on Rhetoric by Aristotle, in which he explores the facets of pathos in rational depth?

        http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom wait so when you say you didnt like it but the audiance did are you saying u just assumed what the audiance as a whole would like and voted accordingly? On what grounds would you even make such an assumption?

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 I haven’t had someone flat out lie about me this much since I ran for office.

      • 2 years ago

        @benmouse42 watch the debate @citizenthom and I had about this judgment. He satisfied my issues with the analysis in that discussion.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 will do,
        @citizenthom , dude chill out. I was just asking a question based off what you wrote. If thats not what you meant just clarify

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @scottishmaniac Congrats for advancing to the Semi-Finals! We'll schedule your next debate in the next 2-3 days

        @jacbenj Hard luck but we'll see you in January at the $5,000 Championship for which you earned a well-deserved free entry!

        • 2 years ago

          fun debate!!!!!@scottishmaniac it's funny how these get simultaniously semi personal and remain v chill- defs a good sign for the culture of the platform :)

        • 2 years ago

          I mean, way to over-explain romance, but I'm with Con on this one.

          • 2 years ago

            This is very easily a win by Con. Honestly, I feel as though this is a very Con heavy round, so I don't think it reflects on Pro's debating. It's just really hard to prove that somehow, it's better to subjugate women for the sake of the community, as Con pointed out.

            • 2 years ago

              @iantreyparish How in any concievable way is this subjugating women? Pro is arguing for a norm to make society better in the same way men often supress behaviour for the betterment of society. The example pro gives is not being mean to people. Lol.

            • 2 years ago

              @iantreyparish I agree with Liam here. Where did subjugation come from? What the pro is saying is that his speech should be considered persuasive enough to change the norm. There is no Force there is no coercion and there is no subjugation.

            • 2 years ago

              Yes, and the problem with the speech being persuasive enough to change the norm is that it deems women as children of the paternalistic system. I just used the word "subjugate" because it was the first word that came to mind.

              Women should be able to live how they see fit, not for the good of the community due to the persuasiveness of the arg. Just because the arg is persuasive doesn't mean the end result is not somewhat oppressive.

            • 2 years ago

              @iantreyparish This is just a norm to make society better.... these norms are applied to both men and women as distinct groups and as communities. If you think any imposition on a womans freedom is patriachal/paternalistic, you've drastically missed the point...

              It doesn't deem people as 'children of an X system' if we have a norm of not being mean to people, rofl.

            • 2 years ago

              @iantreyparish no it does not. I have zero clue why people continuously bash on this paternalistic idea. If you hold the paternalistic or patriarchy argument then you have to reject her argument that we shouldn't care about men's feelings. Those two are inversely proportional, and contradictory. Secondly, as pro pointed out identity politics have absolute no business in a legitimate debate.

            • 2 years ago

              @alot_like_locke "Secondly, as pro pointed out identity politics have absolute no business in a legitimate debate."

              How can that be, when the resolution includes a proposition about a specific identity (here gender) group?

            • 2 years ago

              @citizenthom here's the logical problem with that. Hypotheses such as patriarchy or white supremacy are inherently flawed. It's extrapolation from data without significance or logic. The patriarchy hypothesis assumes many things before the person moves in to analysis. This criticism is much like Bayesian metrics, if you are searching to prove yourself correct you were not doing science. That is why it should be dismissed from debate because there is no validity in there is no veracity behind it. Again I go back to not just patriarchy hypothesis but white supremacy black Supremacy and other identity politics arguments. Secondly this isn't a gender topic because it affects not only males and females but the community as a whole.

            • 2 years ago

              @alot_like_locke The best response I can think of is to point out that most evolutionary theory is also a "hypothesis." Hypotheses, especially when tested vigorously against reality, have independent merit and certainly have a place within otherwise-relevant debates.

            • 2 years ago

              @citizenthom false. A theory is coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

            • 2 years ago

              @citizenthom If it has been tested vigorously than it is no longer a hypothesis. Secondly, for something to have any merit it needs some level of logic behind it. Sadly patriarchy has none of that, neither does any supremacist because of many fallacies most notably fallacy of composition.

          • 2 years ago

            Props to Con for making a feminist argument for allowing men to pay for the first date, and totally pulling it off. Pro clearly did not expect the debate to go in that direction, and while he did a decent job of responding, he never fully recovered.

            • 2 years ago
              • 2 years ago

                I think the distinction between a 'date' vs. a "DATE" is what makes this topic interesting....and how you can come up with competing thoughts

                Yes - if you are going to go out and 'hang out' with a buddy...and the 'buddy' happens to be of the opposite sex....it would be appropriate for each to pay for their own meal. It can be interesting when there is a group of singles going out - each pays their own way. What happens if there is a plan to go to a ball game - and only 1 guy and 1 gal shows up...there you could say that the expectation is that each pays their own way - same as if lots of people show up. BUT - if the guy and gal enjoy each other's company and decide it might be nice to go out together (away from the group)....THEN ....that is a DATE.

                SO - if the intent is a 'DATE' - with possible romantic interests (like 'courtship' - then it would be proper for the man to pay. CON makes that point...and does it well. [BTW - the 'guy/gal' story....not mine - but my son's...]

                • 2 years ago

                  I will be referencing "The Check Dance" in my verdict. Here is important source material.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYdxeQfF7I

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anophqU9Yfg