Check out the Tournament Ladder

  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      I think this debate could have been a lot cleaner if there was a clearer analysis of the burdens on each side. How often do apologies have to be manipulative/not manipulative for me to vote one way or another? Both sides could have worked to set a burden that gives them more ground.

      I also would have liked to see more clash/argument development from both sides. It seems like after you both determined the main points of your cases, your arguments became slightly repetitive. Setting a framework under which these arguments should operate and doing new weighing makes the debate more interesting and easier to judge.

      Given that the round came down to the definition of an apology and whether or not that allows it to be manipulative or not, that is the main issue I chose to make my decision. While Con does do a good job of setting a definition of apology, I buy Pro's analysis regarding the subjectivity of language and the fact that apologies are meant to elicit a response. I see what Con tried to do in arguing that reality cannot be subjective, but I think Pro still successfully makes the distinction between language and reality.

      One thing I would have liked to see more of from the Pro, however, is an extension of the argument at the beginning of the debate that guilt is an internal feeling, which means that apologies always have some sort of motive of eliciting a certain feeling. Still, the argument that apologies are an expression of guilt to elicit a response still functions enough without this extension that I vote Pro.

      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @scottishmaniac Congrats for making to the Finals and actually being our first female Tournament Finalist !!!!! Please expect further details on your last debate in the next couple of days

          @ben Congrats for a great tournament performance and getting a free entry to our $5,000 Championship! Please expect further details on your last debate (battle for the 3rd place) in the next couple of days!

          • 2 years ago

            Thanks for a great debate @scottishmaniac - now will you forgive me for the Oreos already???

          • 2 years ago

            RFD: Something that I think was kind of missed by both sides is that the resolution is absolute.

            The word ‘are’ really limits Aff in this resolution... ‘apologies ARE a form of manipulation’. Meaning that, for me personally, to be able to vote Aff, he has to definiatively prove that apologizing is ALWAYS a form a manipulation. A hard standard but one the resolution sets... And that’s just something I didn’t see him prove in this round.

            Moving away from off case stuff Con’s ‘appology v not-apology’ line tied into how the resolution is worded and sealed the deal for me.

            I voted Con.

            • 2 years ago

              @henrywolfe I read the same thing in the resolution. I listened to this debate last night, and I agree it didn't feel like Pro ever really talked about that part of the rez, but I also didn't really hear that argument come up from the Con. If I was Con, that would have been my main focus. I'll listen to this again at work and see if she said it enough.

            • 2 years ago

              @debateme13 @henrywolfe I felt that I spoke directly to that point on several occasions, specifically when I talked about the fact that apologies are designed to elicit a specific response and alter the other person's behavior, making them manipulative by definition. Obviously I didn't do a good enough job of communicating that based on the fact that neither of you interpreted that way, but I actually felt that that was the central point of my case.

            • 2 years ago

              @ben Honestly, what bugged me about this debate was, neither of you felt like you were really on topic. I agree with you that for the first 2 speeches, I was getting the idea that you were going to try to prove the whole idea that all apologies are manipulative, but then as time went on, you seemed to get away from the resolution, and you talked about different types of manipulative apologies, rather than coming back to the resolution and saying "all apologies are designed to evoke an emotional response, and this makes them manipulative" or whatever you were going to try to go for. At the end, I wasn't convinced that all apologies are manipulative. I agreed with you that a lot of them can be, but not that they categorically are manipulative.

              And I feel bad voting against you, because your opponents case doesn't actually disprove the resolution. If she's saying non-apologies are manipulative, she's discarding those non-apologies from the discussion. Then the question still remains, for the rest of the apologies, are they manipulative? If you could have shown that they necessarily are manipulative, you would have won, and she didn't have anything to show that normal apologies are non-manipulative, so you would have gotten my vote.

            • 2 years ago

              @debateme13 @henrywolfe

              Emily realized the res favored Con, and didn’t want to be a jerk by going there. She was trying to stay fair. We definitely talked about it being absolute as she prepared.

              Though Ben could have maintained that “a form” meant it isn’t absolute.

            • 2 years ago

              “Guns are a form of murder weapon.”

          • 2 years ago

            I agree with @henrywolfe that the proper reading of this resolution is that apologies ARE manipulation (a form of it at least). As in, they are categorically a type of manipulation. I really really really wish Con would have pointed this out. Despite all the time she spent defining words in the rez, she missed the one that would have helped her the most. As long as she points to the fact that the resolution is talking about a categorical rule, then all Con would have to do to win is to show that not all apologies are manipulative. If she shows 1%, she wins. But she doesn't explain this like she should.

            Bleh, and neither Pro or Con tell me how to view the most important part of the rez, but whatever, I know what it means so I'll interpret it the way I know it's supposed to be interpreted. If 1% of apologies are not manipulative, then Con wins.

            I agree with Con that a lot of the supposed bad apologies are probably bribes or non-apologies. But at the same time, the Con case has what should be a fatal flaw. Non-apologies being manipulative doesn't stop regular apologies from also being manipulative. If Pro had been arguing that all apologies are manipulative (what the resolution is actually asking), Con's case wouldn't have worked at all.

            Fortunately for her, the biggest flaw in Pro's case is that he isn't showing that all apologies are manipulative, even though that is his burden as the Pro. He's just showing there are a lot of types of apologies that can be manipulative. He says they "can" be used as manipulation, but not that they are inherently manipulative, so the resolution has not been proven true. #notallapologies