Check out the Tournament Ladder
@lewisoflime @scottishmaniacAwesome, final round!!! Please note that the confirmed judges for the Finals are: @kelleykrook @ninadabit @navapanichz @singalport
@lewisoflime Congratulations for winning another Championship! I believe that you are now officially competing with @benmouse42 in terms of tournament badges lol. I hope to see a between you two soon :-) @scottishmaniac What an incredible performance over your first two tournaments! Congratulations for getting the 2nd place in November's Tournament and earning your first well-deserved QallOut badge!
“She hasn’t even presented a policy.”Maybe because it’s a values round.
@eli_mcgowan Joseph is referring to a "retributive policy" as an application. Without an application the vaule isn't grounded in reality.
@isaacwuest To be sure, but there is no burden in a values round to lay out a specific policy. Not to mention, applications are helpful illustrations, but they are not necessary to meet the burden. Furthermore, I discussed at length various practical situations to ground the concepts I espoused.
@scottishmaniac There is a burden in all rounds to demonstrate your conception of the world is superior, and how values translate into real world responses. You don't get points for being 'principled' while the world burns down around you.
@liamm Again, I'm not disputing that. But as I said, I addressed real world issues. So really that's really moot at this point.
@scottishmaniac How do you at any point deal with the real-world issues of people who, under your side are /less likely/ to be rehabilitated and thus commit more crimes - HARMING innocent people- then re-enter correctional facilities that tear apart families?
@liamm First of all, that's a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. I recommend you watch the round for your answer.
@scottishmaniac Lol, its not a loaded question - legit look up the definition. A loaded question requires the responder to admit a fault simply by answering no matter what they say.My question, if answered in the positive helps you and makes me look silly, and if answered poorly reflects worse on you.Keep working on the sass tho :P
@liamm We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess. I'm not really sure how giving a straightforward answer constitutes sass. But whatever floats your boat.
@liamm "You don't get points for being 'principled' while the world burns down around you." Might be debatable.
@quinfriberg Aha, perhaps, its just a general rule :P
Pro side laid out very persuasive real world examples + strong weighing mechanism that were never responded to. Con got caught up explaining why you didn't have to choose between rehab and retribution which I didn't find very impactful. The point of the debate is to choose which one is better, and pro gave straightforward arguments to determine that.
@hbreauxv I responded to his weighing mechanism by showing how it did not achieve the core mission of the criminal justice system. My job is not to accept his weighing mechanism and prove in pragmatic terms why he's wrong. The values paradigm allows me to refute the pragmatism itself.
@scottishmaniac I understand that you took that approach, but I didn't find it very persuasive. Nonetheless, well done. A good round from both sides, I enjoyed watching it a great deal.
I see a vast majority of comments are related to arguing Con was only principled vs. no pragmatic solutions. This seems to be related to false presuppositions as to what is considered to "work" in the scope of what justice is. Con laid out the most coherent argument in regards to the scope of the debate.
@seybert_usmc If by coherent, you mean zero reasons to prefer then sure. *extends 18 unresponded positions on the flow See in a debate you don't get to claim "justice", provide no interp of what that means considering how every country on earth has a different interp and application of justice. Sure we *all* want justice, cool. Now, how about we actually clash between rehabilitation and retribution. Con just never weighed how her abstract definition of "justice" actually beats pro. Con is just saying lets do "justice" and not talk about what that means.
This site is about pure communication, not dropped arguments, but there's no way she dropped that many, because Joseph kept rehashing the same arguments.
@isaacwuest First of all, ouch and nope. xDSecondly, you can reference my first contention for a comprehensive interpretation for justice, in addition to evidence cited in later speeches. I clearly explained that justice is preferable to pragmatism on account of its indispensable role in the criminal justice system. That's the clash- ideological competition for the functional ethic.
@eli_mcgowan Yeah, I hear ya, it's a shame she didn't respond to the analysis so pro didn't have to keep communicating the same impacts. And you're right, it couldn't have been 18...
@scottishmaniac It actually seems really absurd that your argument is, 'retribution is indispensable', but then simultaneously argue that 'I can do rehabilitation as well'... That also implies you think rehabilitation is indispensable to a degree.
@liamm As I've explained before, one is a punishment and one is not. Therefore there is no meaningful need to choose in the real world. The choice is purely ideological. The res gives an implicit value goal that constitutes the round burden. Therein we find the competition and clash. So when I say "indispensable," this is the context of that statement. This is the very nature of a values debate- the abstract, the ideological. I didn't shy away from discussing the real world, but I'm not going to sugarcoat how a values round works either.
@scottishmaniac Maybe I missed something, where was your RTP for ideological clash with sociatal welfarm and justice?Con - value: JusticeC1: Retribution pursues justice. Analysis: Justice is criminals getting what they deserve.Pro - "Justice is only as good as it benefits society" If justice is preferable to societal welfare (in context of the res) then can you tell me why apart from saying because it's justice? I don't find placing fiat value on a term like justice persuasive. As a judge, I'm looking for a reason to say one is better than another. And the only reason I saw was that its "the function of our criminal justice system". That response ignores two things, one, the reason you are debating the res in the first place, and second, the negative impacts of overvaluing retribution brought by pro. Either concede and outweigh, deny and support, mitigate, or turn pro's argument.
@scottishmaniac You VALUE something because of the EFFECT it has. You don't value things inherrently - and at the very least you don't value a INSTRUMENTAL system, like the CJS, which is designed to make tradeoffs between values (e.g. freedom of criminal vs. protection of victim) based on 'warm fuzzies' but on cold hard impacts. When you prefer a value you need to explain why other than just assertions about indispensability.I don't think you're sugar coating values rounds, I just don't think you understand how debating works.
@liamm All values resolutions mention systems in the real world (government is one of the most common of these) . The logical conclusion of your proposal is to ignore that validity of intrinsic principle because the real world exists in any given resolution. And for the record, principles aren't warm fuzzies. They built civilizations and inspired people to die for their beliefs. That's the true cold hard impact. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't give much credence to that thought.
@isaacwuest For the simple reason that it is the contextual value which is mandated by the resolution. The criminal justice system exists and is fueled by the ideological requirement to give each his due. It's literally called the criminal justice system. Pro gives a nice goal. But that goal is not what the resolution asks us to pursue. It's that simple.
@scottishmaniac Right, but you don't give ANY reason why your principle is intrinsically better than Joseph's other than 'I have a book that says so'... as Joseph also rightly points out - 'so what'.You'll forgive me if I don't give much credence to assertions ;)
Haven't watched yet, but I'll second @eli_mcgowan's statement about dropped arguments.This site is far more about persuasiveness than dropped arguments. It's almost impossible to have any breadth in the debate if it's more about spreading than not.
@scottishmaniac But you can't just pick a value that's irrelevant to the real world. This is a great resolution because it's so applicable to the real world. You answered Joseph by saying that rehabilitation and retribution are almost never in conflict, but that's just not true. Whenever a judge issues a sentence, the length of the sentence will be dependent on the answer to this resolution. Every single individual prison schedule and expectations will be dependent on whether the criminal justice system thinks the prisoners are being punished for their previous actions, or rehabilitated to be future model citizens. I don't think any judge has ever had to pick a prison sentence for a convict and they went "I can either give 20 years and required court therapy to try to help the person come back into society and not reoffend, or I can give 30 years because retribution is central and indispensable."Retribution and rehabilitation can work together, but they also necessarily conflict in certain areas. When you ignore/accept Pro's points about how retributive systems like the US lead to recidivism, whereas rehabilitative systems like Norway lead to much lower rates of repeat crime, you're not advocating a system that is more just. You're getting more people hurt, which is the opposite of justice.
@liamm Once again, it's resolutationally and contextually mandated. Simple as that. And look, at this point, it's fairly obvious that we are at an impasse. So I'm just going to again recommend that you watch the debate and wish you well.
@debateme13 As I spoke about at length in the round, my philosophy has a place in the real world. To be sure, and I actually addressed that in-round with my example of IPP sentencing. No, but most judges throughout judicial history prefer discretion to pick the sentence that the offender deserves based on the specific circumstances (the heart of retribution itself). I spoke about this in my cross ex answer. I didn't ignore or accept the points. I simply pointed out that they don't play into the core motivation of the system itself. I even advocated for the existence of the programs. Non-punishments can exist alongside punishments. And I think they should. Again, I spoke at length about this in round. So to sum this up, your concerns have already been addressed.
@scottishmaniac cool so, in the real world, when determining between more of a retributive focus, or a rehabilitative focus, you would advocate for choosing more of a focus on punishing prisoners, even if that makes more crime/recidivism occur, because punishment = justice? Rehabilitation = something else? I don’t know what exactly rehabilitation is if it isn’t part of the criminal justice system. Like, I get that there must be punishment for crimes, but that doesn’t stop rehabilitation from also being part of the criminal justice system.When prisoners get court ordered psychotherapy or counseling, that rarely replaces prison time. When inmates in Norwegian prisons go through the prison system that is focused on rehabilitation, they are still serving prison time. So punishment and rehabilitation will necessarily exist together, as administered by a criminal justice system. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether a criminal justice system should put more emphasis on rehabilitating prisoners, or punishing them. What does answer that question, would be examining the actual results. You agree (or at least don’t address) the idea that the results are better when a criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation. You say you are relating to the real world, but if thats the case you have to actually look at what happens when you prioritize one thing over another. The main application of this in the round was to examine what Norway is doing vs. what the US is doing. It’s a landslide for Norway.I absolutely do not get why we would keep valuing retribution over rehabilitation just because that’s what justice supposedly is, even if it leads to justice being denied for the future victims. What is the benefit?
@debateme13 We both gave clear definitions of rehabilitation. You can reference those to clear up that confusion. It's a part of the system, but it isn't the core purpose. That's the difference that I literally spent the whole round explaining. Deciding which is more valuable does not necessitate downplaying the use of one or the other. You yourself just admitted that. Values can also be assessed on how well a philosophy adheres to the resolutional goal. I addressed in round with evidence that the US "tough on crime" approach is the result of politically motivated persecution of marginalized groups, not retribution. Your reasoning here is based on a misunderstanding of criminal justice history that pro's case shares. The benefit is that people get the sentences they deserve. Nothing about that prevents protecting the victims. It's time to put that old argument to bed.
RFD: This was a really close round until probably the last 5 minutes. I feel like Con really missed their burden for the debate round. The resolution, as joseph pointed out, is pragmatic in nature. Meaning that you pit two ideas against each other and value one over the other, which in turn devalues the other one. Going to Con’s argument about how rehabilitation isn’t part of the criminal justice system is just plain wrong. The criminal justice stystem isn’t just how criminals are punished. It’s the overall policy and procedure of the criminal justice SYSTEM as a whole.If the res read: “in criminal justice” then your argument flies. But the res reads: “criminal justice system” which means talking about every aspect of the system as a whole, which includes rehabilitation. I would’ve liked to see Con move more into clash instead of getting into a debate theory/ definitions debate. I vote Pro, semi regretfully considering the potential this round had, almost entire on his analysis of the resolution, and debate theory arguments.You guys are both really good debaters, you’ll be back in the finals very soon I’m sure. Good job both of you! @lewisoflime @scottishmaniac
@henrywolfe Thanks for the RFD. Though I have to say that all systems are only as good as their principles. Which ultimately makes pragmatism pretty low on the hierarchy. And I don't say this lightly either. This was an LD (my speciality) res from my old debate league. I wrote a 40-page sourcebook on the theory surrounding this res. You have been super polite in this post, though. And that means a lot. :)
@scottishmaniac I don’t necessarily want to take words out of @lewisoflime mouth but unless I’m mistaken, Pragmatism wasn’t his ‘value’ per say in this round. His argument around pragmatism was observing that the resolution was pragmatic in nature, something that would be incredibly difficult to oppose considering the wording of the resolution. Meaning, as I said, when you value one thing, you will in turn devalue the other. So when you value rehabilitation in the resolution you will be devaluing retribution, or the other way around.Also for the record I’m not questioning that you know this res and have studied it. I might be mistaken but we may have 2 different era’s of debate theory clashing right now which might show the problem of the lack of overall clash in the rounrd. The reason I chose Joseph on that point was in part A ) Because I’ve done LD for the past 5 years and the debate theory points that he brought up make sense considering the way that I’ve been trained. And B ) I didn’t see any link or RTP your debate theory over his. Hopefully that makes some form of sense.Nevertheless you are highly intelligent, seem well studied on this topic and will likely do very well in future tournaments!
@henrywolfe Yeah, he did say "weighing mechanism." That is correct. But a weighing mechanism is a value in a values debate. In this case, the terms are interchangeable. He didn't frame it as a point of resolutional analysis but rather the principle that he believes justified and supported his case, which is the value function. Not to mention the obvious fact that LD resolutions are not pragmatic. Devaluing something doesn't mean that you have to forsake one or the other. Especially since one is a punishment and one is not. They have different practical purposes, which makes the clash ideological in nature. Not all resolutions work this way, but this one certainly does. Oh, of course not! Seems like you started LD right when I finished. But to be fair, I still coach. So I'm not out of touch with how things are done. But regardless, it's really great to see another values debater here! Thanks so much! That's nice of you to say!
@scottishmaniac this will likely be the last thing I talk about. But I disagree on the notion that LD reses aren’t pragmatic in nature. This res specifically is pragmatic, it discusses two real world concepts and in return you must use real world standards to prove a side of the resolution true. And for the record, you may already know this but Joseph has competed in LD for several years and won national championships in both Stoa and NCFCA, I’ve actually competed against him a few times so he’s just as well versed in LD as anyone. Regardless, you did well and I hope to see you competing again in the future. :)
@henrywolfe That's fine. Same here. The thing is, the existence of the real world does not negate the transcendence or immanence of principles. In my time, I did multiple resolutions which directly dealt practical government/criminal justice procedures. This was at no point taken to mean by any competitor involved that pragmatism was the only option available. That's good to hear, and I respect his accomplishments. But competitive success alone isn't proof of theoretical prowess. Of those who I competed with in LD, very few dedicated themselves to understanding to the deeper workings of the style. All the same, he's obviously very talented. :)Thanks!
"My opponent hasn't contested the fact that rehab is more useful."And thus, the policy/LD chasm opened, ready to swallow both finalists whole. I get that LDs like Emily usually get a bad rap on Qallout, so I'm going to try and be as gracious as possible to both sides.The first thing I want to tackle is time mark 18:20. Bringing up DMs as a reason to vote for you is just shitty debating. I like you Joe, but just don't do that. It's so, so petty. Your debating outweighs bringing that up. When I debated in policy, if someone changed a CP or disad, we'd just turn it instead of complaining about what happened pre-round.Basically, this entire debate is a theory debate, which sucks. While y'all kept going on and on about clash, it never *really* happened.Given that, I have to vote based off the wording of the resolution. I 100% agree with Emily, Pro seems to be shying away from advocating for the resolution wholeheartedly. This is where it gets tricky. My policy mind really wants to vote for Joe, because if this was a policy debate, he *WINS*. Outright, no questions asked. But Emily isn't really running a critique, she's saying that, no matter what good is brought to society, the correct conceptual notion of justice is retribution, because then justice is served.Joe never really says that justice is served through rehab. Rather, Pro ends up going on about how much of a benefit society has if we just do rehab.I voted Con because I believe that Emily gives a better representation of what consists of justice, even though that justice might be a net negative to society.However, Joe would have totally won if the resolution was "The USFG should change the retributive criminal justice system for a more rehabilitative criminal justice system".Good debate, y'all.
@iantreyparish This right here is part of the worry that I have about debates like this. It falsely makes you think there are "rules" for how you're supposed to approach different topics, and that who wins comes down to theory. It doesn't, and we really need to stop perpetuating that mindset on Qallout.This debate does not come down to policy vs. value. Joe knows value debate as well as anyone on this site, so it's not like Emily came out of nowhere and shocked him with "OMG A VALUE CASE". This debate, like all debates, comes down to the resolution. The Aussie's call it "The comparative". In the comparative, which side has shown a preferable world, the pro, or the con.Both sides agree that criminals will have some penalty. That's the part that is "central and indispensable". If Pro was advocating that there not be any penalty, then Con's point would make sense. But Pro isn't advocating that, so the question is, when determining the severity of the penalty, should the agency offering the penalty focus more on punishment, or on helping improve the offender so they won't reoffend. Con says that we should focus on punishment. Why? Because retribution is "central and indispensable" to justice. She never addresses the fact that focusing on punishment leads to higher crime rates and overall suffering for the community. In her attempt to do what is "central and indispensable" to justice, she winds up hurting the most amount of people... which is the opposite of justice. Nothing Con presents shows any actual, real world reasons why someone who has to choose between punishment and rehabilitation should prefer punishment. If a judge sees someone who has a drinking problem and got in a bar fight, he could give the person 10 years, because "retribution is central and indispensable" or he could give the person 6 months and mandated psychological counseling. After the person gets out in 10 years, they'll be bitter and ready to go back to drinking. They will likely reoffend. Whereas the one who has experienced counseling has a lower likelihood of recidivism, because the judge focused on rehabilitation. This is the question of the round. This is why Pro showed the rates of recidivism go down when you value rehabilitation over retribution, making it better for society. If Con doesn't address that, and instead just focuses on this technicality about how "retribution is central and indispensable" she can't win.In the comparative, Pro's world is significantly and obviously better than Con's world. This has nothing to do with value vs. policy. Don't get caught up in technicalities. Focus on the actual implications of the round.
@debateme13 THE AUSSIES!
@debateme13 Theory matters because argumentation has meaning and impact. There's nothing wrong with self-awareness of our own discipline. I say that it is essential to have it. I don't really think it's fair to say that he knows value debate just as well as anyone just because...well why was that again? Not saying he's not a talented guy. I just think that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt here. I address all your concerns here in round and in my previous comment. So I'm not going to be redundant here. The real implication of the round is whether or not principles are immanent and transcendent. I'm sure they wouldn't be to a naturalist. But I personally believe that the ins and outs of our discipline and the principles behind the institutions we use will always be so much more than technicalities.
@iantreyparish Ooh buddy. Droppin a vid right quick. (14:50 for the pre-round discussion timestamp)
@scottishmaniac If you look at Joseph’s rankings on speechranks, he was 6th at NITOC, 10th at NCFCA nationals, 1st place LD speaker at NITOC, 2nd place speaker at NCFCA nats, and a bunch of other awards for LD. He knows as much or more about LD than anyone on this site.And this debate was not about whether objective morality exists. It was about whether a system of government should do one thing or another.
@debateme13 Competitive success does not a theory specialist make. I have a similar list of accomplishments in LD, but I don't rest on those. I rest on the fact that I have spent years actually studying, coaching, and writing.That's not what I said, at all. And see, you really are turning this into a policy debate. This isn't about what a system of government should do (policy). It's what it should value (principle prioritization). You and I both know what's up here. I'll finish my thoughts to you here.
@scottishmaniac ok then last comment.You know Joseph is a debate coach too right? I’ve been out of Stoa for 8 years. I know his name and I know he’s a coach because he’s one of the most well known coaches around. I know people who have traveled to camps around the country with him to be coached. I was also a debate coach, for Policy, LD, and numerous speech events, not that this should matter since tooting our own horn shouldn’t have to be part of the discussion.But as someone who is a coach, you should know that the reason value debate matters is because it informs and determines your eventual actions. When I said this resolution was what one government should or should not do, you’re right that the technical phraseology is what they should “value” which will then come out in what they do, but what they will do is absolutely part of that equation. For instance, communism is a great theoretical idea, that doesn’t work in practice. A value debater has to be aware of the actual implications of what they are valuing.If value debate was divorced from policy decisions or individual actions, it would be close to irrelevant. Value debate matters because it informs how an entity will act. The details of that action can be worked out in policy debates, but the overall mindset for those policy debates comes from what you value. It is irrational to value something that has no discernable benefit in the real world.And I’m pretty sure that last comment is referring to you thinking I’m biased against you, which is laughably ridiculous. Do you think I’m biased against Joseph? He’s my friends debate partner so there’s just as much reason for me to be biased against him as you. Am I biased against Michael?Am I biased against Eli? Not in the slightest. Why the hell would I be biased against you? Actually, why wouldn’t I be biased FOR you like Eli and Ian are? Now, I do have some logical problems with some of the things you say and your misapplication of debate theory. I also have logical problems with some things I’ve seen Joseph do, or Michael, or Eli, or Terrance, or anyone else. That’s just opinions, and we all have them. But since I’m friends with those guys, if anything I’d be biased for them, certainly not against them... or you.Nothing about my comments to you came from bias against you. I like you. I like Joseph. I think he won this round. Simple.
@debateme13 I really hate your view of LD, tho.
@eli_mcgowan Lemme just. Lemme try to explain a thing. @isaacwuest @liamm @debateme13
@debateme13 I'm aware of his experience. I just don't think that it automatically makes him right. That's all. Woah, there... that's a big jump you just made there. This seems like a sore subject for you. So, I'm just going to finish up our interaction in the interests of diplomacy.
@scottishmaniac @eli_mcgowan @debateme13 @lewisoflime
@iantreyparish I don't mind you having a difference of opinion, and if that's how you interpret the resolution that's perfectly fine. My point was mainly to say that this differentiation you're drawing between policy and value debate isn't a real differentiation. Stoa/NCFCA had two separate debate leagues, but a resolution is a resolution. There are no rules that "oh this is a policy resolution so you have this burden" or "nope this is a value rez so you have to do ____". It's just logic. If logically, one side is more convincing, then that's the side that should win.If you feel that the resolution "criminal justice systems should value rehabilitation over retribution" is best answered by asking theoretically what justice is, then feel free to vote that way. I read that resolution and ask whether a government should focus more on retribution or rehabilitation when faced with criminal justice issues, and I think that rather clearly was more proven by the pro, but you're entitled to read the resolution differently if you think it means what Con said.
@josh808 Ahahaha true.
@noahdfarley I appreciate your judgment but "you should've given reasons to prefer on the weighing mechanism" (???)The overwhelming majority of my arguments were RTP social health over "justice" - 1) government accountability, 2) obligation to taxpayer, 3) decreases suffering and violence 4) tangible benefits vs. hypothetical benefits 5) proportional justice isn't measurable - I could go on. I extended all of these throughout the round.On theory: Reducing the difference in theory to league background is simplistic. Arguing that comparative value resolutions don't need conflict to be proven is incoherent. This is not to say I just "don't like" it as much, or "happen to prefer" other theoretical strategies. It is just basically absurd to posit simultaneously that we never need to choose between two things AND ALSO we should choose this one because the other is fundamentally unjust and evil. Then you mention I needed stronger links between retribution and harsh punishment - the links are a) in my definition within the first speech + my analysis right after b) present in all of emily's arguments saying that rehabilitation is soft bc it doesn't give people what they deserve c) present in the empirical analysis of us vs. norway d) probably also present in any basic understanding of retribution as an english word.Like I'm picking up a couple of the things you're saying, but for most I'm confused - you're saying "you should've done this" when most everyone saw me do it.
@lewisoflime Sorry about the confusion. The main problem was that I didn't make clear when I saw a problem that it wasn't because there was a total deficit of links or RTPs but that there was a temporal deficit of links/RTPs. The RTPs for Justice existed, but didn't seem to directly clash with the value until later in the round which was problematic. The links between retribution and stronger punishment were there, but didn't get impacted later in the round when Emily called them into question (though she lacked warrants for her perspective). Like you had them, but you didn't impact them when you really needed to. On theory: My point was not that both are equally legitimate. It's logically incoherent and useless to lay out a theory of no conflict. I spend too much time on the league difference, but the basic point was just that I think this is where the conflict comes from. Look, I'm sorry if I didn't communicate my point well enough, but I think the temporal lack of impacts still happened.
Con's case is dependent on her idea that justice = retribution, and that the rehabilitation of the offender doesn't play into the actual meting out of justice. But this is a pretty narrow minded view of justice, and it would only work if eithera. It's the only correct interpretation of Justice that's possibleb. She gives conclusive reasons why we should believe her view of justice is the best oneA is incorrect, because there are lots of other theories of justice, like Pro's idea that justice comes from what benefits society.B doesn't help Con, because it sure seems like the better view of justice would be the one that actually helps people. Pro's view of justice helps way more people.Con wants to make a deontological case, but deontological arguments only work when they're well grounded. This one is a house built on sand.
@debateme13 @lewisoflime @scottishmaniac @iantreyparish Not an RFD, not an official decision in the debate. Notice my bar under my comment lol. My main philosophy is that theory ought not be presented dogmatically, but justified like any other argument via warrants and impacts, because smart people disagree on how debate workers. Often I do feel it is necessary to frame debate, but that debaters should understand and tell the judge why it is necessary and fundamental to the substantive clash of the debate. I'd love to hear your comments.
@lewisoflime @scottishmaniac This is my personal opinion of the round not an official decision (I'm a less experienced debater and new to Qallout). I'm probably wrong somewhere. I'd love to hear in what way if you disagree. You guys are both very good debaters! I wish best of luck to you both!
@drag0nbait Don't apologize for having little experience - less experienced judgments can sometimes even be more helpful to debaters - they tell us how we appear to the average person. That being said, your analysis made perfect sense to me. You understand theory really well - plus your open-minded attitude will take you far as you gain more understanding.
@lewisoflime Thanks so much! I hope my comments brought some value to this debate. I was really excited when I saw the REZ bc i have debated this before and was saddened that it almost stagnated into this theory debate. I'm here on Qallout tho to hopefully hone my skills and I think this round really inspired me to finally do some H2H!
@drag0nbait I'm happy you're here with us. See you in the national championship!
@benmouse42 this analysis is spot on. And no there’s no LD norm the Con was using. She was misapplying debate theory to the point of absurdity. It was just a case without any real world benefit she was trying to pass off by using technical language. ::braces for the inevitable petty dislike::
@debateme13 :O :O :O petty dislikes on a debate... surely not with these people ;)
@benmouse42 As someone who has done LD in multiple leagues I can assure you there is no LD convention at all. The theory Con claims is conventional comes from a small and dying corner of the population doing LD in America. There’s no authoritative “this is acceptable because LD” even there. Most everyone I know lays out the same theory as Joe does here.
This comments section got really spicy, really fast lol