Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @edie_weinhardt my argument isn't about false allegations..my core argument isn't even acknowledged once so ever. Disappointing. I have no problem with your points, or that you side against me. I guess it's simply too difficult too put forward an argument on principles when everyone else is making arguments on evidence for something that just started.

    • a year ago

      @logicalreason If the judge didn't get your core argument, then you didn't make it well enough. Take responsibility.

      And your idea that you made an argument "on principles" while everyone else made arguments on evidence is just a faulty victim complex. Even if we accept your argument that some false accusations will come up (which is statistically insignificant compared to the true stories that are made), that still doesn't mean we would hope women stop posting about their abuses under the #metoo label. As long as women continue being assaulted, we have two options. We either hope they speak up, or we hope they stay silent. #metoo is the idea that they should speak up. Your argument "on principles" necessarily adopts the second mindset. You might not have meant it that way, but that's what you're saying.

      Also Edie is one of the best judges on the site. However she votes it's usually a super super solid judgment.

  • a year ago

    @metant3 Congrats for advancing to the next round!

    @logicalreason Thanks so much for participating!

    • a year ago

      Nice debate mate. Solid job. Good luck!

    • a year ago

      Voted Pro on the issue of Benefits vs. Costs. (Not the RJ for this round)

      Pro argues that exposing sexual assaulters is good, since women have been silenced previously and are now being able to lodge their cases in the court of public opinion. Sexual assaults are underreported, and #metoo is correcting that partially. He cites multiple cases where sex offenders have been called out and corroborated. Con agrees to this.

      Con argues that standards have changed and that there will be false accusations. Con relies on Obama-era policy to prove this and asserts that #metoo is well in line with this policy of guilty until proven innocent.

      Pro's case, then, goes uncontested. The question becomes issue of whether #metoo is net beneficial since the first question of the resolution is uncontested (necessity).

      Since the question becomes one of net benefits, then it comes down to the impacts in question. Pro does a fantastic job with impact calculus. There were two issues that this analysis required.

      One- has #metoo helped to correct injustice and brought powerful men to their proper place?
      Yes, both debaters agree.

      Two- has #metoo caused injustice by allowing women to falsely accuse men?
      Con provides no examples, save a story I cannot verify. Searching "CBS anchor sexual assault" only turns up Charlie Rose, who is certainly not black, so I disregard this.
      Con defends this lack of evidence with two points.
      1. College rules. These being Obama-era and literally having nothing to do with the motion, I summarily discard.
      2. I can't prove a negative. This is fallacious. Defense lawyers do this all the time. Here are two possible ways:
      a. discredit accusations
      b. cite cases where courts or employers rejected accusations
      The second would have been best, since until you can prove that this has happened, it is futile to assert that some number of accusations, most of which (it is agreed) are true, may be false.

      What Con needed to do was prove that there were false accusations arising from #metoo and that these false accusations were more important and serious than the true accusations. With no evidence that the false accusations exist, Con is left with the hypothetical of possible false accusations. This is hardly sufficient to outweigh the concrete and hypothetical benefits Pro provides.

      Fantastic job all the same @logicalreason and @metant3.

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley I'd appreciate it if you could discuss these with me; interested?

      • a year ago

        @logicalreason What do you want to know?

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley I disagree with your 'logical assumptions'....

        The college rules under Obama clearly established a 'guilty until proven innocent'....and allegations were put forth many times, and there have been plenty of cases where a guy's rights were clearly violated. The rules permitted gross violations of guy's rights.

        Con asserts (with legitimacy in my opinion) - that the Obama college rules created a very similar environment as #metoo would establish. Sure - #metoo is too new to have developed a bunch of innocent victims - but it is illogical to ignore the evidence out there from the college rule changes that have a large number of victims.

        The above is why I think it was wrong in your point 1 - discarding looking at college.

        PRO did not prove that the existing rules were inadequate or bad (including innocent until proven guilty, including that charges should not be taken seriously if filed anonymously, and charges should be harder to prove if the person waits 5, 10, 15 or more years before coming out with the charges.) Seems that #metoo is a cop-out - someone coming out using the #metoo rather than going to a police station and filing a complaint. (AND - filing a complaint can get an HONEST investigation started sooner, while posting a #metoo is a 'social posting' that can make an investigation harder to conduct, and it can create an environment where the results are tainted.

        Do we need a new system that does not protect potentially innocent people? The one we have fails too often, the new system will be even worse.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard The debate wasn't about legal rules. #metoo (as you recognize) is a social movement. No new rules or legal systems have been established by #metoo advocates. In fact, many of the targets of #metoo campaigns have been far past the statute of limitations. #metoo is about recognizing the widespread sexual abuse in society and using social sanction to address it.

        I discarded college (despite my agreement with Con on the actual matter of Title IX sexual assault standards) because it was a legal rule that #metoo had nothing to do with. So the question that remains is whether #metoo creates that same environment. Con's entire argument was hypothetical, as opposed to well-attested, tangible goods Pro outlines.

        We can debate whether catching a guilty person or freeing an innocent person is more just, but when we have clear examples of a movement which catches the guilty and no examples of it harming any innocent, I agree it has been necessary and beneficial.

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley This is the only text reply I'll give. Innocent until proven guilty is not a "legal system" or a "rule"; it's a philosophical principle that laid the foundation for all western culture; the magna carta, and all societal constructs we live in. Advocating innocent until proven guilty is the best system to find out the truth in any circumstance.

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley #metoo sets the stage for making it easy to make false accusations....or stupid one....like the recent #metoo claims against Aziz Ansari....

        NY Post remarks - Jan 15 edition, that this is where the #MeToo movement has officially jumped the shark.) The Ansari 'allegations' impugn - anomalously - where NO crime has been committed. [Hollywood has been for 'free love'....and someone living that life is being condemned for not being a 'mind reader'.... WOW. No - Ansari isn't a complete victim - no prosecution because he has done nothing chargeable. BUT - his career might suffer.

        In the same way - we see all sorts of potentially fake and unprovable allegations come out during the campaign season. Alabama candidate (Judge) Moore was the recipient of lots of these allegations that were more than 30 years old - so it can be a convenient tool by an opposing party to tarnish someone's reputation.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard Totally non-unique. Herman Cain got the same thing 5 years before #metoo.

        That aside, thr vast majority of women will tell the truth about these things. If they are found to be lying their career will suffer.

        The Ansari allegations are laughable and even feminists I’ve read reject them. He did some stupid stuff in that encounter but I seriously doubt his career will suffer.

        And I know your position on Roy Moore, but the example of Herman Cain shows that the #metoo movement has little to do with whether allegations against candidates succeed,

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley I would point out that the Obama Administration sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter to promulgate 'suggestions' (no legal rules) for colleges based on Title IX...and they evolved into 'Star Chamber Proceedings' where accused people could NOT defend themselves, might not even know who made charges, could be expelled from college after a 'psuedo-legal' hearing that lacked all legal proceeding rules. Sure - #metoo hasn't established 'new rules or legal systems.' BUT -- plenty of crowds that turn into lynch mobs didn't really intend to commit a crime either!

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard As I have made clear, I think the Obama-era Title IX positions were unjust and I don't at all support them. That said, the #metoo movement is plainly about calling men out for sexual harassment and I can see no reason why that's a problem, as long as the legal system addresses it according to established norms and employers (as they have so far) investigate allegations properly. The point you appear to be making is that we shouldn't encourage women to tell the truth about the crimes men have committed against them. That may stop the lynch mob, but it will also stop the law.

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley No - I wasn't advocating what you said. There has been a process called...."go file a report'. File it with the appropriate authorities. If someone did something criminal - report it to legal authorities (Police, etc.). If someone did something against company policies but not illegal - file a report with the company HR. THAT should be the standard.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard excuse me then. So what happens to women after the statute of limitations has expired, or if the conduct was not illegal? Should they not be encouraged to speak then? Or should they be encouraged to help resolve this disgusting misuse of power?

      • a year ago

        @noahdfarley Good question. We need more 'openness' in the system...and we need to encourage women to come forward IMMEDIATELY....and not 1 month, 1 year ...or 40 years later. I would have no problem if the education system told children - SPEAK UP....and if you don't speak up within a short time....you are less likely to be believed. If you want to be believed....SPEAK UP SOON!

        Unless there is a provable reason to delay speaking up - I think that it would be better to shut up and not speak out. Too late.... Otherwise - how do we differentiate between real incidents - and liars seeking to harm someone who might be innocent?

    • a year ago

      This is a rather obvious Pro win. Not sure why the voting bar is close.

      #Metoo has led to specific advantages that Pro points out. Men who have benefited by a culture of silence that allowed them to get away with abusive behavior, have finally been brought down. But more importantly, the victims are actually able to come forward and be heard about what they've gone through, which is something that was not possible in the past. Why would anyone be against that?

      This is quite frankly, a terrible resolution. There's no logical reason to be Con on this rez. Con in this debate tried to say that false accusations would be brought forward, but
      a. He had no examples of any false accusations being brought so far.
      b. Even if false accusations are brought forward, that's incredibly insignificant compared to the benefits of taking down the culprits who committed sexual assault, and enabling victims a voice to talk about their abuse without being silenced.

      In order to be Con, you have to say that it is not beneficial for women to come forward about the abuse they have suffered. It's just a dumb position to take, and the hypothetical existence of false allegations doesn't even come close to an argument that would validate a Con vote.

      • a year ago

        @sharkb8 "In order to be Con, you have to say that it is not beneficial for women to come forward about the abuse they have suffered".

        Unfortunately, I didn't take that position.

        "It's just a dumb position to take, and the hypothetical existence of false allegations doesn't even come close to an argument that would validate a Con vote."

        Good thing that's not remotely close to my argument.

        Here, want to know what my argument is addressing?

        1. Suppressed premise within Movement:
        Do we agree that the current manifestation of the #metoo movement has adopted a philosophy of "listen and believe"?

        2.We both agreed.

        3.Thus, this is a new principle of assessing truth. With this standard: The movement no longer NECESSARY, and although the benefits were good; the short term benefits WILL be outweighed by a dissolution for finding standards of truth when things are put into question.

        I'm not saying I'm right; but the problem rests with the first sentence of your post. You're looking to "win", and by commenting and assessing my argument is this manner, we both lost.

      • a year ago

        @logicalreason bro that's what #Metoo is. It's the idea that women should not be afraid to talk about abuses they have suffered. When each of their individual voices speak up together, we see the magnitude of the issue, and just how prevalent it is in our society. That's the whole point of women posting it, so that we see how big the issue is, while giving the victims both the therapeutic chance to have allies, recognizing that they're not alone, and then committing (hopefully with us guys as well) to creating a world where such abuses are not commonplace.

        Tbh, in this debate you didn't actually criticize #Metoo. You criticized the idea that we should believe abuse victims, which is a different debate entirely, and even in that separate debate, it's not a very good position.