@madmike @chriscowherdPlease 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: @navapanichz
@navapanichz thank you for your decision!
@navapanichz boo! Hiss! But thank you for your feedback none the less.
@chriscowherd Congrats for advancing to the next round!@madmike Tough luck but we'll see you at the debate lounge :-)
@chriscowherd Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it.
@chriscowherd what kind of mic is that?
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance lol I'm glad someone noticed. MXL 990 through an MAudio Mobile Pre Interface
I voted Con here. I felt that Pro never developed a very compelling case for the resolution. I got an outline of the concerns in the opening, but Pro never really gave us a way to understand these critiques or issues as being outdated. Pro needed to spend a bit more time solidifying his case and a bit less rebutting Con.Con's opening was very good. But because Pro wasn't presenting a strong organized case, Con's arguments also became somewhat muddied and devolved more into a critique of Pro's arguments than direct argumentation. That made for what I felt was a somewhat tedious debate.Cons line of argument that pro offers no replacement is a good one and scores here.Con's argument that the definition of obsolete has not been met is also strong and Pro does little to fight it.Con's argument on marriage as a concept rather than as a practice was, I think, too subtle to be of much use here. Pro didn't quite understand it and instead framed it as practical vs theoretical, and that was easier to understand. (though it is not really what Con was saying). Then we got into the "give me a law"....That was the most tedious part. It's true that Pro not citing anything specific was poor performance. Pro should try to respond, if not with an actual law citation but with at least a concrete example. But honestly, it is common knowledge that in the US there are limitations on who can marry whom and that other countries have similar laws. It really doesn't need a citation for me to nod and say, "yep there are limits on marriage that some people have issues with." So this felt like a lot of wasted time.But, while Pro win's that last argument in my book (with little effort needed to do so) there isn't really any impact outlined for me other than some people don't like that. And that doesn't rise to the level to make something outdated.
@sigfried it seems to me the idea that some people can’t get married and for that reason don’t like the institution of marriage is good enough reason for the institution itself to be updated. But otherwise fair criticisms.
@madmike & @sigfried - I listened to 2 debates - same topic - and I wondered why no one on the CON side used some 'powerful' ammo to support the institution of marriage - the CHILDREN. ( @sigfried DID mention it...but only in passing, but I was hoping for a 'deep dive' into this!)Today - I was listening to a discussion of problems in schools (K-12) on the radio - and they were discussing the large numbers of children who were reading 3 or 4 grades BELOW level (Seattle school system)....and a common factor in children having problems in school - coming from a home headed by a single parent. I recall reading about how some school systems want to NOT permit teachers to assign homework - because children with 2 parents at home are far more likely to do the homework , and where necessary, have a parent help the child - while those from a home with only one parent - do less homework and are less likely to get needed help. SO....to not 'harm' children from single parent homes - lets have a policy that helps dumb down all children. There are plenty of studies and statistics out there that children do MUCH MUCH better in a 2 parent home. Marriage is often the glue that provides more stability.One can certainly claim that if 2 parents live together (without the 'benefit' of marriage) - they get the same benefits. BUT - with the rising rates of births to single parents....and the associated problems that come with that - maybe marriage is NOT 'out dated' - and looking at children is a major way to prove that it has its value.
@mvineyard I had a bit more prepared on the topic of kids in marriage vs not, but since it was never rebutted as a claim, I didn't spend a lot of time on it. The evidence is quite clear that kids benefit a lot from a two-parent household. Really, the more adults around the better. Extended family arrangements are some of the very best for kids (aka parents and grandparents), something pretty rare in the US these days.Some studies try to factor in and show that the marriage itself (aka the piece of paper) doesn't matter much, but I think that's probably self evident. Its the relationship, the partnership and simply having multiple dedicated adults supporting the kid financially and simply as a present and engaged paretn that makes the lions share of difference.
@mvineyard I had an entire contention based on this, and much like @sigfried it was never touched so I saw no use in beating on it.
@sigfried I have a good amount of data that shows cohabitation is significantly worse off than marriage with respect to kids, partners, and abuse.
@alot_like_locke - if you have the data that shows this (and I believe it, because I have probably seen much of the same...) - it seems to me that it is like pulling out a 16" naval gun to blast away the contention that marriage is old/outdated/obsolete. It quickly devastates the thesis that PRO tries to defend ....suddenly, it is provably wrong. As I said, I was surprised it wasn't more central to the CON side in both debates I listened to.
@mvineyard well take my debate as an example. I only used positive argumentation because no other metric given as an alternative. Alternative metric added such as cohabitation use those stats but it never came up. Also you have to understand that there are different styles of argumentation. My rebuttal game is not fire but my case building and structure is pretty good, so I will more often than not rely mostly on positive arguments.
@alot_like_locke I don't necessarily disagree....however, this topic - a strong counter might be more effective than merely trying to refute PRO's points. For a 'friendly debate' - no big deal. If you really want to 'cinch' a competitive win....do you want to leave extremely compelling arguments hidden - and risk losing? But- each to their own style.
@mvineyard I mean, obviously refuting the points counts, but you cannot refute what has not been presented.
@alot_like_locke Not sure I understand this comment.....is there some 'debate rule' that you can only refute what PRO states? Seems to me that if the debate resolution says something - you are free to put forth arguments to refute the resolution - regardless of what PRO states. Am I missing something? Where it the 'debate manual' is that a valid restriction? (Serious question...btw....)
@mvineyard I mean, think of it this way, if the pro has not presented an argument what warrant is there to attack it, especially if it is tangential to the topic. Which obviously co-habitation is tangential to marriage as 1 alternative, not as the sum of all alternatives. So, there is no uniqueness provided by the argumentation unless warranted by the specific counterplan. Especially in Qallout which is very short and succinct debates. I worry more about word and time economy with positive arguments and rely on rebuttals being very concise and short as well. So, the weighing mechanism that I am referring to in the realm of arguments can be graphed in such a way. X=Truth Y=ImportanceIf my argument is maximal from my case, then there is no reason to make my arguments submaximal and allow refutations in. So, the constraint on this function can be either a step in either the X or Y direction but that does make it more optimal and allows secondary constraints of rebuttal. So, that is why I choose to focus on positive argumentation, especially with respect to my previous debate.
@alot_like_locke My summary of your response is....YES - I could bring in alternate arguments to support the opposite of the Debate Resolution - but YOU don't really think it appropriate. It is not blocked by any rules, but you think it not appropriate. [Is that summary correct?]
@mvineyard Isn't trying to refute an argument that wasn't given pretty much a straw man fallacy?
I guess it's useful to sway anyone on the audience with that opinion, but as a judge, I wouldn't score it.
@cotter Not sure where you are going with the comment. The side 'thread' was about whether or not CON could introduce relevant information to the Debate Topic even if PRO never mentioned it. Seems that if PRO says marriage is outdated and never mentions the benefits of marriage to children...CON should still be able introduce the benefits of marriage to children and show how it refutes (not PRO) but the debate topic... Hardly a 'straw man' ....but directly relevant to the debate topic - and possibly an area that PRO wants to steer away from, because it won't help his cause.
It's pretty absurd to pretend PRO needs to cite specific laws or court cases to be taken seriously. Obviously, people are excluded from legal marriage (minors, multiple partners, siblings etc). That's not debatable. We don't need citations for claims of the sky being blue either. But this is hardly an argument for the motion. If anything, it's the opposite of that. If more people should be a part of something, then that thing certainly isn't outdated. Pretty much everything has exclusions. We exclude many from serving in Congress or voting. That doesn't make congress and voting outdated though. Which is why I'm puzzled why CON even conceded that if it needs to be updated then it's outdated. Everything can be updated. That's why his OS analogy was a bad one, you don't need a compelling reason to update software. Even it's a minor bug fix or a feature that is rarely used, it's still worth an update because there's no downside. Having said that, CON's statistics on marriage alone were enough to show it wasn't outdated and his analogy to Android made it that much more powerful and that's why I voted CON.