@jb043 @change_my_mindPlease 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: @vkate @ninadabit
@ninadabit @change_my_mind @gigi @qallout @qallout_tournament @yaz please watch these 2 videos.
@alot_like_locke for Judge!
@julian haha thanks mate
You are both girls. I am glad I am free to say that. Government mandates on speech are never a good thing. If Trans people want equality they have to realize they are not special therefore need no special government mandates just for them. Dealing with discourse is something we have to do as adults. It's apart of being mature, just as you two had to deal with being called girls. ;)
@daniel_jongeward I think this is the first time we have agreed on something!
@change_my_mind yay common ground! would you like a hug?
@daniel_jongeward i mean i wouldnt be opposed
awesome debate @jb043 would you like to have another longer conversation sometime?
@change_my_mind Likewise! I'm down for that!
Pro really put in thier best effort, although Cons argument that it would be better to suggest ultimately made more sense to me. Cons audio quality and style were also pluses.
@julian so I’m guessing you didn’t buy any of my material throughout the debate about how that will be ineffective?
@jb043 no. I didn’t like what you said about how taking a right away would improve free speech because it gets people talking.
@julian thanks a ton!
And...what if their preferred 'pronoun' is 'Lord High Executioner'? Surely PRO would not deny that person the right to be addressed that way.....right?
@mvineyard I made that distinction very clear in my intro that we’re talking about trans people who have gone through the process of transitioning their gender from male to female (or vice versa) or have the intention of doing so. Not anyone else
@jb043 It is a question. What if some one wants to transition to an animal, or an alien....or the 'Lord High Executioner'? To me - it is as serious as the trans pronouns. Once we decide science isn't important and only what someone 'perceives' them self to be is relevant......if the mandate is to 'humor them' rather than tell them to 'suck up to reality'...then why stop at trans pronouns? Why stop at anything?
@mvineyard he made that distinction that we were not talking about the wild genders
@mvineyard while i definitely see your point... my point is that we should not mandate any speech no matter what it is
@mvineyard mate I have no clue what you’re on about. Like why is people transitioning to animals or aliens or whatever weird thoughts you have even remotely relevant? The debate was purely about male to female and vice versa and that’s it. And what’s this rubbish about science not being important? None of this is relevant at all?
@change_my_mind (should have brought this up in the debate) But given that to convict someone under this law, you’d have to prove that they are constantly harassing you, and going out of their way to do it - that would class this under harassment which isn’t protected by freedom of speech laws in the US.
@jb043 harrasment is different from misgendering and the resolution is about misgendering so that wouldn't fit
@change_my_mind nah you’re wrong there - as I mentioned during the debate you’d have to prove that the person intentionally did it consistently - which would make this a form of harassment given that (like I said) you need to be consistently misgendering someone for your claim to have any ground. Under that, it *could* fall under harassment which would exempt it - but that’s up to the governmentNot that this has any weighting on the actual debate, just offloading some thoughts I had once it finished
@jb043 well then if it is harassment then there is no need for the law at all thus saying the government shouldn't mandate using pronouns... and I totally understand this isnt part of it... would really love to have a conversation with you about it when it isnt strictly stuck to a resolution
@jb043 What is relevant is trying to create ANOTHER law that punishes some people for not speaking in the accepted politically correct manner. Sort of like mandating an artist (like a baker who makes special artist cakes) do something against his faith - or he is fined over $100K and faces a loss of his business. Do we really need less freedom of speech? Do we need MORE government mandates and opportunities to screw over someone who doesn't by into the transgender thing? Or is freedom only available to those who do what is permitted and accepted?
@mvineyard yeah I support that. 1. I outlined in the debate; 1. that the punishments will be small enough to not actually be an inconvenience, 2. It’s easy to follow and hard to be convicted anyway3. Most people aren’t going to pursue legal action. It’s not about ‘buying into the transgender thing’ it’s about creating a more respectful culture around the issues bc newsflash, trans people exist whether you agree with it or not. Re the artists/baker thing: I absolutely thing they shouldn’t be allowed to use religion as a basis for discriminating against a person/s.
@jb043 And here we object.... You think that an artist should paint something that they don't want to paint?OTOH - my suggestion has always been....(assume I was a creative artist/baker) ...and I was opposed to gay marriage....and a gay couple wanted a cake. I would first point them to the display case....pick anything you like - the price is on the cake. I will sell it. (I am not denying them service.) They go...NO ...we want something SPECIAL... I would say ...but you do know I am a CHRISTIAN artist, and my work will reflect my beliefs...but - if you want a special creation - I will do it, but payment in advance (no credit card) - and sign a 'full artistic release' .... THEN - I would bake the cake - and it would be decorated nicely with Christian themes, Bible verses on God's plan for marriage, etc. If it bothered them...tough - they got what they wanted....a Christian Cake baked by a Christian.BUT - it is a shame - we used to have a free society where artists could refuse any 'commission' that they wanted. If artists MUST make....maybe the other side is fair too....I should sue people for not coming to my bakery and paying me to bake artistic cakes. (The scales of justice are held by a blindfolded woman...and the scales MUST balance. If I have an obligation to serve someone I don't want to serve, why should they not have an obligation to buy from me?)AND - If you are willing to use the full force of government boot to oppress a Christian baker - how long before the rules you suggest go from light to heavy, how long before trivial fines become onerous fines? (NOT long, probably....the statists always look to grow power.
Hi all! Wonderful job, I really enjoyed this debate. I got cut off mid-sentence of my LAST thought, so rather than re-record my assessment let me summarize my final thoughts: what turned this debate for me was that, considering the resolution, I thought weighing the moral outcomes would be the turning point for this debate. I agreed with the PRO that the benefits for trans people and their community far outweighed some of the more immediate negatives (small fines, a mandatory class, etc). While incredibly compelling as well, I felt that the CON's overarching concerns did not have the same power.
@vkate the underlying issue is that if we are talking about misgendering to a level of harrassment then it would already fall under harrasment laws... there would be no need for this mandate.
looks like we need another judge @gigi lol
@vkate @change_my_mind @yaz @gigi
@chandlebrowning when I submit my art to competitions I always know who the judge is first. Their are two old sayings on that are, “before you submit, do you know who the judge is”, another one is “I’ve seen a lot of paintings, and they either like it or they don’t.”
@liamm @chandlebrowning @change_my_mind If the points about harassment and this being in line wth those laws already is so important, can someone point me to the specific part of the debate where it happened? I don’t remember it being brought up it all, I do remember it being brought up as an after thought below.
@yaz @jb043 @change_my_mind @gigi
@liamm the consideration for a rematch was in response to Josh's message to us directly (Facebook).. he was wondering what we'll do and how we'll handle this situation, and if a rematch will take placee
thanks for the response, point taken.. @gigi
Just one thing..in terms of how we pick the judges, it's not sporadic and random.. all judges fill out the same topic surveys that the users fill and they also fill out the same surveys, in terms of their knowledge on these subjects, too.. we deliberately try to 'mix' and balance the judges to the extent possible.
Anyone who objected to the previous rulings for entering debate should show a similar degree of outrage for such points in this adjudication such as- Rule of law as a separate factor that means selective enforcement is a weakness in the model- Precedent, judge says "accidental misuse" would be punished- Creating worry and fear and dividing society as a result of the lawLook overall this judgement is fair enough, as were the other ones for the most part. But I bet this doesn't attract as much outrage despite having some pretty glaring weaknesses in it also.
@benmouse42 Exactly...Definitely assessments are not perfect but it has become clear to me after so many tournaments that they can be as debatable as resolutions themselves.. e.g. Value vs Policy debates not that clear as we thought and fair enough. Even on Liam's point, about this being a policy debate and PRO should have prepared and clarified the details and applicability of the policy, I believe you won a tournament (the one with students getting paid debate) advocating that you don't have to explain how to be implemented (e.g. funding sources) but just that it should be done and why. I think all the feedback above is valuable and extremely relevant, I was just a bit surprised by the intensity especially cause I could see where the judges were coming from. In any case, I think we should keep "flawed" assessments just to get @liamm angry (only joking but we love passionate Liam!)I admit that I have never participated in an official collegial debate tournament but I wonder:1) Do judges use scorecards and points? If yes, do they actually explain their scoring or they just complete a card and that's it? 2) What is the background of the judges there and how many are there? (half of our judges here are also judges in collegial/ school debate tournaments...)3) Do participants have the chance to dispute decisions and how?I assume that the above might differ among tournaments but wanted to check potential best practices that we could replicate. The process here is very open, which I like, but this means that judgements will be up for discussion most of the times. Given that most of the QO tournaments are free, we might not be able to reinvent the wheel here but if there's something easy to replicate, let's do it!
@gigi @yaz Sorry for my delayed response!I think I was pretty clear in my video comments that I wasn't objecting to the result, but the reason for that result - the insertion of new metrics, or simply failing to understand the burdens of the motion were the nexus of my outrage. I again never said this was a high quality debate, I openly said that both debaters made pretty heinous tactical blunders - that said; the metrics to decide a debate dont just evaporate.To respond to your questions:1) In australia there are scores, but they are only used to determine team (and indivual speaking ranking) internal to brackets. They must explain their decision, scores are unknowns until the end of the competition and thus don't get explained.2) They're all university students, but they are rated and ranked. For example Hewitt is one of the best judges in Australia, recently chairing the Australian grand final panel.3) No they don't.
@liamm @gigi I wouldn't say its a formal rating/ranking though, its more throughout any given tournament the best judges are assigned to the important rooms and finals roundsThe more important unofficial policy is "testing" adjudicators. The adjudication core (the people who set the topics) tend to sit in with promising adjudicators and check their reasoning and result and then promote them appropriately.We also have adjudicators whose role is only as a "trainee" or a "panelist" rather than a "chair."Trainees do not vote, only watch and contribute to discussionPanelists vote but do not give oral adjudicationsChairs give the oral adjudication and hold the casting vote in cases of ties
@benmouse42 @liamm Thanks a lot guys, this is useful! So based on your input, do you think it would be better to implement something like:1) Scorecards for each judge (or some sort of debating parameters that they put scores for all debaters)2) Judges not providing any explanation or feedback but just the results of their assessment through the scorecard. One of the issues here is that the judges do provide a 7 min assessment throughout which they get to choose only the most important aspects of the debate and highlight them rather than go through every single point. This of course is a major reason for debaters and community to start debating assessments3) No exceptions, discussions, disputes 4) Judges are already evaluated by the community and most of them are judges in official college tournaments. I've been trying to only bring the best (highest score) judges especially at the later rounds but it doesn't always work e.g. Nina is a judge for North America tournaments and one of the best here but of course she might still miss something
@gigi I wouldnt do 1 unless u were doing a swiss style tourney with a break (Which I think you should do hahaha)2) No, explanation is key3) Correct, ppl can discuss but like, it's not going to change a result4) I think the pool of judges is largely fine, Nina is a very good judge and I am always happy to see her in my debates. I don't think she misses anything of debate breaking importance
@benmouse42 @gigi @liamm @wylie_l