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

    @singalport @josh808

    Please note that the winner for this debate will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @eli_mcgowan @navapanichz

    • a year ago
      • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @josh808 Congrats for advancing to the next round!

        @singalport Great job, thanks a lot for participating!

        • a year ago

          @singalport @josh808 (Not an RJ this tournament)

          I'm voting Con in this round, on a Net Benefits calculus as was agreed to in the debate.

          Pro asserts that Catalan separatists won't stop until they get independence, that Spain is violating Human Rights (HR) initially through repressing Catalan self-determination, but which morphed over the round into a discussion of police supression in the illegal referendum, and that Catalan separatists will use violence.

          Con argues that Catalonia will not achieve EU membership, will cause the whole peninsula to suffer economically, and encourage separatist movements.

          The biggest thing I missed in this debate was the impact calculus that actually would lead to me being able to make a decision on what is most important. Both of you spent a lot of time quoting sources while often the warrant for their argument was not made clear instead of actually weighing the impacts of your positions. Josh did better here, but I would have appreciated more impact calculus from both of you.

          That being said, here's where I fell on the major arguments.

          Catalonia won't stop- Con countered this by pointing out the actual facts of the referendum that tell against a popular independence mandate.

          Human Rights- Again, Con pointed out that most Catalans have expressed no wish to self-determine in this manner, so that argument is gone. The police brutality is less significant to me. One day of brutality hardly necessitates independence.

          Violence: This was not much addressed, but with no actual examples, it seemed fairly weak to me. And just as an aside (this argument did not weigh into my decision): is it really the right response to violence to give terrorists exactly what they wanted?

          EU- I preferred Con's case on this matter. Quoting people that say the EU might recognize them is one thing, but pointing to the statements of EU members is quite a more valuable one. However, I did not see any big impacts laid out in the round to EU membership to begin with, so I weigh it relatively lightly.

          Economics- Con also took this with his solid numbers and reasoning. Pro asserts that Catalonia has a lot of commerce, but fails to consider how that commerce would be affected by independence. Look to Brexit to see how a financial hub of the world can be brought low by a geopolitical change.

          Encouragement of other separation movements- Pro's response was that they would already be encouraged. However, as the Catalan movement has hardly been successful as of yet, this response falls flat and Con takes this argument.

          So given the paucity of argumentation Pro was able to uphold in contrast to Con's solid warrants I side with Con. In order to go with Pro, I needed more evidence that the Catalan people want independence and warrants on the practical impacts of independence.

          The depth of both of your analysis in this round was nevertheless fantastic.