avatar
79 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    @jeffrey_hull @change_my_mind

    Please 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: @edie_weinhardt @eli_mcgowan

    • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @edie_weinhardt thank you for your judgment... some really good points that I should have painted a clearer picture of the wrongs that she committed

      • a year ago

        @edie_weinhardt : Are you trying to say that there was no measuring or weighing mechanism? This obviously took place at the beginning with "harm than good / good than harm". "The only way you could award a Pro ballot'?

        Did you just miss that? That is shocking for a judge to admit.

        The only way your "is Hillary relevant?" criteria is important is if you completely abandon the (more harm than good) measuring stick.

        Again... Did you just miss that weighing device. Listen for it. First 30 seconds.

        Are you saying that the "only way" Pro could win this debate is to satisfy your condition (vis-a-vis - outweighs everything else)? How is that a realistic burden to put on either side. I had three points, each with concrete examples. How many constructive points did Con have? How many of mine went unchallenged or uninjured?

        This is basic debating.

        You don't see a reason why a "precedent" would be influential on future presidents? What do you think a precedent is?

        Where are all of the second and third tier examples you are demanding on the Con side? They don't exist. | @qallout

        I say again... where are the second and third order examples (drilling down examples) you are demanding on the Con side. They don't exist.

        Why are you dismissing the actual burdens that were discussed at the outset (Harm than good) and refusing to apply them to Con? Where were Con's examples of all the good accomplished via criticism in this debate.

        They don't exist.

        How can you go into a debate as a judge... say that the "Investigations point" was Con's best ... and then completely ignore the fact that this point was completely demolished for minutes on end by saying that Trump had shattered the credibility of those investigations by political influence and never-before-seen public criticism.

        Shaking my head.

      • a year ago

        @change_my_mind: Those would have been the second and third order examples she seems to believe were missing from my argument. Thanks for the debate and good luck in the next round.

      • a year ago

        @jeffrey_hull I Think what edie was saying was directly related to your point about Trump. You did not give her a clear weighing mechanism to how Trump tweeting about things is more important than all of the points con brought up.

      • a year ago

        @chandlebrowning: If Trump's tweeting was my only point, that would have been a valid criticism. Except I had two other really good points which went completely unr-urefuted.

        Debaters don't outline weighting mechanisms for each sub-point. The weighing mechanism was given out at the beginning. Does criticism cause more harm than good.

        Promised I wouldn't get worked up about this and I won't. But for the record... No one needs more than one weighting mechanism. Con never offered one. Mine was the only one offered and it stood the whole way through.

        Seems like something a judge would mention.

      • a year ago

        @jeffrey_hull Trump's tweeting was a large majority of your debate and to be honest you opponent responded to it very well. I think Edie gave a really good and insightful adjudication given she only has 7 minutes.

      • a year ago

        @chandlebrowning : if a judge has 7 minutes - personally - would spend the first 20 seconds reminding everyone what the measuring device was - instead of claiming there wasn't one.

        But that's just me.

        Happy everyone took in the debate and weighed in. Useful in future Qallout debates - though perhaps not high-level real world debating. Learning and looking forward to my next Qallout debate.

      • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @jeffrey_hull

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke : Challenge gracefully accepted. Critique as well.

        You took a lot of time with that.

        Since there's so much experience on the site, I am rather shocked to see so many people take issue with the 'Harm vs Good" weighing mechanism, which has been used all over the world in national and world championship rounds for ever and a day... no one I've ever met has indicated it adds any extra burden to a debater's case - its just an easy to understand formula for adjudicating. Anyone whose sat in rounds like that has seen it happen and are usually grateful for the simplicity if offers.

        To be honest, I thought it would clarify the debate, not detract from it.

        Debaters can get themselves into trouble with "Experienced judges" when they define a resolution too tightly. Good vs Harm keeps it simple.

        Everyone here seems to think the only way PRO can with this debate is to define the terms down extremely tightly, to me that just seems like a debate-killer. Harm vs Good should have been enough in my humble opinion.

        Even with that said, I would have felt better if the judge you mention had taken the same issues with it you did, instead of simply ignoring its existence. Especially since Con didn't really articulate one clearly. If he had, I would have clashed with it.

        But as you say... Guess I should have done better. Next time.

      • a year ago

        @jeffrey_hull Nobody has a problem with that weighing mechanism, when it applies to the resolution. In policy debate, "Net Benefits" is the default standard. The Aussie's ask about what is better "in the comparative." Those are just other ways of asking "good vs. harm" since it's a great measuring standard for determining policies.

        But this resolution isn't a policy debate. It's asking the question "is it necessary to continue criticizing Hillary Clinton?" That's not a policy. That's a fact/value question. You "could" answer that question by saying "If the benefits of criticizing Hillary Clinton outweigh the harms, then we should criticize her" or you could answer this question by saying "it is necessary to criticize someone until the criticism reaches it's just end".

        It's not that you had to define the terms extremely tightly, it's that you had to show why we have to view this resolution the way you seemed to think we did. As a syllogism, you'd have to show it like this:

        a. Net benefits are the appropriate means of determining whether something is necessary. (tough sell but you have to make it)
        b. Trump's criticisms of Hillary are counterbeneficial
        c. No one else's criticisms of Hillary matter because of Trump's criticisms
        d. Thus, Trump's criticisms of Hillary = all criticisms of Hillary
        e. Therefore, continued criticism of Hillary is unnecessary

        That's a really wacky interpretation of the resolution, but I suppose if you had zeroed in on each of those points, maybe you could have sold it, but in this round it didn't really get there.

        Your opponent's reading of the resolution was MUCH more straightforward, and it actually made sense. In order for you to win, you had to both sell your reading of the resolution, and also show why your opponent was misreading the resolution. If you don't do that, then it's up to the audience to choose which interpretation to prefer, and just about everybody went with your opponent's interp.

      • a year ago

        @sharkb8: Ya, we'll continue to disagree about how much was really offered by Con in this round, but there is no denying what that those watching preferred.

        Your critique of the weighing device used is a valid take. But I am still pretty surprised people felt Con presented a tighter case here.

      • a year ago

        @jeffrey_hull which part are you having trouble with? We reject the assertion that whether or not criticisms of Hillary Clinton are necessary is entirely dependent on whether or not Trump's criticisms are legitimate. I think you've been given various reasons both in the debate and in the comments for why we reject that assertion. Namely, because it would force us to quite literally ignore all other criticisms just because you said so.

        But anyone who does NOT agree that the only criticisms of Hillary that matter are the ones coming from Trump, will of course reject the assertion that criticizing Hillary is unnecessary. Namely, everyone on the left who still criticizes Hillary. Your case did not address this in any significant way.

    • a year ago

      @change_my_mind Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @jeffrey_hull Thanks a lot for participating!

      • a year ago

        Thanks for the debate everyone.

      • a year ago

        CON is well prepared and does a great job of staying 'on-point' with the issue....and he states that the issue is that Hillary deserves criticism because she got a 'pass' on proper investigating her multiple 'crimes.'

        PRO comes across suggesting that since Hillary is a 'has been' - and Trump has said bad things, that now - suddenly - Hillary is exempt from criticism.

        [I find it ironic that Pro is upset that Trump's statements seem to impugn the integrity and honesty of the DoJ and FBI. However - those agencies discredited themselves by the shoddy 'investigation' over a number of important issues...sweeping things under the rug and not properly investigating. It is hypocritical to claim that a Special Prosecutor is required to investigate the flimsy claims of Russia-Trump collusion - where after 1 year - NOTHING at all has been found for any 'collusion'.....yet the Obama DoJ and FBI can investigate Obama 'toadies' who are big part of the Obama administration. No - I am not surprised that a corrupt DoJ/FBI gave Hillary a pass....that is why a new Special Prosecutor is called for, and that is why criticism is NECESSARY...

        Good Job by CON....careful and meticulous.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard: The precedent of a president publicly influencing criminal investigations doesn't worry you?

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull Absolutely. BUT - don't you recall a certain President pre-judging a variety of issues and unequivocally stating that there was no criminality, not even a smidgen? (Lest you forget....ATF's "Fast and Furious", Hillary's e-mail, the Benghazi (blocked) investigation, and the IRS 'weaponizing' investigation of conservative groups applying for 501(c)4 status.)

          That 'ship has already sailed.' Obama had the most corrupt DoJ....and the first ever Atty General cited for contempt of Congress. He stonewalled all efforts to get information on a number of issues.

          So - answer your own question....weren't you upset with the President publicly influencing ongoing investigations?

          AND - another quick question....ever served in the military and have a security clearance? (or - have a national security clearance in some other job?)

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull BTW - take a look at this recent posting. (You might not like the source - but 'glean it' for reporting on facts...like reporting text messages, reporting on the REAL investigative journalist Sharyl Attkinsson, who has done a fantastic job investigating aspects of the swamp.

          Then - after looking at the article - ask the question - "Was there a fair and proper investigation of Hillary - or was it a sham?"

          http://www.independentsentinel.com/unbelievable-lyin-loretta-lynch-knew-well-in-advance-that-hillary-would-not-be-charged/

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard Do you have some instances of Obama making statements judging the outcome of active investigations? As a lawyer he tends to be pretty judicious with his language and statements.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried Actually - each of those situations I mentioned - yes - Obama was making statements essentially claiming ..'nothing wrong', 'no evidence of criminality' etc. - at the same time Congress was trying to conduct investigations, request information (which was denied or 'slow walked'.)

          As a lawyer - Obama was an idiot. What sort of person wanting to run for President complains about the Constitution - deficient because it has limitations on what the government can do (Congress shall make no laws, regarding....) - while Obama thought the Constitution should have 'affirmative' stuff to do FOR people. Score one for the founding fathers to put limitations that would frustrate socialists! (Obama was a socialist from the get-go.)

          http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/ (Lots of quotes from Obama being critical of the Constitution)

          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/16/obamas_scorn_for_the_constitution_112776.html

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard You make the claim he made such statements, but I don't see any specific instances there. I'm dubious of the claim.

          And he is not an idiot in the law. The first article you linked... the person writing it (and you apparently) misunderstand what Obama is saying in that quotation. he is not saying what the constitution should include, he is saying the Warren court was not radical, and offering the fact it limited civil rights to "negative rights" in its decision as evidence of its lack of constitutional radicalism.

          He goes on to say the civil rights movement should have looked beyond the courts for establishing positive rights because the courts cannot provide those since they are not part of the constitutionally protected rights.

          Nowhere in that quotation is he critical of the constitution. He is instead critical of the tactics of the civil rights movement of the time of the Waren Court.

          The second link is about Obama's recess appointments. Those were done because the GOP congress was intentionally stonewalling Obama appointments. As part of that effort, they kept dummy sessions of Congress going so that Obama couldn't make recess appointments. He went and did it anyway. They were playing bullshit legal games so he played them back. That isn't stupidity or ignorance. Its fighting bullshit with bullshit.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried RE: Obama statements prejudging things ....I will give you 2 links and you can look at them....

          https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html

          "Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.

          “I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

          Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials."

          [The following is a video of the Bill O'Reilly interview of Obama before Superbowl 48...)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uzJYlbhH54

          3:45 - 6:40 ....Benghazi...and Obama tries to evade the fact that his administration lied about the attack as a spontaneous demonstration due to a YouTube video...for months. [Note that in 2015/2016 - as Hillary's e-mails were found/released, it was clear that Hillary was telling her daughter and friends the very next day that it was a terrorist attack, yet for many months (until after the election...) - they continued to blame the attack on a YouTube video causing a spontaneous demonstration that turned into an attack.

          6:40 - 8:40 - Obama is dismissive of the IRS investigation...and near the end...his statement 'no corruption.. some boneheaded decisions..not even a smidgen of corruption....' (Recall that the IRS refused to turn over tapes of e-mails, reproting, etc.....and then they reported that somehow the tapes were 'inadvertently' destroyed and could no longer be turned over... In 2017, the IRS admitted errors and promised to change their procedures....but with the destruction of evidence, and the delay (statute of limitations) - no one really gets prosecuted for illegally using the IRS to target 'enemies of Obama'.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried Yes- I can say that Obama is either an idiot about the Constitution, or he is a socialist trying to destroy it. You might be upset with 'dummy sessions' - but it was a legal means of ensuring no 'recess appointments' - and it has been used many times by a Democrat Senate to block a Republican President from doing recess appointments. Of course, you think Obama is bright...and he could do it...however, even the very conservative Justices Keagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy ruled Obama's attempt a 'recess appointments' to be a violation of the Constitution.
          [The Supreme Court ruled against Obama 9 - 0 ]. SO - it begs the question ....do you want the President and Congress to live within the restraints of the Constitution, or do you want the President to go around it when you don't like the Congress not doing what the President wants? (That would apply to DACA and to 'recess appointments. HINT - an appointment requires the CONSENT of the Senate; and deciding to not CONSENT is the same as voting to turn it down. That also was valid for Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland; the Senate decided to wait til next term....based on a 'Joe Biden Rule' that he uttered when in the Senate, and stating that if a vacancy occured in the last year of GHWBush's Presidency, it would be held open for the next term, which hopefully for Biden - would be a Democrat.)

          DACA - Obama - before he issued DACA - stated at least 22 times that he lacked the Constitutional authority to do so (okay - maybe Obama learned something and isn't a complete dummy). Then he decided he would no longer listen to himself, and he issued DACA - totally lacking any justification. He then did the same for parents - the "DAPA" ....and that one was challenged - and a district court ruled against Obama, and the 5th Circuit twice affirmed. A Supreme Court ruling of 4-4 affirms the 5th Circuit ruling.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard Thanks, much appreciated!

          I couldn't get past the paywall on the first, but given you quote, I'll agree he is making a premature judgment when he should have simply deferred to the outcome of the investigation.

          On the second...

          Benghazi: While I agree Obama is being cagey here, this is not a case where he is pre-judging the outcome of any investigation or criminal claim. He's responding to whether or not his staff intentionally misinformed the public.

          IRS: He does make a statement (at first he says its what others say but then he says it himself). But, he's saying it after the FBI concluded their official investigation the month prior. Congress was still holding hearings on it, but had been doing so for more than a year and they came to the same conclusion that Obama outlines here, thus he's in sync with the investigation's progress rather than second guessing it. He should have stuck with saying what others say, but I don't see this as a clear example of pre-judgement.

          So I'll say that while Obama has made such statements, it is not nearly as strident and much more considered that what our current President has said regarding the investigations of his campaign and other politicians he holds animosity towards. He not only pre-judges ongoing investigations but disputes the conclusions of ones that have been completed.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard You can say whatever you like in fact, that doesn't make it persuasive.

          I don't like bullshit tactics from the GOP or the DEMs. I think the dummy sessions and recess appointments are all part of the poisonous partisan politics that are engaged in so that one branch of government can thwart the other.

          The executive should put forward candidates, and Congress should vote on them. Simple as that. Were I in Obama's shoes and Congress refused to even consider my nominations, I'd try and end run as well. I don't take issue with the ruling, and I don't think it is any indication of Obama's constitutional acumen, only his desperation in trying to make the appointments which are his duty as president to put into place.

          Biden likewise was in the wrong. Any congress that refuses to even consider a presidential nomination is problematic. Even if that president is Trump and even if he appoints a bunch of ass-hats. He is president, he get's to make those calls. If they don't like em, don't vote to approve them.

          With the DACA, it was only the expansion of the program that the courts ruled against, not the original program itself. And yes, he was blocked by the courts.

          All told, Obama's administration did not do well in the courts, the record on that is that they lost more than they won. And it's a reasonable critique, but you calling him an idiot is pure hyperbole.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried Sure my comment was hyperbole...it was deliberate. It is a response to the slavish left and media (yes...same thing) reporting in 2009 that he was the smartest ever to become President (until Hillary ran -then she is supposedly the most qualified ever...)...and he was a "Constitutional Professor....which was a demonstrable lie. (He was an occasional lecturer on "Civil Rights and the Constitution" - and given his record of EOs and 'laws' to be overturned...he obviously didn't study the Constitution that hard, or he hoped he would get leftist decisions in support of his actions.

          You might not like Congress (Senate) to not hold hearings - but it is a fact and tradition that has been on-going for many many decades. Don't like it...ask the Senate to change their rules - or vote for politicians to change the Constitution....but going around it in an un-Constitutional manner is a sign of 'executive tyranny'. (Bush didn't try a 'work-around' when it happened to him!)

          One 'legal way' to work around - block all legislation (up to and including a government shutdown) until your nominees get a hearing and up or down vote....and risk a shutdown, and risk harming your own party at the next election. BUT - that would be a legal and Constitutional way of doing it.

          If you want a real example of crass manipulation of the legal system by a President - look at Clinton - caught committing a perjury - and his team went hard core to trash Ken Starr, the investigator of all things Whitewater, and then assigned to look at the issue of Monica, Paula Jones, his perjury in a sworn deposition, etc. Clinton successfully targeted an honorable man doing his job....and the public decided that a felony lie was excusable if it was only about consensual sex - as if a 50+ year old most-powerful man in the world enticing a 21 year old intern was 'nothing to see here'...move along - and save your worry and 'shock and horror' about an older man with a young lady until 20 years later and then worry about a 30+ year old man dating 17 or 18 year old ladies - with NOTHING improper happening...at least no cigar, no oral sex, etc.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull "The precedent of a president publicly influencing criminal investigations doesn't worry you?"

          If certain political operatives within the FBI and DOJ launched a bogus investigation into whether or not President Obama was born in Kenya I would say President Obama has a civic duty to fire them and potentially prosecute them.

        • a year ago
        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui Great points made. It allows for a 'quick investigation' to determine if there might have been a crime. The leftists alleged a Trump-Russia Collusion - so a perfunctory investigation would reveal that there is "no there there"...and the investigation is summarily dismissed. (Interfering with an effort to review the available evidence would be wrong, IMHO.) BUT - the law calling for special prosecutors to investigate call for stating what crime was possibly committed (and no crime was mentioned...there is no 'crime of collusion' - except in business dealings that might harm the public - like airline companies colluding to all raise prices at the same time.) AND - in addition to stating what possible crime was possibly committed, there would be 'limitations' on the scope/extent of the investigation. (As is - the Mueller investigation has grossly expanded the scope of the investigation - and one of the 'charges' against Paul Manafort was a charge that had been previously investigated and dismissed by the FBI in 2014 - before Trump was a candidate.)

          At some point - if there is zero evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mueller hires a bunch of Hillary supporting leftists who, through the release of documents and texts, had a huge animus against Trump and also appeared to bend over backward to exonerate Hillary in spite of clear evidence of her criminality....it becomes readily apparent that the Mueller investigation is a fraud perpetrated on the American public in an effort to undo the results of an election. Criticism of Mueller - JUSTIFIED. Continued and increasing criticism of Hillary- who committed REAL crimes - but was given a pass by a corrupt Obama DoJ ....JUSTIFIED.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard I'm genuinely amused by the blatant hypocrisy coming from the same people who simultaneously hold the view that Hillary should not be investigated but the Russian investigation is somehow legitimate. Paul Manafort is a great example -- they already looked into it and concluded that investigation, but Mueller decided to do it again. As far as I can tell nobody on the left has a problem with that, but in the same sentence, they can simultaneously claim that Hillary should not be re-investigated even though it's since come out that the investigation into her emails was tainted with political partisanship and bias.

          Think about how they demanded certain people recuse themselves and not "interfere" -- all in one direction for some reason. Nobody from the anti-Trump camp should recuse themselves, apparently, because their political bias isn't a conflict of interest for unexplained reasons. Jeff Sessions on the other hand, a certified country bumpkin who we can reliably say would be of zero interest to the Russian government, must recuse himself because of some crackpot theory that he might be a secret Russian agent of some kind. People want me to take their beliefs seriously but it is so stupid on the face of it that I just can't.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahu Again - good comments. Lots of hypocrisy out there. I have seen a number of debates on the merits of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation...and the hypocrisy of their approach that Hillary was already investigated (by Obama's own corrupt DoJ)....but then in the next breath, they comment that Trump's DoJ would be too favorable to investigate a matter related to Trump - so an independent investigator is required (yet they can't explain how Obama people would fairly and honestly investigate Obama people.)

          AND - today, Andrew McCarthy (a former DoJ Federal Prosecutor - had another great article tying together the fact that is it CLEAR that Obama knew Hillary had a private e-mail account/server - because HE sent her classified e-mails (and he was using a private e-mail account too!)....so theoretically, if Hillary was charged - then Obama could also be dragged in and shown to have KNOWN she had done stuff wrong, and he himself was careless with classified material.

          BUT - from my perspective - I figure that there are less than 22 million military vets who have served. Maybe half to 2/3rds actually had a security clearance and might have handled classified material. There are less than 3 million serving at present - active and reserve....and again, not all routinely deal with classified material. SO -- maybe there are less than 20 million people out there (like me - a 30 year veteran active/reserve - and I held a Top Secret clearance for some of that time) out of 330 million Americans who can look at the 'redacted e-mails' - and clearly understand that she violated multiple laws, and EACH e-mail is a felony - so 100 e-mails would be 100 felonies! AND - many vets or those serving know of individuals who have gone to jail for a tiny fraction of what Hillary did (and the release of redacted e-mails is CLEAR evidence of her guilt!) BUT - the vast number of Americans - appear to be clueless about this matter....and maybe they just don't get it. I am totally amazed at how clueless so many people are when they give Hillary a pass on her e-mail server.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary?

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard like Benghazi, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think anyone was harmed by it and that everything in the country is grossly overclassified in order to protect politicians and bureaucrats engaging in bad behavior. The fact that she had a private email server isn't that big of a deal to me because I don't think it's consequential in the grand scheme of things. "What if someone hacked into them" isn't persuasive to me because that could equally apply to any government leaks. If they do get leaked then nothing substantive will happen to any normal American. The government will be embarassed and will find it more difficult to engage in bad behavior, but that's a good thing in my opinion.

          For me it's the blatant hypocrisy. Treating Hillary to one standard and everyone else to another. Charging Mike Flynn but not Huma Abedin. Quickly ending the email investigation after less than a week of re-opening it (I do not believe for a second they read all 33,000 and dragging out the Russian hoax for a year. It's pretending as though the FBI and DOJ and "intelligence community" are above reproach and question so long as they say things which agree with your political views.

          Benghazi was an even dumber debacle. The "big issue" here, is whether or not Hillary did enough to protect the mercenaries illegally running gun to terrorists in Syria. That's seriously the national narrative about Benghazi. The thing that Republicans are outraged about. Did Hillary do enough to protect mercenaries illegally running weapons shipments to Syrian terrorists. Not "why the fuck are we sending weapons to Syrian terrorists" and "why the fuck is there a US Ambassador in Benghazi when there is no government which they could establish diplomatic ties with." It's "did Hillary respond good enough when the locals discovered the plot and attacked them?"

          The problem is that the only "opposition" to people like Hillary is coming from psychopathic lunatics like her who agree with her policies. Republicans agree that it's okay for president Obama to send the Ambassador to Libya on a secret mission to run guns to terrorists in Syria. Republicans agree with the policy of regime change. They agree with endless war and unlimited power to the intelligence community. That's why the national narratives always devolve into these petty partisan he said she said dramas -- and the media is fully complicit in promoting the narrative.

          Sending/receiving/leaking classified information is, in general, not that big of a deal and I'd be willling to debate anyone on that subject.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui If you want to go to the discussion room sometime and discuss the issues of Benghazi and the sending/receiving/leaking classified information IS a big deal (at least to me...and why the law was written to protect it)...I would be happy to give you my opinions on the matters.

          BTW - the Benghazi sordid affair starts out with some basic questions - but then it gets deeper as more information comes out...
          1. Did the high level administration people STOP a 'rescue effort'? (There is evidence that that did happen.)
          2. The evidence is clear that they KNEW it was a terrorist attack, yet they called it a spontaneous demonstration gone bad due to a horrible YouTube video....but they lied to the public. Who directed the lying? Should anyone be held accountable?
          3. As you point out - there is evidence of requests for 'increased security' - but it was turned down. Why not examine that issue deeper.
          4. Other nations had pulled out all their people from Benghazi due to how dangerous it was - WHY DIDN'T Hillary Do the Same??
          5. Even more important - as you point out - there is evidence (which was hidden for the first 3 - 6 months - then it started leaking out) - that there was potential 'gun running' where Obama was permitting weapons to go to 'insurgents' in Syria (and those insurgents were strongly linked to that infamous JV team...ISIS). Shouldn't there be an independent investigation on this possible cover-up?

          In short - there have been attacks on embassies in the past, and more have been killed....but we need to know if we were caught unaware, if we had inadequate security.....and further - if our actions made the situation even more risky.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard Im ready right now

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard

          1. I would be okay with that. Either way, not the main issue here. For me the main issue will always be the central question of "what are we doing in Benghazi?" That's my position on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. I apply an equal standard. To me the real question is why there are soldiers to die there in the first place.

          2. They for sure lied about that and I think it's safe to say Hillary and the Obama Administration conjured up the story as a form of damage control to hush up any questions about WTF he was doing there in the first place (which seems to have been a somewhat effective ploy because that's still the thing that no American asks).

          3. Because that's a giant distraction from the bigger issue, which is "why wasn't Benghazi secure in the first place?" Oh right, because Hillary, Obama, and our European allies raped that country for oil and gold.

          4. Because other nations weren't running recovered Gaddafi regime weapons to Syrian terrorists.

          5. Yes, but because Republicans will be leading any possible investigations, and they are largely psychopathic lunatics who agree with our insane foreign policy of "regime change" and arming terrorists, that doesn't seem like a likely outcome. If anything, it will focus on the BS (1, 2, and 3).

          In short, the things you think are important about the Benghazi story (the official narrative) are by far the least important things.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui okay...I will join you there...

      • a year ago

        How is it that @change_my_mind is in two debates in round 1 of the 5K tournament?

        • a year ago

          @sigfried long story haha

        • a year ago

          @sigfried Jeff's first opponent dropped out, so they needed a new opponent for him.

          Stephen lost his first round on a 2-1, but the 1 vote was the community votes. There was also a lot of uproar over the judge decisions in his debate. A third judge, Wylie, voted for Stephen, which made his debate a 2-2.

          Stephen was also one of only 2 debates (I believe) that had a split decision, and Stephen had more votes than the other split debate, so he essentially got a "save" and got to debate again.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 @sigfried that's what happened

      • a year ago

        What am I missing? What does President Trump have to do with this?

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman: The question was, does criticism cause more harm than good? If the President and his allies harm American society, institutions and confidence in the American justice system, than the criticism of the President, his allies and his coalition causes far more harm than any alleged good that could possibly happen by criticizing Hillary Clinton - a person who has - as yet - been proven to have done absolutely nothing wrong of any seriousness. A person who holds no public office and who has already been cleared in the only credible investigation ever brought against her.

          The Con side of this debate has to accept some level of burden. Its simply not enough to say that "Hillary Clinton hasn't been persecuted to my satisfaction" so therefore I think people should keep criticizing her. The question is whether the good from criticizing her outweighs the harm done by the criticism's against her.

          Thoughts @sigfried, @sharkb8, others?

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull I haven't watched this one yet. I'll say that a weighing mechanism and a standard of judgment is key to this topic.

          I took this topic but didn't choose it as favored. I was going to argue for a fairly strong standard of Necessary, AK that you achieve some vital purpose. I would then argue that that mere criticism of her served no purpose I could find and challenge Con to show such a purpose could be achieved through criticism.

          So my tactic was to put a burden on Con to show a purpose and to counter Con's intended outcomes as not meeting the burden of "necessary" only, desired or cathartic etc... Or that if the ends were needful, the means, criticism, was insufficient to achieve them.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried: Agreed.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull Again. I'm not saying this to be snide, as maybe there truly is something I am missing, but what in the world does this have to do with the President? Say the president hasn't said a word about HC, does your argument stand? If not then it's a losing argument.

          ' "Hillary Clinton hasn't been persecuted to my satisfaction" so therefore I think people should keep criticizing her' Absolutely!! If you personally think there is something off with an investigation, ten you should speak up. If enough people do then it makes noise. Red flags are flying everywhere. There are many credible nonpartisan (even left leaning) people that believe these investigations have been bogus. In such a case as much noise as can be made, should be made. It's up to the people to decide if this noise being made is valid noise or not. Typically when noise is being made without validity it hurts those making the noise, see those pushing this Russia collusion story.

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman: OK... So.. When you debate a topic, both sides have to agree to some basic rules and shared burdens, so the debate doesn't totally become a gong show. We generally use "more good than harm / harm than good" because its easy to understand.

          If the President and his coalition weren't trying to persecute - and manipulate investigations into - their defeated political opponent - than YES... the PRO side would have a much more difficult argument.... But they ARE doing those things. We don't have to imagine an alternate world where the President isn't causing enormous harm. We live in this world.

          Harm. The President and his coalition are causing harm by their public criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Does the good from criticizing her outweigh that? This is the whole debate.

          If you agree that the debate should be decided through the "more harm than good / more good than harm" formula... and I didn't hear anyone arguing against it... Than it should be obvious where the harm lies in this debate.

          My two cents.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull Say HC mass murdered thousands of people, yet the prosecution said she shouldn't be punished because they don't know there was intent. Now of course that is an extreme case. I am in no way saying that that is what happened. However it is on you to show that criticizing someone for something you believe they did wrong is bad. For the person criticizing, they believe something wrong was done, hence they are criticizing. For you to say that it's dumb to criticize without proving that the premise for criticizing is invalid is a losing argument. Every time.

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman: Love and Respect... but that wasn't the way the debate was defined. I don't have to prove that criticizing her is bad. The debate was defined as which side is doing more harm or more good. If the other side doesn't agree to those terms, they have to say so... or we wind up with situations like this... where people start trying to decide for themselves the terms on which the debate should be decided.

          This is the whole reason the PRO side of every debate has to offer a definition of terms.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull Harm to whom? If the people of this beautiful country believe that she did wrong and hasn't been punished accordingly, then there is no harm at all. If they are just pushing a false narrative which everyone can see through (see Russia-gate) then it only harms those pushing this false narrative (rightfully so). So again I ask, what exactly is your position? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I genuinely don't understand what your position is.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull The question of the round was "is criticism necessary". You say that criticism is unnecessary because of it's effects. Con says criticism is necessary because of it's principle; that criticism will be necessary until justice has been served.

          Just for me personally, I wasn't a fan of saying Trump's criticisms of Hillary are the reason Hillary should not be criticized. Even if we give you 100% of your arguments, and say that "At this point in time, [Donald Trump's] ongoing criticisms of Hillary Clinton are unnecessary" you still don't win, because that hasn't proven the resolution. Con's point about Young Democrats still stands. Libertarians, government agents, non-partisans, and independents could all still have perfectly valid criticisms of Hillary, so you haven't proven that criticism is unnecessary, just that one specific entity should stop criticizing her.

          And that's assuming we give you your interpretation in the first place, but I personally would prefer Con's interpretation/standard. Justice/principles are the reason why we would criticize someone in the first place. If Hillary has done wrong deeds (which you admit she has), but has not been brought to justice, then we have a major problem in the justice system.

          And just because Trump might be bad and/or worse than Hillary doesn't mean we should avoid meting out justice to Hillary. Technically Stalin was worse than Hitler, but that doesn't mean we should avoid criticism of Hitler.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8: I'll forgive the Stalin and Hitler references, which debaters never use... (See Godwin's law). :grinning: What I thought I proved pretty thoroughly was that one side was clearly doing tremendous harm. That was the measuring stick laid at the beginning.

          Where is all the good criticizing her is supposed to have done besides - "we have to criticize her - on principle".

          If we use my harm vs good measuring stick - Pro wins.

          If people dismiss the idea that there was a measuring stick - of course Pro loses.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull You're assuming we grant you your measuring stick. But I certainly didn't grant you that, neither did Edie. In Edie's judgment, she pointed out that you needed to do a lot better job explaining what "necessary" means.

          The weighing mechanism for the round hinges on what we consider "necessary". You felt that necessary = advantages vs. disadvantages. Con felt that necessary = until justice has been served. Neither of you critiqued each other's weighing mechanism very well. But when asking if ongoing criticism is necessary, I definitely preferred Con's weighing mechanism, as did the vast majority of viewers. I 100% agree with Con that we determine whether continued criticism is necessary by determining if justice has been appropriately afforded. Hence, Godwins law is an appropriate example here.

          If you wanted to harp on an extra-topical case in order to re-frame the resolution, that's perfectly acceptable, but you have to actually put in the work to drive home the idea that your interpretation of the resolution is the correct interpretation.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 Con laid out a specific measuring device? Must have missed. You get no argument from me that the community didn't like the arguments I laid out. Noted for future debates.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull literally the very first and very last things he said.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 : I mean... In my experience... and I won't go into my resume... Is that a weighing device involves how I win and how the other side wins. I said that I win by proving criticism does more harm... and Con wins by proving criticism does more good.

          That wasn't challenged. It wasn't re-defined. Con just opened by saying that he thought we needed to think about things in terms of justice.

          Useful feedback from experienced Qallout members. So... Cheers.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull Just fyi, I agree with you that Con should have explained why his value was better, but he still had one. It was your weighing mechanism vs. his weighing mechanism with no reasons to prefer either, which left it up to all of us to choose how to view the round. You could have responded to the crux of his case and shown why his weighing mechanism was flawed. Had you proven that the resolution was more pointed toward your interpretation than his, we would have started viewing the round through the lense you wanted us to look at, and your arguments would have held more ground with me/others :).

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 : Pretty sure I responded by saying that justice was not obtainable because the Trump coalition's public criticism had destroyed the credibility of any effort to impose justice. It was the bottom third of my case. This is where I am confused.

          You'll have to excuse my 'real world' debating elitism here. But to me, if we take the route your suggesting, it would mean that anyone who made a constructive point (i.e. we need to think about justice) could just turn around and say that THAT was the measuring stick for the debate. In my experience, it has to be explicit, or it doesn't count as anything but an opening constructive point.

          If Con had a weighing device I didn't hear it. And if he has the one you say, it was pretty thoroughly attacked, no?

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull not really. For one thing that point has nothing to do with resolutional interpretation. Nothing about that argument explains why we have to interpret the resolution to mean “Donald Trump should stop criticizing Hillary Clinton.” You wanted to change the rez meaning, but provided no warrants for why your interpretation is the appropriate reading of the rez.

          Second, that point only refers to Trump, so it’s temporary. If anyone else gets into office that point disappears. You haven’t proven that ongoing criticism is uneccessary, just that it may be temporarily inaccessible.

          And third, that’s just the legal system. Even if the Trump administration is compromised, that’s completely separate from regular criticism, like from young democrats who want a better world so they should push her aside. For you to win, you need to show that “ongoing criticism” is unecessary. Not just that “Trump’s ongoing criticism” is unnecessary.

          The most important thing in this round was Con had a really simple weighing mechanism.

          a. If justice hasn’t been provided, justice needs to be provided. This is “necessary.”
          b. Hillary has not faced justice for her prior acts (some of which you agreed with)
          c. Thus, ongoing criticism is necessary.

          That is a straightforward reading of the resolution and I think if Con proves that he wins.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 : Well I'll agree with you it was certainly a simple argument on the Con side. You have to know I never agreed she had committed confirmed wrongs, only that there were worthy lines of inquiry that were being damaged by Trump coalition's criticism.

          Again, I don't see how people are failing to grasp that if Trump poisons the Clinton investigations, than they are forever poisoned for political interference - not just temporarily.

          But the mob has spoken. I bow to the Qallout community's feelings, but they would elude experienced debate judges.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull "Hillary Clinton - a person who has - as yet - been proven to have done absolutely nothing wrong of any seriousness"

          Yes, in the same way that Dick Cheney never did anything wrong LOL!

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull "Harm. The President and his coalition are causing harm by their public criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Does the good from criticizing her outweigh that? This is the whole debate."

          What harm, specifically?

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull "What I thought I proved pretty thoroughly was that one side was clearly doing tremendous harm."

          You did not do that at all.

        • a year ago

          @jeffrey_hull " Pretty sure I responded by saying that justice was not obtainable because the Trump coalition's public criticism had destroyed the credibility of any effort to impose justice. It was the bottom third of my case. This is where I am confused."

          Does this standard equally apply to the Russian investigations or only your political party? We have overwhelming evidence of prejudicial actions and conflicts of interest on the part of the FBI and DOJ that are directly related to the Russian "investigations." Does that mean justice is not obtainable? Why or why not?

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman "Say HC mass murdered thousands of people, yet the prosecution said she shouldn't be punished because they don't know there was intent. Now of course that is an extreme case."

          That's not speculation, but a known fact. The Rape of Libya is a real thing that actually happened, kinda like the Iraq War. That politically powerful people are never brought to justice doesn't really change this fact. Vladimir Putin was never indicted for anything either -- clearly this means he's never done anything wrong!

          I'm not sure how someone could lower their intellectual standards to this level but if you go down to the base level of their argument, it is "never charged/prosecuted, therefore innocent." It ignores the massive structural/systemic issues with the justice and political system and the various protections that politically powerful individuals enjoy. I agree that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a good LEGAL standard, but not philosophically. There is plenty of evidence that Dick Cheney and the Bush regime fabricated evidence in order to start a destructive war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives. Just because they were never charged doesn't mean the evidence isn't conclusive on this subject. Same with James Clapper. There is unambiguous video evidence that he lied under oath to a US Senator -- yet no charges. Hillary's own emails demonstrate that they knew the rationale for bombing Lybia was bogus and that they were simply advancing certain geopolitical interests in the region -- yet no charges.

          "No charges" does not mean "innocent," it just means that politically powerful people aren't being held to the same standard as everyone else -- which is a demonstrable fact. Pretending like the simple fact that nobody was charged is somehow evidence that they didn't do anything wrong is intellectually indefensible and only makes sense if you don't dig too deep and subject that view to rational scrutiny.

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman A couple of questions:
          - When is an investigation considered completed? My understanding was that the HC investigation was concluded 10 days before the election which was a major blow for HC
          - Who and how many Americans want to punish HC? She won the popular vote and of course for Trump's hard core basis HC is the devil regardless of what she has done
          - Who decides when an investigation is bogus/ serious? The appropriate authorities or the masses (rule of jungle)?

        • a year ago

          @gigi to answer each question in order:
          - What do you mean completed? When they say it's completed? What's an investigation worth if when completed, the outcome is different from one person to the next? Which investigation are you talking about? Do you always take the outcome of every investigation at face value no matter what? Do you trust the FBI? These are all questions YOU must answer first. As far as i'm concerned, not everything has yet been investigated. That which was investigated, has been done so with zero transparency. There is a separate standard held for HC than is held for everyone else.
          - Not exactly sure what this question is. Either there is merit or not. The amount of people is irrelevant. 'and of course for Trump's hard core basis HC is the devil regardless of what she has done' NO. Not regardless of what she's done. It is the exact opposite. It is because of specific things she has done that they think she is 'the devil'.
          - Every single person individually has the right to draw their own conclusions. There will obviously be people and cases that are biased, that's life. Do you personally have 100 percent confidence in our justice system? Especially when it comes to serving it to the most powerful people in our country? Every single person is entitled to their opinion, and shooting it down by saying that they are doing harm by voicing their opinion, brings me back to my initial point- harm to whom? If what these people are saying is baseless and bogus, then everyone else would see right through it (enough people at least) that it will only be harming themselves (see Russia-gate), if people see it as actually holding water then it will be causing the right harm, to the right people. This is NOT rule of jungle, or mob rule, this is a free society that holds government accountable. What is the other option? Never be able to voice your opinion when you think government has gotten it wrong or has been unjust? That's tyranny. Like @bronsonkaahui mentioned, would you say that Putin has never done anything wrong, due to the fact that he was never indicted? You're painting a loaded picture where it's either we take every single thing the government says as fact, or we'll be living where the mob rules. I don't agree with that in the slightest. The best way, is when the people are able to voice their opinions, they can be valid, or they won't be, that's up to the PEOPLE to decide.

          Now, that is all being said without even getting started on whether this ongoing criticism is baseless or not. I happen to think this criticism has a lot to stand on and is a great thing. I don't believe justice has been rightfully served in the slightest, and you can agree or disagree, if you'd like we can debate that. My whole point here though is that this topic doesn't even make sense to begin with. The people should voice their opinion when they think that justice isn't being served. You have the right to look at them and say they are just playing politics. I'll go back to Russia-gate, I pray that the left doesn't stop with it. It would be a dream come true and a guarantee to have a Republican president for the rest of our lives if this hoax of a story keeps getting pushed. That is a case where some of the people are pushing a story, while the vast majority realize that the sole reason for pushing it isn't about justice, but about being butthurt over losing an election.

        • a year ago

          @mosheweissman Actually the above were honest questions trying to understand how the American system and society works
          100% agree that everyone can and should have an opinion but I was asking more about how do we move fwd with these things i.e. Justice authorities decide or "people"? And if it is people, can you please define it?
          As I understand it, in the US democracy, people are represented by the government, elected officials, the 3 brunches etc.
          So who decides what is transparent, valid? Cause for every investigation especially in politics, I believe that there are people who will always criticize them (probably because all of these have aspects that never come to public due to confidentiality or other reasons), does this mean that we keep pursuing them (very much like you criticize Russia) and until when?

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

        PRO

        0:49 Unsupported Assertion.
        1:03 Unsupported Assertion.
        1:11 Unsupported Assertion.
        1:20 Unsupported Assertion.


        1:35 repetition of UA @1:03
        2:05 repetition of UA @1:11 (Trump is using this as a distraction)
        2:26 Unsupported Assertion (Uranium One)
        2:52-3:05 Repetition/summary of all previous unsupported assertions.

        CON

        3:06-4:16 Categorical rejection of Pro's weighing mechanism, introduces his own weighing mechanism (justice)
        4:45 Refutes unsupported assertion that this is a straw manDD
        5:11 Refutes 1:11 unsupported assertion that because Clinton is not in office, that means we can't criticize her

        PRO

        6:00 Unsupported Assertion: I would concede that Trump is using hostility toward Clinton for political purposes, but that's definitely not something you can demonstrate. How can you say for sure that Trump does NOT believe Hillary is guilty/corrupt? On what basis did you make that determination?

        6:40 Unsupported assertion. You're merely ASSERTING that his criticisms of the deep state are not legitimate. You're not even trying to demonstrate that.
        7:00 and 7:25 Because these are traditional political conventions (example, Obama's decision not to prosecute anyone in the Bush Administration, Nixon's pardon, etc.) doesn't mean it's a GOOD one. You're implying that this political convention of not bringing defeated opponents to justice is necessarily a good one and I think you need to defend that position. -- You're simply asserting that it's a "dangerous precedent" to bring politically powerful people to justice.
        7:11 Unsupported assertion repeated from 1:11

        CON

        8:55 Correctly points out that Trump's criticisms aren't' the only ones that exist -- gaping hole in Pro's argument - refuted.
        9:33 Refutes the claim made that Obama did not criticize the Bush Administration -- though he did decide not to prosecute or investigate anyone.
        11:25 Another refutation to the assertion that only Trump's criticisms are relevant here

        PRO

        12:35 Pro merely asserts that Donald Trump is the person driving all of the criticisms (false) but even if that were true -- CON has already refuted the relevance of that assertion. Namely, that there are other, valid critcisms.
        13:10 Pro asserts that the criticisms are unhelpful -- unsupported assertion.
        13:20 Unsupported Assertion -- Why can't the President give his opinion on investigations -- who made up that rule?
        13:50 This is simply repeating an assertion by the anti-Trump media that Trump's tweets have affected the NYC terror case. Zero evidence has been presented to support this claim, but some people are under the impression that argument ad nauseum is convincing. Repeating something many many times does not magically give it more credibility.
        14:50 This is an unsupported assertion, on top of being entirely hypocritical. We have unambiguous evidence that certain members of the FBI investigation have a rabid anti-Trump bias, and that the Mueller team was being stacked with these anti-Trump invididuals, but that doesn't seem to affect your faith in the legitimacy of the Russian investigations for some reason. Curious. Trump's Tweets about Hillary taint those investigations but the investigators text messages about Trump don't taint those investigations.

        CON

        16:00 Another refutation to the assertion that only Trump's criticisms are relevant

        PRO

        21:00 Unsupported assertion -- it's for sure the case that the Russian FBI investigation, as well as the Hillary email investigation, were tained by political influence and bias.

        CON


        22:00 Good refutation of the assertion that everything revolves around Trump

        PRO

        22:35 . But we have seen since then, is that the investigation was tainted by political influence, and you can't rationally dispute this.
        23:00 I imagine we'd have a lot fewer criminals in office.
        23:25 Unsupported assertion

        PRO

        A final refutation to the assertion that everything revolves around Trump's criticisms and all criticisms of Hillary stand or fall based on those.

        CON

        26:50 We have conclusive evidence that is actually the case in regards to both the Russian investigation and also Hillary's email investigation, so that entire argument is actually refuted by the available evidence.
        27:15 By that same logic, the entire Russian hoax is tainted.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui Wow

        • a year ago
        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui so who did you vote for? ::innocent smile::

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 con obviously. I'm surprised there was anyone who found Pro to be convincing. "Only Trump's criticisms matter" doesn't seem like it would be a very persuasive argument to anyone, not even the person arguing it. I don't know that he even believes in his own argument. I think he tried to sneak that metric in as an easier way to win the resolution because the resolution itself is stacked against him in my view.

          I think he may have pulled one of those slick framing moves that the progressive guy with long curly hair and glasses likes to do all the time. He frames literally every debate in bogus ways and the judges usually don't see past it. I think you called him "king of the straw men" once and that's an accurate description. Nothing personal towards him, just an observation.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui Oh yes Joe, haha he's probably the best debater on the site, but he absolutely is the king of the straw man lol. That being said, framing matters, whether in real life discussions, or even more importantly during competitive debates. The lense through which you view the issue strongly informs how you perceive the points that are made.