EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2352

That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
3 points
S.H.S.H. (PRO)

  

The resolution may be in itself flawed and weighted towards the negation, but I will take this opportunity to affirm this resolution which states:That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently.

  

While I am of the opinion that this resolution would be better stated as “Should have the right to respond violently we shall analyze the resolution as meticulously as possible. First of all, we must analyze that these are inherently peaceful protests. When states respond violently. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to non-violently protest for the rights and rallying of African Americans, which is what he is most well-known for (But not his many…many orgies). He was arrested and harassed as were his fellow rioters both white and black. A letter from Birmingham jail illustrates Kings meetings with violence and encouraged the nation to follow his dreams.  Yes it is true that a violent response was never King’s intention, but in this day and age our citizens need to be allowed to face police brutality.

  

With any good intention in mind, the opposition will bring up the escalation of weapons and street violence, as well as an increase in protests, but no matter the claim it is crucial that we analyze that these are presumed to start as peaceful protests.

  

  

Granting these protesters the right to violently rebel will solve three main problems:

  

  

1.  Police will use less brutality in order to avoid casualties in the field

  

2.  Protesters will be less violent because the police would consequently be more prepared if they did.

  

3.  The people will better serve to advertise the struggles of this nation.

  

First of all, Police will avoid police brutality whenever possible. No empirical evidence is necessary to state that police are humans and by nature have a tendency to self-preserve. With the threat of violence in retaliation, the police would have more incentive to avoid these conflicts. With the incredibly recent anti-police-brutality protests in NY and DC this becomes an incredible threat. Not only are the protestors and the police in danger, but so are any civilians…average men, women, children, the disabled, all in danger should chaos ensue.

Second of all protestors will be less violent by nature.  People would have to understand the basic concept of militarized escalation, which would begin to apply to protests.  Some may see this resolution as an opportunity to assault the police; however, the police would have to prepare through an increase in weapons and defense technologies, not only making the citizens less likely to rebel and safer, but making the police safer and more able to take on other threats saving the citizens afflicted by petty and major crimes.  All in all this resolution helps the police to help the protestors to help the police to help the victims of crimes to help the criminals through advancement in technology and criminal law. If this logical progression provides confusion it is only due to our unwillingness to open our eyes to the threats of not facing the oncoming tide of civilian V. police conflicts.

Finally, advertisement will better open the eyes of our citizens.  Without major motion our American citizens are threatened by ignorance to these movements. Unlike news anchors, protestors are able to communicate on a more emotional level and spread the truth across this nation. These were the movements of MLK, these were the movements of Rosa Parks, and further back still, and these were the movements of our forefathers. Without the opportunity to share knowledge with the nation, the nation suffers. The most important claim is that these protests will offer perspective and opportunity for allcitizens of America.

In foreign nations we arm their civilians to fight their own battles and in doing so we exercise our hard power and influence over the world, we need to begin exercising our soft power, and this resolution provides that precise opportunity. This brings me to my most important point.

America is the land of the free, but we are slipping, now pardon the length, but it is essential that we look at this quote from Arron Sorkin:


 “Fine. Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist]gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!

(The use of inappropriate language has a purpose—the filter's off.)

And with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so star-spangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.

The fact-dump that's coming now serves several purposes. It backs up his argument, it reveals him to be exceptional (what normal person has these stats at their fingertips?), but mostly it's musical. This is the allegro.

And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world,I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!

We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.”

Sorkin only missed one thing, and that was the solution, which is exactly what this resolution provides. To not accept the new policy that will protect the nation and influence the world is to accept that America is too far gone. Step forward in protest of our failing social status. Allow the aristocrat and the beggar to unite, allow the black and the white to unite. Take the stand that can be solved in few ways. Accept ladies and gentlemen, this resolution, and accept this movement to take the American way and lead this world into a better and safer tomorrow.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-16 09:26:37
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (CON)
FRAMEWORK:

Motion analysis of this motion would be highly difficult to do, but from what one can infer from it, this debate motion is a value motion. Henceforth, we are discussing the value of violence, and the value of non-violence. Before we go on, we shall establish an objective measure for value. Value in context should be used as the following: that there will be more of a likelihood of success in protests if x is responded with x/y, that the usage of violence was just and moral, and had beneficial benefits towards society, and the nature of the ends will go along the presupposition of the intended ends.

The opposition’s model of argument goes along the line of the following:

Peaceful then violence → Violence → Success

Whilst mines would go along the following lines:

Peaceful then violence→ Peaceful→ Success

Henceforth via the object of value, the opposition would need to prove that (1) violent methods are more valuable than non-violent methods, (2) that violence is just and that (3) the nature of the ends (via violence) would be the ends intended, not corrupted ends.

 With this, I shall like to define some terms:

Define: Protests as a expression of objection by words or by actions to particular events, policies, or situations. 
Define: Violent as using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Define: State as a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Arguments

1) Violence is Harmful towards Society/Individuals

a) Individual Harm

A lawful protest is never violent, even when met with a violent response from the tyrants. Now, the assumption that we should meet bullet with bullet, that we should meet tyranny with tyranny, is a harmful one on the individual level. After years of research, we have seen proof that violence effects all types of people exposed to it. To children, violence "may show emotional distress as a result of witnessing the violence, as well as being affected by their caregiver's response". More importantly, "research has demonstrated that children who witness community violence are likely to develop a view of the world that is hostile and dangerous". To the perpetuators of such violence, the effects of violence could have the same effects as a war or such: a protestor who engages in a type of violence can develop PTSD which could traumatize him for the rest of his life. It has been proven that "52% of political refugees in Los Angeles" showed sign of "minor PTSD". These men just came from neighboring Cuba, in which a violent revolution which started out as a merely peaceful demonstration against the tyrannical power of Cuban President Batista.

As we can see, these effects are detrimental towards society. Violence can never be successful on the long run in the creation of a good society, for it creates all these problems which can eventually produce a generation of pessimists in every respect of life who suffer from huge psychological problem. From this, we could automatically assume that the usage of violence is unjust and immoral. [1,2,3]

b) Societal Harm

The power vacuum that immediately follows the prolonged period of violence is followed by a series of economic, legal, and societal upheavals that could be considered harmful. In Thailand, after the sustaining of the protests and a campaign of disobedience that was both violent and brute, the GDP growth fell by a massive 12% after the 2013 riots. In Brazil, the state of societal upheaval directly after the 2013 Protests caused the army to occupy several districts of Rio De Janeiro.  In post-Qing China, when law and order fell after a violent republican rebellion, the nation was divided into several "fiefdoms" with warlords implementing an unjust rule upon their subjects. This led to the de facto break-up of the nation which, for so long, illuminated East Asia. This was the same civil war that was to kill millions of Chinese directly after World War II. Ultimately, a sociological study of the effects of violence on societal levels are that "violence has significant short and long term effects on the society in terms of physical and psychological trauma, financial losses, poor schooling and health, migration of families and further division of society into identifiable communities which may prolong the conflict"

From this, we can justly assert that protest-based violence is wholly immoral. It can cause huge economics recessions, lack of a central authority, and even a break-up of the nation. It's effects upon society's citizens are also varied.  [4,5,6]

2) Success and Nature of Violent Success

a) Violent Successes are Revolutions

Violent protests are not really protests but revolution. Via the nature of the human mind, they will gain as much as they will. The difference between a protest and a revolution is that a revolution "leads to the total destruction" of laws and norms, whilst protests advocate for some sort of "change" within the current status quo. Society is a biological structure. It gains on previous experience, and it shapes the changes in the future. It would be totally unjust to advocate for the complete overthrow of society as we know it, but this is what a violent protest is after. During the 1920s, the Italian Blackshirts marched upon Rome and peacefully installed Mussolini to power. Within years, he transformed a liberal democracy to his totalitarian playground. This is an example of a peaceful, yet violently charged mob (who has met violence from the state before), destroying society and creating a new type of society whose horrors are incomprehensible. This is, however, not the only example of a violent protest soon attempting for a creation of a totally new society. Violent clashes with the government and the violent Golden Dawn Movement in Greece has led to laws being ignored totally. De facto anarchy reigns in Greece.  [7,8]

Because of this, we can then argue that a violent revolution always accounts for society being overthrown, and for change to become an all encompassing term, rather than a step-by-step term.

b) Peaceful Protests are Successful

Peaceful protests are infinitely much more successful than violent protests in gaining and achieving goals, whilst creating a just society afterwards. There are many examples of this. The non-violent "March on Washington" led by Martin Luther King was perhaps the greatest example of "piecemeal social engineering" via peaceful means. 250,000 people gathered and marched on Washington in a picnic type "revolution" that soon recognized the right of all African-Americans. But if this is not enough, then the desperate campaign of Gandhi against British rule would be possibly the best anecdote for non-violence. The "tryst with destiny" of the Indians, who "woke to freedom" after a long campaign of non-violent resistance against the British rulers, resulted in the creation of one of the greatest and the largest democracy of the modern world. Apart from a brief diaspora, Indian transition to a stable liberal democracy was astonishing: many countries which overthrew the oppressors via violent means had authoritarian governments take over from the previous liberal democracies. The case of South Africa also needs praise. In ending Apartheid, the African National Congress was able to collaborate and create a new (relatively stable and transparent) democratic state. [9,10]

Henceforth, it is clear that non-violence brings out a much more successful version of the ends as needed.

3) Violent Methods Fail

a) Civil Wars

Violent methods ultimately cause a civil war. A careful observations into the most violent protests of this year, and perhaps history, always leads to one conclusion: that violence prolongs the conflict at hand already, or makes the perceived ends impossible. Syria is perhaps the greatest and most deplorable case of a militarized mob. After the crackdowns in Homs, the mob militarized with "thousands of army soldiers switching sides". However, the "Syrian Revolution" (as it is dubbed) failed. In the words of an FSA soldier: “When we were peaceful, we were stronger than when we had weapons". This is a growing trend with many protests. Protests start off with modest, and sometimes even mild, demands for change, but when they get militarized, the main goals were forgotten and it soon became a protest of annihilation rather than that of change. Many civil wars started with protestors making modest plans for reform, but after the militarization of the mob, they demanded some radical change. The Russian Civil War started off as a demand for the abolition of the Czar, but soon became an all out war. The Chinese Civil War started off as a demand for more social equality; it soon became a very vicious conflict. 

b) Failure

Violent protests simply fail. An example of this could be the 2010 "Red Shirt" protests in Thailand, where the violent mob was soon disbanded after a two-day stand-off between the Army and the Rebels. 89 people were killed in this protest, and no demand on the part of the protestors were ever achieved in the status quo. Another example of this is the Euromaidan protests. These protests started out as a need to renew the EU-Ukraine Co-operation Agreements, but soon turned bloody as 780 protestors were killed. This led to the de facto partition of Crimea in Ukraine, and led to civil war and a full crisis which continues to this day. These are not simple outliers: these are recurring themes in violent revolutions. Either they fail, or they become civil wars which have no prospect of ending. 

Because of these contentions, I hold the resolution negated


CITATION:
[1] http://tinyurl.com/le42lfp
[2] http://tinyurl.com/ks993an
[3] http://tinyurl.com/mqexlb8
[4] http://tinyurl.com/keuvc7k
[5] The Rise and Fall of Communism, Archie...

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-21 18:18:45
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (CON)

Well, what a shame. A FF eh?

O1. Militarization of Mob would lead to Peace

This case is a very a faulty case, and misunderstands the notion of “violence”. All empirical evidences states the opposite of what the opposition has proposed here. A paper proposed to the 25th Congress of Psychology in 1992 studied the effects of violence on society. The subjects that were to be experimented on in this were termed “violent” and “non-violent”. After further consideration onto the study, the “violent” was also said to be “non-violent” until a complex reasoning skill led to them to another conclusion. The subjects were tested to a “moral” test, which soon indicated a marked difference between the moral reason of the “non-violent” with the moral reasoning of the “violent”. This marked difference was of 20 points (from a test in which the maximum score was 36). This might seem at first irrelevant, but upon further inspection, the "Values Test" presented in the report included questions about killing and torturing other 'beings' for one's own benefits. The militarization of the mob would lead to nothing but a degradation in moral virtues, and in the moral reasoning skills of a previously civilized and peaceful protest. [1]

O2. Police Avoiding Brutality

This case is another very faulty case. Self-preservation is nothing in the face of order, as confirmed by the Milgram Experiment. The assumption here is that the police will avoid brutality whenever possible, including in the defiance of order. But this assumption is not empirically supported. The Milgram Experiment was an experiment in which university students were told to make another university student memorize a set of simple words, like cat, dog etc. They were told that they were taking part in a “learning experiment”. However, Stanley Milgram was psychologically experimenting with their obedience. If the subject forgets a word, he is electrocuted, and if he forgets the word again, the charge is increased. The Milgram Experiment demonstrates this very well. In his influential paper, Dr. Milgram demonstrated that ordinary students, just like me and the opposition, can get tempted to electrocute anyone to death at the mere statements of:

Prod 1: Please continue. or Please go on.

Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.

Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.

Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on.

With these prods, 26 of the 43 participants in this experiment demonstrated that they were willing to use the maximum charge, in strict obedience to the orders. This shows that even an innocent university student could be turned into a killer in seconds, due to strict obedience to orders. The Milgram Experiment showed that orders given by even non-coercive innocent men could turn anyone into amoral subjects of depraved ideology.  [2] There are many instances of such cases coinciding with reality.  In Syria, the orders given by the president to crackdown on the protestors was an example of this; albeit some were brave and defected, most stayed in tact and ready to take new orders from the President. During the Tiannamen Square Protests, a classic example of non-violent piecemeal social engineering succeeding in authoritarian thought, the bullets of the People's Liberation Army did not stop flying even though it was clear that the People were with the protestors. 

O3. Better “Persuasive Tool” Abroad

This case has more support, but yet it’s core premiss is harmful and faulty. This advocacy is only valid, I believe, for citizens of the United States of America. This seemingly looks on the verge of becoming a foreign affairs debate, when clearly it is a value debate, not a policy debate. Nevertheless, I shall attempt the core premiss of this debate: more violence, more support from abroad.

Violence allows arousal. A study on the same topic showed that the mere prospect of arousal of violence leads to the release of adrenaline. TV violence can be used as a model for this. Studies show that intuitively aggressive individuals are much more subjected to “violence” and is more “tempted” than non-violent subjects. As has been demonstrated, violence only prolongs the conflict. It does nothing to put it to an end. This explains the many cases of Americans and British citizens going to fight in Syria and Iraq for various militant groups. If this is what is meant by “a more persuasive tool”, then perhaps the opposition has affirmed and fully demonstrated that violence is a more persuasive tool. But this tool only serves to prolonged the conflict, not to bring it to an end. [3,4]

O4. A Case against Rebel Armament

I would like to BRIEFLY present a case against rebel armament by international powers. As we can see, the world is in a largely dire state of situation. But for us (the United States of America, lol) to arm "them" is indeed a very false case. Those who support the armaments in Syria are now facing a huge backlash after the Syrian Revolutionary's Front, the "moderate Islamists" that John McCain (very falsely, very ignorantly) called "freedom fighters" and are receiving huge amounts of American weaponry, defected and pledged allegiance to the barbaric fighters of the Islamic State. Why are we to arm a country whose future is undeclared? The words "secular democracy" in Syria have become mere insults. A two-way demagogue battle between the Free "Syrian" Army and the Islamic State seemingly shows why. "Do you really fight for the implementation of Allah's Shari'ah, or do you fight for secularism and democracy?"  Would these words, used as insults, seemingly not shock anyone? The United States has spoon-fed weapons into the mouths of the terrorists. But why is this?

This is because of the mere contradiction between freedom and fighters. If I take something from you, I stole it from you. If I plead for something, it becomes a donation. If one country were to take sovereignty from another country, one would de facto have stolen sovereignty. This is then accompanied with a lack of moral reasoning skills as demonstrated in O1, which leads to ultimately more violence. Is this just? We have seen this happen in China, where sovereignty was stolen and given to the hands of the merciless communists. Gandhi saw this, and he was astonished by the nature of violence. We, us, call the subject whatever you may; the subject may support freedom, but how one gets to that freedom is another problem. The United States of America was never a violent country. As Machiavelli notes, a republic who has lost it's freedom will do anything to regain it. "As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were" Thomas Paine said in his call to defense in Common Sense. Freedom, or at lest, change, must be a given, not stolen. For why would a man who has stolen freedom ever relinquish it to his subjects? As Hitler said in an attempt to justify his totalitarian reign, "the worthy who has acquired power will never relinquish it!" 


O5. Against "Be Everywhere" Mindset

Another brief point that is apart from the debate, but needs to be presented as addenda. The philosophy of the interventionist thoughts of the opposition is to "be everywhere, at once". To promote violence, while go to the international stage as if one were defending peace. How can peace come from violence? How can moral degradation create harmony and tolerance? When one has fought hard for something, would one ever relinquish control of it? The United States of America has acted mindlessly in this policy of global policing. Why is the world to accept America? Why, I ask? American Intervention caused al-Qaida to come into Iraq and Syria. American Intervention has been the foremost enemy of peace in the world. American intervention in Iran caused the Islamist Regime of Iran to come to power, in which Americans have been in huge hassle whilst attempting to oppose this government. It was America who caused the wars in Lebanon in 1958. It was the United States of America which caused the defeat of all attempts to create a Free Vietnam, and a Free Laos. Why does America still, with this deplorable record, want to be everywhere at once? To support protests? What protests? Why does America not support the protests by the Shi'ite minorities in Saudi Arabia, or by the Palestinian Resistance in the Occupied Territories? The United States of America does not go to war for moral reasons. They go to war for their jingoistic economic interests, and they are not willing to withdraw from this mindset.  


I hold the resolution, as well as few other unrelated motions, to be supported and wholly negated. Please vote con! C: 


Citations:

[1] http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED352296

[2] http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/social_dilemmas/fall/Readings/Week_06/milgram.pdf

[3] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107260

[4] http://www.sirc.org/publik/foxviolence.pdf


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-29 04:40:14
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
adminadmin
(possibly because your case was too long?)
Posted 2014-12-28 10:11:05
18Karl18Karl
screw dis, half my sources don't show up!
Posted 2014-12-28 02:28:39
18Karl18Karl
o lel, its voting issues
Posted 2014-12-23 04:43:49
18Karl18Karl
wait, what is a reply speech
Posted 2014-12-23 04:40:56
18Karl18Karl
lol
Posted 2014-12-23 04:30:51
BlackflagBlackflag
SH site flakked
Posted 2014-12-23 04:15:47
18Karl18Karl
darn it! I found a great source for R1, and did not use it
Posted 2014-12-23 04:13:25
BlackflagBlackflag
BTW, S.H said this not me
"The resolution may be in itself flawed and weighted towards the negation, but I will take this opportunity to affirm this resolution which states:That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently."
Posted 2014-12-17 08:12:30
BlackflagBlackflag
I want to keep things transparent on a competitive debate, so here's the advice I gave S.H

"You want to improve your visual presentation. Debating over text is different that debating in person. Just like you would want to maintain a formal presence in public debating, it is essential you learn how to prepare a good presence in text. It didn't look good at the part where everything was double spaced. Creating headers, indenting, and using other tools in the HTML bar can improve your presentation.

You might feel a bit unconfident about having to debate Pro in this resolution. Do not tell other users I told you this, but judges here and in real life are more understanding of the affirmative side. Remember your main advantage is being able to control the narrative of the debate. Con can make premature objections, but you only need to go where you feel comfortable. For example, you stated this...

[quote]the opposition will bring up the escalation of weapons and street violence, as well as an increase in protests, but no matter the claim it is crucial that we analyze that these are presumed to start as peaceful protests.[/quote]

You just opened one area of the debate to be centered around the escalation of violence. You control the narrative of the debate. You control the arguments. If you feel the escalation of violence is a problem, then either find a solution or stray away from allowing this to be a rebuttal.
The resolution may be in itself flawed and weighted towards the negation, but I will take this opportunity to affirm this resolution which states:That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently.

[quote]While I am of the opinion that this resolution would be better stated as “Should have the right to respond violently we shall analyze the resolution as meticulously as possible. First of all, we must analyze that these are inherently peaceful protests. When states respond violently. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to non-violently protest for the rights and rallying of African Americans, which is what he is most well-known for (But not his many…many orgies). He was arrested and harassed as were his fellow rioters both white and black. A letter from Birmingham jail illustrates Kings meetings with violence and encouraged the nation to follow his dreams. Yes it is true that a violent response was never King’s intention, but in this day and age our citizens need to be allowed to face police brutality.[/quote]

You're creating an unnecessary fluff speech. You took the first half of your round voicing your objections towards the resolution you accepted. The opening speech is the most crucial part of the debate. This is when you hook the judges in. Tell them of a huge problem that needs to be solved. The horror and inhumanity. Then pow! Whap them with an awesome and passionate case about how responding violently is better than responding peacefully

You need to stop acting like you're playing devils advocate. It isn't convincing to a judge when you fail to convince us you have a passion for a topic. When you say the resolution is weighted towards the negation, you're telling us you believe people shouldn't respond violently to police brutality.

There are so many places you could of took this debate. Why limit you arguments. Do not just argue one point. You could tell the judges how fighting back preserves the honor of the movement. You could tell the judges that reactionary violence is the only way to stop more violence in the future. Go anywhere you want with this debate. You are pro. You control the narrative. Don't forget that. "
Posted 2014-12-17 08:11:25
BlackflagBlackflag
Pro made some good arguments. I tend to always see the negative unfortunately.
As a community we're working together to make some finely tuned debating machines.
Posted 2014-12-17 08:07:24
BlackflagBlackflag
lol :D
Posted 2014-12-17 08:06:22
Carter LastCarter Last
hahaha, sorry, didn't mean to post twice, don't know what happened
Posted 2014-12-17 03:26:21
S.H.S.H.
hahaha, sorry, didn't mean to post twice, don't know what happened
Posted 2014-12-17 03:24:06
S.H.S.H.
alright, thank you guys, I'm still pretty new to debating and I am very very much open to coaching, constructive critiques are always welcomed. I also didn't mean to throw a blanket statement over judges, I just didn't quite know how this website worked, but I have a much better understanding now. Thank you again for the info and simply for the maintaining of this web page:)
Posted 2014-12-17 03:23:37
S.H.S.H.
alright, thank you guys, I'm still pretty new to debating and I am very very much open to coaching, constructive critiques are always welcomed. I also didn't mean to throw a blanket statement over judges, I just didn't quite know how this website worked, but I have a much better understanding now. Thank you again for the info and simply for the maintaining of this web page:)
Posted 2014-12-17 03:23:26
adminadmin
I actually thought pro's arguments aren't that bad.
Posted 2014-12-16 11:50:42
BlackflagBlackflag
If you want some additional coaching, I think I can provide you some more detailed tips over personal message.
Posted 2014-12-16 11:42:30
BlackflagBlackflag
Don't be worried about judges voting based on personal beliefs either. You would think the judges here would be more easily persuaded by the opposition. I have confidence that most judges will look at this debate with an open mind and the standard judging professionalism.
Posted 2014-12-16 11:40:15
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm going to give this debate a lot of feedback later, but here's an early reminder.
"The resolution may be in itself flawed and weighted towards the negation"

Most edeb8 members agree that there's no such thing as a weighted debate. This resolution in my opinion is entirely fair and normative.
Posted 2014-12-16 11:37:31
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-01-19 11:52:46
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: 18Karl
2015-01-20 08:09:14
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: 18Karl
Reasoning:
I need to reread the debate, but do to pro leaving the debate, I'll placehold my point with con

Feedback:
Feedback Coming Later

1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2015-01-25 21:36:25
ZeusYodaJudge: ZeusYoda
Win awarded to: 18Karl
Reasoning:
1. PRO forfeited. :)

2. CON gave detailed analysis on his arguments and even included citations of evidence to further substantiate his opinion.

3. Awesome presentation by CON using different formats, made it easy to follow his line of argument.

Feedback:
Feedback, well I feel since we have rounds, dont put it all out there in one comment. It makes it hard to read everything all at once. And maybe that is why PRO forfeited because of an information overload :)

Let each comment be just one claim, its analysis and evidence. And where an opponent has made a claim also, u can add a rebuttal argument. That way it's easy to follow for both judges and the person you debating against.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29