2015-06-07 12:05:29 Judge: nzlockie TOP JUDGEWin awarded to:
CON wins on the basis that they made more uncontested arguments and exhibited better conduct.
PRO posts their only points in the first round.
1. His contention that Jews have hoarded information is not supported by any evidence, and certainly doesn't fall into the category of "self-evident". Regardless, his contention is that free internet will make information more accessible to all, regardless of colour or economic standing. Fair point.
2. "Blacks commit a lot of crimes" is also not supported, nor is it self-evident. Again, this weakens the impact of his point. He then contends that greater access to the internet may provide more job opportunities for minorities. Fair point.
3. Greater access to the internet may aid abortion rates among Black people. This point is completely lost as PRO doesn't elaborate on WHY this would be a net positive effect, and only weakly asserts that it will be. There's also no evidence that looking services up on the internet is any faster than a phonebook or that speed is a factor when it comes to finding an abortion clinic. Lost point.
CON's initial rebuttal is clever and obviously made in jest, but makes a critical error when he assumes Racism against Negroes. PRO's second point actually was in favour of Negroes and CON's counterplan does not solve that point - in fact it makes it worse.
I get where they are coming from though.
CON's actual point. I had to reread this one many times to make sure it was saying what I thought it was saying. Some different sentence structure may have made this better.
CON's point here is that if every Internet Service Provider (ISP) had access to the same cable networks, then the amount of users would dramatically increase placing a higher load on the system, and creating a worse experience for the users.
I'm not sure this point supports the resolution which appears to me to say that the government themselves should become an ISP. Unfortunately, nobody from either side of this debate clarified the resolution for me, so I can only go by my interpretation of it.
"Provision of Internet Services" = literally an ISP.
"Public Utility" - typically a single organisation that provides the service for the public. Almost always a monopoly and regulated by the government. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Utilities
PRO has assumed that these services will be free/almost free and CON has assumed that these services will not be a monopoly. Both of these things CAN happen with a Public utility so that's what I'm going with.
Given that, CON's point stands that traffic is likely to increase - HOWEVER, I'm not given any reason to suspect that the service will naturally decrease as a consequence. This is just asserted. This makes the point weaker.
I REALLY don't get what the "cable firms" have to do with this. If they are providing services to MORE people, why does it naturally follow that they will invest less in their product?
I THINK they're saying that Cable companies will have less incentive to develop their product since that's what often happens with a Public utility, but that assumes a State monopoly, and CON's own model suggests that other ISPs will still be around. Presumably, these ISPs can charge higher rates for better services - so I don't see the impact.
The MOST annoying thing is that, as unclear as this point seems to be, PRO doesn't challenge it - so it stands.
CON's sort-of-final point is that greater use of a state-sponsored Internet increases the violation of the citizens privacy rights. This point is pretty clearly presented and is never challenged by PRO. Fair point here.
CON's actual-final point was something about other countries. I didn't really follow it. I think he was saying that it wouldn't be right for one country, (presumably his country) to tell other countries what to do. I don't think the resolution was saying that at all. Again, not contested, so, meh - I'll give it a half point.
At this point, this debate is a lot closer than it should be. I need something to divide these two and conduct is going to be the thing.
PRO's points, while valid, were NOT presented clearly. Given that most judges are not likely to be supporters of prejudice along racial lines, presenting his points in the way he did was a bad move. The actual substance of the point was lost in trivial rhetoric.
Accusing his opponent of forfeiting turned out to be a lie and is not really the kind of behaviour that earns points.
I appreciated the spirit that CON countered this with, so he earns a little point for conduct.
Net result, one of PRO's points didn't score, one was countered, and one stands.
Most of CON's points were weak or unclear, but together they stand uncontested.
CON wins. Feedback:
PRO: I'll admit, I was expecting you to win this. You generally have surprisingly strong points however these are lost in the way you present them.
I realise you don't really take this thing seriously, but it's a shame because you actually could contribute something of substance.
My feedback to you is to drop the Racist act, or at least tone it down to the point where your choice of words doesn't obscure the actual point you're making.
CON: Don't be so blinded by the apparent offensiveness of your opponent as to fail to make your points count.
You're both getting objectively judged on your points, not necessarily your personality.
In this debate, you missed an opportunity to clearly define the resolution. You left a lot of variables up to personal interpretation, a risky thing to do on an international site. Public Utilities may routinely fail in one country, but they certainly don't fail in every country. If you're going to assert that it's a natural progression then you NEED to explain why or show me some evidence.
You were very lucky to win this -which is ridiculous since you clearly turned up to play.
Finally, I want to be very clear to you that I read every sentence you wrote. I REALLY struggled to follow it. I'm wondering if there was a word or two wrong or in the wrong order or something. It seems like your points would have made more logical sense had you been arguing that the state ISP was going to become the only ISP - but you didn't say that and instead insinuated the opposite. In fact, you didn't actually say the state was going to become an ISP at all, only that it was going to force the cable companies to allow multiple ISPs to access their cables.
If I've misunderstood you, I'd love to know, however as feedback, you should take it on board that you might need to look at phrasing your points a bit clearer.
Congratulations on keeping your cool during the debate.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2015-06-10 10:33:45 Judge: admin TOP JUDGEWin awarded to:
Pro opened by explaining little. He argued that, in essence, racial bias in access to information would be reduced. It wasn't the strongest possible point, but it was legitimate and wrapped up in some interesting narrative. Usually I would have expected, on a topic like this, issues such as the role of the state, political impacts, economic impacts etc - but social equality broadly was the issue, and though poorly framed it was correctly identified.
Con's counterplan was simply to incite racism, which was ... strange. He breifly argued that too much power in the hands of a race was dangerous. This was PARTICULARLY unjustified. Though his counter-plan could have easily read like "affirmative action for the internet", it actually read like "segregation for the internet", and there was no good reason why. Con ultimately had no good answer to the principle of equality. This was problematic.
Con did finish with a meta-problem with pro's case: a lack of a model. This isn't generally an issue in judgment debates, but I take the point. Pro could have simply pointed out that the resolution says "This house BELIEVES", not "This house WOULD" as it always does in model debates. Pro didn't, though, so the rebuttal stands. Might be helpful for both sides to look up the difference between judgment and model debates. Con also mentioned something about "consequentialist utilitarianistic", but I have no idea what that means.
Con did have two substantive responses. The first was government power in controlling internet communications. The second was that internet speeds would be reduced, which people wouldn't like. These arguments were fairly well-justified and extended.
Ultimately I award this debate on balance. Pro established equality reduced what he strongly implied will reduce social harms, but gave almost no analysis as to the mechanism of how that works. It read like a series of conjectures that were never particularly well justified. I felt confident enough to determine that con's analysis beat it on ... well, the fact there was analysis. By that I mean, con didn't just state the impact, he also explained why and why it's bad/good. For example, pro, your C1:
"with more access to information it will put white people on more even ground with the Jews."
What I want to know is:
1. Why making internet a public utility would achieve this
2. Why this would even be a good thing
Contrast that with con's second point:
"Giving everyone free internet means that the government can effectively have access to personal information on every single person person in the US through its covert surveillance operations. Because Covert government surveillance is a violation of rights, I insists that we should not promote its growth."
This tells me:
1. Why the motion would achieve this - because wider access = more people to spy on
2. Why it's bad - violation of rights.
Nominally I would award this debate to con.
PRO - Don't claim in a PM that your opponent forfeits. I will never judge things outside of the debate.
CON - I have to deduct points because you plagiarised your point ad verbatim from http://fee.org/freeman/detail/internet-access-should-be-left-to-the-free-market
I CAME SUPER CLOSE TO AWARDING THIS DEBATE TO PRO. It's bad conduct for both sides. At least with con it was just one argument, while with pro it ruined two whole rounds of theirs (that pro foolishly failed to capitalize on). Con, your strongest argument I simply couldn't give you credit for.
Based on the conduct and the argumentation, I extremely narrowly and after much thought / consideration award this debate to con.Feedback:
Think about how you can use a principle in your case. A principle can be as simple even as a summary of what your case is about. For pro, the obvious principle would have been social equality. Then pro can explain why social equality is great. For con, I might have used the principle of free markets, since I think ultimately this is what your points are driving towards - free markets = efficiency and freedom.
Conduct. Both sides had poor conduct at different points, but you shouldn't be claiming your opponent forfeited unless they said so IN THE DEBATE. This is a fairly basic rule of respect even if con did send such a PM - judges are only allowed to judge what goes on in the debate.
Don't even try to cheat.
As a guideline, when you're con, you'll probably want about half of your opening speech to be rebuttal, and that should be very explicit in your framework. Although of course you'll have to refocus the narrative on your own material, or way of framing that rebuttal, it's super important to really shut down the affirmative's case.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement