About Us    Debate    Judge    Forum    Tournaments
EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
Views:
2237

We Should Accept Syrian Refugees

(PRO)
5 points
(CON)
WINNER!
7 points


Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin thanks :)
Posted 2016-04-07 01:17:46
adminadmin
@IncorrigiblePerspective @Bifurcations @Jurisprudence
Sorry everyone. This was a leftover from the old YouTube issue that Bifurcations had with this debate, causing her to throw one round. As such the system identified her as a forfeiter on this debate. I forgot to remove that flag from this debate for the voting section when I reversed that, since it was a bug. Usually that code you're seeing disables voting if, like, one side forfeits in a 4-way debate, so only the 3 debating sides can be voted for.

Anyway, I've just removed that flag so anyone can vote for Bifurcations now.
Posted 2016-04-07 00:04:33
IncorrigiblePerspectiveIncorrigiblePerspective
I'm finding the same thing...
Posted 2016-04-06 20:16:22
BifurcationsBifurcations
@Jurisprudence the link will give him a notification
Posted 2016-04-06 15:28:03
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin this is strange?
Posted 2016-04-06 15:26:58
JurisprudenceJurisprudence
Great debate both! I want to vote for Bifurcations but it won't let me select any other name than cooldudebro in the voting section. Admin help....?
Posted 2016-04-06 15:19:11
JurisprudenceJurisprudence
Great debate both! I want to vote for Bifurcations but it won't let me select any other name than cooldudebro in the voting section. Admin help....?
Posted 2016-04-06 15:18:58
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Thanks. I agree. It was a lot of fun.
Posted 2016-04-05 22:43:55
BifurcationsBifurcations
my round should be posted in about an hour or so and since it will be my last post just want to say I thought this was an excellent debate and I really enjoyed it. Hope we get some constructive judging :)
Posted 2016-04-05 00:58:28
cooldudebrocooldudebro
ok
Posted 2016-04-01 23:10:11
BifurcationsBifurcations
@cooldudebro just converting the file type then I will upload it
Posted 2016-04-01 23:04:50
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@Bifurcations Thank you :3
Posted 2016-04-01 03:48:24
BifurcationsBifurcations
@cooldudebro listened to the round will hopefully have my round posted by tomorrow. Good luck for your exam :)
Posted 2016-04-01 03:26:26
cooldudebrocooldudebro
recording the video now.
Posted 2016-03-31 23:53:00
BifurcationsBifurcations
@cooldudebro cool thanks
Posted 2016-03-31 05:39:39
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@Bifurcations
Yes
Black Bullet opening
Posted 2016-03-31 03:13:13
BifurcationsBifurcations
* @cooldudebro apologies for my terrible typing
Posted 2016-03-31 02:12:36
BifurcationsBifurcations
@coolduduebro This is my first video debate on here so still getting to grips with it. Are we allowed to use that amount of youtube clips? Also what song did you use at the end?
Posted 2016-03-31 01:10:25
adminadmin
@Bifurcations
No problem. Let me know if you run into any troubles. :D
Posted 2016-03-29 16:06:59
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin

Thanks :)
Posted 2016-03-29 16:06:03
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin

Thats cool. Thanks for looking into it :)
Posted 2016-03-28 23:54:58
adminadmin
@Bifurcations
There might be a way, but first I need to fix that error you found. Annoying when companies like Imgur or YouTube update their APIs! And I didn't even know that YouTube's done it. Might take me until tomorrow. Sorry for the trouble!
Posted 2016-03-28 23:53:39
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin

is there any way to reset this cause I really didn't forfeit
Posted 2016-03-28 22:14:06
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin @cooldudebro

the video is made and uploaded on youtube it is definitely less than 6 minutes but I keep getting the same error message :/
not sure what to do. Really don't want to loose points or forfeit the debate because of it.
Posted 2016-03-28 21:59:51
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin

its still saying the same thing.
This is the video URL: https://youtu.be/QmuBqEAOl24
Posted 2016-03-28 21:17:40
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin
"We couldn't verify the length of the video because the API feed appears to be temporarily down. Please try again in a few moments, and it should start working again."
any idea what this is?
Posted 2016-03-28 19:20:40
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Okay
Posted 2016-03-28 18:51:07
BifurcationsBifurcations
@cooldudebro I have recorded this round just trying to upload it the now
Posted 2016-03-28 16:40:01
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-04-07 01:55:28
IncorrigiblePerspectiveJudge: IncorrigiblePerspective
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
Great to see the debate argued in the correct spirit. Both of you argued really eloquently.
Bifurcations shaded it for me, but it was a close thing.
3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as biased
1 comment on this judgement
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Could you further explain your vote?
Posted 2016-04-07 23:02:20
2016-04-09 19:50:20
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
I think CON wins by a little due to a slightly more convincing case, it seems to be a better idea to fight and destroy ISIS so there is no need for refugees from Syria. Syria should not be left to collapse and instead should be taken back. The PRO side had a convincing case though. In the end, it depends on how you look at it. Who knows what any of the plans would lead to in the long run.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
7 comments on this judgement
BifurcationsBifurcations
Hi @DHS15608 :) thanks for judging I am slightly confused by you're RDF could you clarify it for me?

What I am confused by is you say I win on a "slightly more convincing case" and reference the discussion my opponent and I had on fighting IS then you say "PRO side had a convincing case though". You voted for Pro so I am assuming you're belief is that over all my opponent had a more convincing case. If this is correct could you provide some detail on which parts of my opponents case convinced you?

Judging is subjective :) but that's why we want to hear more on what your perspective on the debate was and why you found particular parts of the debate more persuasive and so we understand why you voted in the way you did.

Hope to hear more from you on this.
Posted 2016-04-09 21:16:29
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
I think the CON case is slightly more convincing because the con plan to keep out syrians and fight ISIS is seemingly superior. The arguments for his plan stood up well. It was hard to judge the debate because you two looked at the subject in different perspectives but his perspective and arguments seemed more convincing in this debate. In your perspective, such an idea may work, but in this debate, the CON perspective and argument combination is superior according to my judgement. In the end, this subject has no "correct view" since so many things can happen in either one of your plans and is down to how you look at the subject. The way the CON looked at it, seemed the way to go in my judgement. Another way I could have judged it is by whether any of the refugees are actually dangerous, but that may be hard to figure out.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
BifurcationsBifurcations
@DHS15608 thanks for replying

You seem to be accepting the idea that thus far your own opinion has weighed heavily on your voting decision. The skill of judging is to be determine only from the argumentation presented by the participants in the debate who made the strongest case.

Yes in real life finding the "the correct view" on this issue is pretty close to possible but it is simply the arguments presented in this debate that you have to consider for a judgement.

Again I understand that we both had different perspectives on the debate but we also both had analysis on why we believed our perspectives to be the correct one. It would be really useful if you could compare our analysis to show how you determined that Con's perspective was more valid.

You mention that Con's argument combination is superior to mine if you could give me some examples that would be really useful.

I think that given both myself and my opponent spent most of the debate arguing whether or not there was sufficient protections in the implementation of countries security policies or whether those policies were insufficient at dealing with the dangerous refugees then it would be useful to hear a comparison of our analysis on this issue. If not, then could you explain your reasoning in selecting these arguments not being included?

I don't understand why the debate would have to be judged on either the security issues or the military intervention and not on both ?

Thanks for taking the time to judge this and reply to me. It is appreciated :)
Posted 2016-04-10 04:25:08
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
I see your not satisfied with my judgement, I was not planning on going through and pointing out every argument and my judgement on them, but to explain a little, You two have two different cases:
PRO- It is a nation's duty to accept refugees to keep them from harm.
CON- It is a nations duty to deny refugees from a nation to keep the citizens safe from harm.
What I am saying is that the CON case is more convincing out of the arguments presented. I will not go through the arguments but instead explain my reasoning a little bit. I think overall it is more consistent with the facts, you say that there are no refugees arrested from terrorism charges in the U.S. Well, here is one, http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/ . Also, you argue terrorist background checks work well, CON argues that they do not. It turns out that the counter terrorism background checks don't necessarily always work, here is an example, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428013/obama-administrations-much-touted-counterterrorism-screening-fails-jim-geraghty.
So, I guess I should't say that you can't judge if any of the refugees are dangerous. You seem to accept the Idea that terrorists do not enter countries as refugees, as a Given. A great number of both sides of your arguments are your perspective, for example, you say if refugees could not flee their nation, they may build anger join terrorist group. CON says refugees increases risk of terrorists entering country. Overall, its all your perspective, it is not a fact that everything happens those ways, and you said that it doesn't matter much about perspective since your giving reasons why your perspective is correct. I said in my judgement that I thought the CON side is more convincing(or correct perspective). I did not explain fully why, this was not my intentions. You may not like how I am attempted to judge by facts rather than by debating style, but that is what I tend to favor doing. I judged that the CON side is more convincing and I think so because in my view, I think his arguments are more consistent with the facts. If you think I am not doing a good job judging, then just tell me and I will think twice about judging next time. I am a beginner here, so do not judge me too harshly.
Hope you appreciate my judgement.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
BifurcationsBifurcations
I do value your response and definitely appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to my questions. Hopefully the comment I tagged you in on the other judgement gives you a bit more of a perspective on where I am coming from when I ask for feedback :)
Posted 2016-04-11 00:04:52
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
Thanks for the advice, I will remember it next time I judge a debate.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
BifurcationsBifurcations
:)
Posted 2016-04-11 02:01:01
2016-04-10 03:06:01
TheHouseJudge: TheHouse
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
CON loses the debate due to a misunderstanding of PROs case. This is best shown in his second round speech in which he asserts that PRO has not defined the countries involved and the number of refugees each country would take however this is clearly defined in PRO first round Speech as EU member states, with the possible involvement of Canada and the USA, and a proportional distribution of refugees. The question of time is not explicitly answered but the implied answer of for the duration of the Conflict in Syria is adequate enough. CON spends much of his time trying to prove that Syrian Refugees are a danger to the countries they are travelling to citing terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. PRO handles this argument by showing that Syrian Refugees were not involved in these attacks. As PRO states in her rebuttal particularly in the Paris attack, these were home-grown terrorists having been born and raised in the EU. In her rebuttal to the use of the San Bernardino attack she shows that one of the perpetrators is born in America and the other an immigrant from Pakistan, again CON misunderstands PROs case, he believes that PRO concedes that this was a “refugee but from another country” Pro does not but even if they had this does not bolster CONs case as the debate is specific to Syrian Refugees. Much of the debate went this way with a mismatch in arguments from Con against PRO.

Feedback:
PRO more clearly defining what is rebuttal and what is your own substantive case would have made this easier to judge, though much of your substantive does rebut CONs case explicitly pointing out where this happens would make my justification easier to explain. Also more clearly stating your mechanism in this debate in particular would have benefitted your opponent as your opponent didn’t seem to understand what your plan was exactly, this would have elevated the level of the debate rather than the somewhat wonky (for want of a better word) debate that was had.
CON read/listen carefully to your opponent’s speech. Much of your case was direct to what you saw to be PROs case, this did not match up to what the case actually was which made your rebuttal weaker which led to overall your case being weaker as much of it was rebuttal. For example your criticism of the holes in PROs plan didn’t match with their speech. Which countries? The EU, possibly Canada and the USA. What number? A proportional number. For how long? The only question we are not given a direct answer to, but also the question that matters the least.
Also many of your citations and examples were problematic as they did not match up with your analysis, and PRO did capitalise on this but not to the extent they could have. For example the Paris attacks were not carried out by Syrians as you said they were. PRO very easily points this out and it no longer has an impact on the case, however if your analysis had go on to show that no they weren’t born in Syria but they were fighting in Syria and made their way back to France without alerting the authorities by exploiting the refugee crisis this would have had a much bigger impact on the debate and would have proven a difficult argument for PRO to overcome.
2-3 mins of your first round is just a segment from a Youtube video, I don’t know if I can credit this, I don’t believe I can and have chosen not to as it is not your own work.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
17 comments on this judgement
TheHouseTheHouse
As a side note, all the feedback I have given on this site includes the words "read/listen carefully to your opponent's speech" I feel it is becoming my catchphrase.
Posted 2016-04-10 03:11:08
cooldudebrocooldudebro
I addressed both those points, though.
Posted 2016-04-10 06:20:03
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro Sorry, if you could be more specific as to the points you addressed, I would be more able to explain my reasoning. Thanks
Posted 2016-04-10 13:06:27
cooldudebrocooldudebro
First, we didn't talk only about the EU. That's not what the topic said.

I showed there were terrorists that slipped through.

I addressed the fact that there is home grown terror by explaining how terror abroad is just as relevant and how my plan would stop radicalization.
Posted 2016-04-10 18:55:47
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro Firstly, no the motion doesn't focus on the EU but when you assert that PRO plan does not mention what countries are to take refugees you are wrong. PRO clearly states that this would be an EU policy and thus it follows that the states involved in this policy would be EU member states, you either did not see this or chose to ignore it.
No you didn't show that terrorists had slipped through, you asserted that they had and alluded to Paris and San Bernardino. PRO tears down those examples by proving that they weren't Syrian Refugees, they were in fact EU nationals (in the Paris attack), and a US National and a Pakistani Immigrant (in the San Bernardino attack).
Also to your last point PRO does not argue that terror abroad is not relevant, but rather that a humanitarian action taken on by the entirety of the West to secure and guarantee the safety of innocent civilians will directly contradict the anti-West narratives peddled by Isis and impact their ability to recruit new members, thus decreasing their power and ability to commit terrorist acts.
Posted 2016-04-10 19:35:37
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Not the topic

Check round 2 and 4 I believe

I showed how radicalization would spread with Pro's plan; as well as a good alternative. I think this vote is a little more opinion than anything.
Posted 2016-04-10 20:21:41
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro Not the topic is not the issue, the issue is that you attack PROs plan for not having detail when it is the case that the details are in PROs speech it is solely you that has missed the detail given.
Secondly give em the exact argumentation you give in the debate and I will address that. I will not however enact the labor for you to find the argumentation you are alluding to and address it.
Thirdly you merely asserted that radicalization would spread under PROs plan with no adequate rebuttal to how this would lead to less radicalization as was given to us by PRO.
Finally I gave my reasoning for why your case is weaker and PROs case is the stronger in this debate, I have directly pointed to some examples were you let your own case down and were PROs case was strong, this was by no mean exhaustive but merely a summary. Your belief that my judgement is based on opinion shows that you have either have not read, ignored or do not understand my justification for the judgement given.
Posted 2016-04-10 20:58:07
cooldudebrocooldudebro
I gave an adequate rebuttal about how pro's plan would not work; as well as the government not enacting it since they agree with me.

In round 4 I know I gave an example of a man who even went to Syria to join a terror group that was originally from there. He was then let back into the US. Maybe you just didn't hear it?

I explained that when you bring the fighters out of the conflict, it would leave little to no fighters left; which would spread radicalization. I even gave a source about how accepting refugees led to Isis spreading and getting into European borders.

You gave examples in which I have refuted (as I just wrote) or were even dropped by pro; while ignoring the amount of cases Pro dropped. I stand by my view that your vote was mainly guided by your personal opinion.
Posted 2016-04-10 21:22:00
cooldudebrocooldudebro
I believe you either were guided by your own opinion; or, suffered a loss of your attention span since the debate was around 36 minutes long; leading you to not really pay much attention.
Posted 2016-04-10 21:24:46
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro I don't see how your round 4 example is indicative of security measures not working rather they seem to have worked for he was arrested and charged correct?
I also note you dropped your round 2 claim.
This debate isn't about taking fighters out of Syria and neither is PROs case, for refugees by the virtue of being refugees are by definition non-combatants (not fighters).
PRO also does not concede that most refugees are fighting age men but directly challenges this and proves that in fact most refugees are families, mainly women and children. Also that entire argument as you have put it makes little sense.
Again you make the mistakes you made in the debate, by merely asserting that you rebutted and refuted PRO case and examples, I say you have not but I have backed up my statement with reasoned argument, analysis and justification, you have not.
Giving a source with no analysis as to why this matters to this debate or what in impact in your own or PRO case cannot be credited as highly as you would like.
Also for your information 36 mins is not even half the minimum time of the debates I am used to judging and judge regularly.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:08:18
cooldudebrocooldudebro
IDK whether you paid attention but, here we go.

In round 2, I even showed how Isis leaders boasted about how Isis members made it to Europe by posing as refugees. No. He was not charged until he got back and messed up.

My plan would train them to be fighters so that they can take back their land and fight along side us; like what Britian is doing with some refugees in different countries in Egypt; which is succeeding. (put that in round 3)

I pointed out that Pro's data was faulty; since the majority are male and fighting age. Pro drops the point after I pointed it out; meaning she dropped it. In the rules of debate, that would mean she agrees with me.

I gave analysis. I believe this is just your personal opinion; as every point you claimed as a reason why you voted for Pro has been addressed in my arguments.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:20:02
cooldudebrocooldudebro
I gave a source and an image showing the data for the majority of refugees being fighting-aged males. She dropped it afterwards.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:21:03
cooldudebrocooldudebro
I will rate this vote as it is. I will rate it as a vote bomb.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:21:50
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro Rate it as a Vote Bomb all you want that is your opinion, and that is all it is.
1. Asserting arguments have been dropped by your opponent does not make it so.
2. Your opponent not stating the argument in every round is not dropping the argument.
3. A dropped argument is a non-refuted argument, no response to your rebuttal is not a non-refuted argument (dropped), it is the belief that their original analysis stood up to your rebuttal (i.e. refuted it) and the decision to continue with the case.
4. You assert PROs data is faulty this is not proving data is faulty.
5. You own data does not support your case. Example: Less than 1% of the refugees polled in Lebanon support Isis in anyway. Pro states earlier that the number of Refugees in Lebanon is 1.1 million.
6. Isis leader said Isis is in Europe, what a surprise it's almost like they want us to fear them.
7. Your opinion of what you have done either in a specific speech or in the debate as a whole or whether my judgement was opinion or not does not matter. What matter is what you can and did prove. You proved very little in the debate and even less in this discussion.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:53:26
cooldudebrocooldudebro
1. She did drop them, though.
2. Not addressing your opponent's argument is dropping it.
3. In which case you say, I extend my arguments. That is to let people know you are confident in your case; so, you will not address your opponent any further.
4. I proved that Pro's data was faulty to which I did not get a response.
5. However, the other countries have a lot more. This would include Syria. The survey clearly said letting them in would mean we would let in a mass amount of refugees. You are pulling what you wanna hear from it.
6. An example of this was a shooter in Paris.
7. Your vote is pure opinion. You picked what you wanted to hear from my arguments (which I just proved) and then made an excuse to vote Pro. I still stand by my opinion that this vote was mainly your opinion. That would make it a vote bomb.
Posted 2016-04-11 00:31:47
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro Firstly learn what an EXAMPLE is and do not conflate an example I used of your evidence not matching with your argument as proof that I pulled what I wanted from the debate. It presupposes knowledge of me that you cannot have, which is my opinion on yourself, Bifurcation, this debate and/or the Syrian Refugee Crisis as a whole. Finally, I extend all of my previous arguments.
Posted 2016-04-11 01:46:02
cooldudebrocooldudebro
*sighs* a classic vote bomb
Posted 2016-04-11 03:11:57
2016-04-10 13:06:56
LeachyJudge: Leachy
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
Good debate guys, I just wanted to apologize if what I have written below sounds negative. I thought you both did well and I have been detailed below not because I want to be critical but because I want you guys to be able to learn a lot from it.

So I thought this debate was really close but also problematic because neither side was prepared to really engage with the core of the others argument instead choosing to pick around the edges. On one side of the house you had the idea that we have a moral responsibility to refugees. On the other you had the argument that Refugees put locals in danger. Neither of you ever weighed both principles and explained why yours need to take priority. You attacked their arguments but never gave me the comparative rebuttal I was looking for.

So having said that, what was this debate about on who won. I thought there were three key questions in this debate.
1. Will refugees put Europeans in danger
2. Do we have a moral responsibility to be taking refugees
3. What will happen if we don't do this

On the first question I felt the negative came out on top. I felt he did a good job of establishing why refugees posed a threat to Europeans or whoever the local people may be. I think he made the case well that I didn't have to believe they were all terrorists to believe the threat they posed was real because just a bad few could cause real damage.

The responses we got were inadaquet on this point. The idea that every threat could be resolved by better organisation was good, but I felt his anylsis showed that some of these problems were intrinsic and not merely caused by organisational issues. The rebuttal that some refugees support isis because they were afraid of Isis was well dealt with by pointing out where the surveys were taken and then this point was dropped by the affirmative. I think on the issue of background checks both sides just asserted they did or didn't work so I ignored it entirely.

On the second question I think the aff won. I think she did a good job of establishing why refugees will suffer if they stay where they are and the neg didn't actually respond at all apart from saying we can make their homes better, which in the short term at least I didn't find that convincing. He also responded that most refugees are men which I thought was a powerful point and it got no response, but it came out late so I couldn't give it much weight. The real problem for the aff and what stopped this point from deciding the debate is that she never went to extra step to explain why Europe in particular had a moral responsibility to take more refugees. She explained that their situation was really bad and that other were taking more refugees but never said why this meant Europe should start taking them apart from the idea of the 'birth lottery' but I needed more analysis about why wealthy Europe could shoulder this burden and why the sacrifices Brits would have to make for example paled in comparison to what refugees were suffering in Syria.

On the final question I thought both sides were about even. I thought the argument that we can win the war was strong but also the point that not accepting refugees would increase anti western sentiment and make our problems was also strong. Finally the point that refugees will keep flooding Europe anyway, was Incredibly strong but came out properly in your last video. It was just too late for me to factor it into my decision.

So having said all that I awarded this debate to the negative because I thought he was able to prove the harms more effectively than the aff was able to prove we had a moral obligation. I felt the affs case was better constructed and had more potential but the failure to execute it meant the simpler negative case was more convincing.


Feedback:
Ok, not sure what this part is technically meant for but I'm using it to give general debating feedback and tips.

* Be comparative, compare the values, not just the models in a debate. Show me why your principles take precedence over his.

* Stop relying on Expert opinions and statistics so much, It may be my australasian bias showing but you guys were substituting analysis for statistics and quotes. Its fine to quote Ted cruz, but don't expect me to believe it just because he said it. Explain in detail why what he said was true. Also when you give a statistic, explain why that statistic says what he says, that far more important than the number.

* Don't be arrogant, the neg kept saying that he was winning points, let me be the judge of that. Adjudicators HATE being told what they are thinking.

* Don't say this is what happening therefore I'm right or their model will never happen. Debating is about what SHOULD happen not what will.

* Always explain in detail your arguments in detail. Step them out for me. A good rule of thump is to step out your argument and then step out the steps!
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
12 comments on this judgement
TheHouseTheHouse
@James Leach I was just wondering if you could further explain why you feel the "...refugees will keep flooding Europe anway," point could not be factored into your decision?
Posted 2016-04-10 13:57:24
LeachyLeachy
Sure, So there were two reasons that point carried very little weight.

The first was that it came out in the 4th video of a 4 video debate. The neg only had 1 speech left so had very little chance to respond. Basically a point like that needs to come out earlier so it can be debated properly by both sides of the house.

Secondly it was almost glossed over even when it was mentioned. It wasn't signposted, it wasn't specifically stated and there was very little anylsis behind it. If she had done all those things then the fact it came out late would have been mitigated and I would have expected a response.

Basically is not that I excluded the point, its that it just wasn't a central point in the debate because it came out so late and therefore it didn't effect the result.
Posted 2016-04-11 02:38:27
BifurcationsBifurcations
@James Leach hi I brought it up in previous rounds I believe?

Can you expand your analysis on the harms presented and why my responses were inadequate?

Thanks
Posted 2016-04-10 18:42:55
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@Bifurications @TheHouse

I believe he did an excellent job explaining his vote.

Well, I believe he was saying about the point that you never addressed the rape epidemic and the fact that as refugees were introduced, crimes went up.
Posted 2016-04-10 22:24:57
LeachyLeachy
Hi Bifurcations

You sort of implied it through your debate, but you never really argued it. So I as a debater and someone who understands arguments picked up on where you were going but I as the average person would not have been able to understand it. What I needed from you was to clearly say. "Both models will see refugees flooding into Europe but only mine will organize them properly" or something along those lines.

On the harms he basically had three points.

Refugees might be sympathetic to Isis
Terrorists may be among the refugees
Refugees commit crimes.

The first point was responded to in two ways. First you said the survey was misleading because people were afraid of ISIS but he responded by saying they were not under ISIS rule where the survey was taken and you did not respond. Secondly You said closing borders will only make them not like us more. I thought this point was effective but it would have been even better if you had explained why I should care what refugees think of us if we are not taking them anyway?

On the second and third points we got an assertion that background checks worked and that no terrorist acts have been committed so far. Like I said there was no analysis about why background checks may or may not work so I ignored it on both sides. Saying it hasn't happened yet so it won't was problematic because he explained why terrorists would be able to use refugees as a means to enter the country and also gave examples where they have committed both terrorist acts and other crimes. This basically went unchallenged.
Posted 2016-04-11 02:38:27
TheHouseTheHouse
@cooldudebro I don't see why you felt you had to respond to me here. I merely asked for a further explanation as to why he couldn't include that argument in his deliberation so as to better understand his overall justification.
Posted 2016-04-10 23:25:35
BifurcationsBifurcations
@cooldudebro I think I might have been dragged into an argument that I didn't have anything to do with

I am asking for feedback because I want to understand what I did wrong and I feel the judges best placed to explain this to me are the ones who have voted against me taking the win.

I don't comment on these judgements to attack the judges, each decision is valid and even if I did disagree with it arguing with the judge isn't likely to make them change their vote.

I tend to ask more technical questions of judges because judging is my specialisation and so this is simply the way in which I can best understand another judge's point of view.

I always appreciate the fact that judges have given up their time to vote and to respond to questions I have. @DHS15608 I hope this explanation shows that I am not trying to undermine you as a judge by asking questions I am simply trying to give you the best opportunity to explain your decision to me in a way that I understand. I love the fact that new judges get to have a legitimate participation in judging on this site and would always encourage people to explore judging as a unique skill.

I agree that this judgment is comprehensive and I recognise that @James Leach has judging experience which is why I am keen to get more feedback from him.
Posted 2016-04-10 23:57:11
LeachyLeachy
Debaters should always feel free to ask for feedback. That's how everyone gets better.
Posted 2016-04-11 02:38:27
TheHouseTheHouse
@Leachy I really wish I could like your last comment.
Posted 2016-04-11 02:41:19
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
Good Job on your judgement, you too TheHouse. I see there the debaters are not completely satisfied with your judgments though. So there seems to be misunderstandings in your judgements.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
adminadmin
BTW, particularly for @Bifurcations - if you want to at-tag somebody with a space in their name, use two at symbols (@@) both before and after their username. If you look up double at tagging on the forums or something there should be a few examples somewhere.
Posted 2016-04-11 04:34:53
BifurcationsBifurcations
@admin thanks
Posted 2016-04-11 11:57:24

Rules of the debate

  • Video debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 6 minutes per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None