I think your profile picture is supposed to be anti-fascism, but at a quick glance, it looks like a dude doing a nazi salute and a swastica. Maybe that's just me.
I'm actually glad we did a week per round with this one, especially with 10,000 chars per argument. You seem pretty impressive at your best, so this should be a good one.
That would be an argument for Pro, not Con. As for votes, I'm not sure it would be enough to win. It really depends how common that is and what arguments the other side comes up with.
Forgot to explain source points. Con uses more sources to cite specific examples that help their argument. Pro links only to the text of the first amendment and doesn't use sources to support their argument.
Thanks. In general, I think your formatting is pretty solid. (You too, Bella.) What the top debaters (whiteflame, blamonkey, MisterChris) tend to do, which I didn't notice until very recently, is put a framework (or at least a syllogism) right at the beginning of their opening telling the audience how the debate should be judged. For example, if one of them was arguing that a wealth tax was just, they might put a section arguing that the debate should be judged on the basis of utilitarianism. They then give a decent argument defending that framework. One danger is that you can't make the framework too narrow, or else it's easy to attack. If you're arguing that the US invasion of Iraq was unjustified, it's tempting to say right at the beginning that no invasion of any sort is justified. But voters won't like this. So it's better to argue for a different framework that favors you, but indirectly (if you're arguing for euthanasia, for example, say that voters should judge based on whether a law reduces human suffering.) When whiteflame talks about "weighing impacts against each other," this is what he's talking about. It might seem like he's defaulting to utilitarianism, but he's really just looking for a solid framework, and for strong arguments defending why that framework should be used.
This might not mean much to some voters, but the top debaters are often the most active voters. Not to mention, it makes your argument more consistent so you're not on the defensive as much. In this debate, I don't think there are many frameworks to choose from. But even saying something like "To meet my BoP, I must prove that the benefits of standardized testing outweigh the harms," helps you to set up impacts and might seem more convincing to the audience. I know it seems redundant, but a lot of voters will look for that.
Sure. I think your biggest issue was lack of a tangible impact. Stress is a point in your favor, but how much stress is being caused, and how does it compare to the benefits of standardized testing? You might have also benefited by comparing the current system to one in another country where standardized testing has already been abolished, or comparing schools that use it to schools that don't. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how much of the current problems are being caused by standardized testing.
If you want to get better at framework and impact, read a lot of whiteflame's votes, and also look at how he structures his arguments. He goes into a lot of detail that I think is helpful.
Arguments to Pro, sources to Con. Con had a lot more outside links supporting their case, while Pro was mainly just linking to articles and relying on their own reasoning—reasoning is good, and it won Pro the debate, but Con's sources support their point much more directly.
Pro essentially argues that standardized testing gives a consistent framework to see how much each student knows. Con argues that tests give inaccurate information and favor the rich. There's also stress, which is never really quantified as an impact. I think Pro has a point that tests give some information—if rich kids are able to learn more, shouldn't we be aware of that? They make that point pretty well in R1 and R2.
Con says "We shouldn't be reliant on testing for the 'successes', if students are having a hard time grasping what they are learning in schools"—but it seems like the tests would help us to see if they're having a hard time learning, which Con supports? I'm not sure why this is a point against standardized testing. Con then says there are alternatives, but they haven't said what these are...at this point I'm buying Pro's argument that standardized testing is a good way to measure the things Con is concerned with.
Con says that teachers can identify which students need help based on work, without grading the work. Again, I'm not sure how the grading part is a downside if it helps gives specific feedback to students. Then Con lists a bunch of things tests don't measure, but they seem to be mitigating Pro's impacts, not disproving them or showing why tests should be abolished. Pro points this out pretty easily in R2.
At this point, it's basically the information provided by standardized tests vs the effects of stress. Pro weighs these using an analogy to an interview and mitigates the anxiety by saying it's caused by other issues (which is kind of speculation, but so is the anxiety point in the first place). It's not the best impact calculus, but it's at least an attempt to weigh the benefits and harms of standardized testing.
Con says "If standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it," although this seems to contradict what they said earlier about tutors. I had thought both sides agreed there was a racial disparity in learning overall, not just in testing. But Con seems to be arguing that disparities only exist in testing...Pro points this out, but then they simply claim racism exists outside of testing. It would be better if both sides provided sources, rather than just making claims and insisting they are right. Pro points out issues with alternatives.
Con argues that standardized testing affects school acceptance. But I'm not sure how else they want schools to accept students—maybe this is an argument for something like affirmative action, but Pro shows that standardized testing isn't what's causing the disparity, so I'm not sure how abolishing tests would be better for acceptance? Pro says it would be better to fix standardized testing than replace it, and I don't see Con making a great counterargument here, aside from showing that alternative plans may work as well.
So both sides have an avenue to victory if they just make their impacts more clear. Pro basically just summarizes his previous points in the final round. Con says a lot in the final round, and I guess they did warn Pro, but it feels unfair to consider new evidence provided at the end aside from the general gist.
So now I have to make my decision. Con started making points later on that Pro didn't respond to as much, but it really felt like Con didn't understand what Pro was saying. Despite saying a lot in the final round, Con doesn't say much to address timeliness and unreliability aside from the fact that people will be dedicated.
At the end here, I have to give this to Pro. Even if the alternatives Con mentioned have some merit, there was never a huge argument made that standardized testing was itself harmful or that the information wasn't useful. Con doesn't show that alternatives can't coexist with standardized tests. I just think Pro made a better case that testing will help identify racial disparities.
Winning a debate by defending Hitler, against a 1688-rated competitor, with a final round in the form of rap, with a Jewish judge, might just be the most weirdly impressive thing I've seen on this site.
I'm not as familiar with those kinds of alternatives, so just defend the status quo as preferable to my proposal—that said, if you think the status quo is likely to lead to more immigration in the future than it currently does, you can use that as an argument.
Of course you don't have to say that the status quo is great, just that it's better than what I'm proposing.
Changed to 3 days. I think the govt should allow immigrants in relatively quickly, but I'm not saying they shouldn't be screened (hence, the "majority")
"All drugs should be sold" is a heavy burden of proof on PRO. You're not just saying that meth should be legal but that people should actively market it.
Kind of defeats the point when the definition itself is the debate. Probably best to phrase it as "which definition is better?" or something along those lines.
Thanks for voting. Definitely a detailed analysis, and I think you did a good job of acknowledging everything that was said.
===Spoiler alert: Question below. If it's better to ask after the voting period is over, let me know and I'll remove it, but it's more of a general question.===
The only question I have is with regard to how you weigh impacts, since you don't seem to weigh all quantitative evidence equally. You said "I don’t have a direct impact, but I have big numbers," so I'm curious about what you quantify as a direct impact if a dollar amount isn't considered one. Do you count dollar amounts as impacts in some cases but not in others? Or is it better to stick to other quantities like death tolls in a situation like this? Is saying "x number of people were conscripted" a quantified impact, or only the amount that died?
Not criticizing here, just trying to figure out what counts as an impact and what doesn't.
I think your profile picture is supposed to be anti-fascism, but at a quick glance, it looks like a dude doing a nazi salute and a swastica. Maybe that's just me.
10 hrs to deadline
This was a good one, and I think both sides did the best job possible given the resolution. I hope my analysis wasn't too harsh.
On it.
Yeah, I'll vote on this.
No prob. I've seen this same debate a couple times, and it's interesting that people keep losing it due to semantics.
Of the ones I've read, your white privilege one with Lxam looked the best. And you held your own against whiteflame better than most.
I'm actually glad we did a week per round with this one, especially with 10,000 chars per argument. You seem pretty impressive at your best, so this should be a good one.
I think you'd be very good at arguing the Pro side of this, especially after reading your vote.
Either Austin finally gets a profile picture, or he pulls off an amazing win (or draw) against blamonkey. This will definitely be a good one.
Done
If you're interested, feel free to accept. I can change the argument time as well if that's preferable.
That would be an argument for Pro, not Con. As for votes, I'm not sure it would be enough to win. It really depends how common that is and what arguments the other side comes up with.
Yeah, I thought more people would be willing to accept. If you know anyone who might be interested, though, send em my way.
You seem interested in the topic, so I can extend argument time to 1 week if you want.
RFD:
Forgot to explain source points. Con uses more sources to cite specific examples that help their argument. Pro links only to the text of the first amendment and doesn't use sources to support their argument.
Open to any takers.
Accept if you want =). Thett, if you're interested, I can change it to Standard.
Thanks. In general, I think your formatting is pretty solid. (You too, Bella.) What the top debaters (whiteflame, blamonkey, MisterChris) tend to do, which I didn't notice until very recently, is put a framework (or at least a syllogism) right at the beginning of their opening telling the audience how the debate should be judged. For example, if one of them was arguing that a wealth tax was just, they might put a section arguing that the debate should be judged on the basis of utilitarianism. They then give a decent argument defending that framework. One danger is that you can't make the framework too narrow, or else it's easy to attack. If you're arguing that the US invasion of Iraq was unjustified, it's tempting to say right at the beginning that no invasion of any sort is justified. But voters won't like this. So it's better to argue for a different framework that favors you, but indirectly (if you're arguing for euthanasia, for example, say that voters should judge based on whether a law reduces human suffering.) When whiteflame talks about "weighing impacts against each other," this is what he's talking about. It might seem like he's defaulting to utilitarianism, but he's really just looking for a solid framework, and for strong arguments defending why that framework should be used.
This might not mean much to some voters, but the top debaters are often the most active voters. Not to mention, it makes your argument more consistent so you're not on the defensive as much. In this debate, I don't think there are many frameworks to choose from. But even saying something like "To meet my BoP, I must prove that the benefits of standardized testing outweigh the harms," helps you to set up impacts and might seem more convincing to the audience. I know it seems redundant, but a lot of voters will look for that.
Sure. I think your biggest issue was lack of a tangible impact. Stress is a point in your favor, but how much stress is being caused, and how does it compare to the benefits of standardized testing? You might have also benefited by comparing the current system to one in another country where standardized testing has already been abolished, or comparing schools that use it to schools that don't. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how much of the current problems are being caused by standardized testing.
If you want to get better at framework and impact, read a lot of whiteflame's votes, and also look at how he structures his arguments. He goes into a lot of detail that I think is helpful.
Open to any takers.
RFD:
Arguments to Pro, sources to Con. Con had a lot more outside links supporting their case, while Pro was mainly just linking to articles and relying on their own reasoning—reasoning is good, and it won Pro the debate, but Con's sources support their point much more directly.
Pro essentially argues that standardized testing gives a consistent framework to see how much each student knows. Con argues that tests give inaccurate information and favor the rich. There's also stress, which is never really quantified as an impact. I think Pro has a point that tests give some information—if rich kids are able to learn more, shouldn't we be aware of that? They make that point pretty well in R1 and R2.
Con says "We shouldn't be reliant on testing for the 'successes', if students are having a hard time grasping what they are learning in schools"—but it seems like the tests would help us to see if they're having a hard time learning, which Con supports? I'm not sure why this is a point against standardized testing. Con then says there are alternatives, but they haven't said what these are...at this point I'm buying Pro's argument that standardized testing is a good way to measure the things Con is concerned with.
Con says that teachers can identify which students need help based on work, without grading the work. Again, I'm not sure how the grading part is a downside if it helps gives specific feedback to students. Then Con lists a bunch of things tests don't measure, but they seem to be mitigating Pro's impacts, not disproving them or showing why tests should be abolished. Pro points this out pretty easily in R2.
At this point, it's basically the information provided by standardized tests vs the effects of stress. Pro weighs these using an analogy to an interview and mitigates the anxiety by saying it's caused by other issues (which is kind of speculation, but so is the anxiety point in the first place). It's not the best impact calculus, but it's at least an attempt to weigh the benefits and harms of standardized testing.
Con says "If standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it," although this seems to contradict what they said earlier about tutors. I had thought both sides agreed there was a racial disparity in learning overall, not just in testing. But Con seems to be arguing that disparities only exist in testing...Pro points this out, but then they simply claim racism exists outside of testing. It would be better if both sides provided sources, rather than just making claims and insisting they are right. Pro points out issues with alternatives.
Con argues that standardized testing affects school acceptance. But I'm not sure how else they want schools to accept students—maybe this is an argument for something like affirmative action, but Pro shows that standardized testing isn't what's causing the disparity, so I'm not sure how abolishing tests would be better for acceptance? Pro says it would be better to fix standardized testing than replace it, and I don't see Con making a great counterargument here, aside from showing that alternative plans may work as well.
So both sides have an avenue to victory if they just make their impacts more clear. Pro basically just summarizes his previous points in the final round. Con says a lot in the final round, and I guess they did warn Pro, but it feels unfair to consider new evidence provided at the end aside from the general gist.
So now I have to make my decision. Con started making points later on that Pro didn't respond to as much, but it really felt like Con didn't understand what Pro was saying. Despite saying a lot in the final round, Con doesn't say much to address timeliness and unreliability aside from the fact that people will be dedicated.
At the end here, I have to give this to Pro. Even if the alternatives Con mentioned have some merit, there was never a huge argument made that standardized testing was itself harmful or that the information wasn't useful. Con doesn't show that alternatives can't coexist with standardized tests. I just think Pro made a better case that testing will help identify racial disparities.
Either way is fine, just lmk what you decide. If you don't want to do this one, we can debate something else some other time.
Or not. I guess I judged too quicky.
I guarantee Prez-Hilton will say, "Pro DMed me and conceded."
Four
Winning a debate by defending Hitler, against a 1688-rated competitor, with a final round in the form of rap, with a Jewish judge, might just be the most weirdly impressive thing I've seen on this site.
I see. Depending on what you decide, let me know if there's anything else in the description you'd like to be more clear.
Don't want to say too much before the judges vote, but excellent job.
I'm not as familiar with those kinds of alternatives, so just defend the status quo as preferable to my proposal—that said, if you think the status quo is likely to lead to more immigration in the future than it currently does, you can use that as an argument.
Of course you don't have to say that the status quo is great, just that it's better than what I'm proposing.
Lmk if you'll be able to accept
Changed to 3 days. I think the govt should allow immigrants in relatively quickly, but I'm not saying they shouldn't be screened (hence, the "majority")
Interested?
I don't know if you're busy with the tournament, but if you're interested, I can reduce the rating cap.
"analyzed by American analytical chemists independent of the synthetic chemists"
Does that matter? You're arguing it should be legal no matter what it is.
I'm definitely guilty as well—perhaps why I'm more keen to notice those kinds of things.
"All drugs should be sold" is a heavy burden of proof on PRO. You're not just saying that meth should be legal but that people should actively market it.
Misread as "The constitution is not as based as the bible."
I assume "Please vote PRO!" was a typo?
I want to see a Wylted vs. Best.Korea debate. Preferably a rap battle.
It's judicial decision
Well if you want statistics, waiting to have sex until marriage leads to better communication.
https://mywellclinic.com/blog/2020/02/20/science-sex-marriage/
"1. America"
That's right. Second place is for chumps.
Kind of defeats the point when the definition itself is the debate. Probably best to phrase it as "which definition is better?" or something along those lines.
Push
I see, that makes sense.
Thanks for voting. Definitely a detailed analysis, and I think you did a good job of acknowledging everything that was said.
===Spoiler alert: Question below. If it's better to ask after the voting period is over, let me know and I'll remove it, but it's more of a general question.===
The only question I have is with regard to how you weigh impacts, since you don't seem to weigh all quantitative evidence equally. You said "I don’t have a direct impact, but I have big numbers," so I'm curious about what you quantify as a direct impact if a dollar amount isn't considered one. Do you count dollar amounts as impacts in some cases but not in others? Or is it better to stick to other quantities like death tolls in a situation like this? Is saying "x number of people were conscripted" a quantified impact, or only the amount that died?
Not criticizing here, just trying to figure out what counts as an impact and what doesn't.
Good debate! Shame it only got one vote.
"World History"
So the history of America
World history? I think you mean American history.