The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
yesikant
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,841 times Debate No: 6308
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (11)

 

Johnicle

Pro

ATTENTION: This is intended to be a Logical Policy Debate round. Meaning a policy round (with inherency, disadvantages, etc.) BUT with evidence only used when absolutely necessary. Please take this into account when accepting the debate or judging it.

Rounds 1/2: Constructives
Rounds 3/4: Rebuttals

I affirm:

Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

(By accepting this debate, please also accept that I can (and am) fiating webcorp rather than the usual federal government.)

OBSERVATION 1: INHERENCY/HARMS

A) There is no requirement for vote justifications.
-When someone goes to vote, they can simply put in their vote without even reading the debate. There are ways to determine who voted for who, but for this takes time and can come down to even a guess when people have similar ideals. Furthermore, this allows people to be able to vote for themselves with the other person hardly even knowing.

B) ‘Vote Bombing' has become a regular occurrence.
-Certain members of debate.org have deemed it necessary to not leave the ‘regulars' alone and simply vote bomb us. After we discover them, their account is closed and they get another one and do it again. Currently the cell phone system and the voting generalities are good, but have yet to completely fix the problem. Something must be done to stop these atrocities.

C) Members are leaving because of the upsetting nature of debate.org.
-From the Semi-Final Debate of the first debate.org tournament (member: Darth_Grievous_42)
-"I will now officially be able to delete this account so I can finally leave this shamble of what was debate.org. Darth_Grievous_42 out. "
-From this, you can draw the conclusions that people want some sort of change in the system. Therefore, I urge people to realize that we must change, the only question is how.

D) Debate.org has a message system that is a send/wait/refresh system.
-When you message in debate.org, it is to inform. However, webcorb should understand that debaters (on debate.org) like to be able to have discussions that are more real life -which currently they are not able to do in the present system-. Not to mention that there is no current system that allows us to do any form of cross examination.

E) Contacting members is based on friend status'.
-If I want to contact someone, I need to add them as a friend, or they must open up their inbox -or profile- to everyone. This makes it difficult for me to contact someone I don't know or someone who won't accept me as a friend for whatever reason.

F) Running tournaments from debate.org directly is difficult.
-Currently, there is a tournament system run off of facebook. However, Webcorp should realize that it would be more convenient for its members if that same tournament could be run on their website with their software. The forum section is good, but is not satisfactory to running tournaments on.

OBSERVATION 2: IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS, THAT WEBCORP SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE WELFARE OF DEBATE.ORG BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING PLAN:

A) Webcorp will require that all votes cast in a debate have a minimum 500 character Reason for Decision (R.F.D). All R.F.D.'s will be available under the ‘votes' category that each debate has. All currently existing debates will be grandfathered in.

B) Webcorp will create an instant messaging system that can be initiated from the "Online Friends" section under people, AND can be made optional for debates. If this function is used for debates, it must be specified before the debate begins and will be published after the appropriate speech. If they don't complete ‘Cross Examination' before the speech time ends, then the cross-examination will simply not occur.

C) Webcorp will open up inboxes and profile comments to all members from all members unless otherwise specified by the member. This way, it can be private, but only if the person makes a deliberate decision.

D) Webcorp will create a group feature. This feature will allow people to make comments, add pictures, add ‘news of the group', allow it to be private, allow it to be secret, allow separate forums, have specific admin's of the group with the power, and make events for groups possible. These Events can be started either from the group or by themselves and they will include the same possibilities of a group but will have an expiration date specified by the creator.

E) I reserve the right to clarification, webcorp intent, and webcorp fiat.

OBSERVATION 3: SOLVENCY

A) Vote bombers will be less apt to vote bomb under 500 character R.F.D. requirements.
-If a vote bomber had to write up reasoning to his/her actions every time he/she vote bombed, then it would get annoying and that person would be more likely to stop their actions. Therefore, fewer vote bombings will happen thus substantially increasing the welfare of debate.org.

B) Vote bombers that simply put 500 random characters would be easier to spot.
-One of the problems with vote bombers is that they can vote and it is hard to tell who did it. However, if they had to write up an R.F.D., then it would be obvious who did it when you have someone who wrote the alphabet 10 times on all of someone's debates. Therefore, if the vote bombers don't go away, they will at least be easier to spot.

C) Instant messaging would be awesome.
-Simple enough.

D) Cross-Examination would add another level of competition for debate.org
-If we could not only argue, but also try to trap our opponents into admitting we are right, it would only make debating all the more sweeter. Not to mention that clarification of the debate could also be nice for several people. It's a lot better to understand your opponent BEFORE you make all of your arguments.

E) Debate.org members could contact anyone that didn't specifically block the member in question.
-This makes it so that I don't feel obligated to add everyone as a friend just so I could message them.

F) Tournaments and similar interest groups could finally have a specific place for them to talk WITH privacy options. This would make tournaments smoother and would also allow LDers to talk with LDers and Dolphin fans to talk with Dolphin fans and so on.

I therefore urge you to pass the Affirmative plan. I look forward to a response from my opponent!
yesikant

Con

I've never done policy. But I debate LD on the national circuit, which is probably the same lol.

Before I begin, I'd like to ask a few things. We should have standardized speech lengths compared to regular policy debate. CX will not happen. The 8 minute speeches have a 1100 word limit since that was how long your 1AC was. That's a breathtakingly slow approximately 135 words per minute, so the 5 minute speeches will have a 700 word limit. You can use microsoft word (or probably a google search) to find a word count tool.

Also, for people judging the debate, I would prefer you not vote if you have no idea what is going on. Vote if you have done competitive high school or college debate.

The 1NC is 5 off.

Offcase 1: No instant messenger counterplan
Observation 1 is the counterplan text. Do prongs A, C and D of the plan, but do not create the instant messanging system outlined in prong B.
Observation 2 is competition. The counterplan competes by not committing to prong B.
Observation 3 is the net benefit.
Instant messengers pose inherent risks that cannot be avoided – no matter how much security software you have, instant messengers means that there always remains the potential for unsuspecting debate.org members to be abused.
www.crimsonsecurity.com/whites/instant%20messaging.pdf page 1-2
Instant messengers often bypass corporate security measures, like firewalls, providing another
opening for hackers to the Windows client. These are open doors, and while large corporations
are beginning to spend billions of dollars on security, the possibility of this open door makes it a
weak link in the security chain. As hackers become more sophisticated, hackers will increasingly
enter networks through the client side -- the open front door to the system.
Instant messanging will increase the likelihood that younger members with be harmed
http://da.lacounty.gov...
Besides offering real-time contact with strangers or others who may seek to harm your child, Instant Messaging allows for the immediate dissemination of significant personal information...an unsuspecting child can effectively place himself or herself in a position to receive unsolicited offers of sex, pornography, and other dubious material.

The counterplan solves all of the affirmative case except for prong B. It also solves the harms articulated above by not having instant messaging.

Offcase 2: Funding Specification Theory Violation
A. Interpretation: The affirmative should specify where the money for their plan is coming from
B. Violation: The affirmative doesn't specify where the funding for their plan comes from
C. Standards:
1. Destroys negative ground – I can't run any arguments linking to their funding mechanism, like spending, enforcement, or economy impacts, because he doesn't tell us what it is. That ground is key to a predictable negative strategy and fair debate.
2. Moving target – if I did claim a link to a certain type of funding, the affirmative could just specify out of it, which makes them a moving target so the negative has nothing to run and I always lose.
3. It means they have no solvency – if he doesn't specify where the funding comes from, there's no way to know if it exists at all. Without funding the plan can't be enforced – because the funding is uncertain their solvency is probabilistic at best.
D. Theory is a voting issue.
1. Ground – they robbed us of arguments that are key to our ground.
2. Potential abuse and strategy skew – we had to modify our strategy to prevent them from shifting out of our links, which puts us at a disadvantage for the rest of the round and warrants a negative ballot.

Offcase 3: T www.debate.org

A. Interpretation – Debate.org is defined as "a membership-based online debating service designed to provide an easy and free system for our members to intellectually challenge, debate and communicate with each other on the Web". So the increase in welfare in the 1AC must be for the website itself, not the people within it.

B. Violation – The 1AC has not increased the welfare of www.debate.org, but rather the welfare of its members.
C. Standards -
1. Field context: My definition is taken from the website itself. Field context is important because it is most precise. In contrast, common usage is too vague for logical analysis
2. Concession – the affirmative did not define terms, so the negative can define however reasonable.
3. Limits – if the affirmative can merely talk about the users of debate.org, then his ground is exploded exponentially. He can propose totally non-debatable plans such as for Webcorp to feed and clothe the members of debate.org. That's ridiculous. Limits are necessary for definitions because otherwise otherwise there would be little negative ground to claim, since the affirmative's gound would be unlimited.
D. Voter – Topicality is a voting issue for 2 reasons:
1. The topic defines what the judge is supposed to be judging – ie the judge's jurisdiction, so the judge has no authority to go beyong the topic and vote for my opponent.
2. Since he created the topic, he'd better be held to defending it.

Offcase 4: DA - Increasing the activity of debate harms society
Gordon Mitchell in his Fall 1998 article for Argumentation and Advocacy ('Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate'. v35. p43-4.), he explains how the sterile laboratory model of debate desensitizes participants to human suffering and enslaves our activity within a spectator-mentality :

"the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications...The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case"(1991, p. 8).

Offcase 5 No porn CP
Observation 1 is the counterplan text. The counterplan is to do prongs A, B and C of the affirmative plan.
Additionally, prong D is revised below and the part removed indicated by asterisks:
D) Webcorp will create a group feature. This feature will allow people to make comments, add pictures, add ‘news of the group', allow it to be private, allow it to be secret, allow separate forums,* and make events for groups possible. These Events can be started either from the group or by themselves and they will include the same possibilities of a group but will have an expiration date specified by the creator.

Observation 2 is competition. The counterplan is competitive by not enacting prong D.

Observation 3 is the definition of admin. The only available definition is "A person who has specific controls to a forum/website/(group)." (wiki)

Observation 4 is the net benefit:
1. Multiple admins would allow for the proliferation of pornography on debate.org. Minimally, admin means that they control their group. Even if they have agency over just that part, it would be disasterous because they, as stated in the 1AC would have the power to post pictures. If they are administrators, then they would have an unlimited ability to post whatever illicit material they wish, including pornography or illegal and dangerous information.

2. Multiple admins would destroy debate.org. If there were multiple people who controlled the website, ... that would be bad.

The counterplan captures all the benefits of the affirmative's plan, but merely removes the phrase "have specific admin's of the group with the power", it also solve
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

We have agreed to a Round 1/2 will be 8,000 character limit and round 3/4 will be 5,000 character limit.

Against the No-Instant Messenger Counter-plan:

1) The counter-plan is topical.
-If you accept the counter-plan, then you must accept the resolution. He then goes on to accept A, C, and D points.

2) The A, C, and D points are enough to affirm the resolution.

3) Observation 2 ONLY creates a competition between Affirmative and Affirmative.

4) Regardless, the instant messaging system is beneficial for the welfare of debate.org.

A) Common Sense - This is Logical Policy and people being able to communicate immediately would not present a greater threat than people communicating slowly.
B) If someone were to break the rules, he/she could be banned.
C) Your evidence is only MSN specific and does not relate to the regulated and rule affiliated site that debate.org is. (not debate.org specific)

5) Pass both, you still pass the affirmative plan.

6) Cross-Examination will remain to not exist under the counter-plan.

7) If a member didn't want to use it for whatever reason, that person could just ignore the option. Debate.org forces nothing upon its members.

Off Case 2:

1) Funding is by normal means of Webcorp.
-So essentially they would create the software. They created everything from scratch and would be easily capable of creating the plan. No additional funding would be necessary. Any funding that may be necessary would A) Be negatives job to point out and B) Would be substantially outweighed by the increase of revenues due to the more activity that is inevitable.

Off Case 3:

Against B--> Debate.org would have a MUCH greater welfare.

1) You claim the benefits of your counter-plan, but these benefits are the exact same as my plan (minus 1)
2) Fewer members would be upset because of the vote-bombers being forced to extinction.
3) Because of this, more members would stay once they join debate.org, thus the welfare of it is increased by terms of welfare, members, and fewer vote-bombing attacks.
4) Turn this T!

Against 3 (Limits)--> In order to increase the welfare of the website, you must first benefit the members. It's kind of like a PB and J sand which. Increasing the taste of it, you must first make sure you have a high quality of Peanut Butter.

Against D (Voters)-->

1) The Judge should be voting on who creates the better debate.org. The person who advocates happier members vs. the one who does not. I create happier members so thus you must vote PRO!

2) I created the topic but you accepted the topic, and thus my interpretation of it.

Off Case 4 (DA)-->

SO MANY PROBLEMS:

1) Not Unique. This is already happening. However, with this format it would be easier to spot any sort of problems.

2) No Link. My opponent only shows how this COULD happen and not that it WOULD happen.

3) No substantial harms. There is no evidence that says that debaters are going to go out and kill people to help their case. No status quo will change to any harm by passing the plan. Therefore, the plan is COMPLETELY net-beneficial.

So therefore, turn this DA!

Also, add on top of this a KRITIK:

A) My opponent is a debater.
B) Evidence push: Have you ever killed anyone to strengthen a case?
C) Voter: You can't claim a debater disadvantage if you are a debater and don't do what your evidence says you do.
D) Accept the Kritik. I am a debater and I have never harmed anyone physically OR mentally to help my debating evidence or skills.

Off Case 5 (Porn CP)-->

1) Terms and Agreements disband pornography.

2) Secret Groups are only secret from other members and not from the moderators of this site.

3) There was no link to the disadvantage of pornography. If it is a secret group, it will be kept from the people that don't want to see that stuff anyway.

4) Most debate.org members come here to debate. Therefore, they would not be interested in posting pornography and thus debate.org would remain clean ANYWAY. I for one want to keep this site clean and I would report anyone that thought and acted otherwise.

5) The benefits of groups FAR OUTWEIGHS the costs of them. Look at facebook, I have yet to see porn on those groups. Yet I have been successful in running a 53 person, double-elimination tournament on them. And no one went out to kill anyone to win it.

6) Cross-apply 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 against this CP except make it specific to group/event creations. The same arguments apply here since if you didn't like it, don't use it. But ask people, most of them support groups and events on here. Same with instant messaging. If you don't believe me, read the comment section of this very debate.
-Also, if you pass both the counterplans, they contradict each other so negative must choose one of these.

7) CLARIFICATION: The admin's are ONLY specific to the group that they created.

Thanks, please vote PRO!
yesikant

Con

This round is over because Johnicle misunderstood the theory violation. Go to the 2nd offcase.

Extend the interpretation and violation, while I said the affirmative should specify where the money for his plan is coming from, he does not do so until the 2AC.

He is totally nonresponsive to the standards. Extend the second. It creates a moving target because if I argue a disadvantage to his funding mechanism, he can shift out of it.

He also concedes the reason why this is a reason to vote. I had to modify my strategy to prevent him from shifting out of my links, which puts me at a disadvantage for the rest of the round- warranting a negative ballot.

Johnicle's only response was that "Funding is by normal means of Webcorp". That is not responsive. Theory debate is debate about the rules of debate. I am saying a rule of debate is that the PRO has to specify where funding is coming from in his first speech. Specifying later does not get him out of the violation.

Johnicle will try to mitigate the importance of the theory violation later, however, don't let him do that. Those will all be new arguments, which would violate the rules of policy debate.

He's also lost the round outright because he misunderstands the T (Topicality) argument. Topicality debate is when I say what I think the topic means, then why my opponent can't meet that interpretation of the topic - and thus should lose.

Group 1-4, they all stem from Johnicle's misunderstanding of T debate. T debate is definitions, not why his plan is bad.

He responds to the limits standard by arguing that "benefiting the members and the website are the same". However, that's not responsive to standards, standards are reasons why my interpretation is good- his argument is not disproving that.
Even if that's not true, he is totally nonresponsive to the argument above which says that "the affirmative did not define terms, so the negative can define however reasonable". Conceded arguments are given their full weight in policy debate, so regardless of his response to that one standard, I win my definition.

At that point, you extend the definition. Debate.org is defined as "a membership-based online debating service designed to provide an easy and free system for our members to intellectually challenge, debate and communicate with each other on the Web". So the increase in welfare Johnicle provides must be for the website itself, not the people within it.

Then, extend the violation, the Johnicle has not increased the welfare of www.debate.org, but rather the welfare of its members. He is going to try to cross apply his argument from limits to the violation, however that would be a totally new argument, which is not allowed in policy debate.

The voter was the reason why Johnicle violation of topicality is a reason to vote for me.

His 1st response to the voter was "The Judge votes on who creates the better debate.org". This is conceding the topicality argument, I am saying that debate.org means the website and not its members, so he can't actually do that.
His 2nd response is not a reason why topicality isn't a voter, but rather is why his interpretation is good. (He'll try to crossapply that argument elsewhere, but that would be a new argument, so don't let him do that.)

At that point, the judges vote against Johnicle for having an untopical plan. Extend the first reason T is a voter: the topic defines what the judge is supposed to be judging – ie the judge's jurisdiction, so the judge has no authority to go beyong the topic and vote for my opponent.

Johnicles response to the IM counterplan has theoretical illegitimacies, so Offcase 6 is more theory.
A is Interpretation: Debaters must stick to what they have already said
B is the Violation: My opponent has severed from part B of the plan. This happened when he says the CP is topical and that the rest of his case is enough to affirm. He can't sever out of his original advocacy, which included part B.

C is Standards:

1.Debatability. Severance makes all counterplans uncompetitive and justifies the 2ac getting out of any disad links and all negative arguments. Severance makes the debate impossible for the negative to win so it destroys it debatability. Debatability is essential for fairness because all notions of fairness require an ability for all to compete.
2.Predictability. The resolution is the focus of the debate. Allowing the affirmative to sever it destroys all negative predictability and pre round preparation because that is the only thing that I have to predict the round. Predictability is important for fairness because debate requires all parties to prepare before the round and a lack of predictability makes that impossible.
D is the voter. Fairness is a voter because debate is based on the adversarial system to discover truth. If one debater has an unfair advantage, that will bias your perception of the truth. More importantly, any game must have fairness otherwise individuals lose the incentive to take part in the activity. Rules which divide ground and establish fairness are essential o the legitimacy of the activity, and when altered, convolute the round, and make the establishment of offense difficult. Therefore, due to the interpretation of the AC which hurts fairness, a presumptive negative ballot is acceptable because conceptions of offense and argumentation has been altered.

Go to the instant messenger CP. The theory violation in Offcase 6 responds to answers 1-4, because they are all severance. Answering #3 is especially significant because the counterplan retains competition, which answers the number 5 so he can no longer try to do both the plan and the counterplan.

#6 has no impact.

Extend the counterplan text and competition. The counterplan is to do the aff plan, but not create an IM system and by doing so it is competitive.

Extend the 2nd harm: Because IM allows children to talk about their personal information, they can put themselves into a position to receive unsolicited offers of sex – which could turn into things like molestation and rape.
His A response is that "talking faster wont cause harms". However, the harms do not stem from talking faster, but from talking in a different mechanism.
His B says that "we can ban them". While that might make victims feel better, it does not refute the harms. Banning someone after someone is raped doesn't mean much.
His C says that my evidence is MSN specific. That's not true because people can be tricked and molested regardless of what IM client you use. Even if that's not true, he doesn't warrant that claim and any warrant in his next speech would be a new argument.

The extension answers #7 because #7 is non-responsive to the extension.

Now, go to the DA. He says "turn the DA", however he doesn't gives reasons why the arguments in the DA are reasons to support the plan. Thus, I'll scap it since I don't need the DA to win the round.

He adds a Kritik on my DA. However, he does not provide the framework necessary to justify simply criticizing me as a debater to win instead of arguing the topic. Thus, the K is not a reason to vote.

Now, go to the No Porn counterplan. I don't have to win the counterplan to win the round, kick it.

In summary, I win because the rules of policy debate say I win.

New arguments can only be made in the first two speeches. After that, the rebuttal speeches can only reiterate old arguments, weigh arguments, and respond to new opponent responses.

Johnicle has messed up because he didn't make any responsive arguments to the theory and topicality violations. Unfortunately, since he didn't argue them previously, he is not permitted to argue them later. The rest of the round really doesn't matter because the unargued theory and topicality were linked to me winning the round.

Thus, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Good Luck

On Theory Violation:

1) I meet Interpretation.
-He claims the debate is already over. However, he is way off. On interpretation, he originally says, "The affirmative should specify where the money for their plan is coming from"… I meet the interpretation since there is no money necessary for the plan. You ask where the money is coming from? Well… no where since there IS no money necessary to enact the plan. That's what I said last round but apparently my opponent doesn't get that.

2) I don't Violate.
-If you look back to my plan, ALL changes in status quo are software creation. And if you look to the people that run this site (Webcorp), they are self-employed and do this for no money and they need no more money to make this software (they do it from scratch).

3) Flow through: "Funding is by normal means of Webcorp"
-The plan is ‘theoretically' ONLY meant to change status quo. If I meant to change their funding policy, THEN it would be abusive to not include it in the plan. But since the funding will remain concurrent, there is no reason to specify changing status quo.

4) Drop Standards (since there is no reason for them).

5) The only advantage I gained is you wasting your time attacking something that is useless. You waste your own time so DROP abuse and therefore, DROP voter for Theory Violation.

Debate.org Topicality:

1) Debate.org would be nothing without its members.
-If there were no members, it would lead to the destruction of the site. In other words, by strengthening the welfare of the members, the strength of debate.org will effectively increase as well.

2) I meet the definition.
-Let's really look at the definition. Just for fun I will CAPS the words that link to the members: Debate.org is defined as: "a MEMBERSHIP-based online DEBATING service designed to provide an easy and free system for our MEMBERS to intellectually challenge, DEBATE and communicate with EACH OTHER on the Web"
----Interesting… If the members didn't matter, then why are they in the definition so much? And if there were no members, then how would the DEBATE part of the definition be upheld? The plan strengthens the members and effectively strengthens the site. Not to mention that the first THREE WORDS of the definition ALONE makes me meet the definition straight up. This topicality is ridiculous.

3) His violation is therefore irrelevant.

4) Limits are ridiculous.
-If a topic were to relate to the government. Would it be non-topical to talk about the president or congress? And that even though they MAKE UP the government it extends the ground too much?!? Cross-apply this to debate.org. WE MAKE UP THE WEBSITE… IT WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT US.

5) Re-establish my original 4 points.
-In my original argument against this T. I simply explain what I have just now. Helping the members helps the site.

6) Losing any one of the definition, interpretation, standards, OR voters, the whole T drops. I meet the definitions, the interpretation doesn't meet with the membership part of the definition, the standards are abusive and irrelevant, and the voters are thus useless.

"Theoretical Illegitimacies" of the IM CP:

Against Interpretation:

1) Debaters don't have to stick with what they originally said. If that were true, then there would be no point to anything past round 1.

2) I don't change what I say, I simply add new arguments.

Against Violation:
-Please quote me where I change direction or drop anything in my case. I never ‘severed from my original advocacy.' I simply say your CP is topical and thus should not be accepted.

Against Standards:

1) You accepted the debate thus making the debate-ability yours to accept or ignore.

2) Pre-round preparation isn't necessary. Three days of prep is PLENTY for getting stuff against anything I say. This argument would only fly in a real-life round and has NO GROUND on an online debate.

Against Voters:
-There IS fairness. We both have the same amount of prep-time. We both willingly accepted the topic.

-Accepting any of these arguments drops the theory violation and thus the arguments against the CP still stand.

Instant-Messenger CP:

1) The CP affirms the resolution STILL. We should increase welfare, but not by using IM's?!? Last time I checked, we debate the topic, not my plan.

2) ALL harms in IM's could be done on PM's as well. My plan does NOT increase any threat to any member.

3) Any risk to any member would be self-induced. My plan forces NO ONE into any situation and all new features from my plan would be optional, not madatory.

4) Several members want instant messengers for Cross-Examination and convenient conversation. Thus more happiness in the members of debate.org which supports the definition and therefore supports the welfare. Therefore, you should prefer my plan since more people will be happy with the option of Cross-Examination LIVE!

The rest of his arguments are dropped. Vote PRO!

Thanks for this great debate!
yesikant

Con

Though I thank him for the debate, Johnicle clearly does not understand its rules. In policy debate, debaters are NOT allowed to bring up new arguments in rebuttals. If the affirmative does not respond to something in his second speech, he is not allowed to respond to it in the third. Any new responses in the 3rd are not considered.

The problem is that ALL of Johnicle's responses to the two biggest issues in the round are absolutely new. All his new responses are not counted. My arguments are accepted as 100% true as if they were not argued. Johnicle loses. Period.

Let's go to the theory violation, which is the first issue in the round. Johnicle had a lot of arguments, but none of them were made earlier.
By the way, theory arguments debates about debate. I argue what I think a rule ought to be, then why my opponent violated it.
To reiterate the theory violation
I said that it ought to be a rule that the affirmative should specify where the money comes from in his first speech. He doesn't do that and tries to do it later. This a good rule to have because otherwise he can totally shift out of all my arguments like he is doing. Theory is a voting issue because Johnicle put me at a disadvantage for the rest of the round by not telling me where his funding is coming from.

Again, regardless of what you think about the theory violation, Johnicle made no previously articulated responses to it in his second speech, so it is accepted as 100% true. Sorry Johnicle, that's the way it works in policy debate.

ALL of his arguments on the topicality violation are new. Again, in policy debate arguments, are accepted as true if they have no arguments that were previously articulated.
Here is the topicality arguement again: I said the affirmative has to increase the welfare of www.debate.org itself, and not merely of its members like Johnicle does. This was accepted out of concession of definitions which was the 2nd argument. Topicality is a voting issue because the topic defines the judges jurisdiction, so the judge has no authority to vote for Johnicle if he is not sticking to the topic.

Both theory and topicality were established as voting issues. EITHER would be reasons to vote. Johnicle dis not respond properly to either of them.

Regardless, of those issues. Johnicle loses for another reason. The affirmative also has the burden to re-articulate his plan in his 1st rebuttal. We have timed speeches in debate (and character counter speeches on the internet) which makes procedural issues like that are important. That's why I had to rearticulate my theory and topicality violations. I'd hate to get a rulebook out, but Johnicle does not seem to know the basic burdens of the affirmative debater in policy debate. He does not rearticulate the plan text, inherency, or solvency. None whatsoever. It is as if he did not articulate a plan whatsoever. Again, because he is not allowed to bring up new arguments, since he did not argue the plan in his last speech, he will not be allowed to argue in his next, meaning he loses the debate for another reason because he lost his plan.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

It seems as if my opponent found 1 or 2 arguments that were new and thought that they all were new. This is not true of course. So this round I will simply show you how I argued these earlier in the debate.

*Note: If you accept any of them as being argued earlier, then the negative argument is destroyed since he did not specifically attack ANY of them. His entire last speech was about rules. So his only argument on ALL of my arguments is that they are new arguments. May I point out that new arguments are to be dropped on a singled out method and if 1 new argument is made and 8 previously argued position is made then the 8 still stand and only the 1 falls.

1) "I meet Theory Violation."
-This argument showed how my previous argument actually met theory violation. Here is what I argued (Round 2):
-"No additional funding would be necessary."
Round 3:
-"I meet the interpretation since there is no money necessary for the plan."

Is that a new argument?!?! Or is that just me pointing out that the theory violation is ridiculous and that I met all of it before (I just didn't point it out the same way). If this is a debate about tags then don't bother accepting the tags, just accept the explanations since those alone win me this debate.

2) "I don't violate"
-(Round 2): "So essentially they would create the software. They created everything from scratch and would be easily capable of creating the plan."
-(Round 3): "If you look back to my plan, ALL changes in status quo are software creation. And if you look to the people that run this site (Webcorp), they are self-employed and do this for no money and they need no more money to make this software"

Hmm… Where are my new arguments?

3) "Flow through Funding is by normal means of Webcorp"
-It STILL stands and it was said in my original Round 2 of my speech which IS a constructive. It is that thing called clarification that is reserved to the Affirmative side.

Accept any of these, the theory violation falls.

Debate.org Topicality:

1) "Debate.org would be nothing without its members."
-(Round 2): "Because of this, more members would stay once they join debate.org, thus the welfare of it is increased by terms of welfare"
-(Round 3): "If there were no members, it would lead to the destruction of the site. In other words, by strengthening the welfare of the members, the strength of debate.org will effectively increase as well."

2) "I meet the definition."
-Seriously? The definition was argued in YOUR Round 1. In face I was flowing through the round for you. And by doing so I showed where I actually met it.

3) (5) "Reestablish my 4 Points"
-They went unattacked AGAIN. And they of course relate to the 4 points made in my second speech. I don't even care if you accept the points, they went dropped and thus the T must drop with them.

4) Flow Through: "6) Losing any one of the definition, interpretation, standards, OR voters, the whole T drops. I meet the definitions, the interpretation doesn't meet with the membership part of the definition, the standards are abusive and irrelevant, and the voters are thus useless."

-If you accept any of these, the Topicality falls.

He then drops the rest of his points. They can't be accepted even if you accepted them before.

The ONLY new argument in this debate is his last paragraph in his 3rd round. He says I have to re-articulate my plan. Against this, I have to say:

1) New Argument. In other words it was never clarified before this that I had to (at least by my opponent)
2) Time Suck. (Voting issue (or at least enough to counter-balance this point to make it null).
3) Rearticulating my plan directly was unnecessary. All of his arguments had little to do with my plan/solvency/etc. But the ones that did have to do with it:
4) I indirectly reiterated my plan(etc.) by attacking his points against them. He says my plan isn't topical. Then I reiterate it by saying it is. Just because I didn't point it out directly didn't mean that I didn't do it. Kind of like my "new" arguments that weren't actually new.
5) His only other real arguments don't have ANYTHING to do with my plan/solvency/etc. He ACCEPTS solvency with his original 2 CP's, my plan was reiterated in the topicality line of argumentation, and Inherency was dropped from the get-go.

In the end, his only real arguments (that weren't dropped) were a few attacks against my plan. A topicality and a theory violation… both of which are null arguments. By doing this, he dropped Inherency, and he dropped Solvency. From this, my case stands strong and therefore, I urge you to enact my plan and therefore vote PRO!

Thank you for this fun and educational debate. I hope to have more with you in the future and I also hope to see you in my tournament come March 1st. Thanks and good luck for your final speech! (even though you already lost ;)
yesikant

Con

Johnicle has done a good job, however has suffered from the classic loss of the affirmative debate. He undercovered.

Let me explain some things about policy debate for the people at home. People who debate policy debate in high school and college speak really FAST. There's is a round for those who are unfamiliar to policy debate at . Berkeley and Harvard are both pretty slow, most rounds are much faster than the one in the video. In policy, the goal of the negative is to speak so fast that the affirmative cannot keep up. If the negative succeeds, then, eventually, the affirmative will not have enough time to cover his own plan or other critical issues, in which case the affirmative will lose.

That is exactly what happened to Johnicle.

Though I do not think his responses to the topicality and theory arguments were legitimate, I will not argue them because the debate in that area has become greatly muddled. Instead, I will argue the very last argument I made in my last speech. I said in my last speech "The affirmative also has the burden to re-articulate his plan in his 1st rebuttal. We have timed speeches in debate (and character counter speeches on the internet) which makes procedural issues like that are important. That's why I had to rearticulate my theory and topicality violations. I'd hate to get a rulebook out, but Johnicle does not seem to know the basic burdens of the affirmative debater in policy debate. He does not rearticulate the plan text, inherency, or solvency. None whatsoever. It is as if he did not articulate a plan whatsoever. Again, because he is not allowed to bring up new arguments, since he did not argue the plan in his last speech, he will not be allowed to argue in his next, meaning he loses the debate for another reason because he lost his plan."

Johnicle suffered from undercovering in his rebuttal to the point where he did not have enough time to reargue his plan. Johnicle loses his plan because he did not have enough time to rearticulate it. Without a plan there is no proof of the topic.

Johnicle tries to salvage out of his error by arguing his way out of it. There are a few things he cannot argue, the rules are one of those things. However, I will respond to them individually.

1. Johnicle says pointing out Johnicle's mistake is a new argument. That's untrue. I'm perfectly allowed to respond to his arguments or lack thereof. If I wasn't allowed to say "woah, Johnicle didn't argue his plan", then there would be no way for me to point out Johnicle's breaking of that rule. His argument is silly.

2. He says its a time suck. That is not true, it's a rule.

3. He says he "indirectly articulated it", but that is totally untrue. He only responded to topicality and theory. There was no clear articulation of his plan anywhere after his very first speech.

4-5. He says I accepted his plan. I clearly did not, I argued it was totally untopical and theoretically illegitimate. Regardless, he still has the burden to rearticulate it.

Again, this is a very common way that the affirmative loses in policy debate. Johnicle simply did not have enough time to both respond to my negative arguments and also rearticulate his plan.

Without a plan, there is no proof of the topic. Without proof of the topic, the negative debate wins (that's me).
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
lol... both
Posted by anikiforouk 8 years ago
anikiforouk
Is this a debate in the comments area or is this the place where we explain our votes?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Like I said, I'll give this more thought and shall leave my votes where they are for the time being. So far, I think I'm going to stick with my convincing argument decision. I'll give the conduct decision more thought (am leaning towards CON still). Reliable sources and Spelling grammar are a tie, but I'd prefer better formatting in the future from both participants. Night.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
edit: "rather than SOLELY the quality of them"
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"The US should distribute condoms to solve AIDS", could you really argue that's bad? No. No, you really cant. "

Yes, yes I can actually. Off the top of my head:

Condoms are already easily accessible (heck, I can purchase some inside the shop at the library at my college), yet does little to nothing to stop the rate of AIDs transmitted sexually. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that people don't get aids based on the lack of accessibility of condoms. Therefore, to distribute condoms would be a waste of resources and would provide no desirable result.

"That's why you argue counterplans, disads, theory, topicality etc."

I have nothing against relying on all of the above granted you are still able to able to argue against your opponent based on the substance of his/her arguments rather than the quality of them (in this case, your claim that they do not adhere to proper policy debate conduct).
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"You misunderstood the argument. I am not saying talking faster makes you more persuasive necessary. ."

I understand. You initially misunderstood me when I stated that accelerated speaking does not require debate skill. Your misinterpreted this as meaning "accelerated speaking is detrimental" hence why you went on to explain otherwise.

"There is no reason the only end goal of debate is to make you a better speaker."

No one said it was. You asked me what the problem with taking advantage of accelerated speaking to impede a debate and I told you. Whether or not there are benefits to this course of action is completely irrelevant.

"Policy debate acheives other goals - it makes you more educated. It encourages debaters to learn much more than they would have."

I'm sure Policy debate has its fair share of benefits for an individual, however I've yet to insist otherwise thus am not aware of your intent in leading the "argument" in this direction.

Even if it makes you a terrible public speaker, I pointed out that learning a PhDs worth of information per year because of the increased speaking rate (as indicated by studies) probably outweighs"

Personally, I doubt it. The ability to communicate trumps the ability to research. Communication is what our society is centered around and is an asset required in mostly any career.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I'm not sure what you mean by "sticking to the issues". There wasn't a single thing I argued that wasn't "sticking to the issues" in my constructive."

If you would look back to my very words, you'll note that I stated that my problem with your performance didn't spawn itself until your 3rd and 4th round. I had no major problem with the way you handled your constructive

In terms of what I mean by "sticking to the issues at hand", let me briefly go over your 3rd round again.

Your arguments were essentially:

-PRO brought up new arguments
-PRO didn't re articulate his plan

In the 4th, this can be summed up as "PRO violated the rules. Need I quote my handbook?"

In other words, Johnicle said "You're wrong because X is true and Y is false." In response, you said "Hey, that's not how we're supposed to be debating. Because you're not debating correctly, you lose and I don't have to continue arguing around the topic." Style over substance fallacy perhaps, but something which I'm fully aware most forms of formal debate justify (hence my reason for being indecisive on this. I've stated the way I'll probably vote, but I've yet to actually vote). To me though, it just comes off as one big drop gambling on whether or not I'll buy whether or not his arguments are new (which I don't, given how he shows otherwise in R4) and that he didn't re articulate his argument (I buy this, but as a reason to give you the convincing argument? Mostly not).

"However, I respect your "slow" paradigm and whatever decision you have to make. Debaters have their differences, that's why they are debaters."

Slow paradigm? Ha. My disdain for taking advantage of accelerated speaking has nothing to do with why I am considering judging this debate in the way I've claimed. And you need not claim to respect anything. Respect is something which should be earned, not automatically given. That and I would prefer there be as few social masks here as possible. :D
Posted by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
more persuasive necessarily*
Posted by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
You misunderstood the argument. I am not saying talking faster makes you more persuasive necessary. There is no reason the only end goal of debate is to make you a better speaker. Policy debate acheives other goals - it makes you more educated. It encourages debaters to learn much more than they would have. Even if it makes you a terrible public speaker, I pointed out that learning a PhDs worth of information per year because of the increased speaking rate (as indicated by studies) probably outweighs.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"People have different beliefs about the goals of debate and I respect that."

I'm glad you respect other people's beliefs on the goals of debate, but the the actual goals of the process I defined was not mentioned in my previous post (hence why I clarified with "what is debate.") The goal of a debate has not my concern in any of my posts here. It is the actual process itself (not the result; not the goal) which I've been referring tol

"Talking faster does not require skill?"

Lay off the straw man. I claimed it does not require DEBATE skill. Don't believe me? Try sitting in a room for a month focusing on augmenting your speaking speed and tell me whether or not this has enabled you to persuade individuals in general better than you were previously able to.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to try and convince me that speaking at an accelerated rate is beneficial (heck, you even go on to argue that Policy debate in itself is beneficial), yet I'm not sure why you do this given that I've twice pointed out that speaking at an accelerated rate has its benefits (specifically, I pointed out that accelerated speaking [if possibly implemented into text] could help me avoid my pesky nemesis which is known as the "character limit" here).

In addition, you seem to ignore what you were actually defending as you were initially defending the practice of speaking quickly for the purpose of keeping your opponent from responding to all of your arguments.

To wrap it up, most of this dispute between you and I seems to rest of misunderstanding rather than actual difference of opinion (so far anyway). I might decide to give some of your material in "the benefits of accelerated speaking" section another look though in a moment.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EricEngle 8 years ago
EricEngle
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by peace-maker 8 years ago
peace-maker
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Rawlsfulcopter 8 years ago
Rawlsfulcopter
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by johnnyjohnsmithsmith 8 years ago
johnnyjohnsmithsmith
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JohnicleyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70