Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

RFD for Business Discrimination Debate

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:34:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
This is an RFD for the debate between Danielle and lannan13 found here: http://www.debate.org...

(Apologies in advance for the length of this... it went quite a bit longer than I'd initially intended)

There was a lot to this debate, particularly when it comes to tactics, so rather than parsing the debate argument-by-argument, I'm going to go through it on a round-by-round basis.

Pro"s R2:

When I see the introduction, I"m preparing myself for a round about the importance of two things: the importance of trade rights, and why a rights should be equally applied to both consumers and business owners. In the former case, I get some of where that importance comes from, but in the latter it"s left very vague in this round. Saying that "[t]his does not seem righteous, practical, or fair" is about as far as we get, yet there"s really no impact to any of those assessments. Unequal distribution of the law, or perceived hypocrisy in how the law is applied, can have substantial effects that probably should have been spelled out in this round. Lacking that, the point is nebulous through this round.

The rest of the round is more specific and spelled out, though not all of it has clear impacts. The Role of Government contention in particular seems to build up to an impact that just never appears. There"s a lot of talk of rights and injustices, but it"s unclear why people have these rights, why the government abrogating those rights is harmful, and thus why we should prefer that those rights be adhered to in this case. I don"t see much of a framework establishing why these things should be paramount, and the fact that it"s not "overtly aggressive" seems like an arbitrary standard for establishing where the government can no longer interfere. Con will have to challenge these to dissuade me from accepting this point, but I could be buying this argument completely and still be wondering why it plays a substantial role in this debate.

The same is true of the Anti-Discrimination Laws contention. There"s an infinite regression that"s hinted at with such laws, and Pro explains how such laws have extended to wider and wider sets of people, but the impact is still hazy. Even if I accept that anti-discrimination laws are inexorably headed towards no discrimination, it"s unclear on why that it"s not "moral or pragmatic in our society", much less what the actual harms of that system would be. This point seems more like a lead-in to the next contention, since we start talking about rational or justified discrimination, but it doesn"t stand well on its own.

Most of the work goes into the Why Discriminate? contention, and it shows. This is the main area where I see a real story with solid impacts to pull through the round. We start off with some pre-rebuttal aimed at showing that we should expect people to not discriminate most of the time based on profit motive alone. Pro revisits this in the Capitalism contention, explaining that capitalism places a financial burden on those that choose to discriminate and allowing that some will continue to discriminate regardless of it. The point stands as solid mitigation, though little else.

It"s in the sub points where we see the impacts play out. Pro talks about how a business owner is expressing their freedom of speech, expression, association, and in some cases religion and conscience, as part of their decision not to serve a given group. Denying them access to this as an option is a violation of their civil liberties on the basis that they"re not allowed this particular means of speaking out, and that by serving these people, they are essentially accepting them without a fight. While the impacts aren"t spelled out as clearly as they could be, it is clear that, by forcing business owners to serve anyone, the government is forcing them to send a condoning message that is against their will, and that seems at least clearly problematic.

Rational Discrimination is probably the clearest point in the bunch. Pro discusses why an individual business owner might rationally choose to eschew a given group from their customer base. The clearest examples of these regard the probability of personal harm, which a person should be given the basic freedom to avoid of their own volition. It"s not clear what level of harm anti-discrimination laws actually bring to business owners as a result of their existence, it is clear that they could, and that forcing business owners to put them and their staff at risk goes against basic standards of justice. The same is true, though to a lesser extent, with regards to exclusion for the purpose of increasing profit. I say to a lesser extent because it"s not as clear where the damage is done as a result of forcing businesses to be non-exclusive. Is there a basic right to earn the most profit possible? It"s not clear from this. Nonetheless, the fact that it harms the bottom line of businesses is still clearly harmful.

The distinction between private businesses and federally funded businesses is a good one to strike, as it does protect Pro from some of the more difficult situations to answer, though one could reasonably inquire as to why that"s the case. It"s left at "they are taxpayer funded" without any clear reasoning as to why that changes the game.

It"s a good starting round, though it felt like a lot of these points were cut short.

Con"s R2:

This round honestly just tries to do too much. In many ways, it feels like it was also cut short in several places, but it also doesn"t seem all that cohesive. I"ll try to explain as I go through.

On the framework, I"m honestly just not seeing a purpose for towing the utilitarian line so early. The idea that we should seek the best outcome for the most people is pretty much the default unless I"m told otherwise, and that hasn"t happened yet. Maybe this was meant to bolster some later points that focus on how businesses can be beneficial to society, but it never really does that well. Pro does introduce some points on how businesses can induce great happiness if they "treat their customers with equality", but the point isn"t supported here, and it"s not clear why that"s the case. This seems more like an introduction to later points, and one that doesn"t really accomplish anything substantial.

On the Positive Rights contention, this basically functions under the mindset that there"s an onus on business owners to do what is best for society at large. It hasn"t really been established yet that what is best for society is for businesses to never discriminate, but more importantly, it hasn"t been established why business owners have this obligation. I guess this is where utilitarianism comes in and establishes that we should always engage in behaviors that maximize general happiness, but I"m having a hard time seeing how positive and negative rights factor into this. Why do positive rights trump negative rights? On the basis of utility to society in general? The rest of this is just as unclear. Why does engaging in advertising and offering their services require that they surrender any right to discriminate? Is it the duration of these practices that somehow indebts them to their communities, and if so, why can"t new businesses do this, or businesses that don"t advertise? The only explanation I get is that this could lead to individuals being denied services in hospitals, and thus succumbing to some malady and dying as a result. That seems like a separate point altogether, and it probably should get some support rather than just a potential case.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The Economic Harms contention breaks down into two pieces, one that"s helping Con, and one that"s helping Pro. Individual harms are where it helps Con, as he examines the harms that he argues have come from discriminating against African-Americans. It"s a pretty solid contention, complete with explanations of the harms that come from being denied access to basic necessities and what it drives people to do. This could have used some more link and impact analysis (really should have seen more showcasing why the current status of African-Americans is a result of discrimination specifically, and how the increased propensity for crime creates a cycle of poverty), but it"s mostly there, and it"s clear that there"s at least a harm to this minority group and that this can cause indirect harms to businesses that they might not be aware of in their decision-making calculus. The Ghetto tax is a great example as well, though it pays to explain why the lack of transportation by car specifically harms them " access to jobs comes to mind.

The harming businesses contention helps Pro. I know it was not his intention to help Pro with this, but it fundamentally undermines his case. Part of Pro"s arguments was that the harms to businesses that result of lost profit and outcry would be enough to prevent most businesses from doing this, and Con appears to be feeding that argument in detail. I don"t see any reasoning here that states that businesses would go ahead and discriminate anyway (though Pro admits some may, I need to see why that"s substantial), and so I don"t see a reason to buy the economic harms since they won"t happen to a significant degree under Pro"s case. What makes this all the more difficult is that it also undermines the individual harms because by feeding into Pro"s argument that little discrimination will occur based on businesses" economic reasoning alone, there"s little reason to believe that the discrimination we see in status quo will be enhanced after anti-discrimination laws are repealed. Bottom line: be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to establishing links between Pro"s case and the negative impacts he incurs.

As for the final contention, it seems more like an extension of the individual harms point with an emphasis on psychological impacts. It"s not really a stand-alone contention, but rather an explanation of how discrimination can affect people in ways that aren"t just economic. What"s nice about this is that it actually isn"t undermined much by the harming businesses section, especially when Con argues that "25% of them refused to search for work because of the fear of discrimination". That"s not a small issue, since Con is essentially saying that this is a perceptual problem; even if there"s little change in actual discrimination that results from the removal of these laws, people will still feel more vulnerable. It"s not spelled out quite that clearly, and I"m not giving Con those links, but it"s clear that this is at least a perceptual issue that exists in status quo and can potentially be worsened by a fear of more discrimination. And I get some solid impacts from that, including depression and suicide. It"s actually a very solid way to end the round.

Pro"s R3:

We start off this round with some extensive analysis of the framework, and at first, I"m not seeing much of a point to this. Con didn"t spend much time explaining utilitarianism, and as I explained above, I don"t think there was much point to the framework to begin with.

However, it becomes abundantly clear why the framework debate takes up so much of Pro"s third round: to establish her own framework and push away from the standing one as much as possible. In that, this argument is quite successful. The points made against utilitarianism are all pretty solid, and introduce quite a bit of doubt into whether or not utilitarianism functions as a reasonable standard for assessing the impacts and their importance. The introduction of self-ownership as a new framework is a good choice as well, though admittedly it"s a little starkly told. Essentially saying that "you"re either for self-ownership, or for slavery" paints a pretty black and white picture. That wouldn"t be problematic if Pro had taken the time to explain why coercion is far and away the greatest harm one can do beyond arguing that there"s some inherent "nature" that should not be violated. A lot of the links are there, but again, I feel something"s missing with the follow-through. Still, I"m buying by the end of this argument that this is the most viable framework on the table.

The second portion of the framework argument is basically a big "I meet, but better" on Con"s framework, and I"m buying that as well. In particular, I appreciate the analysis regarding how many happy/unhappy parties result from each decision, which is a measure of quantitation I did not get from Con. Apart from that, Pro reaffirms the point that there shouldn"t be a right for customers to discriminate and not a right for business owners to do the same. I still don"t see a particularly good reason why this split is problematic, but it hasn"t been answered yet.

On Positive Rights, Pro challenges the assumption that businesses ought to do what is best for society over personal interests. The lack of justification for an inherent responsibility is certainly a problem, and as Pro points out, the obligations Con tries to present aren basically just assertions. Pro explains why such a responsibility shouldn't exist, and explains why trade rights should surmount any obligation because of the benefits they engender for individuals and the community at large. It's not entirely clear what those benefits are from reading this, but perhaps that's more linked to the framework arguments. In any case, imposing "force, aggression and coercion in the market" sound bad, even if the impacts of those things aren't spelled out.

Pro also tackles the hospital discrimination facet, arguing that positive duties should be a part of any assessment here, and that forcing people to take actions when there's uncertainty is a problem because it can force physicians to take actions that are in conflict with their personal views. This goes back to the rights argument of the previous round, and it works to a degree, though it's not particularly responsive to the argument Con is giving. It's essentially an attempt to outweigh based on rights, which seems to function based chiefly on the success of self-ownership and the rights argument being paramount. The latter will require some weighing, which hasn't happened just yet.

On Economic Harms, the focus for this round is solely on the individual harms subpoint. Pro cross-applies the justifiable/reasonable discrimination point from R2, explaining how it applies to this argument, and also applies the capitalism argument. Again, it's not particularly responsive to the points Con is making, but rather just an attempt to mitigate and outweigh. Unless these points are addressed by Con, they'll stand, but so do the impacts Con has on this argument.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Con's R3:

Con becomes mainly repetitious in this round. On the Role of Government, Con argues that the chief things a government should do are "ensure that justice is made and there is equality under the law", though that kind of general statement doesn't mean much at this stage in the debate. Pro argued that justice supports her case with far more specificity, and even Con's own arguments had more specifics when it came to other points that relate to justice. Pro also did a lot more on equality, explaining why the clash of interests supports her case as providing the most freedom and equality, particularly when it comes to the ability of business owners to discriminate like their customers. Con hints that part of the government's role is preventing unnecessary deaths on the basis of discrimination, but it's not particularly clear how this is part of the government's role or why it beats out the need to protect people's trade rights and civil rights. It's not hard to outweigh when lives are on the table, but I need to see that argument somewhere.

On anti-discrimination laws, Con shifts to look at the past, examining the basis for passing some of the anti-discrimination laws that have been passed. It's a good route to take, since establishing why these were allowed by the USSC might have uncovered some reasons why this clash of rights should favor his case. Unfortunately, it's never solidly linked to the debate at hand. It's clear that certain forms of discrimination had to be addressed, and it's clear that equality can be improved by the U.S. government's actions, but that's not a very strong point in a debate that's focused on business discrimination specifically. The shift to that topic was rather jarring, as Con talks about stores in Alaska being far apart and returns to the hospital point. I don't doubt that it's worth Con's time to make a big deal of these issues, but this at this point, it's just repetitive without adding to the narrative, and on the Alaska example, the impact is left vague.

Con does cross-apply his argument about undue burdens placed upon minorities, appealing to the authority of SCOTUS as a means of managing the rights issues, but without tackling them directly, this is just window dressing. The minimal analysis on discriminating through attractiveness does invite a question as to whether or not even the extensions Pro discusses are reasonable, but Con had to spend more time here and couch it in the broader debate to accomplish anything.

On Ideological Differences, Con just seems to miss the major points. Pro's point wasn't about imposing sanctions, it was about letting a group know that it is disliked through action. In this regard, a governmental sanction is equivalent to a business owner's rebuke of service. It's not clear why that type of message is allowed to the government, but not to individuals. Con's argument that there are plenty of things government can do that individuals can't really doesn't address the substance of this point. Similarly, Con's just not addressing the civil liberties violation, instead re-visiting a point he made that was never clearly explained to begin with. He argues that contractual laws essentially require that advertising be treated as permission to enter a business and get service. That adds a link or two, but it's still not a particularly well-explained argument, and I'm still having trouble understanding it. The source provided doesn't really clarify either.

On Rational Discrimination, I'm having some trouble understanding the grounds argument Con's giving. It seems to be that businesses can neglect to advertise to given areas, and as such that they don't necessarily have to go out and advertise to certain groups. That might make sense if Pro was talking solely about door to door sales but that appears to be just an example of an instance where a given store owner might fear for his safety or that of his workers. Admittedly, it's the chief example Pro cites here, but Con's not responsive to the rational decision-making that is involved in this example. The rest of Con's responses either grant points (like the shirt/shoes/service point), or just don't engage with the actual argument (demand for all male/female clubs). In the case of the latter, merely stating that there's demand for an open club doesn't address the fact that there's demand for all single sex clubs.

There's just not a lot of argumentation left on the remaining points. Con basically argues that the federal funding issue makes for complex circumstances and says that they should still be subject to regulations even if they don't receive it, but nothing is gained from these responses. Even if I buy them, I'm just left questioning why Pro made this delineation, and nothing else. Con doesn't seem to recognize that he's bolstered the capitalism point himself, and instead just points to the fact that Pro stated there would at least be some more discrimination that would occur in the absence of anti-discrimination laws. Yes, this point was there just to mitigate the argument that mass discrimination would occur. She can allow for the incidence of some discrimination and still say that it's not going to explode out of control. She's saying that some discrimination is good, and only some will happen. This point didn't seem contradictory to me.

Pro's R4:

Pro returns to the argument that the equal treatment Con is advocating for is seeking to do substantial harm through coercion and loss of rights. With regards to hospitals, Pro returns to her point that Con is arguing for a no discrimination society, though once again the harms are nebulous. Merely suggesting that Con"s argument could lead to communism isn"t a harm. Pro does suggest that hospitals may not be allowed to discriminate, which is a bit late, but a decent response. The problem is that this invites some questions regarding burdens. Should the debate be evaluated on balance, and if so, is it both a balance of net benefits and a balance of how many businesses it"s applied to as well? Honestly, I was inclined to throw out the response due to it being new in the final round, and considering the number of questions it invites, I don"t think it is doing any favors for Pro anyway.

Pro"s counter-rebuttal an Anti-Discrimination Laws starts off as just cross-applying in an attempt to outweigh. Pro argues that tolerance of discriminatory views is more important than the damage done by those very views, though it"s not clear why that"s the case. The weighing comes in on the latter half, and it"s probably one of the clearest points of the debate, though Pro has made it several times before in other places. It"s one of the few times I feel like I"m really getting an evaluation of the impacts involved. Pro goes back to multiple points, explaining how people can and would organize themselves in opposition to these discriminatory acts, meaning that the harms Con cites are unlikely. Meanwhile, she points to the need to uphold basic rights and tolerate behaviors we disagree with, returning to the self-ownership argument in an explanation of why the ability to discriminate is something that should be retained simply for the sake of upholding reasonable standards of autonomy. I"m still not clear as to why discrimination should be written off as non-aggressive, and I think Con could have argued that it is, but it"s a solid point that ties together many of the major arguments Pro has been making throughout the debate.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Pro rightly dismisses much of the responses Con gave under the "Why Discriminate?" point, explaining that the current state of the law isn"t inherently justified, and returning to the point about business dealings being construed as condoning a given group or idea that they may vehemently disagree with. Pro notes the concession on rationality, pointing to people"s safety as a clearly rational reason that both sides agree one could discriminate, and providing a convincing example with taxi cab services. Pro points out that Con"s response on exclusive clubs is not addressing the point and then questions whether his point was to remove all exclusivity, which I"m not sure was the case.

Pro"s responses on the Federal Funding issue are just more extensions on other points. I"m not buying Con"s rebuttal, so there"s not anything of note to cover here. On capitalism, Pro just drives her point home that most rational people will not discriminate because of the financial implications of doing so. It"s a mitigating argument, and I think that"s about as clear as can be.

The remainder of Pro"s response on Business and Trade is basically just a rehashing of arguments made prior. She notes that there may have been a rational reason to discriminate against black people after the Civil War (which I buy, but doesn"t really do much for her case), rightfully points out that the argument on lost profit for businesses supports her case, and further supports it by linking back to the market-exclusive point and explaining how capitalism supports the success of those who cater to the discriminated.

I don"t get any kind of wrap up on this final round, which does leave it ending rather weakly. Much as a lot of the points are well-connected throughout, it would have been in Pro"s best interest to spend some time returning to the framework debate and explaining how and why she should win on that basis. More comparative analysis of impacts would have been huge as well.

Con"s R4:

While Con presents some new responses that are worth mentioning, most of this round is just a rehash of old points that basically go nowhere.

Con talks about utilitarianism, trying to revitalize his framework. He doesn"t devote much space to this, though, and much of what he does with that space isn"t helping him. Explaining how government and social contract works to support his view required pretty extensive analysis that never shows up beyond an assertion that the two are linked. Con returns to the point about advertisement, but without a direct explanation as to why advertising should be treated as a contract to do business, this point remains just as moot as it started. As Pro stated, Con can"t just rely on the facts of the law as they stand " he has to explain why they should be that way. Con does bring up Rule Utilitarianism, which was a good direction to go, but again, this required a lot more time and effort and should have appeared in the initial framework. All it gives me is a response to Pro"s most extreme rebuttals, failing to address the arbitrary standards point, the subjective vs. absolute point, and the self-ownership point, the former two of which are reasons to dissuade me from accepting utilitarianism, and the latter of which is a framework that stands untouched. You have to compare frameworks, and without that comparison, yours just looks weaker.

So, since I"m buying the weakness of this framework, the compatibility argument is really unimportant " it doesn"t matter how well each side is comparatively meeting it. Even if I had, though, Con isn"t doing anything special on this point. He"s not responding to the basic numerical analysis Pro gave. Instead, he"s essentially trying to make each individual incident of discrimination matter more, though that appears to depend chiefly on the context. It"s not a bad choice, but the problem is, again, the lack of comparative analysis. Yes, I buy that certain forms of discrimination can do terrible harm to many people if they occur. But I have a few problems. I"m not being given a reason why those would be allowed by the general public (Pro"s argument that they would punish businesses for such actions goes unaddressed), or for that matter why these aren"t federally funded in status quo (many of them appear to be). I also need to know how big of a problem this is. Pro"s telling me that more people are happy in a system that allows discrimination, so tell me why their happiness is irrelevant by comparison to the harms these people would endure. I get that survival matters more, but if I have 500,000 people who are way happier and one dead person, I need to know why that dead person outweighs. I need something of substance and not just an assertion that you will always outweigh.

On Positive Rights, we return to the advertising argument. At this point, it"s just not going anywhere, and adding a few more sentences to the explanation isn"t changing anything. I get that there"s some kind of contract, but it"s honestly very nebulous why this contract matters and why it should be upheld. It seems to me like you"re forcing businesses to do business with anyone who sees their advertisements, which runs counter to your statement that "[w]e shouldn"t force people to do anything." That sounds like it"s exactly what you"re doing. The latter half gets more interesting as Con delineates between rights granted to an individual and rights granted to a business, but quickly peters out as the argument turns back to the contract made through advertisement. The return to the hospital example doesn"t help either. This could have been an interesting argument, but in the final round, it was always likely to be too little too late.

Finally, on Economic Harms, there"s nothing new. Both sides have basically argued past each other on the individual economic harms suffered, and this is no exception. Con just states that discrimination leads many minorities to economic hardships that lead to a cycle of poverty, and that these engender depression and resulting suicide. It"s the same argument from R2, just summarized.

Conclusion:

Much as I do think this debate was pretty good, it was still pretty one-sided. Only one side really engaged with any of the argument of the other instead of just cross-applying (though both sides did a lot of that). Only one side really took the time to weigh points and examine the links to major arguments. Only one side focused on frameworks to explain what we should favor in the end and made a convincing story while comparing theirs to that of the other side.

That being said, while I felt that the better argumentation was clearly done by Pro, this was a lot closer than it should have been given those circumstances. While Con"s not winning much, he is winning that there are some pretty severe harms that could occur and that those include lives lost. He makes a big point of that throughout the debate, and I don"t see anywhere that Pro is seeking to clearly outweigh it beyond mitigation. She argues that this is a relatively minor problem as a result of public outcry and financial incentives, though it"s basically granted that some of this will happen. And so I"ve got that to weigh against lack of coercion, more general happiness, and adherence to civil rights and trade rights, none of which have that kind of terminal impact story. And it"s not that I think these can"t stack up " if anything, I think deaths could have been linked to several of these, particularly in what happens to people who are being told that they must serve a group they absolutely revile. Those strong feelings have to have an outlet somewhere, don"t they? For that matter, I would have bought some more impact analysis on the loss trade rights and what that means for the incidence of starting new businesses and of moving businesses to the U.S.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
But I am nonetheless voting Pro, chiefly on the framework. I"m forced to buy that self-ownership is the lens through which this debate must be judged, and as such, that control of one"s own actions and a lack of coercion is paramount. Discrimination may be a form of force in some forms, but Con doesn"t take the time to evaluate it in that sense, focusing solely on utility. In the process, he leaves the door open for Pro to make that the centerpiece of her case, allowing her to build an argument that centers on government coercion and loss of rights. She couldn"t link better to her framework than that, and if I"m buying that those impacts matter under her framework (and they do), then that"s where I end up voting.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 8:45:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Why do voters feel like they need to write RFDs as long as the debates?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:47:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 8:45:06 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Why do voters feel like they need to write RFDs as long as the debates?

I didn't feel the need in this instance, or for that matter in any instance. But I wanted to provide substantial feedback and explain why various facets of each side's case either did or didn't work. It wasn't because of a duty or a requirement, just a desire to provide something actionable to the debaters.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 6:44:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 12:47:52 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:45:06 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Why do voters feel like they need to write RFDs as long as the debates?

I didn't feel the need in this instance, or for that matter in any instance. But I wanted to provide substantial feedback and explain why various facets of each side's case either did or didn't work. It wasn't because of a duty or a requirement, just a desire to provide something actionable to the debaters.

I didn't read it yet because it to long...
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:56:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 6:44:13 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/25/2016 12:47:52 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:45:06 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Why do voters feel like they need to write RFDs as long as the debates?

I didn't feel the need in this instance, or for that matter in any instance. But I wanted to provide substantial feedback and explain why various facets of each side's case either did or didn't work. It wasn't because of a duty or a requirement, just a desire to provide something actionable to the debaters.

I didn't read it yet because it to long...

Well, considering the specific feedback is specific to this debate, and considering that you may not be all that interested in a round-by-round analysis since you weren't part of this debate, I'm not surprised you haven't read it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't read it. It's feedback for the debaters, and if you were interested enough to read the debate to completion and really wanted to know how each tactic was perceived, that's likely the only circumstance in which you'd read this. The debaters are more likely to read it than anyone else because they took the time to make the arguments.