Utah is what happens when hipsters infest a red state
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Salt Lake City is diverse and progressive. In the past eight years, it's been ranked as the third-most hipster city in the world, the queerest city in America, and the fourth-best city for millennials to live in. Millennials make up nearly half of the city’s mortgages, compared to the national average of 9%. Nearly 1 in 4 city residents is Hispanic. In some neighborhoods, two-thirds of school children speak Spanish at home. no red state is safe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-next-red-state-to-turn-purple-utah
Pro asserts that Utah is what happens when hipsters infest a red state. Pro explains this by showing a movement of younger people into the state, making the state vote much more left wing than it has in a long time.
Con asks Pro to prove it is an "infestation" and to prove that Utah "happened", in a semantics argument.
Pro *admits* that he was using loaded language and talks about the progressiveness of Salt Lake City.
Con pokes holes in pro's resolution by explaining that Utah did not "happen", that the word "infestation" has negative connotations and in this case there is nothing necessarily negative going on, and that the people who did these things are not really "hipsters", negating Pro's points about leftist leanings in the state since people leftist leanings do not equal hipsters
Pro drops all of Con's arguments and makes a case that Con has already rebutted.
Con should have restated Pro's mistake but insults Pro and drops the bad argument; this is a mistake but ultimately Con successfully muddied the waters of Pro's case via semantics and Pro dropped all of Con's points.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to invoke fear in those exposed to the propaganda, resulting in the formation of a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas.[1] The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument,[citation needed] name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.[2]
Politicians sometimes resort to “name calling” during political campaigns or public events with the intentions of gaining advantage over, or defending themselves from, an opponent or critic. Often such name calling takes the form of labelling an opponent as an unreliable and untrustworthy quantity, such as use of the term "flip-flopper".
Name calling is not an argmument it is lack of one