Instigator / Pro
7
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#1748

The Iran/US Conflict Proves How Unpatriotic White Americans & Immgrants Truly Are

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

Zaradi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1558
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Description

With the growing tensions between Iran & The US, the draft became a hot topic. The data shows that white Americans were Not willing to fight for America if need be. This perfectly proves the hypocrisy, lies and cowardice of these people. Immigrants of America were also saying that they would leave The US & relocate back in their homelands if the draft was implemented.
These are the very people who stated that Colin Kaepernick was being unpatriotic for simply kneeling at a football game...Let's see who takes the challenge of trying to prove that white American & immigrants aren't the biggest hypocritical cowards in the US.....The ball is now in your court.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro in their usual trollish way, never attempts to meet minimal BoP. Not once source, not one actual person claiming they would flee the draft (or them having actually gone running for the hills as pro claims). Not even any examples of someone calling any football players unpatriotic (one of their key contentions). This leaves the debate outcome a forgone conclusion.

Pro's inability to find any evidence to support their case, is contracted by con's sources, which are headlined by a respectable .edu one explaining what patriotism actually is; which is used in a smart Kritik of the topic.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO's whole argument amounts to racist invective- no sourcing, no justification, just a string of unwarranted overgeneralizations and stereotypes. PRO was entirely unconvincing from first to last. PRO characterized the draft as a current hot topic but from this fairly ardent news consumer's perspective, the topic of a renewed draft amounted to an occasional note during a single new cycle. Certainly, nobody's still worried about the draft this week.

CON argued:

C1: Deja Vu: opposition to unwarranted warmongering may be interpreted as concern for the country's well-being and therefore patriotic.

C2: Love/Hate Heartbreak: opposition to national leadership/policy-making does not imply a lack of concern or patriotic love.

PRO's R2 response is entirely unengaged and chock a block with misinformation. PRO fails to document key arguments like "white people crashed the Selective Service website." There's no evidence of syllogistic reasoning here- just white people and immigrants (collectively, about 86% of US population) are hypocrites and/or suck. One could argue that any nation is defined by its people and any argument the rejects the worthiness of 86% of that nation is by definition unpatriotic.

CON wisely extends arguments as unrefuted.

PRO finally makes one poorly reasoned but cohesive argument:

Any & every draft strengthens a nation.
Therefore, opposition to any and every draft weakens a nation.
Therefore, opposition to any draft is unpatriotic.

Unfortunately for PRO, CON argued in R1 that one can opposed leadership and national policy but still love your country, just as one can oppose a sister's drug habit but love your sister, etc. PRO was already well pre-futed and failed to read CON's argument closely enough to recognize (or perhaps is merely intransigent in thought).

ARGUMENTS to CON.

PRO desperately needs sources: sources to document the draft debate, sources that documented the website crash, evidence that only whites and immigrants oppose the draft, crashed the website, etc (I'm fairly confident that folks from every demographic oppose or support the draft to some degree). PRO's unwillingness to define terms made PRO's case entirely unsustainable.

Therefore, sources to CON.

The DART Code of Conduct states:

"Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech."

PRO's entire argument represents false and unkind generalizations vs. whites and immigrants. In light of PRO's racist rhetoric, the VOTER awards

CONDUCT to CON.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro asserted that white Americans are unpatriotic because they would refuse to go to war against Iran if they were drafted. He also claimed that whites were responsible for the Selective Service website crashing.
Con counters that the majority of Americans oppose a war with Iran, indicating that avoiding war could be patriotic. He also points out that Pro failed to explain why refusing to be drafted is unpatriotic. Instead, he argues that it is possible to disagree with a country's actions, such as a potential draft, and still meet the definition of patriotism.
Pro doesn't have any response to this. He just repeats the same arguments.
Pro clearly failed to meet his burden of proof, whereas Con provided clear reasons negating the resolution, so Con wins arguments.