Instigator / Con
16
1500
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#204

The Colin Kaepernick Movement

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

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

AIRhino
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
13
1450
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Description

"It makes no sense on a variety of levels and is an insult to the troops that died to defend that flag and that anthem."

-Ben Shapiro
This guy is amazing and I love his work and what he's doing for this country.

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

Cons first part of his argument is that CKM is arguing all police are racist.

Pro destroyed this argument with his rebuttal: 1.) unconscious bias more than racism plays a factor, 2.) CKM wasn’t accusing all police of being racist, 3.) its more the criminal justice system as a wile. Both are important but pro really explains what the problem is well explained.

Cons third point, was equally well destroyed. Claiming that racial equality has been achieved was 100% refuted by pro citing examples of systematic and ongoing inequality.

Cons second argument was an amalgamation of the first and third.

As a result, pro clearly takes out all 3 points raised by con.

Con claims multiple times, that there are no laws that enshrine discrimination or mention race. Pro demolishes this too: by explaining that laws don’t have to do that to be discriminatory. He cited examples of cocaine laws, and pointed out his previous examples where it doesn’t even have to be a law. Pros reasoned rebuttal makes cons position seem like deliberately moving the goalposts. Con even objected that there were no specifics - in answer to the specifics that pro gave.

Con appeared to discredit CK motivations raising the money made and CKs specific performance, con doesn’t seem to make any actual point or makes any specific rebuttable claim here for me to assess here, and simply appears to be throwing it out to discredit CK - as pro points out.

In this respect, the primary arguments made on each side all went in pros favor.

Even in the final arguments raised, pro stated “blacks are more likely to be killed by the police than white”, con misrepresented this as pro stating that the absolute numbers shot are higher. Pro clearly corrects this misinterpretation.

Sources: clearly go to pro. Cons Washington post source in his final argument supports pro, con uses the heritage foundation (a highly biased source), half as many sources as pro, and almost all related to the largely irrelevant argument con made concerning CKM motivations.

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

Pro decided to barely respond to Con args near the end, causing me to outweigh any of the Pro advantages and contentions left unresponded

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

AIRhino made the more convincing arguments and provided more reliable sources, while gzitman failed to counter most of the points made by AlRhino.