Instigator / Pro
4
1465
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Affirmative action causes racism.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

seldiora
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 542 / 5,000

THBT: Affirmative action causes racism.

-Definition-
Affirmative action - Affirmative action is a policy in which an individual's colour, race, sex, religion or national origin are taken into account to increase opportunities provided to an underrepresented part of society.

Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group.

-Rules-
Forfeit = Instant loss
No kritks
Definitions are agreed upon

Added:

[chess move]# won. It says he didn't from a single vote. The problem is that when there is one vote, it makes false results. In among us, the only person who voted voted for me and got me voted out. I think there should be a minimum of (some number) of votes or the result is inconclusive.

Added:
--> @Checkmate

That was a copy of Fauxlaw's vote, which was reported and removed due to the reason I provided. He could've revoted if he altered the original, but alas he elected not to.

Added:
Instigator
--> @MisterChris

It seems you provided a description which would suggest you wanted to vote for me. Yet you didn't?

Added:

Argument: Pro presented a valid argument based on definitions and valid source material that demonstrates decided discrimination specifically against Asian-Americans in academia, to wit, Asians are specifically penalized SAT score negative points while other minorities receive added points to their scores. Con attempted to attack the source in all three rounds, but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong. Points to Pro

Sources: Pro's sources clearly support the resolution. Con had no sources in any round. Points to Pro

S&G: tie

Conduct: I could say Con's attitude regasrding pro's source material was misunderstood, but that does not really justify a conduct detraction; it's just misunderstanding. Tie.

Added:
--> @fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter dismissed CON's refutations using arguments that were not presented in the debate.

He says:
"but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong."

It may be true that CON's refutation was factually incorrect. And the voter is certainly welcome to look into the sources used. However, it is not the voter's place to go into the source and do the refuting for PRO. If CON presents an argument about a source that is unchallenged by PRO, and if that argument is logically coherent, then generally speaking, the voter should not dismiss it of their own accord. The only exception would be an argument that is objectively false based on common knowledge & reason.

The voter may revote if they properly explain why CON's refutation did/didn't work according to voting guidelines.

Another note, the voter should add more detail to their allocation of source points.

To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.

Added:
Instigator

Voters, anyone?

Added:
Instigator

*bump*

Added:
Instigator

Bump

Added:
Instigator
--> @seldiora

We'll see.

Added:
Contender
--> @Ragnar

easy-ish debate to vote on.

Added:
Contender
--> @Checkmate

I don't think you understand how "X causes Y" debates work. If I used Australia to demonstrate gun ban leads to crime rate dropped, that doesn't mean all gun bans cause crime rates to lower.

Added:
Instigator

You can make an affirmative action debate.

Added:
Contender

I wonder if I can make this a "net balance" debate. Hm.