"Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed was not discriminated against.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 13 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
On September 14, 2015, Ahmed Mohamed brought a device to his public school, MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas. Ahmed claims that the device is a "clock" which he "built" because he considers himself to be an "inventor" outside of school. Ahmed was removed from school and briefly arrested by the police before being released back into his parents custody. He did not face any official charges for a specified crime, although the police and his teachers contend that his "clock" looked like a bomb.
Ahmed became an instant media sensation, going on a whirlwind tour of Hollywood and Washington D.C., with visits to the White House and appearances on numerous talk shows. Ahmed and the Mohamed family were represented by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and several lawyers, who alleged that Ahmed had been "discriminated against" by the police and the school. The overwhelming majority of the media and political figures supported the Mohamed family, implying that "Islamophobia" was to blame for the event. Many people also inferred a scientific issue was involved in the debate, and that Ahmed (who often appears wearing a 'NASA' t-shirt) should have been encouraged for bringing his device to school, and that his critics are also opponents of science itself. Even government agencies like NASA supported the viewpoint that Ahmed was just a smart little kid who was interested in science;
The Mohamed family subsequently brought several lawsuits in regards to this matter. All lawsuits were dismissed and the Mohamed family was forced to pay all associated costs. In spite of this, Wikipedia still describes criticism of Ahmed as "conspiracy theories" on their page dedicated to the incident;
As 'Pro' for this debate, I allege that Ahmed Mohamed was not a victim of "discrimination" or "Islamophobia" in this incident, and that reports of the in incident were wildly exaggerated by the media before all the facts were known. I also deny the media perspectives that "Islamophobia" was to blame or that Ahmed deserves to be defended on the grounds of scientific advancement.
I expect that 'Con' will argue in favor of Ahmed Mohamed's case, including the claims of "Islamophobia" and a connection to science.
I'm not going to attempt to tack on any crazy rules to this debate. I would prefer that we not waste a lot of time quibbling over semantics or citing dictionary definitions. Otherwise, lets get straight to it; Three rounds and let the observers vote for the winner.
It's an interesting idea. It might punish people who forum post a lot who mean no harm, though.
Thanks for the vote!
I'm not sure if I've seen the debate you mention in the RFD. I'll have to look it up again to see if that was one I read.
Second loss not first ** for my RFD
I'm starting to consider a mathematical equation to determine who should be blocked. X = (number of forum posts). Y = (number of debates participated in multiplied by 100). If X is greater than Y, I add you to my block list. Math is a fair way to make decisions, right?
Yeah I just wanted to understand because i thought you were mad or something lol I guess not.
I've unblocked you!
It was recently explained to me that blocking people is a form of "punishment" on this site... apparently...?
And after giving it some consideration, I feel I need to reserve my "punishments" for those who are truly deserving. And nothing you have ever done in your life is anywhere nearly as bad as the guy I just recently "punished" by adding him to my block list.
So as a matter of principle, I feel I must unblock you. Congrats.
Thanks for the feedback!
Armoredcat, I'm trying to answer your question, but I'm also trying not to be too blunt/direct about it, because (unlike another user who is neither you or I) I make my best effort to follow the code of conduct and I want the moderators (who have told me that they intend to deal with this shortly) to understand that I'm not the instigator of the situation, nor am I trying to retaliate against anyone.
The reason I'm telling you about this other user is because you have already seen his activity on this page, and I want you to understand that I block people when I feel it is in my own best interest to minimize my contact with them. I cannot elaborate further than that, at this time.
If you don't feel that you did anything wrong, then it is entirely possible that you didn't. I would suggest just leaving it at that.
"Armoredcat, I didn't say you insulted me. But just a quick look at some of the other comments here would easily reveal the person that I am talking about."
Ok idk why you're telling me this then.
"Regardless, if someone blocks you, the logical conclusion is because they don't want to talk to you. So why chase after that person and follow them around demanding answers? If someone has you blocked, leave them be. It isn't like it harms you at all."
I want to know what I did wrong is all. But you keep dodging the question.
No biggie. I think this debate kinda got derailed by all the drama in the comments anyway.
Armoredcat, I didn't say you insulted me. But just a quick look at some of the other comments here would easily reveal the person that I am talking about.
Regardless, if someone blocks you, the logical conclusion is because they don't want to talk to you. So why chase after that person and follow them around demanding answers? If someone has you blocked, leave them be. It isn't like it harms you at all.
Thought I had more time. Sorry about that
"Armoredcat, ask yourself this; How did you even know someone blocked you, unless you tried to send them a message that failed to go through?"
Yeah, I did. Why else would I ask? You most certainly blocked me, and you're still dodging me as to why.
"So obviously, you must have done a little more than what you say..."
WHEN THOUGH? WHEN? You blocked me well before your response here.
"and when you follow someone around demanding to know why they blocked you (or insulting them for blocking you) that really should be an explanation in itself for why they blocked you."
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I genuinely want to know why you blocked me though, because if I'm doing something wrong you could just let me know. That's why. I literally had no animosity towards you before I found out you blocked me. I was actually going to message you because I wanted to see your Tumblr blog that you talk about in your profile. And also, I never insulted you.
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm glad you spotted the Dawkins citation in particular. One criticism I've received on this argument in the past is that a lot of the sources are "conservative" in nature, but I actually do strive to show that people on many sides of the political spectrum had legitimate criticism of the way Ahmed's case was handled. It isn't a one sided issue.
Armoredcat, ask yourself this; How did you even know someone blocked you, unless you tried to send them a message that failed to go through? So obviously, you must have done a little more than what you say... and when you follow someone around demanding to know why they blocked you (or insulting them for blocking you) that really should be an explanation in itself for why they blocked you.
Yeah, he is part of the group of dishonest tumors on this site who seek to cheapen the voting by posting contrarian votes, i.e. it's way obvious who actually won, but they want to see what ridiculous votes they can get by the moderation, and when they do this, they have to block you or their dashboard will be constantly flooded with dissension from you and all of the other debaters they've wronged.
They hit and run because they're cowards and they know they're wrong.
Raltar's just really obvious about it all; he has zero integrity.
I've literally objected to one vote on his debate, which the mods agreed was insufficient. I can't believe that he would be so mad that I disagreed with a vote he made that he would permanently block me. Like, seriously. This is a professional debate site.
I hope it's not because of my political leanings, but...
lol hes just not going to explain at all ok
And as I told Con in our other debate, I treat things that happen in a debate as things which were said with the explicit goal of winning. I don't plan to hold any grudges for anything said during a debate. But if Con feels like I was being a jerk and wants to bitch me out for it, he is more than welcome to contact me via a PM and I'll likely offer an apology. I would just prefer to avoid further discussion in the comments, due to the aforementioned "haunting" I'm currently dealing with...
Not sure what time zones everyone else is in, but for me the period when the site was down was around 9pm at night, and the deadline for Con to post his argument was at approximately 9am the next morning. There there was at least a 12 hour break in between when the site was down and when he needed to post.
Plus, he didn't actually miss the deadline. He responded in time and got his post up.
And you are right, being tired, busy or otherwise distracted in real life are valid excuses. But that brings us back to the fact that he was actually posting on other parts of this site, not busy elsewhere.
If he had contacted me and politely said, "Hey, I'm out of time and I don't think I can post a good argument, can you cut me some slack?" I would have been open to that for sure.
But he insisted that he won... sooo... eh? *shrug*
You don't know how busy those three days were for him irl or how tired he was etc, it actually was lucky for me as I often intentionally leave debates to the last hour for an adrenaline rush (it actually increases your iq when you have it as long as you haven't had one in the past 12 hours or so as it will fizzle your brain out if you have too many).
If the cut-out had happened in that period for me, even if a few hours were left and I'd just gone 'meh I'll do this in the last 2 hours' I'd be exactly like him even if I then had time to reply with like 20 mins left to post. This is how it looks to me.
Agreed. But still, 2 or 3 hours shouldn't have been a prolonged enough time to justify not responding when the argument period was 72 hours long.