Instigator
Points: 21

"Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed was not discriminated against.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Raltar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Contender
Points: 8
Description
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;
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/644236412473208833
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;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident#Hoax_allegations_and_conspiracy_theories
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.
Round 1
Published:
Ahmed Mohamed was not the "victim" of this incident, but was in fact the instigator. Several key facts clearly prove this, which I shall outline here.


Fact #1; Ahmed didn't "build" or "invent" his clock. In fact, the clock was an existing piece of electronics which was manufactured by Radio Shack. Ahmed merely removed the case of this existing clock and then pasted the internal components of the clock into a pencil case to give the appearance of a new design.

So I turned to eBay, searching for vintage alarm clocks. It only took a minute to locate Ahmed’s clock. See this eBay listing, up at the time of this writing. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidiary. Catalog number 63 765.

By now he could have invented something new — not just a clock that only took him a few minutes to put together from parts in his family’s garage, which was full of ’90s-era electronics from when his uncle ran a chain called Beeper Warehouse.

Even famous Atheist Richard Dawkins has voiced his opinion that the use of an existing clock makes Ahmed's claims seem suspicious;

In a series of posts in Twitter, Richard Dawkins suggested that Mohamed and his family might have staged a hoax. Dawkins noted that the clock components were not a new invention...


Fact #2; Ahmed was not immediately punished for bringing the 'clock' to school. Multiple teachers saw the 'clock' and told him to put it away because it looked suspicious. Ahmed was only punished when he defied the teachers by setting the 'clock' off in the middle of English class.

Based upon previous reports, he showed his supposed invention to an engineering teacher in the morning. Who subsequently warned him that the device looked suspicious and not to show it to anybody else. Apparently rather than heed his warning, according to reports, he then showed his invention to teachers in the next six classes who voiced similar concerns to him. In the sixth period he apparently, without the English teachers knowledge plugged the device into the wall with the intent to set off the timer on the device.


Fact #3; Ahmed had a history of playing "pranks" at school and other bad behavior, before being punished for the 'clock' incident.

The Dallas Morning News described Mohamed as having “racked up weeks of suspension” and pranking the “classroom projector.”

Kubiak admits a fondness for Mohamed yet dubbed him a “weird little kid” who could either wind up the CEO of a company or “head of a gang.”


Fact #4; Ahmed's sister was punished for a similar incident at a middle school in the same district.

The sister of the boy who brought a suspected hoax-bomb to his Texas high school said she was suspended from a school in a prior bomb scare. Her suspension occurred in 2009 while she was attending middle school in the same district.


Fact #5; The valedictorian of Ahmed's High School is also a Muslim and denies that there is any discrimination or bias present in the school.

Now a college student, Jamali acknowledged she did not know first-hand what occurred at MacArthur with Ahmed, then underscored,  “…Mac is a place where there is no or very little prejudice.”


Fact #6; After the incident, Ahmed's father and other family members rapidly took charge of the situation, hiring layers, speaking to the media on Ahmed's behalf, and promoting the idea that Ahmed had been "discriminated against" by the police and the school. However, Ahmed's father is a political activist in Sudan, claims to be a Muslim religious leader and is a known 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ahmed's father has openly admitted that the clock incident will help his own political career.

Muslim leaders in Texas, meanwhile, doubted his claims to religious and scholarly leadership. “This so-called leader, we have never heard of this person,” Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, head of the Islamic Center of Irving, told the Seattle Times. “I believe the whole thing is made up.”

In his eyes, the more Ahmed is seen, the better. It’s good for the family, he says. Twice in his life he has run for president of Sudan. He plans to run again in 2020. The more people who know him, the better his chances.

Troubling statements in this Facebook post further the ideology of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The translation suggests that the 9/11 terror attacks were bogus, an inside-job, reading: “That the war against terror is nothing more than an illusion made in America—as al-Qa`ida was made in America, as well as what is happening now in the Arab East at the hands of the West.” The post also alleges that the United States created 9/11 to manufacture the “war on terror.”
Last week, Mohamed removed the National Reform page, perhaps in response to Western media sifting through the content. 

Notable celebrity Mark Cuban observed that Ahmed's family was feeding him answers during interviews;

We talked about science, but while I’m talking to him on the phone, as I ask him a question, ‘Tell me what happened,’ because I’m curious, right? His sister, over his shoulder, you could hear, listening to the question, giving him the answer.
Source.

And other later interviews implied that Ahmed's responses were being carefully monitored by some unknown party;

He captured Ahmed’s metered responses with “eyes drifting off camera” that appeared to look offside “for approval” from someone before answering questions. 
Source.


Fact #7; Ultimately, after several years and many threats, the Mohamed family began filing lawsuits against those who they claim had wronged them. All of these lawsuits were dismissed due to a lack of any evidence showing that discrimination took place.

On March 13, 2018 a federal lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mohamed's father against the Irving Independent School District, the city of Irving, and several specific individuals, was dismissed with prejudice with the court ordering Mohamed's family to bear all the costs of the lawsuit.

The bottom line is this;

Ahmed Mohamed took apart and old clock that his uncle had left lying around in the garage. For reasons unknown, he pasted some of the parts from this clock into a pencil case and began making false claims that he had "invented" a clock.

Ahmed then took the clock to school, perhaps thinking that he could impress his teachers with his false claims of being an inventor, resulting in the teachers repeatedly warning him not to show the clock to anyone because it looked like a bomb. Ahmed, who has a history of bad behavior and playing pranks at school, openly defied the teachers and set up his clock to cause a disturbance in the middle of his English class. As a result of the disturbance involving an object that looked like a bomb, the school made the very reasonable decision to punish Ahmed and turn the matter over to the police for further investigation. Although Ahmed was briefly detained by the police, he was released to his parents upon request and no formal criminal charges were ever filed against him.

Immediately, Ahmed's family, their lawyers and a host of political organizations took control of the situation and began using the media to promote a narrative that Ahmed had been "discriminated against" by the school and police. Ahmed's own father openly admits that promoting his own political career is a beneficial side effect of the controversy was boosting his own political career. I firmly believe this was the motive for the Ahmed family to blow this issue out of proportion, as it benefited them personally to do so.

The media and other political organizations gladly assisted Ahmed because it also served their own agenda as well. Many people saw Ahmed as an opportunity to promote STEM education, and while that might be a worthy goal, Ahmed was the wrong person to carry that banner, since he was lying about "inventing" the clock.

In the end, all the lawsuits filed by the Mohamed family were dismissed because there is no evidence to support their claims.
Published:
I'll assume rebuttals will be in round 2. My arguments will consist almost entirely of rebuttals, so we'll keep this round short. but first let me post the definition of "discrimination" and

from dictionary.com

  • an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
  • treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
  • the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

  • Oddly enough my opponent has already acknowledged ahmed mohomad was treated differently, most kids don't have the cops called on them while at school. This debate is not about racial prejudice or anything like that, it is about whether the school discriminated (according to the dictionary definition) that kid. I'd say that yes they made a distinction about mohamed and that is why the cops were called.
    Round 2
    Published:
    As a partly related aside, I've been following my opponent's progress in a game of 'Forum Mafia' here on the Debateart.com forum, where he said this;

    Please start reading everything twice if it is going through your head. A lot of people retain 50% of material one one reading and 80% after 2 readings.

    Apparently my opponent needs to read the description of this debate at least one more time, because he missed more than half of what he needs to be arguing for/against in this debate! Let me quote it again;

    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.
    Source; The debate description on this page!


    So in this debate I am arguing;

    1. That Ahmed was not the victim of "Islamophobia".
    2. That Ahmed and his family received unjust benefit from their presentation in the media.
    3. That Ahmed does not deserve to be defended on the "scientific" merits of his "invention" of the clock.


    Alternatively, Con must argue;

    1. That Ahmed was the victim of "Islamophobia" resulting in him being discriminated against unfairly.
    2. That Ahmed was accurately represented in the media and deserving of the positive benefits of that representation.
    3. That Ahmed was deserving of being defended on the "scientific" merits of his "invention" of the clock.


    If Con plans to toss all of that out the window and argue only for a generic "discrimination" case, then he will have effectively ignored the vast majority of the topics which were actually intended to be debated and thus will surely lose this debate.

    I wish Con good luck with such a strategy, because not only would it fail to meet the clear definition for this debate, but even Ahmed's trained and expert lawyers failed to make that exact same argument in no less than three different lawusits, and subsequently lost all three of them!


    With that said, I will make a few brief rebuttals to the very little worthwhile material my opponent has initiated thus far.

    my opponent has already acknowledged ahmed mohomad was treated differently, most kids don't have the cops called on them while at school.
    This is an example of a 'Special Pleading' logical fallacy (also known as "moving the goalposts"), with a little bit of Strawman Fallacy used as fuel to get the main fallacy started.

    First, my opponent uses the Strawman. He changes what my argument says in order to make it easier for him to attack. I never "acknowledged" that Ahmed was treated any differently than anyone else, but he needs to be able to make me say that in order to create evidence for his case that he can't find on his own. What I actually said was that Ahmed's school made a very reasonable decision about his punishment in light of the fact that he already had an established record of bad behavior at the school and that he defied an instruction that was given to him by multiple teacher's on the day of the incident. My opponent is gambling that you will ignore what was actually said and blindly accept his unsubstantiated claim that I said something else instead.

    Next, my opponent knows that he cannot win this debate on the originally established grounds which includes allegations of "Islamophobia" and a supposed scientific merit to Ahmed's "invention" of the clock, much less the outrageous way Ahmed was promoted by a biased media. So this is where he moves the goalposts and hopes that readers will either forget, didn't read or can be effectively distracted from noticing 95% of the topics which have been discussed in this debate up to this point, resulting in very narrow tunnel vision locked onto the issue of the police. Not only is this a dishonest tactic to ignore debate topics that my opponent has no rebuttal for, it also happens to be wrong anyway.

    In fact, most children in the public school system will have contacts with the police (either positive or negative) as a result of the common placement of 'School Resource Officers' in schools. These officers not only try to provide opportunities for school children to have positive interactions with the police, but they also fulfill their traditional law enforcement role as well. When children are suspected or accused of committing a crime, or engaging in any particularly egregious bad behavior beyond what the school's typical disciplinary procedures can handle, they will likely be referred to the school resource officer for further action.

    Furthermore, claiming that Ahmed even should have been treated the same way as a typical school child is a false equivalence fallacy. Ahmed didn't behave the way that a typical school child would, since the typical school child doesn't engage in an act of plagiarism by lying about "inventing" a clock from their uncle's failed business, nor does the typical school child bring said "clock" to school in the form of a suspicious device which they then set off in the middle of English class. The typical school child will not be treated the way Ahmed was because the typical school child will not behave the way Ahmed did. Conversely, any school child of any race, gender or creed would surely be treated the way Ahmed was if they behaved the way Ahmed did. Again, this is an example of my opponent moving the goalposts and hoping that you will ignore all the facts I established in my opening statements to fall into his trap of engaging in tunnel vision on only a tiny fraction of the incident being discussed.


    In summary, my opponent is not only ignoring the actual topic of the debate and the issues which he is required to defend, he also happens to be wrong about the issue he falsely attempted to redirect us onto. I hope that in round 2 of this debate he will agree to refocus on the actual topic of the debate and take the actual role he agreed to when he accepted the debate.
    Published:
    The site was down yesterday. I have won anyway because my opponent has failed to properly engage with the semantics but I'd like him to agree that the debate go unvoted on. I clearly have not been able to give him my best shot here. 

    The one thing I will point out is that he is trying to say Ahmed was not discriminated against because the school had good reasons to discriminatensure against him. I think what he means to say is that Ahmed was not unfairly discriminated against, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether he faced discrimination,  not about whether the discrimination is fair.
    Round 3
    Published:
    The site was down yesterday... I'd like him to agree that the debate go unvoted on.
    The site was down for only a few hours yesterday, but was online for the majority of the day before that. My opponent was online frequently throughout the day and had ample time to participate in other activities on the site, including a game of forum mafia where he successfully incited the other players to lynch an innocent individual. Considering that he had a full three days to post a response, and managed to post a response this morning without forfeiting, I don't buy the excuse that he didn't have time because of the website being briefly offline.

    Besides...

    I have won anyway...
    He feels he "won anyway" so why doesn't he want to voters to confirm that?


    ...he is trying to say Ahmed was not discriminated against because the school had good reasons to discriminatensure [???] against him.
    This is another Strawman Fallacy. I never said this, nor is this the actual thesis of my argument.

    And as I pointed out in Round 2, this isn't even the actual topic of the debate anyway. Allow me to point it out yet again;

    Con must argue;

    1. That Ahmed was the victim of "Islamophobia" resulting in him being discriminated against unfairly.
    2. That Ahmed was accurately represented in the media and deserving of the positive benefits of that representation.
    3. That Ahmed was deserving of being defended on the "scientific" merits of his "invention" of the clock.

    If Con plans to toss all of that out the window and argue only for a generic "discrimination" case, then he will have effectively ignored the vast majority of the topics which were actually intended to be debated and thus will surely lose this debate.
    Effectively, my opponent completely missed the actual point of this debate, made a poor argument for the wrong issue and now he doesn't want people to vote.

    I suppose I wouldn't be looking forward to the voting phase either if I dug myself this deep of a hole, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual terms of the debate, the required discussion topics and the amount of time for response were all well known and established before my opponent accepted the debate. I encourage the audience to vote and to vote in light of all the established and required discussion topics.



    With the above said, this will be my closing argument and final rebuttals.

    1. Ahmed lied and committed plagiarism by claiming to have "invented" a clock which was actually left over from his Uncle's failed business.

    2. Ahmed had a long history of bad behavior and prior pranks at school.

    3. Ahmed's sister had also been involved in a similar incident at a school in the same district.

    4. The valedictorian of Ahmed's school was also a Muslim and denied that there was any bias against Muslim's present in the school.

    5. The media ignored Ahmed's lies and prior bad behavior, promoting him as a champion of STEM education by giving him multiple talk-show appearances, a photo-op with President Obama and a large quantity of free stuff.

    6. Ahmed's own father openly admitted that the family had both political and financial motives for pursuing a claim of "Islamophobia" in Ahmed's case.

    7. Although Ahmed's family filed multiple lawsuits against multiple parties alleging that Ahmed had been "discriminated" against in some way, every single one of those lawsuits resulted in an embarrassing defeat for Ahmed, often requiring the Muhammad family to bear all the legal costs associated with the lawsuit.
    My opponent has completely failed to respond to the majority of the topics that were meant to be addressed and debated during this debate, including the "Islamophobia" issue, the behavior of the media and if Ahmed deserved to be be defended on the "scientific" merit of his "inventing" a clock.

    Conversely, the only issue my opponent has focused on is a generic claim of "discrimination" (without accepting his burden to show that such took place because of "Islamophobia"), and even to that extent his short, unsupported arguments have been logically falacious. His argument claims that Ahmed was "discriminated" against merely because the police were called to respond to his unnecessary prank. However, many people have contacts with the police without being discriminated against, and merely having contact with the police is not a legitimate basis to claim discrimination. Furthermore, every single lawsuit which the Mohamed family filed alleging discrimination was summarily thrown out of court due to the complete absence of any evidence to support a discrimination claim.

    My opponent used only brief semantic arguments, had no sources to support his claims, ignored the majority of debate topics and even asked to weasel out of the public vote. Vote for me, vote for Ike, or vote for a sandwich, but don't vote for my opponent, because his argument is one step away from not even existing.
    Forfeited
    Added:
    --> @Raltar
    It's an interesting idea. It might punish people who forum post a lot who mean no harm, though.
    #44
    Added:
    --> @Raltar
    https://www.debateart.com/debates/56
    #43
    Added:
    --> @RationalMadman
    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.
    Instigator
    #42
    Added:
    --> @Raltar
    Second loss not first ** for my RFD
    #41
    Added:
    --> @armoredcat
    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?
    Instigator
    #40
    Added:
    --> @Raltar
    Yeah I just wanted to understand because i thought you were mad or something lol I guess not.
    #39
    Added:
    --> @Raltar
    Thanks.
    #38
    Added:
    --> @armoredcat
    Yo ArmoredCat!
    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.
    Instigator
    #37
    Added:
    --> @drafterman
    Thanks for the feedback!
    Instigator
    #36
    Added:
    alright
    #35
    Added:
    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.
    Instigator
    #34
    Added:
    "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.
    #33
    Added:
    --> @Wylted
    No biggie. I think this debate kinda got derailed by all the drama in the comments anyway.
    Instigator
    #32
    Added:
    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.
    Instigator
    #31
    Added:
    Thought I had more time. Sorry about that
    Contender
    #30
    #3
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    When Con approached Pro with the troll-definition of 'discriminate' Pro didn't only explain that in his debate description and intended context of debate this was meant to specifically be about islamophobic type of discrimination but he furthermore goes into the redirected topic and explains an interesting take on the matter:
    If you are discriminating against someone who it is discriminatory to not discriminate against given their background and the context, are you then not opposing the superior discrimination in reprimanding them and holding them to the standard level of suspicion that you would any given the set of events and information leading to the 'discrimination'?
    Con keeps at the goal-post-moved angle by saying that Pro justified the discrimination and has conceded it occurred but this is where it comes down to what the debate is about. The debate includes its description in my eyes. I will always hold sacred what is written in a debate's description unlike many on this site who think it can go 'too far'. You will see my first loss on the site was me completely conceding to someone who wrongly defined free will as I realised I'd trapped myself and hold debate description absolutely sacred. Thus, I am not committing a fallacy of double-standard or situational preference for Raltar (Pro) here when I say that for me it comes down to respect for the debate-desc. In the description, there is a stated scope of debate in two different parts that completely defend Pro from the angle that Con takes:
    1) 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.
    2) 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.
    If you do the slightest background research (which Pro directly links you to and makes explicit from R1 onward), you'd understand that 'discrimination' was about unfair discrimination and not non-discriminatory level OF NECESSARY discrimination.
    I also would like to note that Con forfeits the last Round implying that even Con either felt too guilty or too out-charmed to keep taking his dirty-play lateral angle on the debate matter. There's no nice way to put it, Con played too dirty to win this given the scope of the debate.
    #2
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    Con attempts an ill-considered semantic rebuttal, despite the terms of the debate being clearly defined in context. None of Pro's actually facts and conclusions were addressed or rebutted.
    #1
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    Arguments to pro: pro offered a significant amount of argument data that needed a rebuttal from con - even from the first part - That Ahmed didn’t make the clock and seemingly was intentionally trying to stir trouble was unrefuted. Con capitulated his side of the debate by offering no rebuttal or defense over and above s line or two, and thus pro was left unrefuted.
    Conduct to pro for cons forfeit.
    Sources to pro: pro sufficiently defended his claims through sources, and attempted to establish the factual basis (including linking Dawkins, and a variety of interesting media), con offered nothing.
    I consider this a technical forfeit by con.