Instigator / Pro
21
1540
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#298

"Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed was not discriminated against.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

Raltar
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.