Instigator / Pro
28
1449
rating
14
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#3121

America is a systemically racist country

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
3
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
1
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

drlebronski
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description

Systemic racism definition----Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. FORMAT: round 1--- I will go first with my argument and then the con will post his argument the next rounds will just e a normal debate with arguing and debunking others arguments

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:

Although this debate is a demonstrated full forfeiture by Con, and, by such forfeiture, Pro wins the debate, I find severe lack by Pro in Argument and Sourcing to actually carry the day in those areas of voting focus:

Argument: as is typical, the side in these debates on this specific subject declaring systemic racism in America based upon, as Pro, in this debate defines "systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization," Pro, in this debate, which is also typical, fails to meet this defined standard. To wit: Pro offers no argument or citation of any "embedded laws and regulations" that specifically document current racial animus at all. All that is offered are government, academic, and industrial reports and data indicating individual racism practice, even if that practice is conducted by many people. Whereas no law or policy is cited, one cannot blame the system, which Pro has specifically defined as need "laws and regulations" cited. The lack is a total failure to support the Resolution. Therefore, even though by policy, a full forfeiture in a loss to the forfeiting party, I cannot in good faith award points for argument top Con. Tie.

Sources: For the same reason as stipulated above in Argument, I cannot, in good faith, award Source points to Pro. Tie.

Legibility: Points to Pro for at least R1 entry, whereas, Con has no entry.

Conduct: Points to Pro for at least R1 entry, whereas, Con has no entry.

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:

I disagree with Pro, but he won this since it was a forfeit 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:

Full forfeiture.

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:

full forfeited