Instigator / Pro
8
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3415

Derek Chauvin was not a racist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Derek Chauvin: the man who killed George Floyd.

Racist: prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

Congrats on the new job, and good luck with the family.

-->
@Barney
@Novice

I'm very sorry that I in fact did not analyze or vote on the debate as I implied I would. The last three weeks have flown by as I started a new job and have a lot of family staying in my house.

Okay, so, if one is aware of the feeling of having read something so foolish/idiotic, but is meant to be serious, that is close to my current line of thoughts in respect to the comments section of this debate.

Now that the voting period has ended, I can freely discuss any aspect of this debate without fear of creating undue bias in voters.

So, anyone have any questions?

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

I was tempted to argue just that; that he's racist for being a cop, and pro effectively conceded all cops are racist against white people with their increased willingness to shoot them. So many angles I could have taken.

"“Policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people”
If we assume this applies outside of firearms, this only compounds that DC was racist due to him committing crimes toward African Americans when other cops would apparently be more hesitant and/or opt to select white victims instead."

This should be reworded to say

"Chauvin is racist for being equally resistant to attacking two different ethnicities, while other cops are quicker to shoot one ethnicity over the other, which somehow makes them not racist"

-->
@Greyparrot
@Mharman

The debate indeed touched on those issues.

I think the way the debate proposition was worded made it easy. It seems all con had to do was present reasonable doubt that DC was not a racist. It would have been a lot harder to prove DC was a racist than to simply prove he might have been a racist. This is probably why he was not criminally charged for being a racist.

I’ve wondered about this. Obviously Derek Chauvin deserved to be tossed in jail, but given that we can’t see inside the heart, we don’t really know his true motivation.

So I guess this debate is based on likelihood. Con needs has multiple ways to prove this, but Pro potentially can have some good counter-evidence. I might vote on this.

-->
@Barney

I definitely feel like Novice's confidence made him a little overconfident in his own statements.

He did make some good points, but you stayed pretty calm and logical in my opinion. So, good job!

-->
@ComputerNerd

Any feedback on this debate?

Michelle Obama commented on George Floyd today:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd_nxPQODL6/

-->
@Bones

Especially as I suspect you disagree with my conclusions and me being well out of practice on debating, would you mind sharing any feedback on this debate?

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

I had forgotten about forum posts doing it. Thanks in advance, and take your time.

-->
@Barney

I have unlocked voting, but I haven't managed to get the couple hours + tea required to analyze this debate yet sorry. I still have 20 days right?

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

While I know you haven't unlocked voting privileges yet, you mentioned you were following this one... So, would you mind sharing your opinions on how the debate turned out?

-->
@Barney
@Novice

Appreciate the response, Barney.

I also appreciate your clarification, Novice, though I'm not sure who the latter is directed at, specifically. Wasn't the clarification I was hoping for after you attacked my vote for ignoring arguments or bias, but it doesn't appear that you're willing to clarify what you see as problematic in my vote after disparaging it. Oh well.

Would love to see some more votes on this.

Just as a gesture of clarification of any (obvious) ignorance on specific fallacies, which I imagine would have some benefit, it is good to maintain that simply responding to an argument in a nuanced is not gish galloping, or is using slightly more sources, most especially in an organized format.

-->
@whiteflame
@SirAnonymous

Now that the voting momentum for this debate seems to be gone...

...

Regarding BoP:
Sorry I let that section get out of control. My intention was to demonstrate to pro how it can be argued. I didn't overly care, as I would hit any reasonable standard of BoP quite easily.

When I vote on debates, BoP sections only merit a quick skim unless the contest is particularly close.

IMO both pro and con will always have some share of BoP. The major difference being that con gets the benefit of doubt.

...

Regarding conduct:
Once R2 started, I knew I would get conduct if I kept my side clean. However, entertaining potential readers takes priority. That said, I do stand by my words on it (with the sole exception of making a big deal out of the "shooting" typo; that was to include the zombie joke).

Calling someone's case racist, to me is warranted when you explain to them if they say certain precises phrases they're a racist, and they proceed to parrot those exact things.

I do not believe the mere act of pro Gish Galloping would cost him conduct; the goal of pointing that out was to undermine him on arguments (especially to pre-refute when a Gish Galloper inevitably proclaims Gish Galloping means they won).

-->
@Novice

I’m sincerely curious. What arguments do you believe I ignored? The only other points I could find were non-sequiturs about how we should perceive other cops (specifically black cops) if we say that DC is racist for killing one black man, which was both an incorrect portrayal of your opponent’s argument and not particularly relevant to this debate. But please, explain what I missed. I’ll be glad to look over and consider any arguments that you feel I didn’t cover.

I would even accept the votes if they actually addressed points I made, but it
seems very very close minded for me to do so having read them both.
Feels like more of an attempt to make a certain person win.

Even analyzing certain points of them, don't appear to make sense at all. '
I can't really say anything about anyone's understanding or goals, but what
I can suppose is the unfortunate nature of the situation.

-->
@ComputerNerd

I understand that you need to capitalize on the opportunity to be passive aggressive to me after two votes have been
cast against me, but honestly speaking, they simply aren't good votes, they both just ignore most of the arguments I make.
I don't really take an active critique with votes any more because it ends up being a waste of time, but if every vote casted
has to simply not address my points, it's impossible to conclude they are fair.

-->
@Novice

Not so cocky now, are you?

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting, and thank you again for the exceptionally detailed RFD.

To help ensure full transparency, a forum topic has sprung up related to this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7569-poll-what-is-a-breathing-expert

With the debate still in the voting period, I am personally aiming to keep my commentary minimal.

Please vote (anyone else), and I ask this time if you do you address the arguments in the debate please

-->
@Barney

You're welcome.

-->
@SirAnonymous

It was a cheeky way to say just that. It was a word choice meant to entertain, not to make any real point.

Also, thank you again for voting.

-->
@Barney

When you said that Floyd and Kueng are breathing experts, did you mean that they are breathing experts because they have spent their entire lives breathing?

I do have a reason for asking this.

Pro also brings up an interesting case as a refutation. He argues that DC used excessive force against Melissa Borton. He also points out that DC was less cruel to her because she didn’t resist arrest. Con argues that while it is true that he was rude to her, this was the only example of DC using excessive force on a white person, whereas there are several cases of DC using excessive force on black people.

In addition to these arguments, there is much to-do about sources, non-violent and violent crimes, the finer points of law, and other items that have little bearing on whether DC is a racist.

Overall, Con succeeds in establishing a racial disparity in DC’s victims. He succeeds in establishing that DC used excessive force on African-Americans. Pro’s case is very muddled, but he does make a few points. He succeeds in establishing that, in order for DC to be racist, we would need to have evidence that he targets people because of their race. He also succeeds in establishing that DC has used excessive force on at least one white person.

These arguments are difficult to weigh, especially since this debate was packed with plenty of mostly irrelevant matters. However, Con’s points that there was a racial disparity in DC’s victims and that the cases with the most excessive force were against African-Americans is at least some evidence for his case. It’s a bit tenuous and far from conclusive, but Pro does little to counter it. Pro’s argument that Con should have the BOP fell apart in R3 and became exceedingly muddled. Had he won this point, which he could have done with a bit more effort, I would favor Pro on the grounds that Con’s argument does not reach the much-discussed legal standard of proof. However, since Pro failed on the BOP, I favor Con for arguments.

Sources: To be honest, I just don’t feel like analyzing sources after spending about 90 minutes on the arguments, so I’ll be brief. Pro spent a good deal of time unconvincingly accusing Con of lying about sources, but ultimately the sources didn’t have much impact on most of the relevant points.

S&G: Fine on both sides.
Conduct: Pro spent a lot of time accusing Con of lying because Pro failed to grasp Con’s very obvious meaning about the “breathing experts.” Con accused Pro of lying a few times. I’m not sure what to make of Con’s accusations. They seem to miss Pro’s meaning, but that could also be deliberate on Con’s part, since Pro missed Con’s meaning and accused him of lying. Con also made a few veiled accusations of racism that seemed directed toward Pro. There were also accusations of Gish Galloping. If anyone here was Gish Galloping, it was Pro. Pro’s conduct violations were a little more frequent and more egregious than Con’s. Still, I think I’ll let it slide this time.

Burden of Proof: Pro claims that Con has the BOP. Con says that Pro is the one making a claim and that Pro needs to meet the legal standard by showing that DC is not racist beyond reasonable doubt. Pro points out that the standard is innocent until proven guilty, so Con has the BOP. Con responds that Pro is the one who created the resolution. He points out that Pro’s own source states that the side that affirms the resolution (Pro) has the BOP. Pro responds rather weirdly: “CON says I am disagreeing with my source, however, his point is very wrong as I have already affirmed the resolution quite strongly.” This implicitly agrees with Con. Pro does claim a contradiction between how Con is applying the legal standard for the BOP and for a separate argument in the debate, but it isn’t clear how he is applying this to the BOP. Normally, I would agree with Pro that the person make the positive claim (DC is a racist) as having the BOP. However, this bizarre failure to effectively dispute that standard paired with a statement that seems to implicitly agree with Con overturns that. Thus, I will treat Pro as having the main BOP. In the future, I recommend that, when Pro wishes to argue the negative side, he should create the resolution as a positive (e.g., DC is a racist) and take the Con side. I also recommend that Pro vigorously dispute any attempts to change the burden of proof rather than drop the issue.

Arguments: Pro begins by burning down two strawmen. He states that Con needs to provide evidence that DC as an individual was racist.

Con argues that DC is a racist because he has a history of targeted racial violence. There are multiple fronts to this argument.

1. Con argues that DC’s victims (i.e., the people to whom he showed excessive force, of which there are 6) were disproportionately non-white based off the general population. Pro correctly points out that the metric should be the population of criminals, not the general population. Con argues that DC’s victims are still disproportionately non-white compared to the demographics of the criminal population. Pro says that “CON's argument suffers from the same caveats brought up in ROUND ONE and is therefore invalidated.” I am not at all sure what caveats Pro is referring to or how they apply to Con’s argument. Pro also argues that we can’t come up with a ratio that accounts for factors other than race such as the aggression of the suspect. Pro also brings up the case of Mohamed Noor, who killed a white woman. As Con points out, this case is not analagous. There was only one known incident of Noor using excessive force, but there were multiple incidents for DC. Pro says, “Following CON's logic, if a black police officer has killed ONE PERSON, and that person was not of his OWN RACE it shows clear prejudice and antagonism.” This is transparently false. Con is not arguing based on one incident, but several. Pro also argues that Con has no way of knowing whether DC discriminated based on race rather than height, weight, etc. Con points out that DC’s victims had varying heights and weights. He argues that the common theme is race. Pro argues that this is insufficient. Con, he says, needs to show that DC targeted his victims because they were black, not merely that his victims were black. Con says, “The attacks, tortures, and even a murder following racial lines of one group and excluding the other, is self evidently a racial bias.”

2. Con argues that the fact that DC knelt on George Floyd for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, despite Floyd and fellow officer Alexander Kueng saying that Floyd couldn’t breathe and then had no pulse, is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern of racism. Interestingly, Pro never seemed to address this. Instead, he wasted thousands of characters arguing that Floyd and Kueng are not breathing experts. He seems to have missed Con’s rather obvious meaning that Floyd and Kueng had spent their entire lives breathing and were thus quite qualified to be able to tell when someone is not breathing. Con rather clearly did not say that they had a degree in breathing or that they studied breathing. Pro rather absurdly accuses Con of lying about Floyd and Kueng being breathing experts. Pro also argues that Floyd was resisting arrest and had a history of doing so. How this is an explanation for why a reasonable, non-racist person to kneel on someone’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds is unclear.

3. Con also argues that DC’s torture of Zoya Code indicates racism. Pro again argues that she was resisting arrest. Pro again fails to explain why any reasonable, non-racist person would used this as a reason to continue to use excessive force after she had stopped resisting.

-->
@zedvictor4
@Intelligence_06
@ADreamOfLiberty

I want to say this, I am not forcing anyone to vote, nor would I attempt too. I am pinging people who seem to be relatively active/are in this comments section.

(If anyone does vote, I do ask for a good reading of the arguments)

-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame

Appears you two have some interest in this debate If you wanted to vote

Get ready to vote!

-->
@Novice

As a courtesy reminder, you are down to three hours.

-->
@RationalMadman

Let's keep it that I am not saying anything about anyone.

-->
@Novice

Firstly, why would you use a sample size of 1 (your debate with him) to judge the weight of his skill overall?

Secondly, if you think he isn't strong in this debate, it will be your bitter downfall. I won't teach you more, sign up to my coaching.

Going through some of my opponents arguments has made me realise a lot about how the perceptions others (particularly the active community of DART and the people in this comments section hold for certain users are not at all an accurate representation of their debating skill or honesty.
I look forward to the end of this debate!

-->
@Bones

Given some of the /interesting/ tactics utilized in this debate, I am burnt out on this topic right now. However, I'll keep your offer in mind.

The next debate I have planned is against Pie, on if banning users for doxing is corrupt (or a closely related resolution), with the stakes of me resigning from the moderation team if he wins. He is very sure of himself, and desperately wants me gone, but is having a time shortage at the moment.

-->
@Barney

Me and you can run this debate if you wish.

-->
@Novice

I'm paying attention, this is an important resolution.

I've noted that you didn't both agree on BoP before you started, so I will happily be using the correct BoP rules.

"Moving forward, CON has the burden of proof and must provide any evidence, or make an argument that demonstrates this." - Pro

This is correct, BoP is not something that can be manipulated out of existence by rearranging the assertion. If there is a tradition on DART that Pro is always the one with BoP then Novice should have made the resolution "Chauvin is a racist" and taken Con. Regardless that is the positive assertion, and that is what carries a BoP.

There is a technical difference between knowing something false and treating something as false, but it is a difference that is not captured well in the English language. We use the same sentence to describe not believing in and dismissing the spaghetti monster as we do to describe proving there isn't one. When proof of absence is impossible or very unlikely it is dishonest to assume that was the claim.

-->
@Novice

Not sure what you're expecting. Most of the interest in this debate will likely be in the outcome, though even for someone like me who is keeping up with the debate as it goes, I'm not really interested in providing running commentary. I will say that setting the character limit so high was... a choice, one that might put off other voters depending on how long the remaining rounds are.

This debate should have a larger pool of interest than it currently has.

-->
@Novice

Interesting R2... I’m traveling right now. You may expect my replies on Monday.

-->
@Novice

Your R2 is due tonight. You’ve got just over 7 hours remaining.

-->
@ComputerNerd

We will see, indeed.

Petition to have press conferences before heated debates whereby each contestant slings insults at the other.

-->
@Barney
@Novice

Barney: Best of luck, I want to see how mad Novice gets when he was so confident but got destroyed.

Novice: Don't underestimate Barney.

-->
@Novice

You're down to 30 minutes. If you're too late, please share what you wrote in the comment section and I'll include it in my R1.

-->
@Novice

Dude, you're down to an hour.