white privilege exists
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
White privilege exists. Meaning whites have an unfair advantage over non whites. I am open to use a better definition if con wants but that's what I am assuming. I assume I have an unfair advantage against niggers.
First of all, credit to the mockery of the tardiness. I am very educated, and in business school different cultural senses of time was something actively studied (say you're running a factory in country X, you need not just to know the language, but how they perceive time). So it came across to me as actually clever and topical.
That aside, I believe con's R2 was an effective rebuttal, which kritiked pro's assumptions about what fairness is to flip them around. Pro then engaged in much of what he accused his oppoment of doing (as much as I would not use such crude terms for it), but ignoring those responses; which was a very critical time in which he really needed to address what they said with some degree of substance as he would have no further chances to response.
Pro's Title/Resolution makes a claim that ends up being supported by anti-social attitude that is expressed up from in the Description by use of clear racial epithet, as Con rebutted in R2. Pro con tinged with all three rounds to issue racial slurs, making a point of epmhasizong it, making the argument a truism, and, therefore, inadmissible. Since Con's R1 argument was forfeited, but amounts to only 30% of the debar, it does not qualify to be demerited in conduct. Further, as noted, Con provided successful argument that pro's attitude was unsuited, and amounted to Pro's only argument.
Con wins.
Pro deserves sanction to clean-up a clear, unacceptable attitude. Moderators, please note.
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Edit: To clarify what I mean when I mention Pro's lack of refutation, Pro brought up arguments such as 'White people have higher IQ' and Con pointed out that nothing Pro brought up had anything to do with UNFAIR SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Con pointed out that these were all arguments having to do with white supremacy instead of white privilege. Pro then used heaps of disrespectful language instead of trying to make a rebuttal or introduce new points. Essentially, Con challenged Pro's definition/topicality and Pro
a: used racial slurs
b: just flat out claimed "you can't argue with my definition." (while this might be technically allowed since Con forfeited round one, it is rather unsportsmanlike IMHO)
Overall, my primary reason for voting for Con is Pro's poor conduct.
You would think if freedom of speech is allowed anywhere it would be on a debate site .
How is this debate allowed?
thank you
Done.
@whiteflame
do that please
It doesn't allow for edits. If you want to copy it, I can delete it and you can re-post it.
I accidentally clicked the wrong thing in my vote. Can you let me edit it somehow?
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Reason for Removal: when awarding points in the winner-take-all format, the voter is required, at minimum, to assess arguments in order to award points. Even if the debaters’ conduct ends up being a factor in their decision, that argument analysis must be present. Simply stating that one side did not refute the other is insufficient - the voter must provide analysis of specific points brought up by both sides in the debate.
**************************************************
I’ll take a look at this.
Con's profile photo is cute. Its difficult to vote against that.
Can you take a look at Rizzler's vote and read con's second round where he makes no positive arguments and just calls me racist. He makes no effort to support his own position and the rizzler is essentially placing a type of revenge vote to avenge a position he holds.
I have premises for my arguments, you just didn't address them. I mentioned lower IQs for example and you just let my points stand.
sorry for the combined words i am in a rush.
Also Negroes is not a racist term. It feels wrong when a white person uses it but it's pretty neutral though is slowly riding the "euphemism wheel"
The 70s it wasn't racist, the 80s and 90s it was just too close to the word nigger so whites stopped saying it in case they were misheard, knowing that a lot of people just react emotionally to the word. Now because whites have decided not to say it, other whites not hearing it often have started to think the term was racist.
Pro life people and pretty much every Muslim is just incapable of placing fair votes. It's a tragedy but none the less true
In this context, someone who votes their bias.
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
You might be right. but whats a yes man?
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
I didn't have the chance to respond. But Its obvious that your racist. You didn't even mention the topic at hand instead you go on talking about how whites are the supreme race. An if ur white why are you calling African Americans "Negroes".
Im talking about Wylted but i cant tag him so im taging you Barney
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
So topic is just white vs black? Well, there is some space to argue there too. What counts as advantage? And do you mean all white people? Some whites are way below some black people, in wealth and everything. Also, black people do have some important advantages, like bigger dick on average and generally higher reproduction rate to replace white people. So yes, there is space to argue.
You can be more privileged than darkies and less then the big people and you would still be privileged but so would the bug people
"Meaning whites have an unfair advantage over non whites"
Are white people superior to asian people? Or does this topic just limits itself to white vs black?
You are not a trump tard so you would be arguing devils advocate.
I would accept, but I cant.
No conservative tards want to come here and claim white privilege doesn't exist