Take the Knee
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Hello mairji23, I would like to debate you on the topic of take the knee. This was a protest where NFL players took a knee during the national anthem. I will be taking Con.
"You said that police brutality isn't a race issue. BBC News Canada presented a news story of "Why Do US Police Keep Killing Unarmed Black People." Did you know that in 2015, more than 100 (unarmed) black people were killed by the cops? Give me the number of unarmed whites that were killed in 2015 by cops."
Who's protesting America?
Why are we trying to read someone else's pockets?
How can dead veterans be offended if they're already dead?
When did the Black Panthers ever become a hate group?
Why can't Black people say that their lives matter as well?
But, you're the same guy who labeled me as racist.
1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.3. Officer Wilson, driving from the scene of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me."7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.
Con outlined a series of statistical evidence that outline his position for why athletes shouldn’t take a knee: specifically given that he claims racial driven disparities don’t exist. While this feels like con strips out much of the context and doesn’t provide a full summary of the data, I have to accept this point pending rebuttal.
The remaining points don’t appear to have a good argument supporting them, and do not appear explicitly linked to the resolution: so i won’t anaylze them further.
Pros issue here is that he attacks cons data, which appears valid, rather than attacking the context of the data. This undermines pros position as it allows con to build up an appearance of legitimacy - pro needs to outline the bigger picture, to contextualize all the data. Instead of a broad and robust argument, the debate quickly deteriorated into the weeds, becoming a he said/she said argument surrounding who did what and when. None of this was able to move the needle away from con - due to the implicit lack of real context from the data as a whole I was given by pro, I can only score based on the context con gives me.
I feel pro quickly went off topic, lost site of the resolution and was far too passionate and emotionally engaged into the core of the argument, rather than focusing on the resolution.
Given this, pros focus on individual cases and questioning the statistics pushed me further into cons direction: without a clear bigger picture and working in raw stats alone, I have to give this one to con.
(note: repost bc of an error)
CONDUCT: CON
Blatent rudeness by the PRO is clear here. Labeling people as "racist" and raised from "racist values," is not an on topic debate discussion. Personal attacks violate the sites COC, and turns their racist definition around. PRO was more irratable with his know it all attitude, and his cussing, leads me vote for CON
S&G: Punctuation errors. Doesn't deteriorate the debate, so no changes
SOURCES: CON
Sources were used by both. PROs source was wikipedia, which I count as more of a "reference" than a source. I also don't buy organization sources. They usually are very manipulative and try to lean you in a direction so they can get a consumers support. The facts are somewhat fipped. The other sources were not bad. PROs sources were simply better. While PRO does use organizations, these were clearly better and showed less bias. With various articles coming from reliable sources, my vote goes CON
ARGS: CON
It was hard to follow this debate and it seemed hard to keep track of points. I have a lot of into to site and it comes down to clarity and overall meaning and source citations
PRO relies on police to be the people, and the victimization of blacks and racism toward them. CON focused a lot on civilian to civilian crime and how the result show that blacks lead the charge. These points are kind of answered by the PRO, but not to the extend of a complete dismantling of the PROs main issue by CON. He states the flaws of the Michael Braun case and uses source to prove the overhyped. I am lost in the PROs rebutal and it leads me in different directions. This ends up stirring away from the case as such. A drop topic I noticed in the debate form the flows is the BTM being terrorists, which is extended by CON, but dropped. CON extends a little, and gives me clarity.
When it all comes down, I think CONs dismantling of the case made by PRO will lean my ballot CON for the arguments. He keep his attacks safe and prevents damage and builds off a lost argument by PRO by extending enough for validation of the point
I have problem with he way their disrespecting the flag
Good luck to con.
As expected, but you're the same guy who's got a problem with someone kneeling.
I rest my case.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: dustryder // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: Thanks for both opponents for the debate
POOR CONDUCT:
Throughout the entire debate Pro was insulted by Con several times, this includes...
"I think your racist because you said:"All problems in the world is because of the white male""
And also,
"If you think Black people are not mentally ill, then you are racism you think a race is inertially different and worse than one race. Which is textbook racism, just admit you don't like white people. Just admit you are racist. Its not that hard."
And my PERSONAL favorite...
"my opponent ignores arguments and denies statistics."
Additionally Con has maintained an obnoxious, petulant and condescending attitude throughout the entire debate, this includes...
Refering to Colin Kaepernick as Kolin CRAPernick
And also,
"Protesting this on 9/11 WOW GOOD MOVE IDIOTS-"
And my PERSONAL favourite...
"Did you really just say that. Wow,just WOW. "
On the hand, in the face of Con's insults and attitudes which were downright disrespectful and condescending, Pro maintained a calm and logical demeanor.
All other points are tied as neither were particularly convincing and both of their sources and spelling were relatively good
Reason for mod action: Unless a debater forfeited more than half the rounds, one still needs to explain a tied argument point.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: I would like to thank both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT:
Throughout the entire debate Pro insulted Con several times, this includes...
" Yet again, let me address the nonsense that my antagonist is spewing."
And also,
" Yeah, that kind of obliterates the nonsense you're spewing."
And my PERSONAL favorite...
" I'm going to try to cover as much of this psycho-babble as I can. If you have to write a full-novel to get your point across, then it shows just how uninformed you truly are. "
Pro's insults were obnoxious and downright disrespectful to Pro who maintained a logical attitude.
All other points tied, neither convinced me and both had relatively good sources and spelling
Reason for mod action: Unless a debater forfeited more than half the rounds, one still needs to explain a tied argument point.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
No, Im not going into the military
Hey man, have you went to your local recruitment office to enlist for service? It's been a few days and I never received the email as proof.
You also didn't explain yourself for (Not) supporting the Somali cop in the Minnesota case. Where's that patriotism for Blue Lives Matter?
Back the Badge?...………………….
Meh, thats fair.
Absolutely. However that is not what he said. And apart from this, personal attacks just do not belong in a debate regardless
I think its fair to call someone racist when they say
"Murder, theft, ponzi schemes, larceny, sexual abuse, pedophilia, hate crimes, perjury etc...equals the white male."
" Pro maintained a calm and logical demeanor."
lol
"Fake Police Reports: White"
JUSSIE SMOLLETT
Sorry,I have real work to do.
Step your game up, then come back and holler at me.
Do I?
And yet you continue to miss the entire point.
Ah....so acting on behalf of the law is hate crime now?
Stop the madness. When someone starts quoting gov. stats, they've pretty much run out of options. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/
Are you even aware that the FBI doesn't really report hate crimes? Wouldn't a white cop who kills an unarmed black person be considered a hate crime? Aren't police officers and FBI personnel considered to be law enforcement? Do you see the connection?
https://www.walb.com/2019/03/25/undercounting-hate-fbi-will-not-report-its-hate-crime-numbers-again-this-year-required-by-law/
That's actually wrong. BUDDY. Because the FBI released a report with the help of 48 state police departments that blacks commit most of the crimes,not whites,with 52% of the murder committed by blacks.
The key word here is "Unarmed."...You're so hellbent on trying to prove me wrong that you're arguing over a general topic rather than a specific topic.
Stay focused buddy, stay focused.
Of course, if we're arguing total amounts of police shootings, then I'm pretty sure that your stats are correct because white people commit the most crimes, which goes back to another debate that I'm having.
Thank you again for proving my point.
A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white.
Source: Burghart.