Instigator / Con
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#962

Take the Knee

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
5
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

(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