also, sorry if my "source bombing" (Systemic Racism) may have influenced your debating style in that direction.... I mostly wanted more rigorous research, intimidation effect, and proving beyond a reasonable doubt XD [Most times, three or fewer articles might be good enough]
interesting decision! What did you think of my interpretation? I thought the debate was basically decided by Round 3 since Con was basically repeating points by round 4...
Alright, let's do this. I'm probably the most dangerous debater on this site who's willing to argue the Con side. Let me warn you though, in order to beat Con's arguments, you have to break the framework, which is not easy to do.
change it to "significantly" or "Effectively" and I will accept this debate. Though I'm Pro on this, the Pro side is actually incredibly difficult to argue once a certain threshold is introduced.
I'm surprised you're taking this debate essentially rigged towards Con, considering your past experience. Excited to see what ace you have up your sleeve.
*sigh* the problem is the word "reasonable". If you get rid of that, the counter plan of counseling and restorative justice can potentially prove to be a powerful alternative, however, based on your round 1 and your setup, I can safely say this debate is truly "Undefeatable".
this looks like the type of debate I would write to set up a guaranteed win, except this is arguably even more difficult to beat than my Systemic Racism argument.
also I think the official public forum debate framework is a little bit weird to say China is zero threat because it's very hard to find anything beyond the handful of sources. So you're just slinging mud back and forth. I had to try to step back and see what it shared with Russia and culminate into an overarching idea. The Public Forum advice seems a little strange given the amount of evidence presented. I just ignored that in the end and decided to focus on US destroying itself since it seemed central to the entertaining "Paranoid" idea.
If I lose this one, congratulations Mr Chris you are officially a better debater than me XD. I probably said the same thing in three different ways but I couldn't think of what else to do
but I argued that Bible doesn't state Earth's age very explicitly, and that Con doesn't come up with any evidence, rather assuming that the bible just says the earth is younger than 100,000 years old...
I sense that I have made a mistake by assuming my case was so powerful it could defeat climate change. But unfortunately, my username shackles me to inability to concede. XD
I predicted you would accept this. Let's see if you can win this one. Funnily enough, I know less about DST than I do about Google Privacy, so this will be trickier.
thanks for the vote. I always found humanitarianism difficult to argue, so I gave an overbroad spectrum of view to force Pro to waste some time on what was mostly an emotional based argument. It was just a cherry on top to enforce the lack of true impacts from Pro's policy/benefits.
Fantastic counter plan, you had me stumped until I remembered dunning krueger effect. Funny how psychology relates back to education...
also, sorry if my "source bombing" (Systemic Racism) may have influenced your debating style in that direction.... I mostly wanted more rigorous research, intimidation effect, and proving beyond a reasonable doubt XD [Most times, three or fewer articles might be good enough]
interesting decision! What did you think of my interpretation? I thought the debate was basically decided by Round 3 since Con was basically repeating points by round 4...
Alright, let's do this. I'm probably the most dangerous debater on this site who's willing to argue the Con side. Let me warn you though, in order to beat Con's arguments, you have to break the framework, which is not easy to do.
change it to "significantly" or "Effectively" and I will accept this debate. Though I'm Pro on this, the Pro side is actually incredibly difficult to argue once a certain threshold is introduced.
again, if you are confused please ask questions
you know, this debate reminds me of the meme "it works 100% of the time, 20% of the time." Funny how that works in real life.
sorry, I mixed up pro and con again. Silly me.
I'm surprised you're taking this debate essentially rigged towards Con, considering your past experience. Excited to see what ace you have up your sleeve.
bumping this early since it's a long one. May take some time for people to vote...
if no one else takes this I may be interested.
*sigh* the problem is the word "reasonable". If you get rid of that, the counter plan of counseling and restorative justice can potentially prove to be a powerful alternative, however, based on your round 1 and your setup, I can safely say this debate is truly "Undefeatable".
this looks like the type of debate I would write to set up a guaranteed win, except this is arguably even more difficult to beat than my Systemic Racism argument.
bump
here you go.
Too vague. Are we including the slavery, the 40 year war, the amount of people (millions), etc.?
I'm asking him because he believes in a lot of conspiracies and seems to be one of the few potential people willing to take this topic.
are you CON on this topic as well?
damn, you may have finally got me... let's see if I can negate any of these ideas...
Congratulations, you gave me one of my hardest debates. If this was four rounds, who knows if I would've surrendered... Nicely done.
wooo! things gettin heated and tough! Just about to give up here, gotta dive deeper into my impacts...
You give me too much credit assuming my voting prowess is near my debating prowess XD but I will try
thanks for the vote, but please go into more depth.
sure
also I think the official public forum debate framework is a little bit weird to say China is zero threat because it's very hard to find anything beyond the handful of sources. So you're just slinging mud back and forth. I had to try to step back and see what it shared with Russia and culminate into an overarching idea. The Public Forum advice seems a little strange given the amount of evidence presented. I just ignored that in the end and decided to focus on US destroying itself since it seemed central to the entertaining "Paranoid" idea.
Enjoy the opportunity to take on one of my weakest arguments yet.
oops, accidentally wrote IV backwards
I'll admit my last round isn't as strong as it could've been. I lost a bit of motivation lol
If I lose this one, congratulations Mr Chris you are officially a better debater than me XD. I probably said the same thing in three different ways but I couldn't think of what else to do
hahahhaha
yes, if you win you get to be on Nemesis list. Though I will probably redo this topic.
come one come all, vote if you can, only two days left
but I argued that Bible doesn't state Earth's age very explicitly, and that Con doesn't come up with any evidence, rather assuming that the bible just says the earth is younger than 100,000 years old...
I sense that I have made a mistake by assuming my case was so powerful it could defeat climate change. But unfortunately, my username shackles me to inability to concede. XD
so what's the difference between Military boot camp "hazing" and "reasonable corporal punishment"?
care for a quick glance?
I predicted you would accept this. Let's see if you can win this one. Funnily enough, I know less about DST than I do about Google Privacy, so this will be trickier.
that makes sense. I might have lost, but I'll repeat points as much as I can to muddle the debate and make it a tie.
just curious, whose case did you find tougher to counter, my case, or Speedrace's?
bump?
thanks for the vote. I always found humanitarianism difficult to argue, so I gave an overbroad spectrum of view to force Pro to waste some time on what was mostly an emotional based argument. It was just a cherry on top to enforce the lack of true impacts from Pro's policy/benefits.
Deja vu, I’ve been in this topic before!
Yes, includes meat and bones
Done.
I dearly hope you don't go for Fauxlaw's same demand of "systematic" rather than systemic racism...
Sources:
1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/
2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/
3. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations
4.science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/447.abstract
5. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/351
6. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6510/1440.2.full
7. news.mit.edu/2020/letter-systemic-racism-mit-0701
8. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
9. v.gd/historyracism
10. annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750
11.pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf
12. v.gd/encyclo
13. scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lawineq
14. academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2019nhpc/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/29586
15. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/
16.journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0890117120943736?casa_token=OZfxmkIyeXEAAAAA%3AOXVithEmZZu3JDYr5zhhXqvxPL_wthBTAGhdb6MXg_fgys5tHCQBj-nz3pWROgsE9LXSFut3lM9A
17. apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older
18. gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
19. aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic
20. racismreview.com/blog/2011/07/12/racism-k-12/
21.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2012.669839?casa_token=CADVrp2R-yAAAAAA%3AnKtSGcJRdVYTJgx8xtdQrzNVWj7UVlXrDOXFpR-FSxrJc1fRPINy2ro2ArIV-fE3UxTtYHGaCtrg
22. link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-72233-7
23. routledge.com/Systemic-Racism-A-Theory-of-Oppression/Feagin/p/book/9780415952781
24. aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561
25.https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/success-and-failure-how-systemic-racism-trumped-the-ibrown-v-boar
26.https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6#similarly-overall-income-for-black-americans-was-about-42-lower-than-for-whites-in-2018-6
27. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/100-statistics-prove-systemic-racism-thing-kelly-burton-phd/
28. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21284527/systemic-racism-black-americans-9-charts-explained
29.https://www.businessinsider.com/how-redlining-kept-black-americans-from-homeownership-and-still-does-2020-6#redlining-reforms-were-passed-in-the-late-1960s-and-70s-but-its-legacy-is-still-felt-today-3
30. https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
probably you.
You spent wayyyy too much effort against this guy XD, my opening rounds are only very extensive because I’m the instigator
care to toss a vote? Asking a bit earlier since this one has a lot of sources and ideas.
this debate oddly reminded me of Fauxlaw's "it is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist"