bronskibeat

Pro and Con both put forth well-sourced and interesting arguments (however, many of Con's links don't appear to directing to the correct pages, this made it difficult to verify some of their arguments). I appreciated that Con addressed every point Pro made, but it did seem that Con misunderstood many of Pro's arguments.

In Round 1, Pro explains that in their assertion that white privilege exists, they are not claiming that white people don't face hardship or that black people are incapable of success. However, Con continuously goes back to the logic that because certain black people found success then that negates the existence of white privilege. Con also argues that statistics don't "address numerous exceptions" that would negate the existence of white privilege. Con is attempting to refute an argument that Pro hasn't made. As Con points out, the existence of white privilege simply means that black people face more obstacles in relation to their race than white people do, but these obstacles don't mean that success is impossible for black people or that white people don't face other kinds of obstacles not related to race.

Additionally, when addressing Pro's argument regarding people with black sounding names receiving fewer call-backs than people with white sounding names, Con suggests that this was because there are fewer people with black-sounding names. This doesn’t make sense in-regard to what Pro is arguing, if they had been arguing that there are less black people in the workplace than white people, Con’s rebuttal would be appropriate. However, if you look at the study Pro links to (specifically the Berkeley study), those conducting the study sent out identical resumes with both black and white sounding names, and found that the resumes with the white sounding names were more likely to receive a callback (despite having the same credentials as the black sounding names).

Another weak point in Con's argument was their criticism of Pro's use of statistics to back-up their arguments. They use hate crime statistics that show that hate crimes are committed across multiple demographics (white, jewish, hispanic, etc.), as evidence that hate-crimes are not "exclusive to one group's experience." But Pro does not claim that hate crimes happen to black people "exclusively", but that black people are more likely to experience a hate crime.

Con does point out some weak points from Pro, specifically their argument that black employees were more likely to report experiencing racism if their employer was conservative rather than liberal. This doesn’t really work as specific evidence for the existence of white privilege.

Pro would have benefited from bringing up the concept of “intersectionality” in their argument, which would have done a better job of explaining how people can experience privilege in one aspect of their identity (being white), but not in another aspect (being poor) or conversely that a black person can be disadvantaged because of their race in that they are more likely to experience racism and the obstacles that come with that, while also experiencing privilege in other ways (financial, not being disabled, being straight, etc.).

Overall, Pro supplied good arguments addressing the different obstacles black people face in America in education, workforce, and the criminal system. This supports the assertion that white privilege exists, as it offers numerous examples of obstacles based on or fueled by race that white people are not likely to experience. Con repeatedly addressed points that Pro didn't make, but again, I appreciate that they tried to address every point Pro made.

While I think Pro started off strong, their failure to address Con's points weakened their performance toward the end of the debate, specifically: Con's arguments regarding causation and correlation and Con's accusation of "Argumentum ad Populum." I would have liked to see Pro address these arguments, instead of doubling down on the same arguments they repeated through-out the debate.

That said, Pro did offer a strong and well-sourced argument for banning corporal punishment of children. Con's initial rebuttal consisted of the assertion that immediate negative consequences can decrease negative behavior. It's a fair point, but a bit broad, It would have been nice to see some research to back-up their argument pertaining specifically to the corporal punishment of children. Con also offers an argument that negative outcomes of corporal punishment may not be to do with the fact that corporal punishment itself is being utilized, but how and why it's being utilized. This is an interesting point, and it would have been nice to see Pro address this potential nuance.

Con ended on a strong note, pointing out how Pro had misrepresented aspects of their arguments. Overall, it was close, but despite agreeing with Pro, I'm giving this one to Con mostly due to Pro's failure to address Con's actual arguments.

Forfeiture.

This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Many of these arguments were easily rebutted by Pro, for example:

Con claims that white people are shot by police more than black people despite difference in crimes rate (Pro addressed this by pointing out the difference in population size), that many high-profile shootings were the result of the victim resisting arrests (Pro addressed this by pointing out that their data primarily focused on incidents where the victim was unarmed), and that Asian Americans outperform other racial groups despite minority status (Pro addressed this by explaining that not all minority groups share the same experiences with discrimination).

Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. When pushed for sources by Pro regarding black on white crime, Con offered a link to an FBI webpage regarding general crime statistics, but not to any particular data-set/study from the FBI that would support their argument.

Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully while offering consistent and varied citations. However, there were some moments where Pro’s arguments could have gone farther, for example: when addressing Con’s argument that Asian Americans outperform other races despite minority status, it would have been nice to see Pro bring up the difference in how many Asian Americans came to America vs. black Americans which also is a major contributor to their differing experiences.

Con had some seeds for good arguments (notably, the points on the low crime rate amongst undocumented immigrants, and the fact that they pay taxes), but ultimately failed to provide adequate sourcing or to defend the sourcing that was offered. Con had some positive moments, offering a good rebuttal on Pro's claim that 17,048 arrests of undocumented immigrants is evidence of high crime rates, pointing out that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower-rates than American born citizens. Ultimately, Con not being able to offer consistent specific linked sources, offer sources from politically neutral sources, or to properly defend the sources they did offer, were their primary failings in this debate.

Pro offered well-organized and well-sourced arguments. While it was fair for them to call out potentially biased sources from Con, they overplayed that hand when they also dismissed the American Action Forum as biased. American Action Forum is right-leaning, so that data offered is not actually biased in favor of Con's position. While I didn't agree with Pro's conclusions, they offered an overall stronger showing in this debate.

Pro was the only participant to contribute an argument, though not really convincing, certainly it was more convincing than what Con offered. Con offered a "nope ur wrong pal" and then a series of forfeits.

Pro was the only one to contribute an argument. Con forfeited all rounds.