The Instigator
Chapule
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Soldus
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Its not a stereo type if its true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Soldus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 35828
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Chapule

Pro

speaks for itself
Soldus

Con

I accept the challenge.

Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Chapule

Pro

I will keep the first round short but lets draw a logical explanation of this.

Stereotypes are assumptions brought about by false ideas of a specific gender, race, or person. When the stereotype is proven to be true, it is no longer a stereotype it is actually a fact.

Example: Rednecks like to hunt. This is a proven fact. In over half of people who would be considered rednecks from the south, is a desire for hunting. You could even take polls or experiments to test how many would like to hunt, but the second the number comes back to show that the majority of rednecks enjoy hunting, it is no longer a false assumption but a reality.
Soldus

Con

A stereotype, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.

It is also defined by dictionary.com as: a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize and treat them accordingly.

By its very definition, a stereotype cannot be true; inherent in its definition is its inaccuracy.

Beyond this, my opponent cites the argument, "rednecks like hunting." From a logical standpoint, "rednecks like hunting" would be taken to mean, "all rednecks are people who like hunting." For this to be true, there cannot be an outlier to this; thus, if even one redneck dislikes hunting, this statement is false. If the statement were, "some rednecks like hunting," then the statement would be logically true as "some" in logic translates as "there exists at least one of a that is b." However, if "some" is utilized it is no longer a stereotype, as a stereotype is taken to mean a sweeping generalization of an entire group, not a specific group therein.

1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...


2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Chapule

Pro

the base of his argument is essentially. Black people suck at basketball
Soldus

Con

To reiterate: a stereotype is only true if it applies to 100% of a group.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
ChapuleSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct for Pro's use of a straw man for his/her entire round 3 arguement. Pro wins arguements for understanding both the definition of a stereotype and the implicit ecological fallacy that Pro's argument holds.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
ChapuleSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. Pro makes no compelling arguments at all.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
ChapuleSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro made no sense in round 3, had horrible grammar and provided no sources. Con actually made sense and provided sources.