The Instigator
slimbo27
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

No more discrimination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 73544
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

slimbo27

Pro

no more discrimination you got cops killing women getting beat ect
Varrack

Con

The resolution reads: "No more discrimination". Naturally, this resolution is absolute - it implies that all discrimination is wrong, and that it is Pro's job to argue that all forms of discrimination are bad. Unfortunately for my opponent, this means that Pro's side has a massive burden of proof to fulfill, while Con only has to prove only one ce in which discrimination is good in order to negate the resolution.

Pro's argument

My opponent states: "no more discrimination you got cops killing women getting beat etc". Overlooking the bad grammar, it seems as if Pro is saying that cops killing people and women getting beat are forms of wrongful discrimination. This is true, but it does not uphold the burden of proof because this only covers two forms of wrongful discrimination. It does not look at instances where discrimination is arguable good, but only focuses on two isolated examples.

Discrimination can be good

Even though Pro's failure to uphold the BoP means I win by default, I wish to further negate the resolution to show how faulty it really is. To start, we must first understand the definition of discrimination.

Discriminate: "to make a distinction in favor of or against aperson or thing on the basis of the group, class,or category to which the person or thingbelongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality." [1]

In America, the minimum voting age is 18. This means that people who are below that age are disallowed the privilege of voting. In essence, these minors are being discriminated against. Is this bad? No, of course not. The minimal voting age ensures that people who vote have a decent sense of maturity and can make logical decisions, whereas children cannot do this as sufficiently as adults can. Thus, if we were to ban discrimination, little kids would be able to vote, which would hurt the elections results.

Pro has failed to uphold the BoP, and I have negated the resolution by showing one instance in which discrimination is not bad. Vote Con.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
==================================================================
>Reported vote: creedhunt // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments), 2 points to Con (S&G, conduct). Reasons for voting decision: The grammar and conduct are clearly in Con's favor, but surprisingly, pro's argument was more convincing. It was simple, sure, but is was valid. It was a coherent thought that was communicated sufficiently enough for me to understand it; discrimination consistently leads to physical pain and death. Con, however eloquently, gave a completely incomprehensible argument. The definition showed that discrimination had to be based on things other than actual merit, while the age "discrimination" is based on (what con proved to be) good reasons. People under a certain age don't merit the legal permission to do certain things.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain S&G and conduct. (2) Strategic vote on arguments. I'm going to reproduce Pro's *entire* argument right here: "no more discrimination you got cops killing women getting beat ect." That's Pro's *whole* argument. Con at least typed out something coherent. Any voter who would vote for Pro's one line argument, without a really good reason, is clearly acting strategically.
=====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Reported vote: Reesaroni // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything except conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con succesfully negates Pro's well thought and constructed opening argument, giving him the win. Pro fails to prove how discrimination is bad other than the suggestion that the Police Officers will "kill women"- which was successfully overthrown by Con. Well Played

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain S&G and sources.
==================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
================================================================
>Reported vote: Kozu // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro typed a near perfect argument in R1. Despite this up hill battle Con faced, he completely obliterates any hope of Pro meeting his burden by showing the necessity of discriminating against younger voters to promote more knowledgeable decisions. Con gave sources for his definitions, had better arguments, better conduct, and a better haircut.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain sources and conduct.
================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
slimbo27VarrackTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar was dreadful. It is a run-on sentence without any punctuation, capitalisation and even suffers from lack of coherency, especially towards the end "you got cops killing women getting beat etc". I had to read this part of the sentence, figure out where the full-stops or commas should go, and then re-read it, all of which detract from the argument, so S&G must go to Con. As for arguments, the parameters of the debate were poorly defined. "No more discrimination" could mean a lot of things, and Con takes advantage of that. Con interprets the resolution as an absolute, meaning that *all* discrimination should stop, which is a valid interpretation of the resolution. From this, Pro's two examples are not sufficient for the resolution to be affirmed, hence Pro loses on this front alone. The negative case from Con is overkill. Arguments to Con. The source was merely a definitions source, of which should have been provided in the set-up, so I won't give source points.
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Death23
slimbo27VarrackTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Re: S&G - Pro uses no punctuation nor capitalization, and also misspells etc as "ect". No significant S&G errors observed from Con.
Vote Placed by Genghis_Khan 2 years ago
Genghis_Khan
slimbo27VarrackTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con demonstrated that there are some cases in which discrimination is justified-- namely, the voting age restriction. This refutes Pro's absolute claim that all discrimination in all forms should be discontinued, and therefore Con wins the arguments point. Con also wins S&G points because Pro's only sentence was rife with error...