The Instigator
curious18
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Joseph_Mengele
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,461 times Debate No: 17998
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (85)
Votes (10)

 

curious18

Pro

Someone's race has no significant affect on that someone's abilities. This can be physical abilities, mental abilities, and so on.

None of the "white people are more likely to get sunburned" kind of stuff.
Joseph_Mengele

Con

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to be debating this topic with curious18. Race debates are very uncommon in today's politically correct world, and let me say that I thank you for debating race with me, even if you arguing against me.

(Looking at some of the other debates on this website, I will try to follow their format to make it easier for the voters)

Since my opponent hasn't really defined any terms within the resolution, I shall proceed to do so.

Definitions:

Race (In Anthropological Terms)- any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

Has- a 3rd person singular present indicative of have.

No- An adverb used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement.

Significant- important; of consequence.

Affect- to act on; produce an effect or change in.

On- so as to be attached to or unified with.

A- Used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.

Person- a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

Ablities- talents; special skills or aptitudes.



I also assume that this first round is simply for acceptance.

Debate Round No. 1
curious18

Pro

Thanks Joe for accepting this as your first debate. Since I'm arguing a negative statement, any arguments I make will actually be strawmans. But, I need to say something, so I will address some common arguments about race and let Joe make his points next round for me to refute. Let's have some fun!

One of the common arguments are that whites are smarter than blacks based on average IQ scores. This seems like a solid argument, but you must understand that this only shows a correlation, not a cause. That means that it doesn't show that race is the cause of those IQ differences. Looking at other studies, we totally see that the income of parents makes an impact on the IQ of their children, which passes through to their adulthood. We also find a really cool and interesting pattern. Rich parents are more likely to have smart kids, who will grow into smart adults, and who will make more money and become rich adults. While poor parents are more likely to have dumb kids, who will grow into dumb adults, and who will make less money and become more poor parents. This shows true regardless of race. Smart black people have smart kids. Smart white people have smart kids. Dumb black people have dumb kids. And dumb white people have dumb kids. So we can totally
tell that race is not a factor. (1)(2)

In fact anything that has to do with genetics can basically have race ruled out. Most of the genetic variation between two unrelated people are not race related. A person's skin color, or nose shape, or eye shape, or anything else used to stereotype races only really accounts for about 6-10% of the genetic variation from other people. (3)

I'll stop at that one. Joe can go ahead and present what he thinks makes race have a significant effect on ones abilities.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org...
Joseph_Mengele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting their first argument. And at how pleased I am to be debating this topic. I would like to ask curious18 one question regarding the second statement that she made. What in the world does the term "strawman" mean? Perhaps someone can address this to me in the "comments" section of the debate. Regarding whatever the term strawman may be, you can argue whatever way you want since you instigated this debate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate Structure:


1. I shall first present my analysis of what I thought of my opponents arguments.

2. I shall then refute my opponents arguments and show my rebuttals.

3. If I feel neccesary, I shall show my own case to provide further evidence to support my position. (I won't do this in the 4th round as you can't respond to new arguments made in the fourth round.)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis:

~My opponent has used exactly 1,000 characters to talk about white and black average IQ scores.

~My opponent has used 336 characters to talk about genetics.

~2/3rds of my opponent's sources are from Wikipedia. An Internet resource that anyone can edit.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals:

My opponent shows us that race doesn't cause IQ differences. If we look at my opponents own source, http://en.wikipedia.org..., I noticed this sentence that caught my eye. "While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause." This means that there is no definitive cause for the existence of the racial IQ gaps. There could be a racial cause, or there couldn't be. My opponent also says, "That means that it doesn't show that race is the cause of those IQ differences." Now, while this is true, my opponent doesn't give evidence to say that race isn't the cause of IQ differences. As instigator in this debate, my opponent must affirm the resolution, and he must affirm that race isn't the cause of IQ differences since that can fairly labeled under the resolution.

My opponent mentions that genetic differences within races can be put out of the picture. Now, if one were to examine Pro's source, its also from Wikipedia, and as I said before since anyone can edit it, it shouldn't be considered a reliable resource, but we shall examine it none the less. With my opponents third source (http://en.wikipedia.org...), I noticed yet another statement that caught my attention. This statement, "However, certain single gene genetic disorders can severely affect intelligence, with phenylketonuria as an example.", tells us that genetic disorders severely affect ones intelligence. Since there are some genetic differences between races, such as the fact that blacks and/or African Americans have higher blood pressure than whites do (1). Since we have established the fact that blacks have higher blood pressure than whites do, and that it is for genetic reasons, there is reason to prove that this can affect someone's intelligence based on the statement from your own source.


(1) http://www.webmd.com...

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

My Own Case:

I already showed my rebuttals to IQ differences and genetic disorders, so I shall then decide to focus on different differences that show that race does indeed have a significant affect on a person's abilities.

One of the clear and (hopefully) obvious reasons that race can affect a person's abilities are the visual appearances that race is often associated with. I shall present a scenario below of how race can significantly affect a person's abilities.

~The FBI is trying to infiltrate into a White Supremacist Organization~

The FBI obviously needs a person that is white in order to successfully gain proper information from the organization. If a black candidate was used, it would be ill advised and obviously the white candidate would be much more preferred advantage over his black counterpart. So the conclusion can be made that race has a significant affect on purposes of concealment and camouflage. Camouflage and concealment obviously being an ability. The resolution can be negated for this scenario.

Now, I could use a similar scenario for a Mexican Gang known as MS-13. The FBI or some similar government organization could be trying to gain valuable information about drug trafficking or gang violence. Since the gang is largely a Hispanic and/or Mexican gang, the FBI or the organization that is investigating them would pick a Hispanic candidate over a white and/or (insert other race here) candidate because the Mexican Gang, would be more suspicious and/or wouldn't even accept the other candidate since he is white. And if they would accept the white person, they would obviously treat him harsher through the gang process than the would for the Hispanic candidate. This shows yet another reason that race has a significant affect on camouflage and/or concealment or "blending in" and all of those are abilities.

Lets also say that these two men decide to rob a bank. One of them is white and the other is black. If the bank is to robbed during the night, wouldn't the black person have an advantage of blending in to other surroundings since his skin color more closely resembles the color environment than his partner does? Since stealing is also an ability, this can be another reason to show that the resolution is negated.

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 2
curious18

Pro

Joe says that I need to show that races doesn't cause IQ differences, but that is totally not true. I only need to show that race doesn't cause significant IQ differences. Joe forgot to say anything about the fact that 85% of genetic difference is not race related, and that a person's race is only attributed to about 8% of genetic differences. Various studies have shown that there is no genetic tie to IQ differences, but others have shown that genes count to as much as 50% of IQ differences. So if race is only 8% of genetic difference, then race only accounts for 4% of IQ difference, at most, though probably less. If race is 4% and other factors are 96%, than race totally is not a significant factor. (1)(2)(3)

So moving on to Joe's case, the FBI stuff is not really a person's ability, and since the same argument can apply to any racial hate group, be they white supremacists, MS-13, black panthers, or any other group, so the race thing really nullifies out evenly through all races. As for robbing a bank, I don't see how that makes any at all, unless they are robbing the bank butt naked. I'm pretty sure that most robbers buy things like black clothes and black masks so that they can hide better.

(1) http://www.scribd.com...
(2) http://www.udel.edu...
(3) Flynn, James. Where have all the liberals gone? Race, Class, and Ideals in America
Joseph_Mengele

Con

Rebutalls

Pro says, "Joe says that I need to show that races doesn't cause IQ differences, but that is totally not true. I only need to show that race doesn't cause significant IQ differences."

This is a sementic defense because showing that races don't cause significant iq differences, still falls under the notion that races don't cause iq differences.


My opponent says that FBI "stuff" are not really a person's ability. Exactly what kind of "stuff" does my opponent address in my argument? I don't know. If Pro could clarify this in the next round I would appreciate it.

I also believe my opponent got confused whenever I was talking about the gang groups. It isn't true that race still nullifies out evently through all the races. Since there are more minority gangs than their are with white gangs, this information refutes this claim.

My opponent says that race doesn't matter if they are robbing a bank unless they are butt naked. Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked then it could obvious cause problems for the whiter person. This and the other argument about robbers buying things like black clothes and black masks can still conceal the person identiy. Race would still be effictive then because you don't know what the majority of the criminals/ robbers will be like.
Debate Round No. 3
curious18

Pro

Well Joe here started this debate saying, "Race debates are very uncommon in today's politically correct world, and let me say that I thank you for debating race with me." and since he is someone that honestly believes that the white race is superior to other races, I guess I was a little silly thinking that he'd actually make any arguments to support his belief.

So far, all he has said is that race can be important for a few CIA jobs of infiltrating gangs and that if you are naked and robbing a bank at night. Really, his argument consists of "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked."

I said in the beginning "None of the 'white people are more likely to get sunburned' kind of stuff." That was to mean that I was hoping for a serious debate to why he thinks one race is superior. These arguments are not the same kind of stuff that I was referring, they are totally worse! But, since this is what he said, this is how the debate is going to have to end.

So lets talk about these arguments. As far as IQ is concerned, the resolution is for "significant" differences, therefore, I only need to show that there is no significant difference, that's not semantics, that's the resolution of the debate. So considering that, Joe has not provided any arguments that race does have a significant effect on IQ and he hasn't argued against anything that I've said about it. So that point is totally dropped.

For the CIA gang infiltration stuff, if we actually consider this as an argument, even though it would technically be arguing that minorities are superior to whites, which is the opposite of my opponent's stated beliefs, then it is up to my opponent to show that this is the case. Joe has provided an interesting theory that people are picked because of their race, however a totally better theory would be that agents are picked because of their ability to mimic the cultures of that gang. This makes more sense because gangs focus more on culture than on race, and there are gangs that don't cover race at all. So this theory has a greater scope. That means it should be accepted above alternative theories with less scope. Unless Joe can provide hard examples of cases when the CIA picked a significant number of agents for their race, not for their ability to mimic culture, this point is lost.

The last argument is the "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked." This is completely pointless for an argument about race. People have access to clothes, which take care of any "advantages" one's skin color would have. If robber choose not to use clothes, then it isn't their skin color which caused them to get caught, but their own stupidity. Since most police have flashlights, they come standard, and if the police don't suspect you at the time, seeing a naked guy running around at night, be you white or black, you're gonna get arrested. So the very choice of attempting this naked is what causes them to fail.

Anyway, this debate doesn't matter because my opponent did not choose to argue with his real beliefs. If he'd like to, we can redo the debate, but I doubt that will happen.
Joseph_Mengele

Con

Rebuttals

Pro has said, " and since he is someone that honestly believes that the white race is superior to other races, I guess I was a little silly thinking that he'd actually make any arguments to support his belief."

This debate is about my political and/or racial beliefs. This debate is about you defending the resolution and me attacking it. It doesn't matter if I do or don't believe the white race is superior to other races or not. This debate is specifically about the resolution, nothing less, nothing more.

My opponent says, "So far, all he has said is that race can be important for a few CIA jobs of infiltrating gangs and that if you are naked and robbing a bank at night. Really, his argument consists of "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked."

I'm not sure if Pro noticed this or not, but I said this in the comments section: For some reason whenever I posted my argument, it deleted everything I said. So I had to type a new argument in 3 minutes. Is something tampering with my computer? I thought the debate.org has a program in which it auto saves the information whenever you hit post my argument. Like I said right there, my last argument that I made was somewhat hastily formed and I probably didn't include most of what I wanted to say. What I wanted to address with the claim that I made was to show that if a black person was robbing a bank and/or similar store, and he was wearing little to no clothes at all, his skin color would help him blend to the environment.

My opponent says, "I said in the beginning "None of the 'white people are more likely to get sunburned' kind of stuff." That was to mean that I was hoping for a serious debate to why he thinks one race is superior. These arguments are not the same kind of stuff that I was referring, they are totally worse! But, since this is what he said, this is how the debate is going to have to end."

What my opponent said in the beggining is rather vague. The sentence that my opponent said, "None of the 'white people are more likely to get sunburned' kind of stuff." is extremely vague. The term "stuff", can well over mean anything in the English language. My opponent then said that he would have preferred a serious debate over one race being superior to the other. If my opponent wanted to debate this, then why didn't he make that the resolution? This is where Pro makes no sense.

My opponent said, So lets talk about these arguments. As far as IQ is concerned, the resolution is for "significant" differences, therefore, I only need to show that there is no significant difference, that's not semantics, that's the resolution of the debate. So considering that, Joe has not provided any arguments that race does have a significant effect on IQ and he hasn't argued against anything that I've said about it. So that point is totally dropped.

My opponent is correct whenever addressing the fact that the resolution calls for "significant" differences, however my opponent is incorrect in stating that I am trying to do semantic arguments with the resolution of the debate. The resolution is, Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities. It seems to me that perhaps my opponent wishes that the didn't term the resolution as he did since I am taking a different approach than what he originally intended. I am still upholding my bargain and am consistently debating against the resolution. My opponent says that I haven't provided any arguments that race does have a significant effect on IQ.

There are several problems with my opponent's assertion. For one, my opponent believes that I should have made an argument supporting the differences of IQs within different races. The resolution doesn't call for this, so that technically means I don't have to debate something that isn't within the resolution and you are simply making up arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution at that point.

My opponent said, "For the CIA gang infiltration stuff, if we actually consider this as an argument, even though it would technically be arguing that minorities are superior to whites, which is the opposite of my opponent's stated beliefs, then it is up to my opponent to show that this is the case. Joe has provided an interesting theory that people are picked because of their race, however a totally better theory would be that agents are picked because of their ability to mimic the cultures of that gang. This makes more sense because gangs focus more on culture than on race, and there are gangs that don't cover race at all. So this theory has a greater scope. That means it should be accepted above alternative theories with less scope. Unless Joe can provide hard examples of cases when the CIA picked a significant number of agents for their race, not for their ability to mimic culture, this point is lost."

Even if I were to be arguing this and even if it is going against my stated beliefs it still doesn't matter. My opponent is trying to twist things around as if we are debating what my political views are and aren't. We are debating the resolution. When I stated the "CIA gang infiltration stuff" (Again with the term stuff), I'm not saying that minorities are superior to whites, I am simply stating that minorities (Specifically darker skinned minorities) have an advantage over whiter skinned people in terms of stealth whenever it becomes darker outside. My opponent then says that gangs focus more on culture than on race. So this technically means that my opponent agrees that race is taken into consideration within gangs, just not to the extent of culture. So if gangs were to take this into consideration, even if it is minimal or whatever, the person who fits the best race would obviously be more preferable than the other person due to his race.

My opponent said, "The last argument is the "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked." This is completely pointless for an argument about race. People have access to clothes, which take care of any "advantages" one's skin color would have. If robber choose not to use clothes, then it isn't their skin color which caused them to get caught, but their own stupidity. Since most police have flashlights, they come standard, and if the police don't suspect you at the time, seeing a naked guy running around at night, be you white or black, you're gonna get arrested. So the very choice of attempting this naked is what causes them to fail."

Like I said before in the comments section, this answer was a relatively quick answer due to a weird glitch that I happened to suffer. My opponent also says that people have access to clothes and that it would disable any advantages a person's skin color would have. There are two clear flaws with my opponent's argument that he has presented here. One is that my opponent automatically assumes that the robber will have clothes to disable and/or minimilize his/her race, and two is that my opponent believes that the robber would be automatically wearing it in the first place. My opponent then said that if a robber choose not to wear clothes then it wouldn't be his/her race that would get his/her caught, it would be their own stupidity. I would question this, because it is clear that skin color would have help in capturing the criminal.

Closing Remarks:

My opponent has constantly said that I didn't argue according to my real beliefs. There are several problems with this that I shall address below.

1: There is nothing in this debate or the resolution that called for me to argue according to my real beliefs.

2. I am arguing with my real beliefs, and I made arguments that didn't support your interpretation of the resolution, for that I'm sorry if I didn't make the correct argument that you wanted me to based on your interpretation of what the resolution was to be.

I would like to thank curious18 for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
85 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I don't think you should apologize, no matter what you said. People with thin skin need to grow a spine. Racist comments apply to the "garbage heap or white trash" of all the races. So if someone makes a racist statement and you get all upset, you should consider weather or not the comment is justified in your case. Otherwise, You can call me a Dumb MC all day long, make any comment you want about my race and culture, who cares what you think. You have no practical use anyway to anyone.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
I apologise for my racist comment and deeply apologise to anyone it offended
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
You do realize that by the same token of his arguments, East Asians are superior to Whites.
Posted by Aldric_Winterblade 6 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
Sloppy and depressing to read all the way around. Joe, I suggest you post up your own debate on this topic, with a clear and specific resolution, or challenge someone you know to be a good debater. Then maybe we can get a real race debate around here...
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
What happened Joe? I said yes to your challenge. Or maybe like on Xbox live, you are nothing but an immature, troll coward. I know this is going to make people mad but I feel Joe is such a p*ssy he eats with a cardboard applicator
Posted by curious18 6 years ago
curious18
People that voted "sources" against me obviously didn't pay attention in this debate. Yes, I used some wiki sources, I also totally used 3 non-wiki sources. Joe used 1 source total, and when asked for sources to show where his arguments are grounded in reality, none were provided.
Posted by Mikeee 6 years ago
Mikeee
First off, there where a lot of things that are just wrong that both sides accepted as true with no debate. Neither side has a solid argument and it was a narrowed minded debate that mainly focused on "ability" as someones IQ. Joseph attacked curious on using Wikipedia a little to much, and curious focused to much on Joseph's personal philosophy, only one scenario was discussed and neither side was right. 2 things about curious: there are millions of cell in us, 8% is a lot. Sorry, but your ignorant for mentioning the financial situation thing and it is not even remotely true, saying that just makes you seem ignorant to me.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Ultimately sad. Joseph should really do an actual debate on supporting what he believes.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
You could have declined.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 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: Disappointingly obvious
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Lordknukle
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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: Better and more logical argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: A surprising weak debate that comes down to the semantics of "a person's abilities." Is "ability to infiltrate" a real ability? Pro didn't make the case that is outside of "abilities" in the context of the resolution, although I think that argument could have been made successfully. A rather uninteresting technical debate.
Vote Placed by Mikeee 6 years ago
Mikeee
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason in comment...
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side should get the point for arguments: Pro never fulfilled her burden of proof, and Joseph did not directly attack or negate Pro's case that well...
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments on both sides were pretty bad. For sources, con had one good source, while pro had several. S
Vote Placed by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 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: This was a poor quality debate. Neither side produced powerful points. The only factor lending Con the victory is that he does a better job of addressing Pro's argument than pro does of addressing Con's. I found Con's reference to Wikipedia as incredible to be fallacious, as Wikipedia is accepted on all debates on DDO. Reliable sources is therefore a tie.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had only one strong argument: CIA infiltration. Everything else is weak, but it doesn't matter because Con effectively negated the resolution by pointing out that race has a significant "affect" on the abilities of a CIA agent who is trying to infiltrate a race-based gang. By itself, it was too narrow of an example and Pro could have refuted it, but she didn't. Con loses conduct for referring to his female opponent as "he". Pro loses SG for poor presentation and the repeated use of "stuff".
Vote Placed by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously had a far better grammar than that of Pro. Cons argument were based on reliable research unlike pro, who uses Wikipedia as his reference.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
curious18Joseph_MengeleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for full analysis