The Instigator
SolonKR
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DavidMancke
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

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 2 votes the winner is...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,427 times Debate No: 87554
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (2)

 

SolonKR

Pro

So, this is a devil's advocate debate of sorts; I want to explore life through the eyes of a SJW. That being said, I will still annihilate whoever takes this debate. BoP is shared.

The resolution, put another way, means, "A person's race has more correlation with his/her own happiness than his/her intelligence does." Use common-sense definitions for each word (the definition of "common-sense" is up for debate).

Con can either start arguing in Round 1, conclude in R3, and waive R4, or start in Round 2 and conclude in R4. Either's fine with me.
DavidMancke

Con

I will start after you post your first constructive, since it will be important to see your advocacy at the start of the round.
Debate Round No. 1
SolonKR

Pro

New phone who dis
DavidMancke

Con

It appears that this debate may have been scuttled by technology or miscommunication, especially after reviewing the limited, "scope of analysis" provided by my opponent during this round of argumentation.

Nevertheless, the spirit of debate demands some level of analysis of the topic by at least one side. Moreover this resolution lends itself to an advocacy that we should caution against.

In all fairness the Affirmative offered on advocacy. In fact they only offered a comment suggesting there was perhaps a new owner of the phone my opponent had been using to participate on this website. As such it would be inappropriate to level a full scale critique.

What is more fitting is a preemptive word of caution, as the resolution suggests that it may be better to evaluate folks on a basis of race that another merit, in this case, intellect.

It doubtful we need a recounting of the history of wrongs and atrocity that has followed from inherently racist thinking, or lengthy complaining about the vitriol we see in the United States lately leveled towards immigrants and foreigners.

What we need is merely to remind ourselves of contemporary ethics and science: ethics that remind us that the western world has determined devaluing someone on the basis of race is inherently immoral and science that has robustly concluded that race is a social construct. Anyone doubting the later claim can refer to this user friendly article by the NY Times putting the science into lay terms. If further evidence is required I will provide it upon solicitation.

After considering that race is merely a social construct, and reminding ourselves that racist thinking and social modelling are not just destructive and wrong, but has no basis in science. It it altogether reasonable to reject the resolution and move on to a topic more worthy of academic debate.

Having reminded the audience of societal morals obtained by enduring the worst of human atrocity in the name of racism, as well as the science rejecting racism on top of the complete lack of argument by the affirmative, a negative ballot is strongly urged.
Debate Round No. 2
SolonKR

Pro

In addressing Con"s arguments, we must first dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; he knows exactly what he is doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world... it is a systematic effort to change America.

With that out of the way, let"s take a look at my opponent"s arguments.

Most striking is his assertion that I did not lay out a case. "New phone who dis" is a perfectly comprehensive and thoroughly intricate analysis of the phase-racial nature of societies today which lends itself to inter- and intra-societal communication assuming the model of perhaps disgust, perhaps a cold indifference to those of other races today. To extricate the point in less demi-rhetorical verbiage:

"New phone": The new phase-racial nature of societies has led to a shift in the ways in which ethnicity affects mentality.

"Who dis": This shift is one toward exclusion and destruction. Clearly, the claim that I did not lay out a solid case is objectively false.

Let"s move on to Con"s critique, and this shall be further demonstrated.

He warns against analyzing people on the basis of race rather than other factors, as it lends itself to inherently racist thinking. This critique in itself requires a critique because it suggests that collectively pleading ignorance to the issues of racial discrimination in our day by pretending it does not exist, much like ignoring my love life does not make it a good love life. If we cannot analyze the relationship between race and living standards in a society, we cannot identify and consequently cannot easily fix the race-related issues in our society; we could never successfully identify Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer if not for our attention as a society to serial killers. As proof of this, let"s look at Japan.

Japan is one of the most homogenous nations in the world; as of the 90"s, it was 98.5% ethnically Japanese (1). It may also be one of the most xenophobic (2, 3, 4). Because the number of foreigners is so small, many Japanese pay no mind to this or may not even realize the existence of the problem (4). Therefore, it is not only not racist, but is also socially necessary to analyze the effects of race.

Sources:
1. https://www.cia.gov...
2. http://www.economist.com...
3. http://thediplomat.com...
4. http://www.japantoday.com...
DavidMancke

Con

Interesting work, if nothing else.

My opponent has violated every convention in debate that we have a rule for, besides ad hom.

Specifically, they provided no material or topical argument during the first round of argument. Rather, they offered a simple four words that would be commonly understood to mean something had changed with the users phone. They then try to suggest that these four words constitute an argument after the fact. Simply put, that's obscure and it's cheating.

They had plenty of opportunity to offer a case that is resolutional, supporting the truth claim of the resolution. They didn't do that! Rather they tried to adopt an obscure definition for the four words offered in the prior round that are not "common sense" in any practical sense.

Moreover my opponent asked for common sense definitions in the offering of the topic, while suggesting that the definition of common sense might be up for debate, begging the question why someone would seek common sense definitions in the first place. Now we know why this caveat was offered; so they could run an abusive case.

Academic debate conventions hold that we don't deal with inordinately obscure cases. At best, the affirmative tried to rework the proper order of presenting arguments with the intent of offering an obscure definition for four words that would not commonly be understood to mean what the affirmative claims they mean in the context of this debate. Below it is presented again:

"New phone": The new phase-racial nature of societies has led to a shift in the ways in which ethnicity affects mentality.

"Who dis": This shift is one toward exclusion and destruction.

Simply put, those words do not hold those definitions under any school of thought or in any evidence they offered. To fill in the blanks they appear to by offering a kind of communication analysis by latching on to perceived assumption made about the four words when they were provided. Not only is this abusive, it's not even remotely topical.

Burdens: Aff carries zero burdens

The affirmative completely failed to meet any resolutional burdens. They had the burden to show us the truth claim; "Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence." is accurate, and failed to do so. They also failed to provide a clear link between what the affirmative did offer and the resolution. This only thing that is resolutional about the Aff case is that they attempt to talk about race, however obscure.

It becomes increasingly difficult to know what the affirmative meant in the analysis of his initial four words, since it is entirely obscure and so poorly codified. Nevertheless we have robustly established it is non-topical (meets zero burdens) and obscure (abusive)

My experience tells me this person had a preexisting plan for the abusive case, and may be trying to attack how his four word post was interpreted, but even that is not made clear. Even so, this would boil down to a very poor attempt to define himself as the winner (truism/tautology) and also abusive. Nice try, but in the words of Al Sharpton; "We gotcha"

Now lets move on to advocacy. This also meets with concerns about abuse, the aff was asked, per the terms they offered, to provide advocacy prior to the first negative construction. They failed to do that. They loose right there. Changing the order of presentation in debate obscures burdens and reduces educational value in general. This is exactly what they deliberately set out to do, in academic debate, this would not just be a rules violation, it could suggest a behavior problem to demonstrate such blatant disregard for the rules after having already been warned.

All this said, in the interest of not dropping the debate I responded with some analysis of the resolution itself, since that is all that had been offered. Moreover I was quite clear on this feature of the debate that seemed to have been dropped.

I specifically cautioned against categorical evaluations of people on a basis of race, as unethical and unscientific. Never once, not one single time, did the negative suggest that any society, of any degree of homogeneity should avoid acknowledging social injustice related to race in any way.

In fact, the negative case called specific attention the race being a social construct. The Aff tries to spring board from there to putting words in my mouth. Specifically they said:

"If we cannot analyze the relationship between race and living standards in a society, we cannot identify and consequently cannot easily fix the race-related issues in our society;"

Agreed, in fact this turns for the negative case. The negative contends that categorical evaluation on a basis of racial membership (as a social construct) to predict behavior or mood is wrong. And it is wrong! The resolution as worded implies categorical treatment and evaluation on basis of racial membership. It would be tantamount to a claim that, "some races (whether or not it specifies a race in particular) are significantly more sexually aggressive."

Prescribing a categorical treatment of people on a basis of race will always be amoral, it's eugenics, then and now, and it's racist in the most vile sense of the word. The negative presumed to caution against such policy and behavior since there was no analysis or clear advocacy offered by the affirmative. If the affirmative had offered meaningful analysis of the topic in the first round of argument as agreed to I would have spoken to that analysis, but rather this has become about the affirmative attempt to circumvent debate conventions. "Shame," as we say in parli...

The after-the-fact attempt to try and re-codify four words, deliberately used to imply a change in phone impacting participation, now repackaged and offered in a context wholly divorced of the original meaning is utterly abusive and diminishes the value of debate. The fact that it was likely a premeditated trick to cheat debate conventions makes it all the worse.

Quick responses:

Aff stated: "In addressing Con"s arguments, we must first dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; he knows exactly what he is doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world... it is a systematic effort to change America."

This is not topical whatsoever. He also failed completely to actually link it either to the negative case, or to the resolution.

Xenophobia in Japan: Again, the affirmative failed to show us where this was topical, like in the entire case. It may have a rejoinder to this "counter-critique" but that also, is not made clear. Even if this were the case, it would turn to the negative, that better showed the resolution as presented lends to racism and demonstrated that we must understand race is a social and not scientific construct if we are to remedy social injustices that exist and have an inherent link to racial prejudice.

Neg meets burdens, Aff fails to meet burdens and tries to cheat. Vote Con!!
Debate Round No. 3
SolonKR

Pro

Now I can finally reveal that this was a debate for the Outlaw Tournament; thanks to my opponent for playing along.

For my conclusion, all I have to say is:
Old phone lost my contacts who dis
DavidMancke

Con

I have recently received some a priori details, that this debate was some kind of troll event, hence the debacle.

"Stop this at once, it's silly! It's very silly indeed. No one enjoys a good laugh more than me, except my wife, and also may be Captain Perkins.. Come to think of it, most people appreciate a good laugh more than me. Nevertheless, I am warning this site not to become silly again." - Monty Python (sic)

So, while I would advise no one be so sensitive they cannot laugh at themselves, their misfortunes and the occasional prank, I am compelled to be more critical of the event this debate rejoinders to, and specifically the resolutions.

My opponent shared with me in a private message that this event was some kind of. "outlaw tournament" debate, with the aim of trolling on debaters. That's all well and good, but the topics are not up to muster even as a piece of humor.

My opponents message said this was not even the original resolution, it was in fact: "It is better to be white and dumb than black and stupid". His entire message is below.

The objective is just to troll, and the winners are the best trolls. We were given resolutions to work with (and some leeway on how to word them). The original resolution I was given was "It is better to be white and dumb than black and stupid".

This is a disgusting threshold for humor and disrespectful of the institution of debate going all the way back to Socrates.

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

We do humorous debates in collegiate environs from time to time, resolutions are more along the lines of, "This house would turn the clock back to the eighties." Sometimes they are character debates for students that have a higher interest in acting to portray familiar characters, historical figures and celebrities during the round.

For example: "Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker vs Elmo from Sesame Street and Mary Crawley from Downton Abbey." might debate; "This USFG should investigate the X-files."

This event offered here does not live up to even the standard set in humorous debate events in the academic tradition. What's worse, is it seems to make a joke of racism. This is completely unacceptable. If you were my students and this were something more akin to reality we would be having a serious discussion about you remaining in school. You would definitely be on the bus home from the event our squad was competing in.

SHAME SHAME SHAME on the trolls and most to the person that though such a vile resolution is a decent joke. Racism is real, we don't live in a post racial culture yet, and this is all the proof anyone needs.

Vote decency and decorum, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 8 months ago
DavidMancke
While I appreciate that you regret not taking the topic seriously, I think any pro advocacy is still problematic at best, since the meaning of the topic that that race is at the root of happiness. That's a pretty vile notion, when all is said, regardless of how well the turd is polished, that idea is shite to begin with.

That's all to say, thank you for admitting that offering the topic and taking the attitude you did was insensitive if not racist, but to imply that the thesis itself could ever have value is still pretty perverse.
Posted by SolonKR 8 months ago
SolonKR
Looking back, creating this debate without serious intentions was poor judgment on my part, and for that, I apologize. I think the resolution itself as I framed it (or even in the cruder way that it was originally phrased that I vetoed) can be the topic of serious, fruitful discussion--a successful pro argument can translate to advocacy for more extensive measures to improve the plight of minorities in the United States, for example. But, my lack of taking this seriously was disrespectful to the very real struggles that minorities face in this country, and for that, I apologize.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Thanks for the support. And this kid (Aff) is 19 yrs old. I have 8 years of competition under my belt, as well as coaching and judging. Simply put. The hairstylist is the noob, not me.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...Really? We doing this now?
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
FIFTH PAGE OF MY RFD

More examples of Con taking the debate seriously (conduct) AND addressing the resolution (argument):

Round 3:

"Prescribing a categorical treatment of people on a basis of race will always be amoral, it's eugenics, then and now, and it's racist in the most vile sense of the word. The negative presumed to caution against such policy and behavior since there was no analysis or clear advocacy offered by the affirmative. If the affirmative had offered meaningful analysis of the topic in the first round of argument as agreed to I would have spoken to that analysis, but rather this has become about the affirmative attempt to circumvent debate conventions. "Shame," as we say in parli...

The after-the-fact attempt to try and re-codify four words, deliberately used to imply a change in phone impacting participation, now repackaged and offered in a context wholly divorced of the original meaning is utterly abusive and diminishes the value of debate. The fact that it was likely a premeditated trick to cheat debate conventions makes it all the worse."

Round 4:

"This event offered here does not live up to even the standard set in humorous debate events in the academic tradition. What's worse, is it seems to make a joke of racism. This is completely unacceptable. If you were my students and this were something more akin to reality we would be having a serious discussion about you remaining in school. You would definitely be on the bus home from the event our squad was competing in.

SHAME SHAME SHAME on the trolls and most to the person that though such a vile resolution is a decent joke. Racism is real, we don't live in a post racial culture yet, and this is all the proof anyone needs."

Please let me know if these examples are not sufficient, and I'll cut and paste Con's entire argument.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
FOURTH PAGE OF MY RFD

Conduct point continued.

The evidence that this was a troll debate was presented in round 4 when Pro said
"Now I can finally reveal that this was a debate for the Outlaw Tournament; thanks to my opponent for playing along"

The outlaw tournament is a tournament where participants are judged by how funny they are when they troll unsuspecting noobs. If anyone wants a reference for this tournament, I can look it up, but I can't be bothered finding it right now. Other participants in the outlaw tournament announce it in round 1, for example, here:

http://www.debate.org...

Possibly, Con would not have accepted the debate if he had known it was part of the outlaw tournament. In any case, he should have been given the choice.

In contrast to Pro, Con did NOT secretly troll the debate without announcing it in round one. In fact, he seemed to take the debate seriously. That is why I give conduct to Con.

With regards to arguments, Con actually addressed the resolution with his arguments, and his arguments were coherent, unlike Pros.

Next, I am going to paste in some quotes from Con. I hope these examples, will count as evidence of him addressing the arguments (for my argument vote) AND of him taking the debate seriously (for my conduct vote:

Example from round 2:

"What we need is merely to remind ourselves of contemporary ethics and science: ethics that remind us that the western world has determined devaluing someone on the basis of race is inherently immoral and science that has robustly concluded that race is a social construct. Anyone doubting the later claim can refer to this user friendly article by the NY Times putting the science into lay terms. If further evidence is required I will provide it upon solicitation."
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
THIRD PAGE OF MY RFD

continuation of the quote from Pro's round 3:

"Japan is one of the most homogenous nations in the world; as of the 90"s, it was 98.5% ethnically Japanese (1). It may also be one of the most xenophobic (2, 3, 4). Because the number of foreigners is so small, many Japanese pay no mind to this or may not even realize the existence of the problem (4). Therefore, it is not only not racist, but is also socially necessary to analyze the effects of race."

In round 4, the resolution is not mentioned:

"Now I can finally reveal that this was a debate for the Outlaw Tournament; thanks to my opponent for playing along.

For my conclusion, all I have to say is:
Old phone lost my contacts who dis"

Thus, we can conclude that Pro presented NO ARGUMENTS to support the resolution.

In regards to conduct, Pro trolled the debate and there was no indication in the opening round that this was a troll debate. Here is the opening round, and you can see that there's no mention of it being a troll debate:

"So, this is a devil's advocate debate of sorts; I want to explore life through the eyes of a SJW. That being said, I will still annihilate whoever takes this debate. BoP is shared.

The resolution, put another way, means, "A person's race has more correlation with his/her own happiness than his/her intelligence does." Use common-sense definitions for each word (the definition of "common-sense" is up for debate).

Con can either start arguing in Round 1, conclude in R3, and waive R4, or start in Round 2 and conclude in R4. Either's fine with me."
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
SECOND PAGE OF MY RFD

Pro's round 3 continued. Then, he tries to defend the relevance of his second round contribution, but the link between it and the resolution is still not clear:

"Most striking is his assertion that I did not lay out a case. "New phone who dis" is a perfectly comprehensive and thoroughly intricate analysis of the phase-racial nature of societies today which lends itself to inter- and intra-societal communication assuming the model of perhaps disgust, perhaps a cold indifference to those of other races today. To extricate the point in less demi-rhetorical verbiage:

"New phone": The new phase-racial nature of societies has led to a shift in the ways in which ethnicity affects mentality.

"Who dis": This shift is one toward exclusion and destruction. Clearly, the claim that I did not lay out a solid case is objectively false."

The next part of the debate is mostly gibberish. I can't extract any clear argument from it:

Let"s move on to Con"s critique, and this shall be further demonstrated.

He warns against analyzing people on the basis of race rather than other factors, as it lends itself to inherently racist thinking. This critique in itself requires a critique because it suggests that collectively pleading ignorance to the issues of racial discrimination in our day by pretending it does not exist, much like ignoring my love life does not make it a good love life. If we cannot analyze the relationship between race and living standards in a society, we cannot identify and consequently cannot easily fix the race-related issues in our society; we could never successfully identify Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer if not for our attention as a society to serial killers. As proof of this, let"s look at Japan.

Japan is one of the most homogenous nations in the world; as of the 90"s, it was 98.5% ethnically Japanese (1). It may also be one of the most xenophobic (2, 3, 4). Because the number of foreigners is so small, many Japanese pay
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
FIRST PAGE OF MY RFD

Pro did not address the resolution. It's hard to prove a negative, so I will post everything he wrote here as proof.

Pro's round 1 is just an introduction and does not address the resolution:

"So, this is a devil's advocate debate of sorts; I want to explore life through the eyes of a SJW. That being said, I will still annihilate whoever takes this debate. BoP is shared.

The resolution, put another way, means, "A person's race has more correlation with his/her own happiness than his/her intelligence does." Use common-sense definitions for each word (the definition of "common-sense" is up for debate).

Con can either start arguing in Round 1, conclude in R3, and waive R4, or start in Round 2 and conclude in R4. Either's fine with me."

Pro's round 2 has no obvious relevance to the debate topic:

"New phone who dis"

In round 3, he talks about barack obama, but the relevance is not obvious:

"In addressing Con"s arguments, we must first dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; he knows exactly what he is doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world... it is a systematic effort to change America.

With that out of the way, let"s take a look at my opponent"s arguments."
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Troll debates aren't moderated, but both sides have to be in on the trolling in order for it to be treated that way. Con handled this seriously, so the debate is treated seriously. Another possibility is that the instigator decides to set up the debate as a clear troll debate from R1, which usually requires some statement of purpose from the outset. A late stage reveal is not enough to call this a troll debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
SolonKRDavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
SolonKRDavidManckeTied
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: Pro is clearly just trolling his own debate topic. He never upholds his side of the resolution, choosing instead to play word games and provide baffling, non-topical arguments. Con doesn't do much to support his side of the resolution, but he does knock down the concept of race by explaining that it's a social construct, essentially Kritiking the choice to analyze anyone based on their race. While this doesn't affirm his side of the resolution, it does effectively knock down the idea that race should be used as a predictor of personal happiness, and since there's no reason to doubt that intelligence is, at least to some degree, predictive of personal happiness (neither side argues it), Con takes the debate.