The Instigator
Xionmirock
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 31299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Xionmirock

Pro

So the topic is pretty straight forward.

Rednecks are dangerous to the community. Most rednecks are usually always drinkning in their spare time. They could easily go into town and kidnapp yo kids and start a fire. But you could also prevent that by hiding yo kids and hiding yo wife. Also when they are intoxicated they are attracted to fire. When they catch a house on fire, then Sweet Brown will call for Lord Jesus to help her with his belly full of water. (i saw Jesus in a vision and he had a belly full of water)

Therefore rednecks are dangerous to the community.
Pennington

Con

I appreciate my opponent for starting this debate.


My opponent assumed the role of Pro and Instigator therefore assuming the task of proving all the asserts he made in round 1. Because the rounds are so small I will just jump right on in and address some of my opponents points.


We should first establish how a Redneck is defined. On Wiki it says that, "Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States. The term is used broadly to degrade working class and rural whites that are perceived by urban progressives to be insufficiently liberal. At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier.[1] many members of the Southern community have proudly embraced the term as a self-identifier."


That description is not enough though we need more, "Redneck refers to a person who is stereotypically Caucasian (i.e., white) and is of lower socio-economic status in the United States and Canada. Originally limited to the Appalachians, and later the South, this term has become widely used throughout North America, and to a lesser extent, Australia."[3]


Both descriptions do not given accurate descriptions of redneck though. Because there are many types of rednecks in the world. Some rednecks are smart, some stupid, some don't seem redneck but others it is clear to see. We can consider most country music stars as rednecks by their music and by self-proclamation of it but do describe them the same as my opponent?


There is a major TV series on nowadays called Duck Dynasty and the do not fit the descriptions above but proclaim to be redneck on TV. Duck Dynasty is a reality television series on A&E. It shows the lives of the Robertson family, who became wealthy from their family-operated business, Duck Commander, which makes products for duck hunters, primarily the duck call named Duck Commander. The Robertson men, brothers Phil and Si, and Phil's sons Jase, Willie, and Jep, are known for their long, flowing beards.[2]


My opponent describes Rednecks as dangerous but in reality there are dangerous people in every type or group and just the same there are non-dangerous people in every type or group. My opponent needs to show that all rednecks drink in their spare time. That all Rednecks kidnap people and burn things.


Rednecks like any other group can not be described by a few people. The asserts by my opponent needs to be justified. I wish my opponent luck.


Sources:


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] http://www.lilesnet.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Xionmirock

Pro

Xionmirock forfeited this round.
Pennington

Con

I'll give my opponent another chance to respond to my first round and to present his case further. I look forward to round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Xionmirock

Pro

Well then.... i wasnt serious...
I do hate rednecks though. they are annoying chaw masters...
case closed.
I win.
Pennington

Con

My opponent forfeited one round. He appeared in the final round and provided the same assertions he did in his opening round. He provided us with no evidence to convince us of his claims. He simply admitted that his case is personnel decisions and not one single documented fact supports it.

I do not need to provide any argument because my opponent failed to show us one thing but that he is biased. It is not my burden to show proof. It is my opponents burden to provide proof and he has not shown none.

By rules of debate demands that my opponent loses this debate. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Noswad63 4 years ago
Noswad63
Cant Tell if Serious or Just Stupid...
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

-Mark Twain
Posted by CasLuciDrlockin 4 years ago
CasLuciDrlockin
Thus the truth was spoken today and it was great and good
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
XionmirockPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: forfeit by pro. Spelling and grammar: con had less grammar errors. Arguments: pro did not have a strong case.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
XionmirockPenningtonTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by Lizard 4 years ago
Lizard
XionmirockPenningtonTied
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: pro forfeited a round and then declared himself the winner with no actual argument to go with it.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
XionmirockPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wrote yo instead of your in the rounds also pro (in the first round) made wild stereotypes about rednecks this is not a votebomb because con actually cited some websites pro did not pro didnt even offer an argument in any rounds therefore con gets the points in the convincing arguement category