The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

confederate flags are racist

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 1 vote the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 952 times Debate No: 77148
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race.

here we have the designer of the flag saying it was an emblem for the cause of the superior race. sounds pretty racist to me. here is what Thompson, the designer of the confederate flag thought: "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of thee white man over the inferior or colored race... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race... Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals"

when talking about the civil war people often go back and forth between whether it was about slavery, or about states' rights. the reality, is that it was about about both, and some choose to emphasize one or the other aspect of it. that's how some can try to weasel out of saying it's racist. (and to be sure, it's grown to generally mean rebel, such as with dukes of hazard) but the war was only there, cause the north drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable despite states' rights, and they said slavery wasn't, and the south drew a line in the sand and said it was per states' rights. slavery was an impetus. that means the whole flag is tainted. there might be a good way to symbolize states' rights and freedom, but hte confederate flag isn't it.

there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race.
bballcrook21

Con

Firstly, here is a link to a book about grammar
http://www.alibris.com...

It basically teaches that when you begin a sentence, you capitalize the first word.

Other then that, I accept the debate challenge. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i started the debate with arguments flaring, so should have you.
bballcrook21

Con

The Confederate Flag that I assume you are referring to was the Virginia Army Battle Flag. It represented the men in the army of Virginia.

Here is a quick history lesson.

Robert E. Lee is undoubtedly one of the most famous Confederate leaders. However, he was never for slavery. He was deeply patriotic. He disliked the idea of slavery, but he loved Virginia, his home state, very much. That is why he stayed to defend it.

This whole idea of removing the Confederate flag has just come out because of the South Carolina shootings. That flag has been hanging outside of the statehouse for decades, and no one batted an eye.

We associate the flag with the shooter, and because he was racist, we associated racism to the flag as well. That is not the case.

The South split from the Union over a state's right issue. They did not split over slavery. They split because Abraham Lincoln was elected, and they did not want Lincoln as President. When Lincoln declared war on the South, he never had the idea of banning slavery, he just wanted to preserve the Union. He wanted a unified America.

I believe it should be removed, but for a different reason. That flag stands for a dis-unified America, which I could never bear the sight of. It does not stand for racism, or for slavery. It stands for states rights.

The Confederate States of America had their own flag, and I shall post the link here.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(1861-1863).svg

This flag stands for the men that died in battle. It does not stand for racism or white privilege. The maker of the flag was racist, but that does not mean that it represents racism.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

perphaps Lee happened to not be racist. the war they were fighting, though, was about slavery ie racism.

you mention that lincoln wasn't necessarily intent to get rid of slavery but he wanted to preserve the union. you didn't say what the war was started for, though. it was started because of slavery.... he just decided it was better to preserve the union. but we see that because he had the upperhand anyway, they just got rid of slavery. do you have any other reason for why they didn't want lincoln as president so much that they'd withdraw?
bballcrook21

Con

"The immediate spark for secession came from the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 elections. American Civil War historian James M. McPherson suggested that, for Southerners, the most ominous feature of the Republican victories in the Congressional and Presidential elections of 1860 was the magnitude of those victories. Republicans captured over 60 percent of the Northern vote, while winning three-fourths of its Congressional delegations."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The war began because states left the union since they were unhappy with the current election.

When the election ended, the South knew that Lincoln would not have been for states' rights, so they left. When Lincoln declared war, he didn't draft the Emancipation Proclamation until a few years later. He only wrote it because he knew that he would have won the war and would have been able to subjugate the South if they resisted the ban of slavery.

The flag represents soldiers. Just soldiers. It does not represent racism. We have the U.S. flag, and then we have a flag for the Marine Corps, Army Rangers, Navy, Air Force, etc.

The flag represented the army of Virginia, nothing more, nothing less.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Pro's round 3 argument brought to mind someone with a concussion reading a Wikipedia page about the Civil War that was edited by a troll.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Mistake made on that previous comment.

The reported vote allocated points in this manner: 4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments) and 1 point to Con (S&G).
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: IndependentTruth// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con simply doesn't understand history. He claims that states seceded because they were unhappy with Abraham Lincoln's election...yeah, BECAUSE HE WAS ANTI-SLAVERY. It's so annoying seeing false justifications to preserve a flag that is inherently anti american and racist.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voter injects arguments into the debate that don't appear in the debate itself. (2) Voter doesn't justify the allocation of argument points, merely stating a single claim from Con. He provides no clear reasoning as to why Pro deserves the points, and mentions none of her arguments. (3) The RFD contains no justification for both the conduct and the grammar points. (4) The voter makes it clear that he's injecting his bias into the decision when he states "It's so annoying". The emotions that the voter is feeling, however justified he feels they may be, should not be used as support for any vote.
******************************************************************************
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
@IndependentTruth You have voted out of personal bias. I have reported your vote already. Your RFD did not properly explain why you voted the way you did, and if you are able to vote again, please do not vote on my debates ever again.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
And I gave reasoning as to why it was not. His vote gave sufficient reasoning for why he found your case persuasive. It did not address your opponent's at all.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I can understand the one about Pericles, but the one by PatriotPerson was very good. I'm not saying that just because he voted for me. That was a good explanation.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Neither of them meet the basic standards for votes on this site, bball. I went over the standards with you personally. I've provided the entire text of their votes, and the reasoning for their removal below them, directly using those standards. I'm not asking for tremendous detail, particularly from PatriotPerson whose vote was close to being adequate, but I do need to see all of the requisite pieces that showcase that your voters have taken the time to read through your entire debate and analyze the individual points from both sides. Neither of these voters made it clear that they had done that. Both you and your opponent put too much time into this debate for votes like these to stand as substantial evaluations of what you said.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Whiteflame why do you keep removing votes? I thought the explanation for those votes were pretty good. They do not need to go in detail this much. Come on now, that's overly excessive. You've deleted 3 votes from my debates already.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Pericles// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources and S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was an all-around poor debater. Bad grammar, incoherent and illogical arguments, etc. Also, Pro had no sources, and Con had sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources: doesn't explain why Pro's source support tilted the debate in his favor or even why the sources were relevant at all. When awarding sources, an RFD must show why there was a significant difference in source from both debaters and *why* this difference impacted the outcome of the debate. (2) Arguments: it is not sufficient to just say that Pro was illogical. A good RFD should explain where the illogic resides and why the other side's logic was better. (3) S&G: doesn't explain where the faults in grammar exist and why they are sufficient to award the point.
===========================================================================
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
==================================================================
>Reported vote: PatriotPerson// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct because Pro spent the entire second round saying nothing but "i started the debate with arguments flaring, so should have you.", which is completely irrelevant to the debate's topic. Not to mention that Pro copied and pasted some of her arguments from a former debate of hers (I know because I was her opponent). Con gets Spelling & Grammar because Pro doesn't seem to know what a capital letter is. Arguments to Con because Pro re-used some of hers, and Con did a great job rebutting her claims, especially when he proved that the flag was not racist and simply stood for soldiers in Round 2. Sources go to Con because he actually used some. Pro cannot be associated with this point because she didn't provide any.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct: The conduct violation has to be relatively serious. Being repetitious and posting to a limited extent in a single round doesn't justify a conduct vote. (2) S&G: It is not clear how the lack of capital letters hurt the readability of Con's arguments. (3) Arguments: No clear articulation of which arguments were successful from this voter's perspective, nor why they viewed other arguments as insufficient. Explaining the resulting views is not enough, as it is not specific enough to show that the voter thoroughly read and compherended the debate. (4) Sources: Doesn't explain why Pro's source support tilted the debate in his favor or even why the sources were relevant at all. When awarding sources, an RFD must show why there was a significant difference in source from both debaters and *why* this difference impacted the outcome of the debate.
===========================================================================
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
dairygirl4u2cbballcrook21Tied
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: Conduct goes to Con because of the fact that the second round of Pro's argument was "i started the debate with arguments flaring, so should have you," and because I have no idea what Con even said in Round 3. Spelling and grammar definitely, absolutely goes to Con. I'm not sure Pro went a single sentence without at least one grammatical or spelling mistake. Con made more convincing arguments. First off, Pro's second argument wasn't an argument, and his third one wasn't even made coherently, so he really only had one argument. Plus, this single argument was made off of the incorrect thing. Pro seemed to be arguing for the Confederate Battle Flag, but used evidence regarding the actual flag of the CSA, which makes no sense. Sources go to Con because he actually posted his sources, as opposed to Pro.