The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
kingkd
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

racial discrimination sucks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
kingkd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 74172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Seriously, those people who discriminate upon race, accent, appearance are just too foolish to look beyond such trifles.
kingkd

Con

Sucks:draw into the mouth by contracting the muscles of the lip and mouth to make a partial vacuum.
discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.


Source:Google

Pro has Burden of proof in proving that racial discrimination draws into the mouth. Since discrimination is prejudice, I argue that it has nothing to do with drawing into the mouth.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Source- Google dictionary
You forgot to expand the meanings, I had chosen the third meaning of sucks(informal).
NORTH AMERICANinformal
be very bad or unpleasant.
"I love your country but your weather sucks"
synonyms:be very bad
Ha racial discrimination can never be a pleasant experience.
kingkd

Con

My definition triumphs over Pro, as 1. That definition is only used in North America 2. That definition is slang. As this is an official debating site, we should use only official definitions, not slang.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
slang : to be objectionable or inadequate
As you can see, Pro definition is inadequate Asia is unofficial slang.
Slang:a type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people.
Google

Sucks as pro says it is only used by certain people, not by English as a whole. It would be as if I said "Smoking is good" and then argued it was bad because bad can mean good, in slang. So use my official definition instead of Pros. Also, as my definition was presented first, you should use mine.

Racial discrimination does not draw into the mouth, thus I win.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

Well slang can be used on this debate site, how do you keep a debate about movies and God formal?
Now this really SUCKS.
kingkd

Con

"Well slang can be used on this debate site, how do you keep a debate about movies and God formal?
Now this really SUCKS."
I agree that slang CAN be used, but remember that the formal definition is always better.


I misquoted here "http://www.merriam-webster.com......
slang : to be objectionable or inadequate"
The slang for the word sucks means to be objectionable or inadequate, but the real definition is to draw or pull into the mouth. Slang is only used by certain people as it is "typically restricted to a particular context or group of people.".

Since the official definition of sucks to to draw into the mouth, I have thus proven that racial discrimnation does not suck into the mouth. It may be bad, but it doesn't suck into the mouth.

To finish off with a famous Imabench quote from Poop has DNA :"I thank the Pro for the debate and would like to remind the Pro that this is what happens when you make stupid debates designed to give you an easy win, THEY GET HIJACKED BY ME AND I COMPLETELY DERAIL THEM >:D

I thank all the voters for reading, Vote Con on all counts"

Because suck means to draw into the mouth, I win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Pro could have talked about how the use of the word "suck" is homophobic. Ah, too bad.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Well played, Con.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
> Fan7651230 // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Lol

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb.
====================================================================
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
To be fair to Pro, as 'suck' in the resolution had no object, it was intransitive and the meaning of 'draw into the mouth' could not have applied or the resolution would be syntactically incorrect. Thus Con's definition was inherently flawed.
Posted by lord_megatron 2 years ago
lord_megatron
what the hell do I say? This debate sucks
Posted by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
The Unkown: Semantics is the point of this debate. I should win arguments as I proved that according to the official definition, racial discrimination does not suck. When you say "everyone clearly knew what the debate was about", what proof is there? Maybe I interpreted sucks as the dictionary says it to be, not as North American slang.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
B-e-a-utiful. If I could give you a f***ing medal right now I would <3
Posted by EAT_IT_SUKA 2 years ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
Well played CON...
Posted by lord_megatron 2 years ago
lord_megatron
what foolishness is this
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Lol nice
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
lord_megatronkingkdTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. It was evident that Pro created the topic for an easy win, and Con trolled. Both are violations of appropriate debate conduct. Thus, conduct is tied. | S&G - Con. Pro denied the definitions that Con provided in accordance with standard DDO norms, and used a *slang* definition of "sucks", denying the proper definition "draws into the mouth". Thus, S&G to Con. | Arguments - Con. The entire debate depended on a *highly specific* definition of "sucks", which Con, using standard DDO norms, provided as "draws into the mouth". Pro explicitly denied this, and, in addition, failed to provide any arguments to support even their definition of "sucks". | Sources - Con. Con used the sole sources. | 6 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
lord_megatronkingkdTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that people voted unfairly since all con did was play the hated game of semantics, everyone clearly knew what he debate was about (sucks is a slang used outside north America as well) no side made a real argument and therefore I shall not award arguments
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
lord_megatronkingkdTied
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 negated to define sucks in round 1 and so con went ahead and adequately defined it in round 2 for him. Nothing wrong with that. However, Pro didnt even get around to making his arguments, and instead just complained over the acceptable definition of the word sucks and tried to shift the BoP onto him, essentially forfeiting the debate. Arguments and conduct to the con, very nice debate
Vote Placed by EAT_IT_SUKA 2 years ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
lord_megatronkingkdTied
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: PRO voluntarily used a slang word, which was quite informal (as CON proved), and CON did not, thus, points are awarded to CON for better conduct. Spelling and Grammar: PRO forgot to capitalize some words (be) and capitalized every letter of one word (sucks) whereas CON didn't, therefore, points are awarded to CON for better spelling and grammar. CON may have forgotten to capitalize 'slang' while giving definitions, but PRO did as well while giving synonyms. Arguments: PRO had no arguments whatsoever, whereas CON did, thus, points are awarded to CON for more convincing arguments. Sources: CON gave 2 sources, whereas PRO gave none, thus, points are awarded to PRO for more reliable sources.