Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Imabench's dreadful vote

imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:39:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Making this cause I love contributing to drama around here (when im not at risk of being temp-banned at any given moment)

Thread im parodying: http://www.debate.org...
Debate this vote is actually for: http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning: (See below)

There were about 2 main categories of arguments in this whole debate that both sides centered around:

1) Helps or Hurts minorities (greater category)

Con argues that because affirmative action helps minorities get into colleges more, this actually hurts them because they are now well above their ability levels, making it that only 1 in 4 ultimately graduate. This was con's strongest argument, since Cons other, much weaker claims that affirmative action leads to less minority lawyers, causes stress, entices women to go for jobs they dont really want, etc were ones that Pro rebutted across the board.

Pro's arguments for why affirmative action helps people via Reparatory Justice, Diversity, and Integration not only were made to try to satisfy the BoP he held, but also doubled as a counterargument to Con's claims that affirmative action doesnt help minorities. Pro's arguments were addressed by Con using almost exclusively her own opinions and nothing else though, which proved to be quite devastating to her performance. The notion 'that past wrongs rectified by creating future wrong is a self-defeating' is not true simply because con says so, yet she treats it as if it is with no evidence to back up her opinion, and such strategy and response essentially amounts to a forfeiture of the argument. Con did this repeatedly throughout the debate which led to forfeitures across the board since she failed to refute Pro's case with any actual evidence, and instead relied on her own opinions not grounded in fact. Such examples include:

PRO: "integration increases the legitimacy of our multiracial democracy"
CON: "why would we want such a thing in the first place?" (No evidence included)

PRO: "Putnam not only supports affirmative action but has submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing in favor of affirmative action precisely because of its diversity benefits." (Evidence included)
CON: "The opponent"s interpretation of Putnam is inaccurate" (No evidence included)

PRO: "Studies show that diverse teams are better at solving a variety of problems than homogenous groups, even when homogenous groups are rated higher on standard ability measures" (Evidence provided)
CON: "I have not the faintest idea how differences in race lead to better problem solving abilities" (Ignores evidence)

PRO: "An essential element of justice is righting wrongs to the extent reasonable."
CON: "Justice, in reality, would be ensuring equal opportunity for all regardless of race" (No evidence included)

Because Con routinely substituted her own beliefs over actual evidence or sources to counter many of Pro's claims, the arguments over if Affirmative Action helps or hurts minorities is clearly won by Pro, and thus Pro wins the debate

2) Actual Financial Cost of Affirmative Action (lesser category)

Con's $236 billion claim she made was quickly debunked by Pro after it was challenged, and it was not defended by con again until the final round after Pro could no longer address the argument. This amounts to a forfeiture of the argument since it goes against site protocol to not defend disputed claims until after the other side can no longer respond, so the point was dropped by con. Even Con admitted that some of the other costs she cited were only partially accounted for by affirmative-action, which killed this part of the debate being in her favor.

Other points:

3) Sources

Even

4) Grammar and Spelling

Even

5) Conduct

Con routinely demonstrated the usual horrible conduct she showcases in the forums in this debate, whereas Pro remained entirely civil throughout the debate. There is no conduct point to be weighed though, so this also remains even.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 1:44:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
For the record, Imabench is a self-pro-claimed troll who has cherry-picked parts of my argument and presented them out of context. Hence, I deem it unnecessary to address an obvious attempt to bait me into a flamewar.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 2:00:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 1:44:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
For the record, Imabench is a self-pro-claimed troll who has cherry-picked parts of my argument and presented them out of context.

Oh they are very much IN context madam. Its why you wont win the debate when other people see them as well ;)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015