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

RFD: USFG should ban the Confederate flag

famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 4:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ban the Confederate Flag in all 50 states.

This is an RFD for the following debate: (http://www.debate.org...)

(1) Racism is the first point that Pro brings up in her opening arguments. Con shows the connotations based around the confederate flag however I notice that there are no sources supporting this claim. This is a severe mitigation which I think is worthy of noting down in terms of this points significance upon the resolution. Pro continues with statistics which (again) should really be backed up with sources to bare weight upon the resolution. These statistics showed that only 11% of African Americans viewed the flag as a sign of pride. 75% viewed it as a symbol of racism. I am really annoyed that this wasn't cited because it could have had a much greater impact than it ended up having.

Con begins by stating that this is bias and false. Con's arguments are cited and therefore I buy them over Pro's arguments. He continues by introducing the equality principle which also is strongly supported via citations / sources. "People will also lose property rights by not being able to own a flag." This is exactly what I was thinking when reading the debate and Con correctly highlighted this. Con's society was proven to be preferable since he showed that it benefits everyone and under this society even if your enemy gets to choose your place the society that Con described is a better place to live and your enemy wouldn't be able to do much while the society that Pro was attempting to build is significantly more oppressive. This argument is a clear Con victory.

(2) Waiving the enemy flag was the focus of the next contention brought forth by Pro. She claims that we would be waiving an enemy flag around and that we may as well legalize the Nazi flag if we are going to legalize the confederate flag. There was finally a citation from Pro stating the death statistics. They even show that the numbers could be higher than what they actually are statistically recognized as. This is strong but seems to be an Ad hominem argument. It is attacking the subjectivity of the readers without actually showing me why these numbers are important. A question to Pro: Why is the fact that so many people died a reason for me to believe that the confederate flag is banned? It is not up to me, as a voter, to think - 'Woah, that's a big number, I'll buy Pro over Con'. You need to tell me why the statistic matters.

Con attacks the argument indirectly. He does not contest with what Pro has said but alternatively resorts to showing why the American Flag is equally bad. This is not a good attack from Con since Pro could have easily just said that we should ban the American flag too. If Pro had said this then Con would have to accept it since contesting with this would mean that the debate would go off topic. Con needs to attack the argument indirectly - conceding to these points isn't doing you any favors. This is an objective win in Pro's favor.

(3) The significance of state flags was the argument that Con brought up first. He showed that each state has its own unique culture, history and traditions. If some people find other people's history and culture offensive should be disregard their history? No, is what I am getting from Con. This is a strongly supported case, cited with an article in regards to 'symbols of faith.' He provided a good example of California's revolt from Mexico. This is part of California's history integrated into their flag. Should we forget their history because some people find it offensive? Of course not, it is history and important to those that live there.

I'm trying to be lenient to Pro here but I can't be. There is WAY too much subjectivity in this argument and it relies heavily on sources that are non-existent ... at least they aren't used in any way to my knowledge. There are extremely specific fats such as European Neo-Nazis using the confederate flag as an alternative to the swastika. Where are the citations, Pro?

Con does refute this although it isn't really necessary. Their rebuttal shows that there are other examples of things that can be deemed offensive and racist. The key to this rebuttal is at the very end when Con illuminates the dropped argument that was key to his case: 'Paul Tillich symbol argument.' Con wins this contention based upon this.

(4) Con begins the final contention by addressing free speech. A very libertarian based argument. It can basically be summed up that without our freedom of speech / opinions then our constitutional rights will break down and we will be forced to having the same view to the law reinforce-rs - ie. the government in this scenario.

Again, as a voter I am not required to research on Pro's (or Con's) behalf. Pro asserts conditions in regards to freedom of speech. These conditions are not backed up and are therefore irrelevant at this point in the debate. Pro continues to assert that the Confederate flag is offensive to some. Says who? - is what I was thinking whilst reading the rebuttal. Pro then brings up the Dillon Roof shooting and referred to the motivation being in regards to the confederate flag.

Con refers to Pro's case as bogus. I buy this since Pro's case is not correctly cited. Con easily responds by providing similar examples that remain legal. It is just as harmful as many things that are not inherently harmful and only can be considered offensive by a small percentage. Con then states that Roof was not brought up in a racist environment. He accessed a site that was extremely racist and bias, relating to the KKK. I buy Con's argument since it is sourced whilst Pro never sources the motivation of Roof correctly or directly.

(5) Conclusion: In R2 Pro, bizarrely, claimed that she had refuted Con's contention - which is false as Con correctly pointed out. Pro drops John Rawls Veil of Ignorance and many other key arguments to the debate including Con's Paul Tillich Symbol argument. This means that I ultimately vote Con based on the fact that Con dropped multiple arguments and based on the fact that their claims where mostly unsupported with substantial evidence.

(6) Sources: All of Con's arguments were very well supported and cited so that I could check that there arguments coincided with these sources. Pro required me to research their sources and assertions in regards to the confederate flag being racist. This is not acceptable for a debater to be doing and therefore I am given no choice but to also award Con the sources points.

(7) Conduct: Conduct was equal on both sides. There were no forfeitures by either side and none of them displayed any negative signs of conduct towards each other that is worth noting. I leave the conduct point tied based on this.

(8) S&G: There were S&G mistakes on both sides of the debate and there was nothing that made it difficult for me to read or understand within the debate and as a result of this I leave the spelling and grammar point as a tie.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:32:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If burning the U.S. flag is legal then so should the Confederate flag be legal.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 8:32:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If burning the U.S. flag is legal then so should the Confederate flag be legal.

Oh wait. This was an RFD thread. Ignore my posts in this thread.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:24:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Please post a picture of the confederate flag
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%