The Republican Party Is Existentially Racist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The Republican Party Is Existentially Racist
Pro concedes everything and every time Pro concedes they bring up something totally different. Dirty tactics but not enough to take conduct in my eyes. Pro keeps saying how everything that the right-wing do to attack the poor is racist because most poor people in the US are of non-white races but this is confusing correlation for causation which Con explicitly explains again and again to the extent that Pro physically says in the penultimate Round that they concede and decide to try a new tactic in the LAST ROUND which was totally different to anything before and still Con dismantled it.
Arguments to con: in debates like this, unless otherwise specified the claimant has burden of proof. In this case assessing all of pros claims, he has not met his initial burden of proof. In offering his opening and subsequent gambit, pro claims the GOP is existentially racist, but offers mostly generic blanket statement: that of “identity politics”. Without any specifics at all, and without making any arguments at all to tie the specific actions directly to racism, and above that racism based upon the existence of the party - the BOP is not met by pro. I’m very flexibile in BoP, and this decision is based on falling very far short in this regard. Even with raising Lee Atwater, pro mostly just cites this case but doesn’t use any specifics, making this simply a single anecdote / which con points out.
If pro had given multiple specific examples of actions, or provided a substantive argument concerning why the Republican parties actions explicitly merit red being called racism, this would not be the case. It’s s shame, as I don’t actually disagree much with pros debate contention.
As pro does not meet his burden of proof, con wins arguments by default.
Cons arguments were not in themselves particularly great: the crux of them was that the GOP is inclusive of other races, and that they don’t make laws that are specifically racist. These were supported by citations, these weren’t fully addressed by pro either saying that Ben Carson and Kanye aren’t big thinkers does not refute the argument that the GOP is relatively diverse, arguing that having few minorities doesn’t mean the party isn’t racist - but didn’t go to any length to establish that the lack of diversity made it racism either - pro needed to go into more detail in the refutations.
Either way, my weighting is that as Pro didn’t meet his burden of proof, 4 rounds of con posting “derp” would still have been sufficient and thus pro loses this point.
Sources: in the same vein as above, con provides citations that backed up his position, and demonstrated the points he was making, which bolstered his argument. Pros citations all failed to directly support his primary contention, the lack of such citations in part cost him the arguments portion of this debate.
Can you vote for me?
Hits the Right/Republican party***
The only kind of diversity the left/democrats dont care about is that of intellectual diversity. This is why he gives the right/republican party with one of the worst blanket statements i've seen. See my debate with gzitman about Colin Kaepernick and youll see why he made this debate. Dont call me racist.
Imagine targeting a source for their political affiliation lol.
Good luck Pro.