R1 - CON Is Asking For Special Pleading Over His Definitions
CON had all of round one and the description to supply definitions for this debate and he failed to do so. This forced PRO to supply one.
When PRO supplied a definition from one of the most trusted dictionaries in the world, run by Britannica Group, a company that is known as a de facto source of knowledge and runs the most rigorous encyclopedia in the world, [1] he scurries away and comes up with his own source which is... a recent graduate from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. [2]
Moreover, her degree is not even in linguistics, social psychology, or any relevant field toward the debate topic in question. She is a medical anthropologist. [2] So PRO wants us to trust the opinion of a relatively unknown medical anthropologist over a premier dictionary run by the most rigorous knowledge company in the world, that was written and compiled by linguists and etymologists with a heavy emphasis in objectively determining how a word is used in its proper context. [3]
As Merriam-Webster themselves explain:
To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.
Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use. [3]
So, it is apparent that CON's reliance on a relatively unknown recent graduate from a mid-tier university whose degree does not even specialize in any remotely associated field of study's definition is a blatant case of special pleading to try to steer the debate into his direction rather than debate the topic at hand, as defined by Merriam Webster since CON failed to supply any sort of definitions at all.
R2 - CON Agrees That I Defended My Position
In his rebuttal, CON openly admitted I defended my position and even used the right definition of "bad" when he wrote:
For your position, your assumption is right, you should defend the idea that ethnocentrism is actually bad, with bad being as defined by your given source.
Now, why is it that CON accepts the Merriam Webster definition of bad and not the definition of ethnocentrism? Clearly he believes Merriam Webster is a reputable dictionary if he agreed with it.
But, regardless, CON has admitted I have successfully defended my position. He also admitted he needed to provide definitions himself sooner, like when he stated:
I apologize again because I assumed everyone was interested in the domain and perfectly understood these concepts.
But I would argue CON is calling everyone who votes, reads, and debates this topic uninterested and ignorant of ethnocentrism. This shows bad conduct and may reveal a superiority complex on CON's part. By assuming I do not understand what ethnocentrism means, he assumes I am an ignorant buffoon debating on a topic I know nothing about.
However, it is clear to everyone reading that I supplied a definition. I competently interpreted the definition, and I even applied it to a standard that is perfectly within the scope of what Ethnocentrism is about, the differences between people groups, literally human biology, and conclusively proved that it fails that standard.
R3 - CON Admits He Did Not Give An Argument In Round 1
In his Round 2 rebuttal, CON states:
The first argument I gave was also a deep introduction of my position and a large explanation of the problem,
So CON, here, admits that all he gave was an introduction and explanation of the problem. He admits he did not even argue for his own position. This is in stark contrast to what PRO did, where I gave a complete argument, with definitions, citations to respected authorities of biology, etymology, and English definitions, and constructed my case.
Where CON admits his argument is not even a complete argument, PRO has supplied an entire argument that is complete and successfully defends his position.
R4 - CON Has Demonstrated He Has No Understanding Of His Own Topic
In His Round 2 Rebuttal, CON stated:
I don't feed the neel [sic] to respond to the second part related to biology since it just refers to what we commonly call pure racism based only on race and ethnicity
Let's recall the definition of ethnocentrism again:
Ethnocentrism: the attitude that one's own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to others [4]
And now let's look at the definition of "racism:"
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [5]
Now let's look at the definition of "race:"
any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry [6]
Now let's recall the definition of Ethnocentrism:
the attitude that one's own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to others [4]
And now let's define "ethnicity:"
a particular ethnic affiliation or group [7]
And finally "ethnic:"
of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
So, an ethnic group is a group of one race, and racism is claiming your race is superior to others. But, by extension here, ethnocentrism is the belief that your ethnic group is superior to others, since ethnicity is a group of individuals of one ethnic origin, as per the dictionary definitions of these words.
Therefore, ethnocentrism, rightly, is the belief that your race is superior to others. This means racism and ethnocentrism are the same thing.
But moreover, my standard, biological determinants and classifications of species, perfectly fits with these definitions. Since ethnicity is judging one race to be superior to another, then it is apparent an objective, authoritative classification system is in order, which is what I provided. And, according to that classification system, there are not multiple races, so there are also not multiple ethnicities, and this therefore means, as CON and PRO both agree, that Ethnocentrism fails the standard and is therefore "really bad."
CONCLUSION:
CON had both the description and his opening round to give a definition of ethnocentrism, which he failed to do. CON also admitted his opening round was not an argument, but rather an introduction and analysis.
CON also stated that PRO did, in fact, give a valid argument defending his position, and even agreed with PRO on the proper standard to measure bad.
CON used sources from people who are not experts on ethnocentrism while choosing to willfully ignore a dictionary that was written by linguists and etymologists and run by Britannica Group, a de facto authoritative source of knowledge and facts.
CON presented severe misunderstandings of ethnocentrism, racism, and ethnicity according to established dictionary definitions while claiming nobody but him and his fringe source understood these topics properly.
SOURCES:
Thanks for the vote!
Thanks for your vote!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks guys!
I believe forfeiting 50% of the debate counts as a full forfeit. But even if it doesn't, vote would be appreciated.
I need to prepare for politics if I win the election. Why wait for absolute power to corrupt me. Procrastinating is bad.
So, you're basically an opportunist, like most members of government.
Depends on whether it is politically expedient to claim so in the moment or not.
Are you one of those "zionists rule the world" people?
Currently yes, but I hear that if I work hard, I can be converted to master race Jew.
Are you a Goy Boy, wylted?
Because he seems like he opposes basing his belief system around the fact that he is part of some superior race chosen by God to rule over filthy Goy
How do you know he isn't a zionist?
Is con violating site rules by taking an antisemitic position in this debate?
Eh... Fuck it. I'll accept.
Frequently, but not inherently.