Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
11 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

    @arikcschneider Congrats for advancing to the next round!
    @thaddeus_tague Hard luck on this one, hope to see you at November's tournament - registration is now open:
    https://www.qallout.com/tournament

    • 2 years ago

      Great debate Thaddeus! It was a pleasure.

      • 2 years ago

        @arikcschneider - Thanks for a lively debate dude!

        • 2 years ago

          Hi @arikcschneider @thaddeus_tague!

          I’m not a QallOut judge, but I have written out my reasoning for this debate and why I voted Con.

          The first thing I’d like to identify when coming to this conclusion is that for the numerous and varied studies that were cited in this debate, it would be counter-productive to go and search them all myself; debates ought operate on a good faith relationship with the speakers and thus I took that which was presented at face value.
          The second thing of note is that I think while the conceptions of both side’s burdens at the beginning of the debate are clear, they diverge as time goes on. What I mean by that is Con claims that there is a degree of benefit you get from being white; that life is ‘easier’ not ‘easy’ (Con3,4) – whereas Pro takes a look at absolute poverty, crime etc and I think misses nuance in a series of areas.
          E.g.1: Pro claims that decision privilege is the deciding factor, rather than white privilege (Pro2), but begs the questions of Con’s case, that all else being equal, what are the pressures that lead to those decisions which from Pro1 are not the three best waves to avoid poverty (finish high school, get a job, avoid pregnancy), con claims that is partially white privilege. E.g., the reason you may have been unable to finish high school is because of disadvantage in the home.
          E.g.2 Pro claims that parental privilege is a large discriminating factor, which seems intuitively plausible but is presented in a non-sequitur fashion: ‘why are only 7% of black families from two parent homes below the poverty line whereas 22% of white single mother families are’(Pro4). Those two things are not comparable, you’d need to compare poverty rates of double parent/single parent families, or the rates of double/single parenthood.
          Those are some observations I made, but I however think that they were not as important as the following components of the debate, the areas by which speakers clashed most was reasons for incarceration and implicit bias.
          Incarceration:
          Pro claims that blacks commit crimes in higher rates are that is a reason to believe there is a higher rate of incarceration, and that policing in black communities is weaker due to unending social pressure to not over police, despite a highly representative enforcement and governmental branch (Pro2). What Con does here is identify that while that may be true, there are some crimes, in particular drug crime for which are equal rates in participation, and differential rates in incarceration (Con2)
          Pro’s response (which was impressive to see them whip it out off the cuff) was to identify that those numbers were polluted by harsher legislation that was enacted in majority black communities which then changed that proportions you’d expect (Pro5). Con identifies that they were talking about a different study (e.g. Pro’s time was 30yr. windows from 1960’s, Con’s was 2007) (Con5). As I identified before, the good faith operating criteria of this platform would mean that I have to take Con’s claim at face value that they are infact different studies.
          I think importantly to that it demonstrates an area which if you had white skin statistically and (for no other identifiable reason in the debate) you were safer in that specific crime. I also think rhetorically in addition to this Con is strong in identifying that being able to get away with a crime is the height of privilege – although that is just flair and not argumentation.
          Implicit Bias:
          I felt this was the area of the debate which saw less response from Pro. Con claims that through word association people’s expectation of the person to whom a name is attached is contingent upon that name (Con2). Pro has two identifiable responses
          1) That it seems unintuitive that people are discriminatory on the basis on the ‘whiteness’ of a name, and
          2) That this is a study that is incongruent with the other literature quoted by Pro
          I think that these are insufficient responses in the context of a good faith system. Also noting response 1) is the premise of the debate that people -do- discriminate, so I don’t think that is a reasonable response. Further, I think at this point Con identifies that these are things that are not contingent upon one of the primary metrics proposed by con (decision privilege). As, the word association does not have any knowledge of the person, their history, their choices – just their name. I think in that form of engagement Con is persuasive.
          In summary, I also note that Pro’s appeal in Pro6 was to say the debate ought not be awarded based on implicit bias alone, I want to stress that I have not done so. The strategy of Pro was one of identifying other sources of race based inequality, and while they successfully do this in some parts I think Con does throw enough doubt onto the issue in implicit bias and drug-related incarceration to believe that there are other factors at play, one of which is white privilege.
          This was a very close debate.

          • 2 years ago

            there is a such thing

            • 2 years ago

              @ninadabit Thanks for judging the round. I appreciate it.

              • 2 years ago

                I have a question for the two that debated about white privilege. Could white privilege be a remnant of the days of aristocracy? Lighter skin color was seen as upper-class and considered beautiful. This is true from personal perception in most civilizations on the globe. India, China, Thailand, Japan, Europe and Americas. In the none EU areas this was true before white settelers/explorers arrived.

                • 2 years ago

                  @tolgaveske I think, sure, western civilization falls prey to a host of alternate causality arguments. But here current levels of discrimination really just point directly backwards towards our history of discrimination and racism. The simplest answer, ockham's razor style. At least that is the most probable explanation for the "notion" of white privilege

                • 2 years ago

                  @tolgaveske Yes, but more of a “that’s how we’ve always believed” thought process than an intentional class system. Even countries with a class system, like the U.K., generally don’t intentionally discriminate based on skin color.