Check out the Tournament Ladder

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

      @tara_kade I have not and need not refute what con has cited.

      - Whenever the term white privilege is used, it is used to mean inherent in all. (I think it would be most fait if a judge on a specific topic would have studies said topic). Not a single study explains white privilege to mean what con is intending it to mean. This is a very misleading resulotion.

      - Why are you leaving out the fact that whites have a greater chance if getting shot by police and a greater chance of incarceration? Ive cited my source in thr debate. Please explain why that isn't taken into consideration.

      - Taking all of that into account (all of which I mentioned in the debate along with sources), please give me the calculus used to definitively say that whites have more privilege. Thanks.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman
      I did not address those statistics because they were not cited in a way in which I could read and verify them.
      Here is a link to an article regarding the racial divide in prisons: https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes.com/white-men-vs-black-men-prison-statistics-2016-why-are-more-african-american-males-2426793%3famp=1
      You will see that the ratio of black people in the population to prisons far exceeds that of white people. In addition you will find that on various similar charges (most notably drugs) black people relieve a substantially longer sentence.
      In regards to your point regarding people being shot by the police, I encourage you to look into the police shootings of the past two years for reference. I'll offer the specific example of Tamir Rice who was a black boy aged 12 shot without even having a real gun versus actual mass shooter Dylan Roof a white man who was somehow taken alive. Please see this article for that story:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/did-white-privilege-keep-the-planned-parenthood-shooter-from-being-killed-by-police/?utm_term=.958636b74240
      I'd be happy to further discuss later if you have any additional questions/ comments.
      And as a final note: everyone has a different debating style but in general refutting your opponents points is a necessity. Again let me know if you have any other questions/ comments and have a good night!

    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade That is not your job as a RJ to refute a point made by a debater. The fact that you take make a claim here is very damning to your judgment. Also, I would be more than willing to debate that very statistic because that article has some very misleading stats.

    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade Please tell me you are joking! Are you seriously going to use an op-ed to back your position? Dylan Roof surrendered peacefully. I love how they write 'both individuals were playfully holding fake weapons' Yup! The police knew they were holding fake weapons yet decided to shoot them anyways.

      On your first link. Why on earth do you all keep on bringing up the general population percentages??? When dealing with police shootings, you would have to look at who the police are having such altercations with! NOT THE RANDOM GUY WATCHING TV AT HOME! I've cited actual statistics and WHERE I got them from, disputing what you wrote. You didn't address them however, because 'they were not cited in a way in which I could read and verify them'?? What in the world does that mean?

    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade thanks for the feedback. I do have a very readable face and demeanor and I was definitely getting frustrated here. Thanks for judging.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman I find your anger unnerving and would like to respectfully request that if we continue discussing this matter we do so in an objective and respectful way. Thank you.
      I apologize if you misunderstood what I meant regarding not addressing your points. Let me rephrase: in the comments section you posted several academic papers supporting white privilege however I see no links regarding the points you were making regarding incarceration or shooting. However, there are a lot of comments on this debate so please let me know if I missed those links and I'll be happy to give them a read.
      I apologize if the links I provided we're not to the same caliber as an academic paper, I acquired them through a quick Google search to support something I have been studying for some time now as I did not want to cite myself. I encourage you to watch the documentary "13th" for the most all encompassing and indisputable account of the racial divide in prisons. It is the opposite of the claims you made. And I can assure you it is well researched and credible. In regards to the shooting statistics please understand I was looking for an article that mentioned both a white and black man, I apologize if you did not like the one I chose. I can cite many cases of undue police violence amongst black people but a quick Google search will yield you the same results. I appreciate your understanding regarding being more objective and polite. Please let me know if you have any further comments/ questions.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman
      Hey!

      So for this debate, I see no issue in Tara's initial video assessment itself, BUT you are 100% right about her text comment afterwards and bringing in personal views on the resolution along with new sources. We have talked to Tara specifically (as well as the rest of the judges) and reminded everyone about the rules. Thanks a lot for bringing it up and helping us improve the process!

      As per Yazan's suggestion, @joshuatreeretreat will pass through the next round. We will bring a second judge to re-assess the debate and if he/ she gives you the WIN you will also advance to the next round 2 (thankfully we have a few 'no shows' so you get priority for their seats)

      Please let me know if this is acceptable with you and DM me if you would like to further discuss.

      Thanks a lot!

    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade an incredibly biased response for an alleged debate judge. Arguing on behalf of the Con’s position.

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj_misesian I was going to respond, but it doesn't seem like anyone else is seeing this as a total bias. Oh well.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman I sincerely apologize for any bias I have shown in the comment section of this debate. I have judged debate for several years through several different institutions and am able to do so without the interference of my personal views as I believe I did in my initial judgement where my only criteria for judging the debate was the refuting and asserting of points. I am, however, unaccustomed to a comment section and engaging with debaters post debate jedgement. As I am a debater at heart, I got carried away and jumped into the discussion in a way I should not have and for that I am sorry. I am not a debater here and I will be sure to know my place from now on. Again I apologize to all involved parties and am happy to learn from this experience. It is one that is new to me as well. I wish you the best of luck @mosheweissman and I appreciate your understanding of my misstep.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman I saw your FB comment on this and thought I'd check it out.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman ~ 2-3 times as many white people are shot by police each year than black people and many black people shot by police are shot by Black Police officers. The proportions are higher but the crime statistics are much higher. So if we were to look at races proportional shootings by police one might think More black people would be shot, especially given the alleged racism. YET, not only do numbers show but also studies show that police are actually LESS likely to shoot a suspect If they are Black than if they are "white"

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman @joshuatreeretreat
      Apologies guys, it seems my comment never came through this morning

      At the 24 hours mark the community votes were 13-9 in favor of PRO so we need the second judge anyway to make a decision!

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj_misesian that is correct. I've cited this statistic in the debate and the source for it. Everyone just wants to overlook it as if it was never said. I'm honestly baffled.

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @ninadabit where did she refute the study cited that says whites are more likely to be shot by cops? I cited the source for that. Where did she refute the study that says blacks are less likely to be incarcerated? I cited a clear source for that. I have no problem taking a loss, but the fact that both judges didn't even mention in shows me that the bias is out if control. At least acknowledge that I mentioned them and they went unaddressed. Just acknowledge it. Sad.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman bro, when both judges and most of the RD's/People with Debate Experience are all voting against you, there's nothing "sad" about these decisions.

      You can whine about how nobody listened to you, OR you could take personal responsibility for your own communication, and recognize that had you framed your position in a better light, you would have won more votes from experienced debaters and judges, regardless of any perceived "bias". Speaking of which, last tournament's champion was Con on this rez and he just lost, so clearly there is a way to win as Pro despite the perceived "bias".

      You, and you alone, are solely responsible for your loss in this round. You did not do a good job defining or framing the resolution. You did an atrocious job citing sources, as has been pointed out by nearly everyone commenting. It is your fault that you lost. Take responsibility for your own actions.

      Even if everything you're saying is right about bias (who knows) the fact that you did not convince the judges means you did not do what you needed to do to win. Rather than bitch about it, learn how to communicate your position in a way that doesn't play into potential bias.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman Citing a study at the very end of your case and trying to rest your entire case on it does not create the better case. I have no obligation to mention everything that occurs in a given debate because everyone else has just watched it and knows what happened, although I definitely did see this come up and did not feel it became big enough in this debate to mention in my assessment. It is unreasonable to expect someone to address something in the last couple minutes of speaking time, particularly when it is brand new information and the rest of the debate has relied on other lines of argumentation.

      As far as bias, it doesn't matter to me who wins any debate, it truly does not affect me in the slightest. I will only reference what was actually brought up in a debate in any adjudication, and, in my experience as a judge both on QallOut and in my own debating circuits, that is more often than not unable to confirm biases. What matters is who makes the better case, not what any judge knows to be their opinion as a person. There are numerous cases where a judge may strongly agree with one side, but that debater does not come up with the necessary material to reasonably give them a win, or their opposition may surprise them with a new creative line of argumentation. If you're not convincing judges that you, in fact, are the better debater with better material, then that's not a judging bias, it's a way to improve on your part as a debater, which is why we're giving you feedback at all rather than just delivering a decision and moving on. This comes alongside Georgia's surveys that every judge has to take before starting each round in order to assign debates and account for opinions on topics that we acknowledge in those surveys.

  • 2 years ago

    @joshuatreeretreat Congrats for advancing to the next round!
    @mosheweissman I hope the comments from our Judges provided clarity on the decision but happy to have a private chat if you would like. If you are still interested in our tournaments, registration is open for November (last chance to qualify for free entry in Dec $5,000 Championship):
    https://www.qallout.com/tournament

    • 2 years ago

      Based on your logic blacks benefit off of racism that stems from blacks as well. That is not measurable and can't prove anything. Again however I ask are you willing to concede that not EVERYONE has white privilege? That is what is promulgated by these studies. You are now coming up with your own definition.

      • 2 years ago

        @mosheweissman no, not EVERYONE has white privilege, just white people;) If you're trying to say that only *some* white people do, then there isn't "no such thing."
        Here are the links to the studies I cited: http://amj.aom.org/content/60/2/771.abstract
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742
        https://sites.google.com/site/mircotonin/racialdiscrimination_2017_09_25.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1 (this is a link to download the paper)
        I'm glad that you agree that racism is real and that it's a problem. Systemic and structural racism in the US is too big a topic for a 15 minute debate, which is why I limited my discussion to present-day examples in a professional setting. I would be happy to post some resources that I have learned from, if you are interested.

      • 2 years ago

        @joshuatreeretreat I have read plenty of studies proclaiming systematic racism today. I disagree with that position, and would be more than happy to debate that as well. On an individual level? 100 percent.

        On this topic though:

        - The wording is very ambiguous. Any time the term white privilege is used it does not mean what you are claiming. They make the claim that it is inherent in every white. I will post links to all of the studies later.

        - If a white benefits off of a white discriminating, then why can a black not benefit off of a black discriminating? Do you believe that a black can't be a racist?

        -

      • 2 years ago

        @mosheweissman Have you ever used a band-aid? If so, what color was it? Did it roughly match your skin color?

        That's white privilege in action. As a member of the normative skin color group, society is in many ways tailored to you. It is a privilege to go to any first aid station and find a band-aid that won't stand out when you put it on a wound. It is specific to being white in America.

        Have you ever been pulled over by the police? Did you suspect that it might be due to the color of your skin, that you might have been profiled for being white? No? Then you have white privilege in America because when black men get pulled over, they often have that thought because profiling happens.

        Neither of these is racism. The first is just a commercial outcome of the majority white population. The second is a result of crime statistics showing black men are more likely to have arrest warrants out for them. Yet both lead to a benefit for being white in America. It is a real thing, it exists.

        White privilege has nothing to do with measuring outcomes. It is about the raw fact that being white has advantages. People with advantages don't always win, and those without them don't always lose. It is about personal experience in life. Nothing more, nothing less.

        What you do in this debate is strawman. You claim white privilege is something it is not, then try to shoot it down.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried are you available Wednesday night? I would love to have a debate on this.

      • 2 years ago

        @mosheweissman Sure I feel the need for some measure of vindication on the topic. I have a debate for the tournament at 6pm Pacific. So how about 7PM?

        Here you go, I reversed the topic resolution.
        https://www.qallout.com/debate/3493-white-privilege-exists-in-america-and-elsewhere-as-well/live

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried I look forward.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman I agree that this resolution is "Backwards"

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman your first link isn't a study or research, it's a list. This is number 37 on that list: "I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally."
          This is 29: I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

          Both the NYU/Wharton study and the HBR one speak directly to this, showing that 1) professors are likelier to respond to white students and 2) that managers who mentor/promote people of color will face negative perceptions from colleagues.

          This is 50: I will feel welcomed and “normal” in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.
          The AMJ study speaks directly to this: fictional emailers with white-sounding names received more replies, and more polite replies, from public employees, especially public employees in cities/counties where data showed more white people to live.

          If this list is how you define white privilege, the studies I cited prove that it does exist in reality.

        • 2 years ago

          to clarify: the only managers who will NOT face negative professional feedback for hiring someone of a different race are white men as per the study and as per McIntosh suggests

        • 2 years ago

          @joshuatreeretreat Again:

          Do you agree with this study or not? You are cherry picking. That same study that you are using to say agrees with you, also says that white privilege is inherent in every single white person. Whether they like it or not. So you really need to chose. You can't just use a study to push your opinion while ignoring parts of the study which disagrees with you fundamentally.

          All of that being said. If the topic would be 'Has a white benefited from racism' I wouldn't argue for a second. However the topic is on whether there is a privilege to whites overall. The onus is on you to show the math. We both agree racism goes both ways. If that IS the case then both races would benefit off their own races discrimination. I have also cited a number of factual statistics that show a clear privilege to blacks. PRIVILEGES THAT FAR OUTWEIGH THOSE THAT YOU MENTIONED' For instance: Your chances of getting shot by law enforcement. The chances of getting incarcerated....you again would need to show that the privilege to whites that are the outcome of racism outweighs that of blacks. The onus is on you. Please break down the math of how you get to your conclusion.

          Another point I want to bring out. The topic is WHITE PRIVILEGE. Every single study that promulgates WHITE PRIVILEGE, explains it to be inherent in every white. That is something you should really study prior to debating this specific topic.

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman isn't "benefitting from racism" a privilege?

          I don't understand what part of any study I posted disagrees with my position that white people have an advantage in all of the situations studied (getting an email back, getting a polite email back, getting a response from a professor, freedom to hire/mentor whomever you choose without fear of negative reactions from colleagues...) that advantage can synonymously be called "privilege."

          No, I don't think racism "goes both ways," unless you mean by that one way is that non-white people are disadvantaged by it and the other way is that white people are advantaged by it. "Racism" is loaded with history and is absolutely not synonymous with "preference" (i.e., in attending a panel about Women in X industry, inviting only women to speak would not be sexist, it would be a preference.)

          You did not specifically mention or post any study/stat about police shootings or incarceration, but please post it if you have the source. In the meantime, here is some math: "U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer."
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.de6629795ca2

        • 2 years ago

          @joshuatreeretreat When discussing police shooting civilians, would it not make more sense to go based off the number of altercations each race is having with the police NOT the general population? Unless you know of some statistics that show police just running into innocent peoples homes and shooting them. The Blacks account for OVER 50% of violent crime in the US. Whites account for much LESS THAN 50% of violent crime. Based on YOUR numbers, the chance of a white getting shot by police is far greater than blacks IN THE SAME SITUATION. I mentioned my source in the debate. Here is a link to part of it.

          http://www.copinthehood.com/2015/04/killed-by-police-2-of-3-race.html

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman I still don't really understand your point with this. Are you trying to say that white people do not have the privilege of not being shot by police? There are so many other moving parts in that claim. Saying "appearing white is a measurable advantage in XYZ professional situations" (literally what I said) isn't the same as saying "nothing bad ever happens to white people." It also isn't even remotely the same as saying "nothing good ever happens to people who aren't white." I really wish you would have addressed the data I presented, because I am legitimately interested in how you would characterize those advantages (if not as "privilege" what word would you use?)

        • 2 years ago

          @joshuatreeretreat if a teacher gives unearned bonus points to the class. Half get 5 bonus points and the remaining half gets 10. Are the ones who get 5 points privileged? Obviously not. You are only looking at a tiny part of the equation. I brought up a number of instances where blacks privilege off the color of their skin. The onus is on you to now show that after doing the math, the white skinned person benefits more. I want 5o know that exact calculation. Not that it has to be so. Or it makes more sense. Tue exact calculus tgat brought you to your resolution that there IS white privilege.

      • 2 years ago

        I heard the word study much more than I heard a substanated point beyond an opinion. However, Con showed more facts by citing her sources. Pro it was close and Con is not my personal opinion.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian I cited 2 studies which I also posted links to above.

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman it’s a tie then...

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman those are not studies. The first link is McIntosh's list. The second is a book review of her book. The third is an article that elaborates on McIntosh's list which makes several excellent points, including this one: "White privilege is an institutional (rather than personal) set of benefits granted to those of us who, by race, resemble the people who dominate the powerful positions in our institutions..." here I will refer back to the three academic papers I posted above, which all have to do with institutional discrimination.

          The one about the professors has a very large data set; they emailed over 6,500 professors at various universities across various disciplines. Here is a quote from the abstract: "We found that when considering requests from prospective students seeking mentoring in the future, faculty were significantly more responsive to Caucasian males than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions."

        • 2 years ago

          @joshuatreeretreat Correct. That is her list which I brought up in the debate. The second is a paper written by Francis E Kendaall Who has a PHD specializing in issues of diversity, social justice, and white privilege. The thirs is a review on Peggy McIntoshs book. I would encourage you to read her whole book, and see that what I am saying is correct. However due to the fact that I doubt you would within the next couple hours I posted that link. You can search for any other link if you think I cherry picked, and see for yourself.

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman I think the links you posted do give a description of what white privilege is. I have read her book. What I'm trying to argue here is that there isn't "no such thing" as white privilege; that white privilege is a real thing that definitely does exist.

          This is from the article you posted: "All of us who are white, by race, have
          white privileges, although the extent to which we have them varies depending on our gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, physical ability, size and weight, and so on." He is saying white privilege exists but that it's not the ONLY kind of privilege someone can have. He is saying that a rich white person has more privilege than a poor one, that "rich privilege" is a separate thing. (of course, they overlap because of the legacy of inherited wealth and a systematic theft of resources, but the point remains that being rich and being white are two separate things)

      • 2 years ago

        Stupid phraseology in the topic once again.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui Agreed. Makes zero sense.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui @mosheweissman
          I think if you watch @logicalreason and @sigfried’s debate from last week on this topic you will agree, logicalreasons argument that white privilege or unearned advantages cannot be measured to suggest it’s a logical fallacy or red herring itself disproves the idea the topic has an iffy title.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian it can certainly be measured, it's just hard to quantify. Attribution is always difficult because correlation does not imply causation. What I can say for sure is that people who say "it can't be measured" do not follow that logic consistently for other issues and things which they believe to exist even though they can't be quantified.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui Please break down how you are measuring this.

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman one obvious way is racial dating preference. Many white men would prefer their daughters not date black men.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui what issues? Sigfried has proven himself as one of the best debaters on the site and he tried all of that. And the argumentation in this round surely couldn’t substantiate any such claim. So,If it’s not quantitative, I don’t see how it can’t be a false conclusion or misleading statement to begin with. As far as other issues being similar, or who says what, I have no idea what or who that is.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian do you believe that love exists?

        • 2 years ago

          @julian what about sexual attraction?

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui because love and sexual attraction exist white privileged exist? Are you sure those things can’t be quantitative? Some study must exist that I’m probably less attracted to soneone with morbid obesity as opposed to an athletic swimmer or whatever... and therefor more likely to experience a greater level of desire.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui If you don't think it's quantifiable, then don't select Pro. Seriously this is entirely on the debaters to pick the side they think they can make the best case for. The debaters need to take some personal responsibility for the side they pick.

          Meanwhile, Julian's right. The last tournament champion was just beaten by someone who selected and then made a good case for the Pro side. There is a way to argue this, the Pro side just needs to define their terms and frame the debate (like they should do in any debate).

        • 2 years ago

          @julian "because love and sexual attraction exist white privileged exist?"

          I want you to try your hardest to connect the logical dots based on the things we've previously said prior to this. Usually this takes the form of me making my argument, you responding with a counter-argument, and then my question directly relating to that counter. Can you identify what these things are?

          You: "Can't be quantified, therefore doesn't exist."
          Me: "You don't apply that logic equally to other things you believe exist."
          You: "What things?"
          Me: "Do you believe love or sexual attraction exist?"
          *Obvious* implication: These are things which cannot be quantified but which you nonetheless believe exist.

          Seriously, I don't need to hold your hand through all of this.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 " If you don't think it's quantifiable, then don't select Pro. Seriously this is entirely on the debaters to pick the side they think they can make the best case for. Take some personal responsibility."

          I literally just refuted that argument.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian "and therefor more likely to experience a greater level of desire."

          can you quantify that? Also, what about love? How do you quantify love?

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui Uh... there isn't a single argument on this page that responds to that point. If you don't think you can make a case for one side of the resolution as worded, then don't pick that side, or don't pick the topic at all. Personal responsibility bro.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 I don't think you understand what "personal responsibility" actually means. The way you are framing it is quite idiotic. Basically, any disagreement with the format is being defined as lack of "personal responsibility."

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 Which is precisely the argument against the format lol.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui you’re not doing a very good of proving the concept of white privlidge Isn’t false or misleading. Because We both know that Im saying you’re making poor analogies that are vague. That’s an ad hominem. By criticizing me you are answering a specific example of being more attracted to someone who takes care of them self. Let me add that Frued and Jung studied love and attraction scientifically...

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 I guess some people are big on tautologies and others aren't. If you think defining terms in such a way as to make you right by definition is a persuasive argument then I would say that's pretty average and non-intellectual.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui Bronson. If you think the resolution is a tautology, then do not select it as your choice. Every single tournament entrant gets a bunch of different topics they can select, and 2 sides of each topic to advocate. If you do not think a resolution is worth defending, then do. not. select. it.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian WTF are you on about now? When did I ever say anything about you personally?

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 thanks Captain Obvious, what does that have to do with my argument?

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui psychologist quantify love by the behaviors couples and engage in as well other factors like before and after pictures on a timeline. Regardless the ability to quantitate emotional states is personal within being which white privlidge certainly cannot be.
          https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9891/how-can-we-scientifically-measure-love

        • 2 years ago

          @julian I'm glad you've lowered the evidentiary standard lol.

          http://www.theroot.com/yes-you-can-measure-white-privilege-1794303451

        • 2 years ago

          @julian man if only people could hold their own beliefs to the same standard they hold other beliefs too we probably wouldn't be having half of these debates.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui you’re link which you give no explanation for quantities racism not the concept of unearned advantages. I believe in those things much more than Pro does in this argument. I told Sigfried that those things can be explained by population and cultural shifts and he never responded.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui and by ad hominem I don’t think you were trying be a jerk so much as looking to win. Maybe we should just throw this up on the site sometime?

        • 2 years ago

          @julian No offense to my opponent or the judge, but... I thought the decision on that round was absurd and logicalreasons arguments were pedantic rather than substantive. It only persuaded me that people are really pig headed and defensive when it comes to this topic.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian I'm ready to debate this right now if you are. I've just quantified white privilege with the example of mortgage discrimination -- using the exact same low evidentiary standard you used to quantify love or sexual attraction.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui give me a minute to put a shirt on and debate the resolution: unearned advantages cannot be measured? That would be about 7:00pmEST/here.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried I get it.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui more like 7:10 actually cleaning browser catch first.

        • 2 years ago

          @julian Make topic

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried No different than saying band aids show white privilege. Talk about pedantic

        • 2 years ago

          @alot_like_locke That is an example given by the person who coined the term. it is one of the definitive examples offered to describe the meaning of the term.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried It is a stupid one with no understanding of how band aids came to be. Bandage and band aids alike are a medical device, a medical device directly tied to bleeding. The color of the band aid maximizes the view of blood on the cotton. Not because it is sold to a predominant market of whites.

        • 2 years ago

          @alot_like_locke That is some total bullshit right there.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/the-story-of-the-black-band-aid/276542/

          "Since its unpretentious invention in 1920 by Johnson & Johnson in New Brunswick, New Jersey, the Band-Aid was long manufactured in a single color: a soft pink. In a 1955 TV commercial, the company showed one on the hand of a Caucasian woman: "Neat, flesh-colored, almost invisible," a voice-over said."

          "Los Angeles-based marketing consultant Harry Webber, who was responsible for the advertising of Johnson & Johnson's Band-Aid between 1963 and 1968, said that the product's flesh color was "a non-issue" during his years promoting it. "Johnson & Johnson's consideration was this was a mass market product, and as mass market product you look at what is the largest faction of that market and you create the product for that faction," he said. "So for non-whites, at that time being between 12 percent and 15 percent of the total population, there was no way anybody was considering making a Band-Aid Brand adhesive bandage to mask the color of skin that is the complete spectrum, from pink to ebony.""

          It has jack all to do with maximizing the view of blood on cotton. That's bullshit.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried How something is andcomes to be are bot the same as later renditions of it. Extrapolating from a commercial as to why a manufacturer chooses a certain color. Useless source as well. Call bullshit all you want, you would be a fucking idiot to use a dark band aid where you cannot see the wound bleeding or getting infected. Many bandaids serve such a purpose, food ready bandaids are blue, so that they stand out more if it came off during cooking. http://www.firstaid.co.uk/Blue-Plasters--The-Technical-Bit-ABLUEPLASTERS/

        • 2 years ago

          Comes* Not*

        • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 The onus in this debate is on Con not Pro. White privilege doesn't just exist. Until AND ONLY until, someone can show that it does- it doesn't. Regardless of how you word the debate title. The math doesn't lie. The motion in the debate title is a negative motion 'There is NO such thing as white privilege'. Being against a negative, infers a positive. Being pro a negative, infers a negative. So the Con in this debate is the one making a positive claim. Not me. That being said, White privilege does not exist until one makes a case that it does. Just like making the case that anything exists. The onus here is on the Con. The debate resolution is messed up, that doesn't chance the reality of our positions.

          To give an example - If I were to have a debate titled "There is no such thing as ghosts" The burden of proof would be on CON. All PRO has to say is 'prove that ghosts exist, until then they don't (aka no such thing as ghosts)'.

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that it does, in fact, exist.

          https://www.qallout.com/debate/3491-unearned-advantages-cannot-be-measured

        • 2 years ago

          @mosheweissman I think the problem is that irrational thinkers tend to view the world in black and white, either/or, red vs blue, ways of thinking. But the universe was not created in that way. The universe exists in a state of probabilities and spectrums. That's why you have gold, silver, and radon inside of your body right now. There is no purity. You've never drunk pure water and you never will.

          The reality is that it is transparently obvious that our society is not completely 100% uniform, and it can't be. Some people were given the luck of the draw, others climbed their way to the top. It's not an either/or thing. Yes, in many ways white's have unearned advantages, but so do Sasha and Malia Obama. To say that there is such a thing as white privilege is not to say absolutely every single white person is privileged over every single black person. A real debate would involve delving into the issue and adding up the ways in which everyone has unearned advantages and seeing if after the sum totality is weighed do whites in general have more advantages and if so are they a big problem and if so what should be done about it.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui I like that last comment. Personally, I would want to take this debate, and demonstrate that most privilege is actually class privilege, which, since the time of slavery, has been preferential toward whites. There is white privilege, not as often because of racism, but because of economics. I think there's a good debate to be had about that.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 that's the argument I made with Julian in our debate. Class distinctions make a lot more sense to me than race. It would be hard to argue that a wealthy black is disadvantaged compared to a redneck living in a trailer park whose parents are addicted to opiates. The Sasha and Malia Obama's of the world have much more advantages than the average white person.

          What was really interesting was to show him his WESTERN privilege. To me, that is more defining than any white privilege in America. Being poor and black in America puts you in the top 32% of the inhabitants of the world. Is that an unearned advantage? Why should you be in the top 32% by birthright? Also, by being poor and black in America, you are almost guaranteed to rise above that 32% at some point in your life. Often you will make it to at least the top 25% of the world, whereas in most parts of the world you will remain in whatever class you were born into. There is no such thing as income mobility for the vast majority of people on this Earth.

          Western privilege, and American privilege in a global context, is far more pronounced than race privileges are in America which are minor by comparison. When I listen to the "plight" of poor people in America it reminds me of the millionaires vs billionaires here in Hawaii. The millionaires claim "this is literally Jim Crow." Totally tone deaf.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-hawaii-millionaire-fight/

        • 2 years ago

          @alot_like_locke What has blue plaster have to do with Band-Aid adhesive bandages? They are not pink so you can see the blood, the whole purpose of Band-Aids is to protect wounds and not look unsightly. They are both medical and cosmetic. They are also opaque, you can't see through the pink to see the blood.

          The marketing department will market the product based on the product qualities and design. Bandaids are designed specifically to have as low a visual profile as possible and also to cover small wounds. And they mention that in their marketing.

          I am talking about this product
          http://amzn.to/2h6Bo8j

          Knotice how it is not see through?

        • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @julian thanks for the mention, it gets to the heart of the problem

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason you want to debate this? White privilege for sure exists and can be measured.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui sure, 30 minutes? Add my Skype I'll pm you

      • 2 years ago

        Qallout seriously needs to phrase these topics in a way that actually can lead to a fruitful intellectual discussion. For example:

        "White privilege is/is not a major problem and we should/shouldn't do something about it/here is what we should do."

        "White privilege isn't that big of a deal compared to other issues."

        "White privilege is a major issue and we must take government action to prevent it."

        Etc.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui That's what I thought until I lost around to "white isn't something we can objectively measure so white privilege doesn't really exist." Having lost agaisnt that argument, I became convinced people are so resistant to the idea they might have some unearned advantages in life that they can't really see reason on the subject. Thus, this resolution appears to be the current cultural dividing line, as mind boggling as I find that to be.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried I specifically refuted that argument. Just because something can't be quantified or measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried your argument also doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that because you were voted as the loser that means the other argument is more sound?

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui No, it means that other people think it is sound, which I find perplexing. I think it's a terrible argument.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried I give that less weight than I imagine most people would. I do give it *some* weight, but ultimately if I have the better argument it really doesn't matter to me what others believe. I'm okay with being the only person on Earth who knows the Earth is round.

      • 2 years ago

        I think this debate gets tied down to specific hypothetical examples a little too early: for example, the whole con discussion of what happens if you email/call a professor. I agree with this hypothetical analysis abstractly, but I don't think it is very salient in this round because it's a theoretical, not a factual example of white privilege.
        Concrete examples would have been much easier to analyze. Or numbers; the wage gap, for example, or high school dropout rates, or the average disparity in income.

        Pro seems to think the con has to prove that every single white person has privilege? I think this is an unfair burden; in fact, by my reading of the resolution, Pro has to prove that there is ZERO white privilege in America. So, if there is even one iota of privilege in America, then con wins.

        Why does the Pro wait until his second-to-last speech to actually give specific examples of studies that support his position? I would've much rather seen it in ANY of the earlier speeches, rather than as a final thought. The last speech is for summary, impact calculus, voting issues; it is not for new evidence.

        Pro pretty much drops all the con studies throughout the debate and fails to address them. Con is correct that this is enough to win the debate. I vote con because, even if there is significant remedy to white privilege today (which seems to be the defense the Pro is providing) the risk or small chance that it still exists is enough to prove that there IS such a thing in America.