EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Africans are less privileged under law (unfortunately)

4 points
6 points
genesis01genesis01 (PRO)
Well the constitution says that only US born citizens can run for president: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution this means they're less privilleged.

African Americans can run, but Africans from Africa can't. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-09-30 19:28:35
| Speak Round
Mike HatcherMike Hatcher (CON)
My opponent has failed in this debate, for he has set a tautological interpretation of the motion, also known as a self proving definition, Non-citizens are less privileged under law and this is a fact as my opponent has shown, which means there is no debate here and it is an unfair definition, therefore I win because his burden as the pro side is to set up a fair debate in which both sides can argue, which he has failed to do.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-01 01:42:35
| Speak Round
Mike HatcherMike Hatcher (CON)
Well then even if this wasn't tautological, they have the same privileges that any other immigrant has, and the fact is that immigrants are always less privileged under law for they are not full citizens, your interpretation gives me very little room to argue on and my answer is more than adequate to win this debate
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-05 06:25:45
| Speak Round
Mike HatcherMike Hatcher (CON)
Of course I know the difference, but you are failing to engage with me for you have not set a fair interpretation of the motion, you should have talked about how being African ethnicity leads to less privileges under the law, wither they are immigrants or Americans, turning the debate into a fact as you have done by saying immigrants are less privileged is simply tautological and leaves me no grounds to debate upon. Your interpretation of the motion is as follows: Immigrants have less privileges than citizens have, this is a fact that is not debatable, and as the first speaker you have the burden to set up a fair debate in which both sides to debate upon a controversial issue, you have proven your lack of debate knowledge and have not be able to engage upon definition challenge and I have more than justified why your definition is unfair and what a fair definition should be in this debate, therefore I win
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-06 04:24:10
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-10-06 06:38:16
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Mike Hatcher
Pro put forward an argument, that Americans privilege Africans less under the law. Con refuted this by showing that this was not specific to Africans, but to immigrants.

I did not feel pro's argument was tautological. Con's line of counter-attack was perfectly reasonable, for an example, given the scope of the debate pro opened. Even if it were tautological, the burden is on con to make the definitions reasonable and debate those.

Pro: Work on:
> Rebuttals - any rebuttal that's one sentence or a joke won't win you many points
> Cases - as opposed to just running one argument, run several
> Clearly marking if you want to do a humorous debate or something

Con: It would be reasonable in many cases to point out a tautology if judges missed it, however, that should never be your entire case. Having lots of scope for argumentation is good, so you'll want to issue full-blown rebuttals, even to points pro didn't make very *well*.

When it comes to rebuttals, try and conclude them for judges. Giving judges a checklist summary, and then the analysis (for example) helps judges with analyzing points, particularly if many points were made during the debate.
1 comment on this judgement
Mike HatcherMike Hatcher
Thank you for the feedback :)
Posted 2015-10-06 21:58:56
2015-10-07 23:33:25
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Mike Hatcher
2015-10-10 23:23:21
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: genesis01
Wow, so it makes me angry when someone accepts a debate just to complain about the debate topic they accepted, IE, "Woe is me for I am CON"

90% of content from CON was complaining, just like 90% of this decisionis empty characters in order to meet the 400 character limit.

PRO, from personal experience, when someone uses a small argument round 1, they probably are not taking the debate seriously. My guess is that CON considered this debate winnable by not arguing and instigating semantics

CON knows
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2015-10-19 12:04:21
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Mike Hatcher
CON wins on the strength of a single uncontested argument... within the subset of "Non US Citizens" Africans are NO less privileged than other ethnic groups.

This assertion is not supported, but since it's uncontested, that's enough.

CON wins easily.

Really bad debate guys.

PRO: Define the resolution. Frame your arguments. Make points. Support those points. Rebut your opponent. Stay on topic and don't waste rounds.

CON: Focus on the resolution and find a way to make a case. In this case your opponent didn't actually define the terms and I think you kind of stumbled into this win by mistake. It sure looked that way.

1 user rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
Should read, "... Africans are NO less privileged..."
Posted 2015-10-19 12:05:57
Just remembered I can edit my judgement. My bad.
Posted 2015-10-19 12:07:04

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None