[Game] THE GREAT DEBATE

Souderwan has informed me via IM that he has a backup covering the game. Everything is proceeding as he has foreseen.

Thanks for the tip, but we're still working out what to do.

 

So what's up for tonight?

 

You added a zero.

 

[image=http://www.andymartinentertainments.co.uk/laser_dancing_girls350w.jpg] [image=http://www.andymartinentertainments.co.uk/laser_dancing_girls350w.jpg]

Welcome to?.

THE GREAT DEBATE!!

[image=http://www.proppersource.com/images/inventory/applause-sign1.jpg]


Tonight, we have our first ever battle of the brains and we are lucky enough to watch Obi-Zahn Kenobi and Hammurabi go at it!

[image=http://www.proppersource.com/images/inventory/applause-sign1.jpg]

Tonight?s topic: The US Government has an obligation to ensure that there is no segregation in public schools.

But first, a word from our judges:

The debate will begin shortly, after a few messages from our sponsors. You are expected to talk amongst yourselves.

We will begin with Hammurabi, who will post his opening salvo. We will wait 10 mins for that to sink in (and everyone to read), and then we will go to Obi-Zahn Kenobi

The debate will begin at 2030 EDT promptly.

 

Welcome back to

THE GREAT DEBATE!!

[image=http://www.proppersource.com/images/inventory/applause-sign1.jpg]

Whenever you gentlemen are ready, you have the audience?s rapt attention!

[image=http://www.nyphp.org/gallery/d/2983-2/P1030185.jpg]

Go!

 

Sorry to start the debate off in a terrible manner, but here's my rushed little starting position:

The United States government is not obliged to ensure 'integration' within public schools.

Racial integration has finished. No longer does the government itself segregate. Now, with school districts determined by purely geographic means, many districts remained biased towards one race or the other. In situations such as these, we must look to the core of the issue ? housing discrimination. As gasoline prices rise, busing students to distant school districts becomes increasingly unfeasible. The problem should not be solved through a forced racial integration, but rather, through a shift in where we live, so that neighborhoods are no longer segregated. If Americans geographically integrate, educational integration will soon follow.

A problem in American schools is that not all students are equal, even though most states attempt to force the same curriculum on all students. Quite frankly, not all students should take twelve years of the core courses. Nor should we have college-prep requirements which all students must fill. Many students won't use skills such as knowledge of history, and would be better served taking technical courses.

Other means are available to improve the public education system. One option would be magnet schools, through which top-scoring students in a broader area would be able to go to top schools. Schools in rich and poor areas would be able to send their best students to better schools, where top-quality teachers would prepare students for university education.





I can elaborate.

 

The audience is waiting! Impatiently!


Edit: posted at the same time

 

All right. Here is my opening address:

Cheesy patriotism. That's what this is all about.

What does the Constitution say the duty of the government is?

The duty of the government is to ensure that these things come to pass, and the rest of the Constitution is just specification.

Not exactly a binding document anymore, the Declaration of Independence, also a cornerstone of the United States, tells us more about what liberty means:

One of the great things about the United States and the rest of the western world is that we do have these rights. Unfortunately, it's not always true the the entire population has them.

As recently as sixty years ago, these rights were being violated for American blacks, most commonly in the south. Hampered in their pursuit of happiness (by this, I take the Constitution to mean "my right to do whatever the hell I want as long as no one else is hurt by it"), through means of racist employers, racist admissions offices, and racist education systems, it was unfortunately only recently that these crimes were made crimes, and are still committed today.

Since the institution of compulsory, state-sponsored education in the United States, the right to a free, public, and equal education has been created - or observed, as many rights are natural, and not granted by governments.

In the recent Supreme Court case, a verdict was rendered that school districts cannot draw lines based upon race.

At first glance, this seems a positive thing. In an ideal world, this limiting of de jure discrimination would the ethical thing to to - but it is not. Our world is a world of trade offs - my right to do whatever I want (including killing John Doe) is limited by other people's rights (John Doe's right to life). One child's right to go to a school geographically nearer to him or her is outweighted likewise by another child's right to have an equal chance at a good education.

School districts, when drawn by geography or socioeconomic class, as they are most often done, result in minority students be relegated to the worst schools and white students to the best schools. There is a slippery slope with school makeup. Better socioeconomic classes fund better schools, better teachers are attracted there, and the situation trends up. Unfortunately, needy schools get the trend down. Very few teachers who could teach at a well funded school with high graduation rates would turn that down over a poorly funded school with low graduation rates. Nonetheless, such teachers do exist and should be appropriately commended for their valor.

Because of this trend due to socioeconomics, minorities tend to be the ones in the schools with the least funding and lowest graduation rates. Diverse schools lead to better schools overall. Johnny McWhite whose father is a Doctor and mother a Lawyer will be perfectly fine at a poorer school; if his district is redrawn so he has to wake up fifteen minutes earlier to catch the bus, so be it, because the benefits outweigh the downsides. When lines are drawn around racial diversity, socioeconomic diversity occurs, and the trending up can occur at more schools, and trending down at fewer.

If the government seeks to maintain a fair an equitable system, this "discrimination", removed from its negative tone (i.e. as one would discriminate between the literal colors black and white), is necessary.

In conclusion, my opponent's arguments are shallow and pedantic.

EDIT: See? 2 minutes

 

So the quality grades:

Hammurabi

Evidence: You get a 1, and I?m being generous
Logical consistency: that?s a solid 2 points
Coherence: you get 2
And readability: solid 5
General entertainment value: Yeah?umm..2

Total Quality: 12

Obi-Zahn Kenobi:

Evidence: Solid 5 (you can?t go wrong quoting from your country?s two most sacred documents)
Logical consistency: Scary, but another 5
Coherence: Yep. 4
Readability is a 5
General entertainment value: Solid 3

Total Quality: 22

Got a bit of catching up to do, Hammurabi.

You may begin your rebuttal round now!

 

First impressions: I'm siding with Obi on this one.
He came closer to answering the question.

Whether a government has a duty to do anything does not in any way depend on the state of current events or on how to solve a problem supposedly created by the question at hand.

As I see it: the issue is whether the government HAVE (morally or otherwise) to do it.

Do doctors have a duty to cure polio?
Yes, they do. And that's irrespective of whether polio is on the way of being eradicated as a disease or not. The duty remains.

 

Are we both rebutting each other?

 

See? Shallow and pedantic.

 

Lies!




Expect more rebuttal - perhaps even ridicule - in a few minutes.

 

[image=http://www.proppersource.com/images/inventory/applause-sign1.jpg]

You may now begin your rebuttal, Hammurabi.

+1 pt. You're on the right track.

 

Sorry this took so long. My network's acting spotty, but I just switched off to a different computer.

The biggest problem with Obi's argument is the assumption that poor people and minorities consistently attend underfunded schools. This is not the case - in fact, in 21 states, predominately minority schools have more per-pupil funding than predominately white schools. Nor does the average income of a district correlate well with per-student funding: in 22 states, the less wealthy districts receive more money. No, a majority do not. However, nearly half of all states give more money to poor students and minorities. The data suggests that there is no strong correlation between race and educational funding. And, if anything, the solution would be for the government to standardize educational funding, rather than institute expensive busing.

 

::Crank in audience voice:: "De facto!" "De jure" is the other one!

I do it!! Actually, it's a poorly-funded school with decent graduation rates.

I hereby forgive you for confusing "de jure" with "de facto." [face_papal_blessing]

Nice argument at the end--I like the oblique reference to compelling state interest, which is what this really comes down to.

I'm sort of torn on this one--I like Hammurabi's clarity and simplicity, but it's true that the opening statement is just that--a statement without outside support.

OZK got a little difficult to follow in there, but there are bits of gold amid the haze.

Also--guys--don't tell us how awful or quickly-written your stuff is! We're dumb. If you don't tell us, we won't notice.

Carry on!

 

Double post.

 

Yes. Quite. Quite.

E_S

 

Nicely done, Hammurabi. +8 pts for evidence, +5 pts for logical consistency.

That would bring the current score to:

Hammurabi: 25
Obi-Zahn Kenobi: 23

We're ready for your rebuttal, Obi-Zahn Kenobi.

 

Hmmm.
Hammurabi, I still think you didn't answer the question.

It does not matter whether it is mostly underprivileged eskimos who currently attend underfunded schools or not. The question was whether the government has a duty to prevent seggregation.

Example:
Does the government have a duty to prevent children carrying chainsaws in school ?
It is irrelevant that, presently, most children do NOT carry chainsaws . The government's duty is in question, not the current state of things.

 

Obi Zahn's argument is that because minority schools receive less funding, the government must integrate in order to ensure equality.

However, if the schools are already equal, his point is that much less compelling.

'The question' wasn't what I was addressing; I was addressing Obi Zahn's post - which hinged on a faulty assumption.

 

I accept that, but your duty is to address the question while undermining the opponent's premises which contradict or lessen your own statements.
Such is the point of a debate

Example:
Why do cats have tails?

A: Cats have tails because dogs have tails.
B: Cats have tails because it's an evolutionary thingy and cats are cute.


A: Cats are NOT cute! Cats are the spawn of Barbara Streisand!
(A's response here is a counter-argument to B's but it still does not address the question)