The question for this debate was, " Is prejudice a problem in today's society?"
I believe that my group, "Prejudice is not a problem in today's society," won the debate. I have several reasons for this. Our opponents failed to understand that we were not arguing the nonexistence of prejudice, we were arguing that it does NOT affect society and the everyday life of people. Our opponents also failed to realize one of our essential points and forced us to have to repeat it several times, because they kept constantly bringing it up as if they had nothing else to talk about, which they in fact did. They had a plethora of ideas which made lots of logical sense too. However, their choice to consistently go back to our point about "Obama, and such people," shows how they lacked a proper rebuttal to the many many facts that we had laid out towards them to show that prejudice may exist but it is not a problem. Most of their rebuttals consisted of questioning us, or rather, interrogating us about our claims. That scared me...no seriously, it did.
Our society and government is a democratic republic. So the people in power are chosen by the voters. Thus the highly known individuals are but representatives of a mass majority. If they show prejudice of some sorts then it is only because the voters showed that same prejudice and voted or supported them to power. This shows how people have a choice and can choose to avoid negative prejudices which also shows how though prejudice exists in society, it is not really a problem.
One main concrete example that I would like to provide is how everyone parent raises their child on some sort of prejudice against certain people. This could be positive prejudice. For example, parents tell their children to stay away from strangers that say they will give them some candy. This builds prejudice against strangers and pedophiles, in this case, by the hand of parents. The parents do so for the protection of their children. This shows how prejudice is present, but effectively used to protect children.
These were the points that we attempted to get across to our opponents. I agree that they had good facts and stands, and effective rebuttals. This includes stone faces and scary glares. :P
Alhough, for some of these points stated there just wasn't enough time, I still believe that my group won the debate for sticking to our argument for what we were arguing for with facts and adherence to the topic.
I believe that my group, "Prejudice is not a problem in today's society," won the debate. I have several reasons for this. Our opponents failed to understand that we were not arguing the nonexistence of prejudice, we were arguing that it does NOT affect society and the everyday life of people. Our opponents also failed to realize one of our essential points and forced us to have to repeat it several times, because they kept constantly bringing it up as if they had nothing else to talk about, which they in fact did. They had a plethora of ideas which made lots of logical sense too. However, their choice to consistently go back to our point about "Obama, and such people," shows how they lacked a proper rebuttal to the many many facts that we had laid out towards them to show that prejudice may exist but it is not a problem. Most of their rebuttals consisted of questioning us, or rather, interrogating us about our claims. That scared me...no seriously, it did.
Our society and government is a democratic republic. So the people in power are chosen by the voters. Thus the highly known individuals are but representatives of a mass majority. If they show prejudice of some sorts then it is only because the voters showed that same prejudice and voted or supported them to power. This shows how people have a choice and can choose to avoid negative prejudices which also shows how though prejudice exists in society, it is not really a problem.
One main concrete example that I would like to provide is how everyone parent raises their child on some sort of prejudice against certain people. This could be positive prejudice. For example, parents tell their children to stay away from strangers that say they will give them some candy. This builds prejudice against strangers and pedophiles, in this case, by the hand of parents. The parents do so for the protection of their children. This shows how prejudice is present, but effectively used to protect children.
These were the points that we attempted to get across to our opponents. I agree that they had good facts and stands, and effective rebuttals. This includes stone faces and scary glares. :P
Alhough, for some of these points stated there just wasn't enough time, I still believe that my group won the debate for sticking to our argument for what we were arguing for with facts and adherence to the topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment