Ohhh sweet it went through. It’s bitter sweet though because it may be my last debate. If not I’m taking an extended leave. I just have too much going on in life. It’s good stuff, but I like being able to write quality stuff. I’m just too preoccupied with my full time job, my part time job, my research, and my dissertation.
I will try to enter this in actual place again, but it is freezing up. I also don’t want to be counted against for not replying lol!
I want to end by thanking my opponent for this debate. I respect and appreciate that he is willing to debate anyone and any topic. I guess I also thank him because this may or may not be my final debate due to life circumstances and having to teach college at night along with my full time job. Even though I do thank him, my opponent never addressed my core arguments in this debate. My main contentions were negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. Additionally my opponent made a claim saying that segregation “is no more harmful than the way society currently is”. The issue with my opponent never addressing this is that it is an accidental concession of the debate because it admits to some possible harm regardless of the severity. The debate topic is “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society”. Additionally my opponent never answered several claims such as my smoking example. This is important because my opponent sole case focuses on a statement I said about not doing something that makes someone feel unsafe. The issue with him never answering this, is because it shows I don’t have to take a full stance. Someone could hypothetically say that I won’t force someone to do something, while acknowledging harm. Someone could say I won’t make laws to prevent people from smoking, but smoking is harmful. This shows the flaw in his position because the debate is titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society”. This means that even if I took the position my opponent claims I did, then I could concede this point and it wouldn’t have any bearing over this debate.
Methodology
To start this section I will mention that throughout this debate I used a strict methodology that uses, statistics, quantitative data, history, and mixed method approaches. These approaches are used to get as close to causation or understanding the cause of why something happened. This is still hard to do in behavior science, but it is the closest way we can determine what is true to my available knowledge. My opponent throughout this debate ignored this, which I can understand why. It should be noted by the reader that he ignored my question which was “how do you determine truth when viewing a large population”? This is partly because he doesn’t have a methodology to determine what is true or most likely true within our society. With my opponent ignoring this question I will ask it again, what is your standard of evidence? How do you determine something to be true in society? And how do you determine what is true within a large population (I do get I only asked one question in the previous rounds, but with my opponent dodging the first question in quotes, I wasn’t able to get through each question I wanted)?
My opponents main argument
Usually in the closing round of the debate I would crystalize and go back through my core contentions, but I will be different for this closing. This is because my opponent doesn’t address my arguments, so each of them count as being conceded. This is stated by numerous debate leagues, debate scholars and debate coaches, which is placed in my reference section. Since my opponent has basically conceded the debate by not answering core contentions, or cross exam questions all I have to do is go through his one argument. His argument in total rest on this point
Mal’s Quote
“You said "I will never say someone should take part in something that may harm them" .
So being that you haven't proved that it is impossible that a "something" such as involuntary segregation would be harmful , it negates your position in trying to argue for the topic as standard generalization”
To answer my opponents only argument the statement I mentioned here doesn’t prove that segregation doesn’t cause harm. My core contentions were never answered which included negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. This was proven using data, research and history. The issue with my opponent trying to use this statement against me is that I could hypothetically take a position saying I wouldn’t force integration and it wouldn’t change the fact that segregation causes harm. I already used a smoking example which my opponent didn’t answer so I will use an additional example to illustrate my point to the audience. If we had a debate on whether “getting drunk daily causes harm”, I just have to show studies, data, history and outcomes of things such as vehicle wrecks, damage to someone’s liver, it being a gateway drug, mental health decline, and brain damage. Regardless of if this causes harm, I could still say that I would never tell someone to not drink because I could take a variety of stances such as not wanting to turn over specific laws. Would this all of a sudden make drinking too much alcohol not harmful? Based on my opponents logic it would make it not harmful. But based on how laws are, how systems work, and how society operates I don’t have to argue for what people should or shouldn’t do. I just have to show data to show it causes harm, which has been done.
My opponents false statement
Mal quote “Just by this one statement you made so that all these other things you've said, gets knocked down and the bias favored tailored data and studies do nothing more than echo the chamber. (End quote).”
To answer the second part of my opponents case he doesn’t prove why my logic is flawed. The whole interesting thing from this is if my opponent researched he could have found scholars that would have argued his point. Scholars such as Brennan and Barroway, or Garry Ritter. I could bring up flaws in these individuals works, but it isn’t my job to create arguments for my opponent. That’s his job, but if you are curious I will link my first peer review article “segregation by race in charter schools” (King, 2025). My main point in saying that there is scholarship in other positions than mine is that my opponent accused me of being in an echo chamber. This shows that this claim is easy to dismiss, because there is a variety of scholarship around. Scholarship isn’t tailored in the sense of trying to force conclusions, which is why their are scholars on every side of the isle from voluntary segregation is wrong, voluntary segregation is harmful but we shouldn’t force integration, and individuals who think voluntary segregation creates possible beneficial opportunities. The thing is most studies will show harmful effects because data over the years on a national and state level show this in more instances than the specific instances where some individuals may have benefited.
Conclusion
To end I will go ahead and apologize to my opponent and the audience for being a tad snarky in this reply. I do respect my debate opponent and he is often fun to debate. Regardless I presented my core contentions which were negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. To prove my case I used data, research, quantitative analysis, and history to prove my points which is a standard methodological approach. This is how behavior scientists and most scientists show things to be more likely to be true. My opponent throughout this debate didn’t answer these core contentions which means the debate ways in my favor. Additionally my opponents main point was a quote I used which he misrepresented throughout this debate. The interesting thing from this was even if we went on his interpretation and I conceded the point, it actually doesn’t move his one contention any further. This was shown through numerous examples and scholarship which my opponent ignored. Even if my opponent answers everything in this debate in his closing round individuals who vote on this debate should note that he avoided the main points of this debate, which means that any answers towards them should be mute at this point. To steal my opponents words, case closed (Good luck in the future my former opponent lol).
References
Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications
Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
https://www.worldcces.org/_files/ugd/a95ba5_e6763214789b4e5b929bd17d57977d6c.pdf?index=true
Brennan, D. L., & Baroway, M. (2002). Victory for kids: The Cleveland School Voucher Case.
New Millennium Press.
Ritter, G., Jensen, N., Kisida, B., & McGee, J. (2010). A Closer Look at Charter Schools and Segregation: Flawed Comparisons Lead to Overstated Conclusions. Education Next, 10, 69–73.
https://dsdc.ca/glossary/drop
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohols-effects-body
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/index.html
Uhhh it won’t let me submit my closing lol
Now this one is interesting….
Yea. Idk. I have a lot going on. If I do come back I would be happy to debate!
I’m contemplating retiring from debating or taking a long break after my last active debate so it is bitter sweet. I just have a lot going on. Full time teacher, a parent, a researcher, a PhD student working on his dissertation, and a part time college teacher. If I do come back after my last open debate I hope to get fresh opponents in the future lol
I am at your mercy because you said to ping you lol!
This is interesting. I will watch but I couldn’t debate this topic. Don’t know enough lol!
I think the thing with this too is there are multiple viewpoints of hell. Some views aren’t torture through hellfire and brimstone.
I wonder why most of your debates are ending in people quitting or not showing up. Is it that less people are joining? Or is it a slow time of the year?
I am unsure if anyone reads my debates because I haven’t had a lot on here yet. If someone has, is there any debates that someone has read where they disagree with me on something? I can turn it into a debate topic. Feel free to message me. I will form a topic based on that or we can negotiate if you private message me lol!
Handshake across the isle. Time to focus on our other debates. I may create a new one in a few days.
Good debate. I liked the style you used this go around.
I will go ahead and thank whoever takes this topic. I am a peer review researcher who teaches college part time while obtaining my PhD. Whoever accepts this debate will be helping me finish my readings for my peer review work on a manuscript that I need to get done. I’ve been a tad lazy on this manuscript because I have been focusing on my mental health research lately.
I think you are doing pretty good, but there are a few things you can trim. I won’t go into suggestions, in the comment section because I am unsure if it would be proper etiquette or not. If you are curious after the debate I can give some suggestions. I’m a peer review researcher and I teach college part time, so I am use to making a point with word limits lol!
lol we don’t agree on much, but I hate you are getting a lot of forfeits.
I will be interested to read this one. I honestly would struggle with a 3 day timeline. I thought about signing up, but I struggle to defend stuff I don’t believe in. If I got something I didn’t agree with I would suck lol!
I will do my best to try and remember lol! Grad school and being a new parent may make it hard lol! I am glad you are enjoying the debate.
Handshake across the isle before we start. I had a feeling from reading another debate you were in that you would be the one to accept it lol! Was a good guess lol!
You do YouTube debates? I would actually be curious to watch lol!
Well I guess I am just scouting how my debate opponent will argue lol! I will say that I don’t quite understand issues he has with pro defining terms. That is standard in debate usually. At the very least, it should be in the description if he didn’t want that. I get if it was overly semantic, but it is just definitions to move the debate forward. It keeps confusion from happening lol! It also helps nail down positions and ground the persons foundation from which they are arguing from.
I usually debate about racial issues, and that was what I use to debate heavily on debate art (My name is different there lol). I am trying to broaden my horizons though. I will probably debate about educational issues, epistemological questions, and my old topics. I am open to other things though. What topics do you debate? Do you lean a certain way politically (I typically don’t do politics, but I lean more left on most issues).
I do thank you for the vote and I do have to disagree and agree with you at the same time. I think I won on each part of the debate and I am sure con thinks they presented a better case. I do think you voted fairly, but I disagree with you about con in the last round. I haven’t debated con enough to know if they were trying to muddy the waters. They could have thought I was trying to do something unfairly even though I wasn’t. I am honestly big on giving people the benefit of the doubt. I honestly would like to debate them again at some point and I would then further specify the rules on items. In the future I will specify if I use AI or not. You see I didn’t find it problematic because I actually do a lot in academia. I am a PhD student, I have published research (Well my first article comes out soon. I’ve mainly done research conferences and I have some works waiting to be published), and I teach adjunct at a university. We have AI policies and I have used them to help with grammar in my research articles. Institutions aren’t having problems with it because these AI checkers are buggy at times and often produce false results. Their are a lot of articles on it, which has caused issues with students and false accusations of plagiarism (How I used it was for grammar checks, which means I didn’t plagiarize. I could understand people who haven’t read about this though so I don’t have hard feelings). Their are now other checks that are used because AI is not good with certain things and if you ask it to say write a paper, it will not be too good. I’ve had students turn in 100% AI content. You could tell by how it is written because a lot of the time the subject matter is false. I really just told the truth even though I could have skated past it because honestly is the best policy. Other fields outside of academia progress differently and I won’t judge people for their thoughts. I will just put it in the description if I am going to use it, or I won’t use it at all. Anyway I hope you are doing well. I hope to debate you at some point.
Ohh I meant to also say thanks for the engagement in the comments. I look forward to this debate.
Sure! I debate more about society, because I am more of a social scientist. I’m a PhD student in Educational Research. I’m sort of a newer researcher as in I’ve presented research at research conferences, but my papers are still pending for peer review. I got news recently that my first article I wrote is about to be published (I can share it with you when it makes it through. It should be an open access journal). I have two more articles pending. I have spoke at international conferences in countries like Austria and I have also presented at research conferences at Ivy League schools like Cornell. My current works deal with the school choice movement, but I am doing some survey research and quasi experimental design research dealing with Mental Health in educators.
Yea I look forward to it. I’m debating him on another topic. The topic is “is empiricism the best method to derive truth” So I am scouting a little lol! I am new to debate. I am a peer review researcher though so my writing skills are good lol! Just debate is a tad newer to me lol!
Who is arguing the evolutionary side? It’s been a while since I watched or read one of these lol
Hey man. Sorry for the last minute reply. I would have normally finished earlier. Grad school and me presenting at research conferences has beaten me up lately lol!
Idk what I am, but the problem is that pro in this case would have burden of proof, just by how the debate is titled. If it was something like, is God real the opposition would have the burden. You have to look close at the debates you except. I sort of always try and word my debates in a way both sides have the burden 9 times out of 10. Granted that isn’t easy all the time in theology debates.
