Instigator / Pro
6
1435
rating
48
debates
37.5%
won
Topic

Stating the claim “All lives matter” is not fundamentally wrong.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Mall
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,999
Required rating
1000
Contender / Con
7
1352
rating
39
debates
12.82%
won
Description
~ 86 / 5,000

Serious debates. Any racist comments, trolls and forfeits result in a loss of conduct.

Round 1
Pro
I thank Mall for joining me in a thoughtful and organized discussion. through digital devices.

PRO=User=ALM(Short for ALL LIVES MATTER) is not fundamentally wrong
CON=Mall=ALM is fundamentally wrong

Arguments(No rebuttals yet, lol)


1. Simple truism

I give CON 2 days of time to prove why ALM is simply false. According to the definition of "Fundamentally[1]", it would possibly mean that CON needs to prove that the sentence or phrase itself is wrong, putting it into no conditionals. 

Conditionally wrong: It is wrong in some conditions, such as when I say "Communism is the way to go!" in the US courtroom in 1969. It is, however, not wrong, when you say it in a Soviet-built nationalist square in Moscow, in the Russian language. It is not appropriate in some conditions, and appropriate in others. This is conditionally wrong. In fact, I could probably justify that phrase if I am on DDO[2](Also, that is not me) or DArt, as it is not fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong: The text itself is wrong, no matter the conditionals. Examples include, "A triangle must contain 16 sides", or "Christianity is equivalent to Atheism", or maybe "All words in all languages are subjunctives". These sentences are wrong logically and fundamentally. A triangle is defined as a polygon with 3 sides; Christianity worships the God while Atheism does not; There are words that simply describe a person, place, or thing, and they are nouns, no matter the language, and nouns aren't subjunctives. In this case, Unless CON can prove that ALM is fundamentally incorrect, PRO wins the day. 

I, as the PRO of the debate, can obviously prove that ALM is not fundamentally wrong because it is a truism. Because if something is a truism, it is obviously and evidently true. Fundamentally wrong statements are false, and true statements aren't false. Thus, fundamentally, truisms cannot be fundamentally wrong.

All lives matter. People matter. An ideal society is when the people are in equity(Not necessarily equality). If they deserve rights like any other humans, they matter. That is all needed. I challenge CON to disprove that claim if he even can. 

MW dictionary states, 
an undoubted or self-evident truthespecially one too obvious for mention[3]
Even activists, Black or White, have stated that ALM is, indeed true, and the reason they are against this statement is that ALM is conditionally wrong, specifically used as a response to BLM(Black Lives Matter). In fact, they think that ALM is obvious enough for a true claim that there is no need to speak of it. Evidence, a lot of them, coming below:

"All lives matter" is not a show of solidarity, but rather more racism and completely oblivious of the movement. This phrase lacks empathy and shows a person is blind to the innocent lives lost, of the families broken by injustice and of the young black boys and girls who are watching our words and actions.
Do all lives matter? Of course, they do.
The woman clearly ackoledges that all lives matter, and simply, BLM and ALM is anything but mutually exclusive. They agree with each other and they should not be used as responses of each other. 
When we fully claim Black Lives Matter, we move closer to All Lives Matter
This agrees with Source 6, for All lives won’t matter until black lives matter, too
Conclusion:
  • ALM and BLM are not mutually exclusive
  • ALM is a truism
  • Truisms cannot be fundamentally wrong
  • Thus, ALM is not fundamentally wrong
  • In fact, ALM is conditionally wrong, but not fundamentally. 

Sources:
Con
The whole point in the phrase "black lives matter" is not to be glossed over with replacing it with the phrase "all lives matter" but to make a point, a stand that there appears to be a great preponderance among or within a group.

First off, "black" folk lives mattering is not negating the importance of other lives. Why? The phrase doesn't have the word "only" in it. So saying my life or livelihood is important doesn't need to or actually have to take away the value of yours.
What's basically wrong with saying all lives matter is in regards to it's context. When it's put in a general idea as the focus , that's wrong at its foundation. When the discussion is about the problem dealing with a certain situation and people, it's apropos and accurate to use applicable terms and language.

You may want to make your position not so general as the slogan. Unless you specify otherwise, the phrase you're saying that there's nothing basically wrong with, that's not altogether so. 

Round 2
Pro
2 Rebuttal: Did not disprove, simply

CON's occupation in context is to prove that ALM(All lives matter) is a fundamentally incorrect claim. 

The whole point in the phrase "black lives matter" is not to be glossed over with replacing it with the phrase "all lives matter" but to make a point, a stand that there appears to be a great preponderance among or within a group.
This debate is about ALM, not BLM. This claim does not disprove me as CON knows that BLM and ALM aren't mutually exclusive and should not be treated as so. 

First off, "black" folk lives mattering is not negating the importance of other lives. Why? The phrase doesn't have the word "only" in it. So saying my life or livelihood is important doesn't need to or actually have to take away the value of yours.
Again, CON agrees that BLM and ALM agree with each other. In fact, BLM is advocating for equality just as is ALM. 

What's basically wrong with saying all lives matter is in regards to it's context. When it's put in a general idea as the focus , that's wrong at its foundation. When the discussion is about the problem dealing with a certain situation and people, it's apropos and accurate to use applicable terms and language.
CON concedes that ALM is only conditionally wrong instead of fundamentally wrong. Unless CON proves that ALM is an oxymoron or it is something that does not make sense whatsoever, PRO wins the day. 

My points still stand.

Conclusions:
  1. My points still stand, as CON concedes that ALM is conditionally wrong, not fundamentally wrong.
    1. These include:
      1. ALM is a truism, and it cannot be fundamentally wrong.
      2. BLM supporters agree that BLM and ALM both are correct.
  2. CON, as in his manner of speaking, implies that BLM is correct, so in this case, especially how he expressed the rest of R1, ALM would also be correct as both advocates for equality in the same method. 
I rest my case.


Con
"This debate is about ALM, not BLM. This claim does not disprove me as CON knows that BLM and ALM aren't mutually exclusive and should not be treated as so. "

Is it not true that this whole subject derived from the "black lives matter" expression? 
What's the idea of pointing out that every life is essential other than in lieu of saying what?

This is what you stated in the first round:

"Black or White, have stated that ALM is, indeed true, and the reason they are against this statement is that ALM is conditionally wrong, specifically used as a response to BLM(Black Lives Matter). "

So of course this exchange is related to "black" persons lives mattering. Your position is that there is nothing wrong at its basic level saying every life matters. 

But is that so within a specific point of discussion? Think about it.

"Again, CON agrees that BLM and ALM agree with each other. In fact, BLM is advocating for equality just as is ALM. "

Sure, so that means you could use them interchangeably. If you can do that, there's no place in debating this. Obviously you're trying to make a point that there's conflict somewhere if you came up with a topic such as this, which is about something being questionably wrong. So now you wish to argue over it presumably because you feel there are those that do have pushback behind the context of these phrases.

"CON concedes that ALM is only conditionally wrong instead of fundamentally wrong. Unless CON proves that ALM is an oxymoron or it is something that does not make sense whatsoever, PRO wins the day. ''

If you mean by "conditionally" in a certain context, yes , that's what I stated. In a context where the discussion is centered on a particular group, it would not be right, it would be inaccurate, irrelevant, inappropriate to focus on all others in society outside of where the pandemic is.

So it's incorrect to push the point about all lives mattering in an irrelevant discussion at it's basic level. Why? Well all lives mattering never ceases to be at it's basic level. It's not meant to be in any other way. So when anyone uses the phrase, it's interpreted as a fact in and of itself marking it's foundation. It's set's the foundation for the essence of life, period. It's encompassing to everyone as you say, it's a truism. A trite but logical, needless point so why is it pointed out? Particularly in a discussion that's about a specific community, what gives?

Here's a straightforward analogy involving religious doctrine. If I'm a preacher telling someone if they don't live right, they're going to hell, is it incorrect , needless , irrelevant for that someone to respond:" if we all don't live right, we're all going"?

Mind you, the person being preached to is not living right and their response is an obvious fact based on the doctrine. The punishment and hell fire doctrine is one of the fundamental teachings you'll learn in religion. It's true, it's not wrong except the concern is on that one person. I'm not preaching to a multitude. So the response from the unrighteous person should not be made as it will gloss over their unique situation.

Depending on what you mean by "fundamental", you may mean fundamental discussion. But once more, where is the debate in that? I don't think you mean that word in that way.












Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
So to further expound on the topic statement as it mentions a form of doing that's not wrong, I'd like to ask what are the other forms of doing? 
Meaning that the phrase stated in an elementary sense or setting is not a wrong thing to do so presumably it's right. What other sense can it be stated in to make it a wrong thing to say?

I just say there's a right time and place to say anything. A time when it's appropriate, is a time for doing whatever it is that needs doing.

If your position just boils down to not saying something at the wrong time, who could argue with that based on logic?
Clogging up your points with verbosity leads to confusion and pointless complexity. At the end of all this, it's right and wrong with no variable forms of the two unless you can posit otherwise.

To keep it simple, any " true fact "  is never anything but true obviously. That's needless to say kind of like this topic statement. The only thing of an issue is its relationship. In this case, relativity becomes the problem hence we have all the backlash.




Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Here is where I'll close this thing out and that'll be with words. It looks like the disconnect or the misunderstanding is in the selected language.
 
When you say fundamentally wrong, what are you really talking about here?
 
Perhaps more than one type of wrong. Then I would ask to help verify and solidify more than one form at least in this case, what other forms there are.
What is fundamental? It's the basics and what are the basics? As you google these terms, you'll find a host of definitions and synonyms all built up and established from the many contexts they're used. So basic means the essential facts and principles of . Facts are what is real, actual, bona fide , veritable and true. This is also synonymous with the word "pure". What does pure also mean? Simply nothing else with what actually is and is only that. We're getting synonymous repetitive language, so we're witnessing the connections. So the chain is as follows now that we've laid it out : fundamental > basic > facts > actual > pure. So when you say fundamentally wrong, you're saying there's purely wrong as in there's nothing purely wrong. What is pure wrong?

 
It's wrong along with nothing else . So me breaking the law is purely wrong but may not be wrong I suppose in some way. See now we have to get into the conversation of wrong just being wrong. This attempt to divide it up and categorize it goes into an infinity of questions. Leaving the word wrong just to mean that, has no need for the word pure or fundamental. The word wrong by itself has a fundamentally constituted meaning. It means simply what it is with no exceptions or deviations. So there is no question in the topic statement. Here is the following example : There is nothing wrong with making this statement or claiming this as fact, well because it is a fact. The question is, what other type of wrong is there?
 
It's not a wrong thing to say , a fact that is. What can be wrong with it? Perhaps saying the fact at the WRONG time. Trying to apply it where it doesn't fit is incorrect. The fact that we all make mistakes, that is indeed correct. But when we're discussing my particular mistake, the cause and effect, other people have nothing to do with my particular situation. It's a unique event to me, therefore a unique catalyst of events. To work with the correct series of facts won't be according to a discussion about others. That discussion would be wrong to input.
 
Here are a few examples with using the word fundamental and pure . To say I purely have money is saying I have money. This example is borrowing from a movie. The character used the word simply, which is synonymous with purely. The character stated to the other "you are SIMPLY a machine". The corresponding character responded " I am...a machine." The other character confirmed " nothing more". The corresponding character responded" nothing more". Simply or purely a machine along with nothing else. What's the difference between a pure machine and machine? That's not rhetorical but perhaps in another opportunity , a lot of these questions can be answered.
 
Wrong is just wrong . So a statement that's not incorrect to say, could never be incorrect to say, is that so?
 
When it is wrong, you can refer to that as being under a certain condition.
 
Better yet, here is the re-phrase : When it is "fundamentally"(needless term), wrong, you can refer to that as being under a certain condition.