On Balance, Everyone Born With Exact Same Physical Traits Would be Beneficial to Humanity
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
what exact same physical traits? Take the current average height, weight, muscle proportion, etc. Everyone is now born precisely the same look. (But personality, talent, DNA itself may not be the same) I am arguing, that despite the lack of difference in physical (potential biological ramifications), the solution to racism outweighs this negative impact.
Unless it is hive-mind, having a world where legal ID Is impossible would be not my cup of tea.Having freedom of thought would create problems. Some people will be satisfied while others are furious that they look the same as everyone else. I suggest asexual reproduction? Because there is only one gender? Identity scans will be a trouble because everyone Look the same, and everyone can use all others’ identities, making crime identification impossible. How is this good?
fingerprints are still different.
Influences that cause individuals to be racist or sexist, for example, may come from peers, parents, and group membership. Conforming to social norms means people adopt the “normal” set of behavior(s) associated with a particular group or society.Social norms - behavior considered appropriate within a social group - are one possible influence on prejudice and discrimination.People may have prejudiced beliefs and feelings and act in a prejudiced way because they are conforming to what is regarded as normal in the social groups to which they belong:The white miners were conforming to different norms above and below ground. Whether or not prejudice is shown depends on the social context within which behavior takes place.Pettigrew (1959) also investigated the role of conformity in prejudice. He investigated the idea that people who tended to be more conformist would also be more prejudiced, and found this to be true of white South African students.Similarly, he accounted for the higher levels of prejudice against black people in the southern United States than in the north in terms of the greater social acceptability of this kind of prejudice in the south.Rogers and Frantz (1962) found that immigrants to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) became more prejudiced the longer they had been in the country. They gradually conformed more to the prevailing cultural norm of prejudice against the black population.Evaluation: Conformity to social norms, then, may offer an explanation for prejudice in some cases. At the same time, norms change over time, so this can only go some way towards explaining prejudice.
Identification of a suspect by an eye-witness
Identification by an eye-witness arises when a witness who has seen the offender committing the crime is given an opportunity to identify a person.
Cases when the suspect’s identity is not known
In cases when the suspect’s identity is not known, a witness may be taken to a particular neighbourhood or place to see whether they can identify the person they saw on a previous occasion. Code D sets out the formal procedures that should be followed, including the requirement for recording the full details of the circumstances of any identification by the witness.
Inbreeding can lead to higher frequencies of genetic defects. Inbreeding occurs when the alleles at a gene site are identical by descent. This can occur when a common ancestor appears on both the maternal and paternal side of the pedigree. In recent years, dairy bulls with high genetic merit for performance traits have been used extensively in artificial insemination programs. As a result, inbreeding levels have been increasing in some dairy breeds due to the extensive use of a few individual bulls and their offspring.
The biological effects of inbreeding depression in humans are largely obscured by socioeconomic and cultural influences on reproductive behavior.[5] Studies in human populations have shown that age at marriage, duration of marriage, illiteracy, contraceptive use, and reproductive compensation are the major determinants of apparent fertility, even amongst populations with a high proportion of consanguinous unions.[6] However, several small effects on increased mortality,[7] longer inter-birth intervals[7] and reduced overall productivity[5] have been noted in certain isolated populations.
Charles Darwin was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the effects of inbreeding depression, through numerous experiments on plants. Darwin's wife, Emma, was his first cousin, and he was concerned about the impact of inbreeding on his ten children, three of whom died at age ten or younger; three others had childless long-term marriages.[8][9][10]
wtf why did he concede.
Concession from Con.
Two forfeitures from Pro.
Concession
Con: Had more sources, and used them more applicably
Concession. CON had solid arguments, despite the forfeits
Concession. I think that was a mistake. Con had forfeited two rounds, so Pro could have won this.
If we have some differences then we would have variations anyway. Me, a 14yo Asian intelligent teenager, My dog, A woman I crashed with on the subway, an ant, they all share the same ancestor. Just some cells touching with each other results in this heaven of an ecosystem where some offsprings are fighting with others because things happen.
That's a good strategy. One of these days I should read The Art of War.
This made me think of the movie gattaca.
Hypnotise the opponent, make them not want to win.
This is the true mastery of the art of war.
(my interpretation of one of Sun Tzu's teachings).
Yup, that's pretty good.
I'll give it a read later when I have a second.
Fully agree. you could basically boil down the fingerprint thing as special pleading as well.
This debate may interest you, Round 3 has the juicy part.
"exact same physical traits" this would include finger prints, to say otherwise would be untopical, or an argument that is ignoring the constraints of the resolution.
fingerprints are still different.
I have thoughts, but I don't want to hand out arguments to either side, so I'll just see how things go.
Discrimination will always happen unless everyone is the same, which can make legal problems impossible to solve. I would prefer where there is diversity and there is potential discrimination, because we can at least be able to find who committed racism against other groups.
Unless it is hive-mind, having a world where legal ID Is impossible would be not my cup of tea.
Having freedom of thought would create problems. Some people will be satisfied while others are furious that they look the same as everyone else. I suggest asexual reproduction? Because there is only one gender? Identity scans will be a trouble because everyone Look the same, and everyone can use all others’ identities, making crime identification impossible. How is this good?
the science behind why inbreeding destroys bloodlines due to maladaptive recessive alleles becoming commonly activated in the genes among the later generations is going to be a major contention of mine.
https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=what-are-the-effects-of-inbreeding
thoughts on this one?