Your proposal to the "race" problem....
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?
How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"?
Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work. But you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge.
For questions , please comment /send a message.
Interpreting the BoP:
Under the description, CON quantifies that PRO must accomplish 2 things:
1. Provide a solution to racism, even if that solution may not be achievable
2. Prove that it is the best method.
RFD:
I am awarding CON arguments. Not so much because he was making good arguments, but because PRO was making bad ones.
Simple belief in God somehow translating to a fix for racism is pretty tough to prove, especially given that most Pro-Slavery arguments were originally made based on the Bible, something which CON alludes to here:
"I guess by the flip side, a theist can't be a racist so called. Not even the theist that believes in God that made a group to be inferior to a superior group,is that so?"
Aside from the whole slavery and imperialism thing, what makes this even worse is that PRO doesn't just have to prove it is a viable solution, but that it is the best, and works on all people. As a voter I can't really buy PRO's argument because he has set up for himself an insurmountable BoP which he doesn't attempt to engage with other than repeat the "God knows best" spiel. How is something the best solution if it forces us to convert people to a religion? Didn't CON already point out that many people are "not racist" but also non-religious? Shouldn't the answer be all-encompassing?
I'm also not seeing how PRO went from "God exists" to "everything in the Bible is true." There are hundreds of religions that believe in creation ex nihilo by a God, how are we to assume it is the Christian God?
There are just so many logical problems with PRO's case I can't accept it.
Argument: Pro's argument was virtually all consumed in syllogisms, none of which hold. The syllogism beginning "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is flawed because it discounts that whatever has always existed has no cause. Therefore, what follows falls. And the one "The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent" is also flawed because it discounts that a non-extant max great being is also self-consistent, so all that follows fails. And Plato's "All humans value things that are 'good'" fails because not all humans value goodness, therefore what follows fails. IN all three, P1 makes assumptions. Con successfully rebutted all three by Con's primary argument "Those that don't believe in God that aren't racist so called, why wasn't theism the answer for them to not be 'racist?'" Pro never adequately rebutted the argument. Points to Con.
Sources: Neither debater used searchable, verifiable sources. Tie
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Con very nearly failed in Conduct for an apparently incoherent [nearly non-existent argument], however, it was, essentially, an interrogative argument, which is a legitimate argument. Con even established a verifiable goal: to achieve getting along with one another [the antithesis of racism] Tie.
I should've argued Nihilism instead. Doing nothing is the best solution possible, because nothing matters.
nuuuuuuuu
I realize I've made an error in my vote in verbiage under "Argument." Where I say "..discounts that whatever has always existed has no cause," please read "... has always existed also has cause." Doesn't affect the vote, but clarifies what I was trying to say.
I was tempted to go for something else like the button that customizes your perfect life, or even the button that revives your most loved one LOL
Just so you know - I sighed when I read that - I suppose. Idk, I feel like killing all humanity is pretty creative compared to: Believe in god.
Mostly the arguments, just.... the arguments.....
to be fair, it's more creative than killing all humanity
I am ashamed of you
Ha, impatient I see