Your proposal to the "race" problem......
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
Do you care about solving the "race" problem?I trust you perceive there is a problem.
What is your method...that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" (emphasis mine)
[E]veryone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination
[Y}ou do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence.
What does proper treatment mean?I just said it doesn't involve something. I didn't say what it does involve.
- "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
It's whatever the person says that it is according to them. Just like any victim can explain what their victim hood is and not you or anyone as a non-victim. You can have your ideas and opinions , but the truth resides in the personal experience and feelings.
How would you work with others to improve "race " relations? There's no improvement or improvement in this , if others no longer exist
How would you have others work?I can't work as a dead or non-existent entity.
You don't cure cancer by killing the person. You save the person and persons by getting rid of cancer. You kill the person , cancer is still a problem. Why? It's still killing folks. So the problem of cancer absolutely was not solved.
This proposal doesn't eliminate the problem. It eliminates people, possibly the worst mistreatment of all. The worst mistreatment there is. More horrible than that, depending on how we experience the elimination.
You'd have to prove, prove that I couldn't come up with a proposal and one better.
Moving too fast with the semantics and moving in the wrong direction.
You fail to ask what somebody means when they say anything so you hijack their words.
Yes I didn't say explicit, I said based on the description upon reading it all, all of it, you would understand it's involving humanity still existing .
Furthermore I didn't define it as no " racial discrimination". A word is not defined by telling you what it's not . It's defined by what it is .
Treatment is determined by whomever receives it.
Isn't "race relations" concerning how we live with one another?
You say all the negative aspects are gone and the positive too. Don't forget to mention that.
How can I work on "race relations" when I'm dead I asked you?
See I believe this is true but in order to avoid that, instead of thinking harder, more critically to eliminate a problem , you copout. You run from the problem.
Your idea is for the killing of everyone in lieu of cancer doing it. So either way the result is still the same. How in the world was this an answer to killing cancer?
Incorrect. Your proposal has to solve the "race problem" by what the entire description says.
The idea to do away with "racism" is to eliminate the mistreatment of human life.
You made no solution to "racism" that's used to mistreat people. You've sped up the worst result that "racism" can bring which is the destruction of us all
So someway you have to prove that nobody, nobody, nobody at this time couldn't come up with something better.
I have no burden of presenting a proposal according to the description and you know that.
(more replies in comments)
- My argument that no proposal involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. As I have said before, this argument alone is sufficient for me to win, since it means that my proposal is the only possibility. Con has dropped it in every single round.
- My argument in R0 that Con ceded his authority to define terms.
- My argument in R1.1 that my proposal satisfies the proper treatment requirement in the description.
My refutations for improvement are unsupported but yet are refutations.
Improving " race relations" eliminating the negative would benefit us.
Eliminating "races" would not benefit us.
You don't improve my health with taking it away.
Con drops that my argument that eliminating humanity is the work done to improve race relations in my proposal. Recall that the description did not specify that the work must be ongoing."Deflection
I want my car to not make a particular noise.
Your proposal was to eliminate people directly instead of eliminating the "race problem"
Contradicting yourself as I'm asking how does improvement come with more problems and mistreatment?
But the bottom line is you offered no improvement of the current situation.
I have already done so. Recall that Con dropped my argument that no solution involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. Thus, eliminating humanity is the only solution that fulfills the requirements set by the description. Consequently, it is impossible for anyone to come up with something better.I can just apply what the previous response was that I made.
You don't even realize you're offering the same thing in essence and calling it better.
You said according to the description , no. So moving the goalpost because you see fit , no. "It was the circumstances".
I either determine your proposal is not the best or concede that it is.