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 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
You won't have to play devil's advocate by not choosing a self destruct proposal.
Just think critically , a little harder and come up with something in benefit to us all. It may take some time but just let me know when that eureka moment hits.
No easy way out, no short cuts home. No easy way out so giving in can be wrong.
If you want to improve "race" relations to rid of the "racism", vote yay here.
If you want to end all humanity to not deal with " racism", vote nay here.
Please remember that I am arguing as a devil's advocate. I don't support my own proposal. I am arguing for that proposal solely for the purpose of the debate.
Your proposal is to solve the problem, not hide from.
Keeping the positives would be an improvement over eliminating the positives with the negatives. If it isn't , you have to demonstrate how getting rid of a positive is better than keeping it. Something positive, something that benefits, you'd have to demonstrate having no benefit , no benefit, no benefit is better, is better, is better , is better than having a benefit.
I'm telling you , any chance to avoid refutation, you will take it. I'll resist avoiding to answer your questions. I got no place to hide.
"The current state of race relations is overwhelmingly negative. America was swept by race riots protesting the killing of an unarmed black man . China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people . Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases . Since the negatives outweigh the positives, eliminating humanity would be a net improvement to race relations. to hide from."
Oh so you do have an idea of what "race relations" is. Don't do that disingenuous mess again.
"Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. "
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer."Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. "
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer.
Con failed to define proper treatment, ceding his authority to define it. So far, the closest thing he has offered to a definition is that it is defined by the person receiving it, which is demonstrably false. On the other hand, I have provided a definition based off what was written in the description. For these reasons, voters should prefer my definition."
I can't fail a test you never gave. You never asked the question, so how can I fail to answer it?
You don't understand the description or ignored much of it and came with a half hearted proposal that suggests our hearts to cease from beating.
Ignoring what somebody has to say or could say like they have no answer or reply is dishonest.
"Con drops that proper racial treatment is determined by the courts, which disproves his claim that treatment is determined by whoever receives it. Extend this argument."
This is STRAWMAN fallacy. I never made a statement that "proper racial treatment" is determined by the courts.
What is nothing? Somebody says it involves no thing of a car or nothing of driving one at least. So everything else that fits that response is nothing but not so.
What is sex? Certainly not playing video games somebody says. If that's all it is , then everything else I do , go to school, go to work, play with the dog , play with the children, pay taxes, talk to a minister, talk to a parent, etc. is sex. No, not correct, rethink that.
Again, what is a car? A car doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. What is justice? It's something that doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. This tells me nothing or not a thing of what they are. So therefore the language won't make sense when I have a mess of words all over the place with no definitions . I say something like I'm driving my justice in to get its tires rotated is asinine. Look at these cars or justices on the road. By those so called definitions that tells you what something is not, everything is so broad and non-specific because I define multiple things with the same so called, so called definition and these are really different things. You should see by now that this doesn't work. It's just plain silly.
Nothing is no thing or something without nothing. So it is something so the definition****is telling you what that thing is*****.
What is this ? Nothing. What is the what? A nothing. The keyword is ***what**. The ***what*** exists. That's why often times when we argue or talk about pre-existence, it doesn't include the condition of nothingness as that condition didn't even exist. Nothingness is understood as it is perceived to be which that is according to our reality. But according to pre-existence of everything, that reality or existence wouldn't exist either
"Definition of nothing:
"1: not any thing : no thing" 
The word "nothing" is defined by what it is not. Con's argument fails."
What is nothing? I'm asking ****what it is ****still. Not what it isn't. What it isn't would be telling me anything other than what it is which could be anything that isn't a void. A void is a thing as it has substance which makes it real for us to identify when it's present.
Your response didn't say it was not stated . You just said not explicitly stated. So yes it was still stated just stated indirectly and I went over with you on why the description is calling for something you didn't provide.
This was your response to "the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence."
"Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places."
You added the word "explicitly". I'm agreeing it's not explicit or *****verbatim**** or ******direct****.
"Con has conceded that the description does not explicitly require humanity's existence. My other arguments will deal with his assertion that the description implicitly requires it."
The description still ***says**** what it says . The keyword you added was ****explicit****.
"I'll lay my cards on the table: yes. This is a competitive debate. The goal is to win. You failed to define your terms. By default, you ceded your authority to define terms to me, and I have no obligation to ask what you meant."
In other words, no interest in understanding somebody. You notice that with anything, you ask questions when you're interested in something. News reporters do it with any story they're pursuing. So on your part and to what you're saying, duly noted.
Yeah, they need to watch out for deranged privacy-obsessed knights who think exterminating humanity is the best solution for racism. Who knows what I might do next!
That's funny, I also thought of the exterminate humanity argument. Definitely watchlist material
Ohhhhh hohoho. Malls gotten better. He managed to point out the mistreatment of people and inability to solve the problem!
mall probably be like, "b-but... mind control! God's existence controlling us! PROVE IT, PROVE IT!"
Great minds think alike
Thanks. I have a bit of experience with satire.
Believe it or not, Sir and I literally came up with the same argument at around the same time. His argument here is pretty much a carbon copy of what I was going to argue
I think Mall will have a challenging time rebutting this point, its certainly a consequence of the strangely limiting description, also your game on satire is strong on this one.
You probably will. I just couldn't think of anything more to say. Once I'd demonstrated that it was the only possible solution, further arguments just seemed extraneous.
Damn it, you beat me to it. But I'll make my constructive better >:)
Behold my solution to Mall's requirement that the proposal has to be the best method yet. Now tell me: am I certifiable, or should I just be put on an FBI watchlist?
I'd prefer more time for arguments, but I want to use my idea, so I don't care as much.