Instigator / Con
7
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2620

Your proposal to the "race" problem......

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

SirAnonymous
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1532
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description

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.

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.

-->
@Mall

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 [3]. China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people [4]. Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases [5]. 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. [2]"

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. [2]"

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" [1]
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."
Your response:
"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.

-->
@Sum1hugme

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!

-->
@MisterChris
@SirAnonymous

That's funny, I also thought of the exterminate humanity argument. Definitely watchlist material

-->
@SirAnonymous

Ohhhhh hohoho. Malls gotten better. He managed to point out the mistreatment of people and inability to solve the problem!

-->
@SirAnonymous

mall probably be like, "b-but... mind control! God's existence controlling us! PROVE IT, PROVE IT!"

Great minds think alike

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thanks. I have a bit of experience with satire.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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

-->
@SirAnonymous

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.

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Damn it, you beat me to it. But I'll make my constructive better >:)

-->
@MisterChris
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge

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.