Instigator / Pro
12
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2728

Resolved: Disney Should Include Greater Social Diversity

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

Full Resolution is as follows...

Resolved: Disney Movies and Shows Should Include Greater Social Diversity (representation of people of color, women, LGBT+ community, etc.)

No semantic arguments allowed.
Burden of proof is shared.

Undefeatable could of won this if he just bit the bullet on the 13% representation. He could of just said "yeah, 13% of characters should be black" depending on the time period and setting of the Disney movie too of course. Then fruit inspectors entire vagueness argument falls apart and he has no sources to deem this hard or expensive to do.

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

-->
@Undefeatable

Yeah, I'd say this is one of those times when digging down into a source could've helped. Like I said in my RFD, I don't think the specificity of the case was the bigger problem, though making it a little more specific might have helped. It's mainly an issue of just finding the impact and beating it into us. I think the framework could absolutely have functioned that way, and if there had been a little more impact analysis and some statements regarding Disney's particular role and responsibility, I would've found it a lot harder to buy the argument that their financial incentives should always outweigh.

-->
@whiteflame

thanks for the vote. I'm a bit salty that my friend's help ironically caused me to become less focused and more about the intrinsic values which were incredibly vague. If they wanted to prove that it was moral to include the social diversity, ironically I think my case could be more fitting. But even though they framed their case as a suggestion letter to Disney, they ironically lacked the "precisely why" and more of appealing to the companies' love for freedom and equality in the first place. My friend assumes that voters will be Disney lovers and accept the same ideals as they. Or, if I allotted 15,000 characters and casually threw in my own usual "expert analysis" where I swept over what source 1 covered as a back up plan to introduce the importance of my friend's argument, I may have had a better chance. But I guess now you can see why I often go in depth on expert sources to tell people why my source is credible and why it matters.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@fauxlaw

I appreciate the votes and extended feedback. Even if the votes hadn't gone in my direction, I know it takes time to analyze debates and it seems like you all put in a good amount of effort doing so.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Undefeatable

Someone remind me to finish my RFD for this tomorrow. I’m liable to forget.

Should be able to get a vote up on this soon.

-->
@Barney

nice vote. I think the difference between Und.'s usual style and his friend's research is that Und. tends to stack analysis and impact together in a way that is very hard to refute. But his friend used an ideological style that failed to show **precisely** what people actually gain, other than partially resolving racism, but is problematic when put to reducto ad absurdum. Und. seemed to understand that the equality picture is very hard to actually find impacts of, which is why he argued partially for Deontology. Tough resolution.

-->
@gugigor

I don't normally put that much time into a vote during my work week, but something about this one held my attention... And for too long, I have to run!

-->
@Barney

wanna try voting on this one? I think Undefeatable wants some more specific feedback on why he lost... if he lost XD

-->
@Undefeatable

"They have tiptoed around the issue but has never been explicit on the issue."
My mind immediately went to Beauty and the Beast, but they did cast Belle as a woman due to censorship, so you've still got a good point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHgfVzj7Tc

-->
@fauxlaw

damn. I guess I should think twice before adopting my friend's argument (someone else helped me research this topic and I found it rather tricky to dispel his sources)

-->
@Undefeatable

re: your #12, racism was not relevant to the debate. And, in the future, you're better off giving definitions and strike the "no semantic arguments allowed." offering definitions dispels semantic argument. As instigator, definitions are your forte to use. In my vote, both concerns killed your effort.

-->
@Undefeatable

Robots almost had. They starred in Wall-e.

-->
@Intelligence_06

that's a little crazy. Not sure robots are on that level quite yet.

How about we have robots acting and starring in disney movies? What about dishwashers and bottles, and iron bars as well as bumper cars??

-->
@Undefeatable

Before I start, my claims that you were racist and such were done tongue in cheek as a logical conclusion to your own claims. I do not actually believe you are those things and you would do well to stop slandering me with such titles without being able to back them up. You are the one who said you don't even know how to support that racism is a moral issue as my worldview easily allows.

I had two separate but similar claims:
1) "...that Disney has no obligation to make any changes to their current activities or trajectory in order to increase social diversity in movie roles."

My argument that the plan is inconsistent and incoherent are the basis for why Disney has no obligation to implement these particular changes. This does not mean that Disney has NO moral obligations, but those come from God. Without God, they would have no moral obligations.

2) "... I do not believe PRO has any moral grounds to prove that Disney has an obligation to do something that potentially benefits society at the cost of financial loss."

This claim is that YOU have no basis to assert that Disney must implement your plan, or any plan for that matter. Even if it did somehow fight racism, you have no moral grounds to say Disney should do this. I do believe Disney has the same moral obligations that God gives to all people, and they are subject to their Creator. You have no such basis.

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge

anyways. Very very crazy debate. Throw in some feedback, I don't know how to support that racism is a moral issue so... not my forte.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

did you just try to pull a 180 on me in the last round? Through the whole debate, you claim there is no moral obligation, and your questions infer that you are racist, sexist, and transphobe -- comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Then, you finally admit that it is absurd to say that Racism and Sexism are not moral issues, in order to break down my Utilitarian net benefit analysis. It seems confusing to me. Either there is no moral issue, despite equality and human dignity being something YOU claimed to support in the end, or there is a moral issue, but it somehow doesn't overcome Disney's "selfish desires", despite the net impact displayed and the patterns to show more minorities I displayed in the beginning. It's difficult for me to support libertarianism because it widely depends on impacts, but I personally also think it's still absurd that Disney should continue being selfish at the cost of inequality. That's why I brought up the reverse arguments.

-->
@Undefeatable

That is certainly an interesting approach. But it does at least help clarify your argument.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

It does seem confusing, but your argument kind of defeats itself, and even if moral did matter somehow matter I stated Kant's beliefs. I wasn't too sure how exactly to push the impact analysis framework so I upheld both sides just in case.

-->
@Undefeatable

But here is what your argument said:

"Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate -- I have Kant's categorical imperative to back me up"

Perhaps my desire for consistency is a bit rigid, but it seems inconsistent to appeal to a falsehood to support an argument. I guess I'm just wondering how you justify doing so unless you're trying to falsify someone else's framework and using their worldview against them. But in this case I don't hold to a Kantian ethic

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

well, you didn't think that net benefit would work (utilitarianism is a moral obligation, but you denied it). I think human respect and dignity follows Disney's message better than "the means justify the ends"

-->
@Undefeatable

Well I find it interesting that you felt it necessary to appeal to a form of objective morality, a system that you believe is false, in order to support your argument rather than the more subjective utilitarianism. Why not appeal to what you actually believe to be true instead of what is false?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

no, I am a utilitarian LOL

-->
@Undefeatable

Out of curiosity, do you hold to Kantian ethics, particularly the idea of the Categorical Imperative? Do you believe that to be what is true?

How tf are women "diverse?"

-->
@Undefeatable

No worries, I will address your intended meaning of only including movies

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

oops. I accidentally also type in Shows in the description lol, cuz I was researching it. Well, hopefully I made my point about movies alone to outweigh the cons, hah.