Instigator / Pro
1
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#3681
Forced integration should have not been done
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
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.
When we're talking about "racial" integration or any sort of the kind, forcibly so by law was not correct.
I will expound further in the debate rounds.
For questions, clarity, concerns, please send a message or drop a comment.
Round 1
Pro
#1
So forced integration, what do I mean by that?
It's the obligatory association of things. When it comes to people, we have choices, we make choices.
I can decide who I will be in the company of and those I will press to avoid unless obligated by some authority.
As a result of being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil.
If you are doing well where you are, if it is not broke, don't attempt to fix it .
If you have a problem, do the very best with a solution but don't compound matters with social conflict.
There's a concept by Neely Fuller Jr. , to limit or minimize conflict by reducing, cutting back contact.
If someone has no love for you but hatred, don't design laws that allow no barrier and protection between the haters and the hated.
I believe in freedom of association. If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity .
Con
#2
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
DEFINITIONS:
FORCED is "simple past tense and past participle of FORCE"
FORCE is "power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power; violence; coercion"
INTEGRATON is "The act or process of making whole or entire. or since PRO seems to be talking about racial integration, "the process of fitting into a community, notably applied to minorities."
SHOULD is " Ought to; indicating opinion, advice, or instruction, about what is required or desirable."
DONE is "past participle of DO"
BURDEN of PROOF:
Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
I. RACE and RACISM
- Since the 2nd half of the Twentieth century, the association of race with discredited theories of racism has contributed to race becoming increasingly seen as a pseudoscientific system of classification.
- Race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
- "Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century."
- The continuance of racial concepts generally extends from the belief that humans should be ranked according to irrelevant phenotype and accorded privilege based on those rankings. Such concepts and groupings have changed over time according to folk taxonomies and political enfranchisement but 21st century scientific consensus considers such biological essentialism obsolete and discourages the use of racial concepts to describe human differences.
- Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
- PRO and CON agree that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
- Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate.
If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity .
- Striving for unity is a positive but beyond the question of unity is preserving everybody's equal right to access goods and services including the very general but publics examples you provide: business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods. Government services like schools in particular must provide equally free access or be guilty of enforcing unequal enfranchisement to citizens, a fundamental violation of human rights
- Most citizens in any democracy enjoy and prosper by the free exchange of differences and would not want that prosperity held back by segregated businesses, schools, communities, etc.
- particularly segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms
- Beyond these generalizations, it is hard to offer a specific refutation of case until PRO offers at least one specific example of forced integration, what entity enforced it, why PRO opposed that integration.
- Until PRO offers evidence for examination, his case is doomed to stand unproven.
- I look forward to PRO's ROUND 2.
SOURCES in COMMENTS
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forced
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force#English
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/integration
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/should
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/done
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
Round 2
Pro
#3
I want to change gears here to break up the monotonous echo of points.
Duplicate debate with the same person, might as well make sense of the chance to diversify a bit.
Let's go in the direction of how forced integration happens.
It happens with businesses , in the military, in sports especially in the past, speaking about those last two entities mentioned.
There have been books published, films made about figures hated, misunderstood.
Those that didn't want certain individuals in their military branch, didn't want to share barracks with, held animosity towards , looked down on those certain folks to play on their team, true story.
I don't know if you're familiar with sundown towns.
The citizens or populations of those towns won't be ready to kill, lynch, beat to death anybody that they're willing to align with .
Con
#4
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
Who cares? What does it matter who enforces it?
- Hitchen's Razor: "What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
- If you are going to instigate a debate about the injustice of a particular public policy, you had better be prepared to at least demonstrate that public policy was enacted by some government. Otherwise, you could talking about Alice in Wonderland for all we can tell.
I don't think you're delusional about the existence or what has existed referred to as forced integration.
- You can have no genuine information about my mental state and are not invited to speculate. Either get specific about what you are talking about or else admit you don't know what you are talking about and concede, please.
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO has not objected to any of CON's definitions. CON's definitions stand for this debate.
BURDEN of PROOF:
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
Boy that disclaimer goes over y'all's heads.
PRO's disclaimer:
The aim of this interaction, Is ... 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
- How can you evaluate the truth value of your conclusion without offering any evidence or even showing your premise? That is not teaching, that is preaching. Don't just tell us your conclusion and sit back satisfied. Show us what you studied or experienced that made your conclusion seem true to you.
I. RACE and RACISM
Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
- PRO has dropped this argument. Let's let stand the notion that all racism is based in pseudoscience and so an illegitimate rational or moral foundation for animosity towards strangers.
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
PRO and CON agree that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
Freedom of association is democracy, democracy is freedom of association. Meaning the choice of associating is democratic or voluntary.
- PRO concurs that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity . Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
- I don't know what "a focus to make unity" is supposed to mean but I clearly disagreed with the rest of it.
- Notice where I said, "Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate."
- You ignored this remark so I'll ask more directly:
- DO you agree or disagree with this statement?
- That is, do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?
- or, do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?
- In Round 1, I answered you question thus:
- "Striving for unity is a positive but beyond the question of unity is preserving everybody's equal right to access goods and services including the very general but publics examples you provide: business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods. Government services like schools in particular must provide equally free access or be guilty of enforcing unequal enfranchisement to citizens, a fundamental violation of human rights"
- Schools, neighborhoods, and communities are not mine and they are not your yours, they are public entities that must be managed by governments constitutionally and lawfully and in a democracy, that means equal access by all and no limitation or segregation by nonsensical standards such a race and fear of difference.
An example of forced integration is like I said with a business, the proprietor only wants to serve certain individuals. The law comes forth to change that to serve any and all individuals.
- Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services. You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.
- If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
- Most citizens in any democracy enjoy and prosper by the free exchange of differences and would not want that prosperity held back by segregated businesses, schools, communities, etc.
If you disagree, would you go where you're not wanted if you had other constructive choices?
- "Constructive choices" is highly relative and situational, so much so that the law can't be expected to account for it.
- Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists. No non-whites allowed.
- How far away does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive choice? 20 miles? 10miles? 1mile?
- It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product. What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas? What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
- There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
- If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
- But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.
- If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
- If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps. Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
- There's no clean delineation that might protect everybody's right to free association and so most public facilities and enterprises must remain available to all.
Beyond these generalizations, it is hard to offer a specific refutation of case until PRO offers at least one specific example of forced integration, what entity enforced it, why PRO opposed that integration.
It's hard because what I'm saying is correct and not really controversial.
- If that were true it would not be hard. You are having a hard time getting specific because segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms are demonstrably false, ignorant, and deeply offensive imposition on our modern sense of freedom and equality for all. You don't want to give specific example because as soon we examine the specific harms, the harms inflicting by segregation profoundly outweigh the minor personal discomforts of the racists.
Don't try looking for something to refute if it's not there. The size of it all, the meat of it is basically everything that has been stated and put forth thus far. Are you saying something like this is impossible or never happened? These topics are not farfetched or out of reach. Reluctancy to associate isn't a fairy tale. Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration .
- Seems like PRO is desperately avoiding the statement of any concrete fact that might be falsified. This alone should serve as evidence that even PRO knows his position is indefensible.
- I'll say again: until PRO offers evidence for examination, his case is doomed to stand unproven.
- I look forward to PRO's ROUND 3.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You either just assumed I was going to arrange a duplicate debate with you duplicating all the same points or you're too fast with the copying and pasting.
I don't see that you refuted any of the points in the last round so they stand as accepted. It is a part of history. Forget denying it.
I don't see the point in having duplicate debates with the same people.
I suspect some of you on this site have blood lust so to speak trying to rack up stats and numbers.
I'm on here for the sake of edification of all .
Con
#6
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO has not objected to any of CON's definitions. CON's definitions stand for this debate.
BURDEN of PROOF:
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
I. RACE and RACISM
Since the 2nd half of the Twentieth century, the association of race with discredited theories of racism has contributed to race becoming increasingly seen as a pseudoscientific system of classification.
- PRO dropped this argument
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
- Striving for unity is a positive but beyond the question of unity is preserving everybody's equal right to access goods and services including the very general but publics examples you provide: business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods. Government services like schools in particular must provide equally free access or be guilty of enforcing unequal enfranchisement to citizens, a fundamental violation of human rights
- Most citizens in any democracy enjoy and prosper by the free exchange of differences and would not want that prosperity held back by segregated businesses, schools, communities, etc.
- particularly segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms
- PRO Dropped this argument
how forced integration happens. It happens with businesses , in the military, in sports especially in the past, speaking about those last two entities mentioned.
- MILITARY
- PRO forgets that the whole notion of democracy rose out of the comradery discovered by Greek Hoplites who had to closely synchronize their movements in order to form a fast moving, effective phalanx. The Greek's superior cohesion and morale famously powered their armies to victories over vast armies of slaves segregated by tribe and satrapy.
- An effective army formation has to be cohesive on multiple levels. If half a platoon is wiped out in an attack, a Captain needs to be able to re-assign his troops according to training and need, not irrelevant considerations like skin color. This dynamic is true on any scale. It would be unacceptable for a division to lose fighting power or cohesion just because some soldiers insisted on prioritizing their irrational antipathies.
- Would tanks lie idle in battle because there were no white drivers left to run the white only tanks?
- Would white brigades refuse a black colonels orders on the battlefield?
- Nor should taxpayers indulge the wasteful over-expenditure separate facilities according to old-fashioned superstitions.
- Far better for generals to simply advise that tiny minority of bigots who will not work with other races to defend their nation that the nation is better off without them and they should refrain from enlistment altogether.
- That's how it works now- voluntary self-segregation and deferral- which is a far different dynamic than forced integration.
- SPORTS
- Ridiculous. How would that even work? Would white spectators be forbidden from attending the far more competitive blacks only college and professional football and basketball teams?
- Would America send multiple teams to the Olympics divided according to race?
- Take the example of Muhammad Ali.
- Presently, America can take pride in the accomplishments of the Greatest Athlete of the Twentieth Century
- but if Ali had only been permitted to fight black fighters, he couldn't really make that claim.
- In truth, only nations that allowed their athletes to compete with any challenger regardless of race could make any legitimate claims of "greatest."
- Besides which, there's not much history of forced integration in athletics. The government didn't force the Dodgers to start Jackie Robinson at First Base- his talent was just too undeniable to deny spectators the joy of watching play. Generally speaking, the business of college and professional sports demands the increases in talent, competition, entertainment that come as a direct result of voluntary integration.
- Any segregated sports league would certainly fail to compete financially against any integrated sports league.
- BUSINESS
- Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services. You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.
- If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
- Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists. No non-whites allowed.
- How far away does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive choice? 20 miles? 10miles? 1mile?
- It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product. What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas? What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
- There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
- If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
- But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.
- If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
- If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps. Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
- Generally speaking, segregation is anti-capitalist- bad for competition, bad for business. Segregated markets are less competitive than integrated markets. Certainly there were some businesses that were required to comply with integration by the the1964 Civil Rights Act but there was very little force involved from the compliance (in spite of significant violence by segregationists), and you'd be hard pressed to find a large scale business that did not profit and improve from integration.
There have been books published, films made about figures hated, misunderstood. Those that didn't want certain individuals in their military branch, didn't want to share barracks with, held animosity towards , looked down on those certain folks to play on their team, true story.
- Not much of an argument unless you want to get more specific. I can't tell if you're talking about Ty Cobb or Adolph Hitler here.
I don't know if you're familiar with sundown towns.
- I am. Certainly, no debater could argue that they support every American's Right to Free Association and not see sundown towns a racist, ignorant, violent violation of that fundamental human right.
The citizens or populations of those towns won't be ready to kill, lynch, beat to death anybody that they're willing to align with .
- No, it is the people they hate for no reason that they would kill, lynch, beat to death for the crime of being in their town.
- I look forward to PRO's R4.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Nothing I said was untrue. I'll just summarize here again of forced integration. You're still looking at it one sided. It's not just a law that can force something.
Even if the law is not forcing people to integrate, by taking away segregation, those that do not want to integrate are being forced to.
That's what you're continuing to miss or dishonest to ignore. One of the two.
I point you back to that KKK meeting example. I'll point you to Shakespeare with Romeo and Juliet. No law of the land but the two different families would of had to face forced integration for a marriage they were against.
By legalizing so called interracial marriage and miscegenation, families are not being forced by the law of the land to integrate but by marriages unwanted.
You have your two adjectives, the unwanted and unallowed intrusion of a party.
Basic forced integration.
This is what I want you to get your head wrapped around.
The law is not the only side to force something .
Taking you back to the military example, by allowing certain people to join with others that did not wish to bunk with those certain individuals (share the barracks) were forced to do so if not just all out refusing.
When something or situation is forced on you or an attempt is made to force, it's understandable that you may reject it and that's fine .
All the topic statement is saying, it's fine to not accept any association of any kind.
You shouldn't have to be around people you don't want to.
That last statement there is what you have been debating about.
There's no issues with that statement, no harm on anything.
Con
#8
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
Ultimately, PRO opted for a dodgeball game of "guess my thesis" PRO did give us two concrete example in ROUND 4 but both scenarios must be rejected as examples of "forced integration."
- PRO forwards CON's example of a "KKK meeting held in his mother's basement." But that's not an example of forced integration by any standard, quite the opposite. I presented the example to represent voluntary self-segregation that govt sought not outlaw and as I know, most govts do not outlaw. Certainly in the US, Klan members are free to associate in a private residence without govt. interference or much danger of unwanted minorities demanding access.
- CON will ignore this example as the opposite of forced integration.
- PRO also raises the example of the Montagues and the Capulets from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". Again, no legal or societal force compelled the Montagues and the Capulets to integrate and both families applied considerable violence against the other to ensure continued segregation, actually exiling Romeo from Verona at sword's point. Neither lover contemplates any effort at integration between the families, opting instead to elope and leave their families behind forever.
- CON will ignore this example as the opposite of forced integration.
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO never expressed any problem with proposed definitions but he also seems really uncertain about what he means by "forced" and "integration"
Even if the law is not forcing people to integrate, by taking away segregation, those that do not want to integrate are being forced to.
- So, it is not the enforcement of integration that PRO objects to at all, but the lack of forced segregation.
- Let's note that in both of PRO's examples, the degree of unjust violence associated with forced segregation was universally condemned.
- The Tuskegee Institutes estimates 4743 lynchings by the Klan between 1882 and 1968, not including other forms of murder.
- The FBI designates Klan members as "terrorists" and states "he crimes committed in the name of its bigoted beliefs were despicable—hangings, floggings, mutilations, tarring and featherings, kidnappings, brandings by acid, along with a new intimidation tactic, cross-burnings. The Klan had become a clear threat to public safety and order."
- What PRO calls forced integration seems to involve little force or any kind of required integration. PRO seems to mind the fact that unwanted minorities now have have access to public facilities after the end of the ultra-violent forced segragation.
- If we aren't talking about governments and legal requirements to integration than I'm afraid nobody could possibly know what PRO is talking about.
"By legalizing so called interracial marriage and miscegenation, families are not being forced by the law of the land to integrate but by marriages unwanted."
- This statement rather confirms that PRO is not talking about "forced" integration at all. Interracial marriage is not required or coerced by any entity but strictly voluntary acts of love and family-making. Again, it seems that what PRO misses is the forced segregation by race that outlawed such voluntary couplings and that he's not really talking about forced integration at all.
Overall, PRO just seems to be playing a private game of making us guess his topic and then troll any possible answer.
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bore the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO needed to define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
VOTERS will note that PRO denied any such responsibility and strongly indicates in the fourth round that he has no evidence for forced integration and is rather obliquely bemoaning the end of the extreme violence, economic harms, lack of competition, harm to national reputation, anti-scientific bigotry that was the era of segregation.
I. RACE and RACISM
- Race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
- Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
- PRO denies that he is defending his feelings of animosity, he just wants his turmoil to be respected without any kind of defense.
- "As a result of being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil."
- PRO drops this argument entirely.
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
- PRO and CON agreed that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
- Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate.
- When asked point blank whether every citizens enjoys the same FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION, PRO disingenuously dodges.
- "Do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?"
- or
- "Do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?"
I don't know
- MILITARY
- PRO forgets that the whole notion of democracy rose out of the comradery discovered by Greek Hoplites who had to closely synchronize their movements in order to form a fast moving, effective phalanx. The Greek's superior cohesion and morale famously powered their armies to victories over vast armies of slaves segregated by tribe and satrapy.
- An effective army formation has to be cohesive on multiple levels. If half a platoon is wiped out in an attack, a Captain needs to be able to re-assign his troops according to training and need, not irrelevant considerations like skin color. This dynamic is true on any scale. It would be unacceptable for a division to lose fighting power or cohesion just because some soldiers insisted on prioritizing their irrational antipathies.
- Would tanks lie idle in battle because there were no white drivers left to run the white only tanks?
- Would white brigades refuse a black colonels orders on the battlefield?
- Nor should taxpayers indulge the wasteful over-expenditure separate facilities according to old-fashioned superstitions.
- Far better for generals to simply advise that tiny minority of bigots who will not work with other races to defend their nation that the nation is better off without them and they should refrain from enlistment altogether.
- That's how it works now- voluntary self-segregation and deferral- which is a far different dynamic than forced integration.
Taking you back to the military example, by allowing certain people to join with others that did not wish to bunk with those certain individuals (share the barracks) were forced to do so if not just all out refusing.When something or situation is forced on you or an attempt is made to force, it's understandable that you may reject it and that's fine .
- Not fine in most public situations. Equality, freedom of association, capitalist competition, etc is deeply harmed by PRO's demand that his unscientific bigotry be respected.
- CON demonstrated in R3 that segregation would harm military readiness, integrity, morale and the only harm has to weigh against these is the personal discomfort of the least educated, least modern thinkers in our society. The US military is increasingly a high tech environment that needs men and women who trust science, who trust the American project, who trust one another to go into combat. Let's agree that not only should the US Military never choose the greater expense and harms of accommodating the irrational discomforts of bigots but given those harms, the US Military should disqualify segregationists as incompatible the US Military's objectives.
You shouldn't have to be around people you don't want to.
- Agreed but only in private venues. PRO has no rational cause for denying other citizens' rights to equality and freedom of association based on old-fashioned unscientific antipathies of the ignorant few. PRO has a right to not be around people he doesn't want to on his personal property but that silly nonsense can't be enforced in any public venue.
- By design, PRO never allowed us to interrogate the logic or value of his criticism
- CON asks VOTERS to award CON arguments and conduct because PRO refused to present a falsifiable argument and instead played a game of "hide the thesis" for all four rounds.
- Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
- Please VOTE CON!
SOURCES
- http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
- https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/kkk-series
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
This was not a debate but a massacre.
Pro's argument whole seems to boil down to "People have a right to create bubbles of association where nothing they dislike is let in." He considers this interest to be more compelling than the general interest of people in having uniform opportunity and access to things which are taken for granted in the 21st century.
In Round 4, he laments that if public spaces are desegregated then segregationists who are forced to shop in these integrated establishments for lack of alternative will be denied said right to create bubbles of association. And yet, in his hand is the solution to his own problem: segregationists, in order to uphold their right, can simply deny themselves access and opportunities in the same way previously experienced by the outgroup (here, 20th century blacks). If, after all, it was no excessive burden to living for 20th century blacks then it could've been no excessive burden to living for pro-segregation 20th century whites either.
So then, if the practical consequences of segregation for blacks did not pose an ethical dilemma grave enough to outweigh the perceived interest of segregationists, then effectively the same consequence applied to segregationists could not have posed an ethical dilemma grave enough to outweigh the very real and tangible interest of blacks.
Ultimately, Con takes down Pro by citing definitions which show freedom of association to be not only freedom FROM but also freedom TO. This, combined with the mountain of evidence that Con brought to the table, is enough to make this vote easy peasy.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Since I already gave a vote for the other debate on this same subject, I'm going to keep this one short and focus on the differences between the points made here and there. Note that I am not referencing that previous vote as this does stand alone, I'm just making clear that if voters are interested in thoughts that are largely consistent between the two debates, they can refer to my vote on Pro's other debate on the same topic.
Pro spends little time actually defining his impact or subject here. The impact appears to just be "freedom of association good" and "best to avoid bringing out peoples' worst impulses." These are decent points, but in order to support them, Pro has to give more analysis than I'm seeing. If we should always get the choice to associate only with those people that we want to associate with, then I need to see some reason why those who cannot do that in a society that denies them those basic interactions (often by facilitating racism) is one that's better than a society where some forced interaction leads to a more widespread freedom of association. Pro doesn't do that. Instead, he leans on the latter impact, arguing that it makes for bad interactions that are actually harmful. I need to see some comparison of impacts where Pro provides me with some quantitative measure for how bad this is and compares it with Con's own measures for why the benefits of forced integration outweigh. I don't see that. It's a short term vs. a long term impact. Con tells me to favor what yields the best impact for everyone as well, and Pro doesn't address that.
What changes in this debate is that Pro presents a few subjects to debate on, though they're still rather vague. Pro doesn't actually state what instances with businesses, the military and sports yield bad outcomes or how we can generalize from specific bad outcomes in these. Instead, he just asserts that forced integration yields bad outcomes for each of these. After a round that is copy-pasted from the other debate and doesn't apply here since it's responding to points not made in this debate (bad on Con for that), Con tells me why those are in place and, in some instances, challenges that these even are instances of forced integration. I don't see any direct responses from Pro, just repetition of the same points. Con clearly supports certain instances of forced integration and, in general, the idea of forced integration as a means to ensure improved freedom of association. Neither he nor Pro necessarily have to deal with all instances of forced integration, but only Con gives me some basis for determining who has the burden to address them and demonstrate that they are bad (Pro), while he only has to show that forced integration can be good. He does so. Therefore, I vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
During this debate, Con not only essentially self-plagiarises from this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3682-forced-integration-should-have-not-been-done but never addresses the issue of whether forced integration should be done (which Pro points out again and again).
Con's position is that it should indeed have not been done but that it was not done. These are not mutually exclusive.
Mall/Pro wins the debate because he clamps down on this BoP issue over and over again, noticing Con's lack of addressing it:
"Even if the law is not forcing people to integrate, by taking away segregation, those that do not want to integrate are being forced to.
That's what you're continuing to miss or dishonest to ignore. One of the two.
I point you back to that KKK meeting example. I'll point you to Shakespeare with Romeo and Juliet. No law of the land but the two different families would of had to face forced integration for a marriage they were against.
By legalizing so called interracial marriage and miscegenation, families are not being forced by the law of the land to integrate but by marriages unwanted.
You have your two adjectives, the unwanted and unallowed intrusion of a party.
Basic forced integration.
This is what I want you to get your head wrapped around.
The law is not the only side to force something .
Taking you back to the military example, by allowing certain people to join with others that did not wish to bunk with those certain individuals (share the barracks) were forced to do so if not just all out refusing.
When something or situation is forced on you or an attempt is made to force, it's understandable that you may reject it and that's fine .
All the topic statement is saying, it's fine to not accept any association of any kind.
You shouldn't have to be around people you don't want to."
Con keeps agreeing over and over again that forced integration should not have been done because Con's entire case revolves around the premise that it has not been done and would only be wrong if it had. Con concedes the debate repeatedly.
Con keeps saying that free exchange of ideas and people of differing outlooks is important but Pro's position is that the freedom of those that wish to keep to their own ethnicity and/or race should be entitled to do so.
Con literally gives examples of forced integration (such as a gas station being forced to provide for people of a race they'd rather not) and just basically regurgitates what he said in the other debate on the topic. Unlike in the other debate, however, Con doesn't expand on why he believes forced integration should have been done, all he does is continually state that Pro can't prove it ever was.
That implicitly implies, if we account for the 'free exchange of ideas and outlooks' that those with a segregating, exclusive outlook should be allowed to do so.
one week left, no votes