Discussing race-based genetic differences is a significant contributor to racism and is therefore unacceptable.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
DEFINITIONS:
Discussing: Any form of public communication
Race: An ethnic group
Significant: a measurable quality worthy of attention
Racism: The belief that races (ethnic groups) are as a whole superior or inferior.
Unacceptable: Not contiguous with social values.
I am taking Con here.
Pro must establish that genetic difference conversations as applied to a race contributes to racism to such a degree, that it should not occur. Should not occur is a general catch-all kind of like a social embargo.
Con must demonstrate that genetic difference conversations are important, and a social embargo is not necessary. Con may also demonstrate there is value in having those conversations.
Comments can clean this up as needed. All Kritiks need to be pre-discussed in the comments.
Action number 1 is objectively the best, but also the only one among these that is morally acceptable
1. Action that causes only good and causes no evil.
My position, being the lack of such harmful action, causes no harm, and leaves room for doing those actions that are pure good.
Can my opponent guarantee that his position will cause no racism?
I can guarantee that many will use the knowledge gained from discussions for the purposes of spreading propaganda against black people
Race-based genetic discussions produced nothing good. Ever.
Pro appears to be arguing that from a morality perspective, if something may cause evil, even a tiny bit, it is morally flawed, and unacceptable, and leaves the door open for something with moral perfection to take its place. In effect Pro is stating that the resolution should be looked at from an ideological perspective rather than a pragmatic one. This appeal to a moral superiority kritik would have to be assessed by the judges. Me addressing it is not an acceptance of this argument.
It appears that Pro is arguing that is is morally wrong to progress unless that progress in perfect.
I stated 6 reasons why race-based genetic conversations are beneficial, and therefore objecting to the resolution.1. Genetic knowledge2. Ancestry research3. Combatting racism4. Precision healthcare5. Cultural understandings6. Basic educational, and research principals
Clearly we can see that a lack of action can cause harm. How does Pro reconcile or solve the issues that are being addressed by having race-based genetic conversations?
Pro's arguments include the following deductions:Do not grow or eat peanuts, because it is immoral. Some people could have an allergic reaction to them. Wait for something betterDo not put in a swimming pool, it is immoral. Some one could drown. Wait for something better.Do not use medications, because it is immoral. Some people may have evil side effects. Wait for something better.
That argument has no practical application, which is why I would call it a kritik.
- Extend
Why the gender assumption? Who does Pro think they can talk about morality, showing a trans flag as their avatar and then assume what my gender is? Pro then establishes themselves as clairvoyant,
They do realize that mentioning someone is black, is a discussion about their genetics, and contrary to Pro's position. By saying someone is black, or white, is a race-based genetic discussion. And Pro did it so freely, they did not even notice it. Pro would argue the use of the term is acceptable, however per their argument it is not. So either Pro is not moral, or does not agree with the resolution.
Why is Pro assuming that race-based genetic conversations only attribute to black people?
- Extend
I gave a number of reasons race-based genetic discussions have produced good. Pro will need to negate all of them.
It appears as if Pro is morally corrupt. They have no problem using gender assumption, and have no problem calling out a genetic uniqueness in a manner they do not think causes harm.
I gave 6 reasons why race-based genetic conversations are acceptable, and one of them is to combat racism. I extend all arguments.
Pro’s Contradictions.
Pro did not contest the claim that their argument is a kritik. The argument that morality is binary is deontological position versus a utilitarian position. That is not the corner of this debate. No where in the resolution of description is the word moral.
Pro argues in their last round that the harms of race-based genetic discussions outweigh the benefits. Yet the give no examples. No sources, just a blanket statement. Pro’s argument can be summarized like this.
“If a plane has a mechanical problem, and the pilots know it is going to crash, it is immoral for them to steer it away from a city, because people on the ground may still die.“ That is what Pro is stating. We cannot do anything that has the slightest chance of causing any negative response.
Specifically. Pro states.
These actions all cause more good than evil. However, these actions are all unacceptable.
In short, Pro takes an absurd absolute moral perspective, and does not touch a single point made about why race-based genetic discussions can be very acceptable, and needed.
I extend all my arguments.
Conclusion
I provided very clear examples of when race-based genetic discussions add social value. I gave extensive references. Pro took a position of absurd morality, rather than discuss each of the 6 examples I brought up.
- Dropped entirely
- Dropped entirely
- Dropped entirely
This debate should've been an easy win for Con, but let's examine what went wrong.
Round 1:
Con is arguing that discussions of racial genetic differences should not be a taboo, on the basis that they help society by improving medical & genetic research, increase cultural pride & awareness, enhances inclusivity and acceptance, as well as fights racism by countering misconceptions and stereotypes which are the actual roots of racism. And it leads to academic and intellectual progress.
Pro is essentially arguing that by being proactive, you assume the full burden of moral responsibility for racism when you take action by having discussions of race. Inaction is better because even if by not talking of race, it leads to racism. You are not responsible. However, conversations of race have the possibility of leading to more racism. Therefore, it is better to not discuss it. History has proven that discussions of racism have led to more bigotry and discrimination, as in the case with Hitler. The potential for racism leads to mass genocide on a large scale and should therefore not be considered.
Round 2:
Con doesn’t refute anything by Pro. They just resort to irrelevant ad hominem attacks like the attack on Pro’s profile picture. Even if Pro did misgender Con, then Con could have politely pointed this out, but Con instead gets slightly condescending by attempting to appeal to Pro’s hypocrisy?
Pro argues that society should strive for moral perfection and consistency, and that morality is crucial for determining what is acceptable. That intention doesn’t inherently make an evil action good even if it results in the benefits of others, and that inaction is more acceptable. Pro points out Con is making baseless ad hominem attacks and that Con hasn’t contested the moral framework or any of the arguments, thus dropping and conceding to them. Pro defends his mention of the term ‘black’ by stating that talking about race is not bad, only discussing genetic differences, or comparing them in a demeaning way is wrong.
Round 3:
Con claims Pro kritiked the definition and is making a bunch of bold claims without proof and taking a moral absurdist stance.
Pro extends.
Conclusion: Con got too lazy and arrogant with this debate and didn't take it seriously.
The problem is Con had a REALLY strong Round 1 and Pro's Round 1 was setup with arguments that could've easily been defeated. In Round 2, Con implies he disagrees with Pro's moral framework but does nothing to push back on it and thus concedes to it, nor does he make any attempt to address his arguments. Instead, opting for ad hominem attacks, and wrongfully saying Pro is being morally inconsistent by using the term 'black' and calls them a hypocrite.
Pro pushes back on this by specifying talking about race is not unacceptable, but discussing racial differences and comparing them in a way that makes them seem inferior is demeaning. This was a good response from Pro. Con had plenty of ways to counter Pro's Round 1 arguments.: For instance, he could've argued that the urgency of moral necessity outweighs the burden of moral responsibility regarding action vs inaction, but they don't do this.
In Round 3, Con and Pro just extend their arguments and go off-topic.
Unfortunately, I was expecting Con to win this easily. Arguments go to Pro. Con is the only one who used sources, so they get the point for sources. Legibility is even on both sides, so tie. Con made ad hominem attacks and went off-topic, so points for conduct goes to Pro.
The idea that we shouldn't discuss actual facts, especially when they may be useful to health research or otherwise, just because some people are stupid racist bastards actually contributes to the level of immaturity that fails to differentiate facts from racism and turns the anti-racist sentiment behind it into an equally stupid bastard position. I also agree with Con that discussing the true nature of race-based differences helps destroy false stereotypes.
Pro starts off the debate with the arbitrary claim that even morally neutral (causing no good and no evil) actions are unacceptable and that we always must do option 1. I would let this slide in the context of this debate if he could prove discussing race differences always causes some harm but he failed. There are differences between races that don't imply superiority and his statement is actually racist because it implies that any discussion about factual race differences imply one race is superior to another. You are literally either saying there are no differences that aren't connected to some hierarchy between races or that there is no way to discuss race differences that won't be perceived as such.
The black and white way pro views good and evil is so extreme that it fails to see there is such a thing as slight harm in the name of much greater good. Would you not let a surgeon make a small incision to perform a surgery that will save your life just because it makes a widdle boo boo?
I'll try to vote on this tomorrow; before the deadline.
The second point was not addressed, however, I clearly rebutted both the first and third point, I even have headings. Oh well. Thank you for your time on it. I appreciate that.
Neither of you addressed the other side's constructives.
So if we compare them both, the impacts of his case outweighed yours.
Thank you for the vote. I am confused why Pro gets credit for the win without addressing any of my arguments. However a vote it a vote, and I thank you for taking the time to read it and comment.
Thank yyou or the vote.
I’ll get to this.
"So, first off, white people have genes that makes their skins whiter, while African Americans have other genes that make their skins darker in tone."
*crowd boos*
That isnt what it says.
fair point. Let us say acceptable in our current Western social model
The definition of unacceptable and word itself make this rigged for Pro as it is entirely acceptable to racist societies and subcultures at the bare minimum.