Instigator / Con
10
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Topic
#4674
Discussing race-based genetic differences is a significant contributor to racism and is therefore unacceptable.
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
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Slainte
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
7
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Con
#1
Genetics can’t be ignored because it may be socially inconvenient.
The definitions are set in the description. No changes had been made via the comments.
Con needs to show that race based genetic discussions do contribute to racism, and that it is unacceptable as a result. Pro needs to show that genetic based discussions around race do not contribute to racism, and are acceptable to discuss.
Each race will have some genetic traits that trend through that ethnic group. Irish tend to have pale skin. The Dutch tend to be tall, while south East Asians tend to be shorter. The “you look….<insert ethnic group> “ is something that we hear all the time.
The resolution states that those comments are unacceptable. Linguistically we could split a hair and say that any comment is acceptable based on an individual interest. However this is not a trap debate. The notion of acceptable is in the context of a western based social norm. I outline 6 key reasons why genetic based race differences are important to discuss and by no means contribute to racism, and therefore are acceptable.
The first is about basic genetic knowledge. Discussing race-based genetic differences allows for a deeper understanding of human genetic variation and its implications. These discussions can help address health disparities and develop targeted treatments for specific populations. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a division of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, published a factsheet that emphasizes the importance of studying genetic variation across populations to enhance scientific knowledge and improve health outcomes. Open and informed dialogue is essential for scientific progress and improving healthcare delivery. For this reason alone, Con would lose the debate, unless they showed that discussing race-hased genetic differences was not important, or that the harm caused is worse than the benefit gained.
The second point is about ancestry. By examining race-based genetic differences have provided valuable insights into human migration patterns, population history, and adaptations. A study published in Nature demonstrated the power of genomic research in uncovering human history and population structure, showcasing the importance of understanding genetic differences, seen in publication Nature, The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe. Recognizing and appreciating these differences can foster a sense of cultural pride and promote inclusivity by celebrating the rich tapestry of human ancestry.
On the third front, we can used the study and discussion of race-based genetics to combat racism. Engaging in discussions about race-based genetic differences allows for the correction of misconceptions and stereotypes. It is those stereotypes and misconceptions that contribute to racism. It is important to approach these discussions with evidence-based research to challenge false notions of racial superiority or inferiority. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) emphasizes that the study of human biological variation helps dismantle harmful stereotypes and encourages scientific education and understanding. By promoting accurate information, discussions about genetic diversity can counter racism by debunking unfounded beliefs and fostering a more enlightened perspective. Let me be clear. Discussing race-based genetic differences can help combat racism.
Fourth we know race-based genetic differences also need to be discussed for the delivery of and facilitating personalized medicine and healthcare: Acknowledging race-based genetic differences can lead to advancements in personalized medicine and healthcare practices. Genetic variations across populations can affect disease susceptibility, treatment responses, and drug metabolism. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), through their Precision Medicine Initiative recognizes that understanding genetic diversity is essential for improving healthcare equity and delivering precision medicine. We know that by discussing these differences, healthcare providers can offer tailored interventions that consider individual and population-specific genetic variations, thus improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities.
Fifth is about enhancing social and cultural understanding: The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) encourages the study of genetic variation to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in genetics research and beyond. It is established that conversations about race-based genetic differences can contribute to a broader understanding of social and cultural dynamics. Recognizing the role of genetics in shaping different populations can foster empathy, cultural sensitivity, and a more inclusive society. These discussions can provide a foundation for meaningful conversations about identity, history, and the shared human experience.
Finally, and the most important is about safeguarding academic freedom and intellectual inquiry: Cancel culture, and making certain conversation taboo or discussions about race-based genetic differences can infringe upon academic freedom and hinder intellectual inquiry.. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) emphasizes the importance of academic freedom in fostering an environment that promotes critical thinking, scholarly exploration, and the pursuit of truth By allowing discussions about race-based genetic differences, academic institutions can uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and advance scientific understanding. These discussions do not lead to racism, and are inherently acceptable and required for academic and intellectual purposes.
Conclusion
Having discussions about race-based genetics is not an automatic contributor to racism, and should be allowed.
Pro
#2
Topic
Discussing race-based genetic differences is a significant contributor to racism and is therefore unacceptable.
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.
Introduction
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.
Arguments
Arguments are divided into 3 parts:
1. Argument from morality
2. Argument from possibility
3. Argument from history
1. Argument from morality
There are 6 types of actions:
1. Action that causes only good and causes no evil.
2. Action that causes more good than evil.
3. Action that causes equal amount of good and evil.
4. Action that causes more evil than good.
5. Action that causes only evil and causes no good.
6. Action that causes no evil and no good.
We should always do that which is best. Action 1 is always the best. We should always do action 1.
Action number 1 is objectively the best, but also the only one among these that is morally acceptable. Number 1 would inspire others to do good, since number 1 is good in the pure form of good. It does not contain any evil. Action that contains no evil cannot motivate others to do evil. Therefore, number 1 cannot motivate others to do evil.
Number 2 may seem like morally acceptable, but its not.
Killing 1 innocent person and using his organs to save 10 other lives is an action that causes much more good than evil. However, such action is unacceptable. Therefore, actions that cause much more good than evil are unacceptable.
If we are faced with only two options, like in the case above:
A. Action that causes more good than evil.
B. Lack of action that results in more evil than good.,
to stay morally consistent and to be high in morality, we would have to choose B. every time, since A. contains evil caused by our actions, where in the case of B. the evil is not caused by us.
We should rather refuse to do action A, even when the lack of such action results in more evil than good.
2 is often based on uncertainty, where you are certain that your actions will cause evil, but uncertain if they will cause good.
If you are uncertain that your actions will cause good, then your morality is based on uncertainty.
Since 2 always causes evil, we are faced with the risk of such evil moving others to do more evil. Those hurt by such evil could be moved to do more evil. Moving others to do evil is unstable. Therefore, number 2 is unpredictable and unstable moral system.
One might say: "But if the lack of action causes more evil than doing action, wouldnt lack of action also move people who were hurt by evil (resulted from lack of action) to do evil?"
And that is why lack of action is not what should be done. Rather, we should do actions that contain only good, to move others to do good. That is the most stable, most consistent moral system.
Number 3 is wrong by all standards, but it is often very hard to tell the difference between 2 and 3. That is another reason why 2 is wrong.
By Categorical Imperative, actions that cause only good and contain no evil are good actions, since they can be done by everyone in society. Doing only good serves as mover for everyone to do good.
On the other hand, actions that contain even the smallest amount of evil, if repeatedly done by everyone in society, would add up to great evil. Therefore, such actions cannot be stable. Therefore, only society built on 1 can be stable society.
Since morality demands of us to do only good actions, and good actions contain no evil, it follows that morality demands of us to not do any evil. Our actions must contain only good. They must not contain any evil.
Which brings us to morality of discussing genetic differences in races.
Discussing genetic differences contains evil. The comparison in which one race ends up looking better than other causes people to think that one race is better than the other, which causes a sense of superiority and the need to spread the message. We often see people post about genetic superiority of white race. Many buy into the story, and it fuels racism among young people.
Therefore, my opponent cannot argue that his position is defending 1 (causing no evil).
My opponent can only argue for 2, that is:
That "discussing race-based genetic differences" causes more good than evil.
On that grounds alone, he has already lost the moral argument, since his position contains evil where mine doesnt.
My position is simple. People should not discuss race-based genetic differences. My position, being the lack of such harmful action, causes no harm, and leaves room for doing those actions that are pure good.
Leaving room for actions that are pure good is what every society should seek to do. Banning the race-based discussions means leaving room for actions that are pure good. Banning the race-based discussions is what every society should seek to do.
2. Argument from possibility
Can my opponent guarantee that his position will cause no racism? He cant. Can he guarantee that his position will cause no evil? He cant. Can he guarantee that someone wont use the knowledge gained from discussions for the purposes of spreading propaganda against black people? He cant.
I can guarantee that my opponent's position will cause racism. I can guarantee that his position will cause evil. I can guarantee that many will use the knowledge gained from discussions for the purposes of spreading propaganda against black people.
Therefore, my position makes the possibility of good by banning those discussions, where my opponent's position creates possibility of evil. Possibility of good is better than possibility of evil. It follows that my position is better than the position of my opponent in terms of good and evil.
3. Argument from history
Some think that racism started with Adolf Hitler. However, racism started long before Adolf Hitler.
Adolf Hitler was the result of centuries of racism that was spread throughout the world thanks to same discussions my opponent is defending today.
Adolf Hitler wrote many books in which he examined differences between white, black and jew. These differences, which included heritable traits commonly known as genes, served as main propaganda in Hitler's movement. The Hitler's movement resulted in mass murder on world-wide scale. It all started with simple racism, simple "my race is better than your race".
Race-based genetic discussions produced nothing good. Ever. They produced lots of evil throughout history, and are still producing evil today.
If we know that such discussions cause racism and violence, we should not do such discussions.
We know that such discussions cause racism and violence.
We should not do such discussions.
Conclusion:
Morality, possibility and history point to the evils of these race-based discussions. Hence, such discussions should be discouraged everywhere. They are useless, bring nothing good, but bring only harm.
Round 2
Con
#3
Thank you Pro for a clear intro. I will structure my rebuttal in a similar manner to Pro's arguments to make it easier to read.
1. REBUTTAL -- Argument from morality
Pro states
Action number 1 is objectively the best, but also the only one among these that is morally acceptable
Action 1 is
1. Action that causes only good and causes no evil.
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.
THE QUESTION FOR THE JUDGES IS: DOES THE WORD UNACCEPTABLE EQUATE TO MORAL PERFECTION?
It appears that Pro is arguing that is is morally wrong to progress unless that progress in perfect. And that morality is the key to this debate. The resolution does not contain the word moral, nor do the definitions.
I stated 6 reasons why race-based genetic conversations are beneficial, and therefore objecting to the resolution.
1. Genetic knowledge
2. Ancestry research
3. Combatting racism
4. Precision healthcare
5. Cultural understandings
6. Basic educational, and research principals
Pro states
My position, being the lack of such harmful action, causes no harm, and leaves room for doing those actions that are pure good.
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 better
Do 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.
2. REBUTTAL -- Argument from possibility
Can my opponent guarantee that his position will cause no racism?
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,
I can guarantee that many will use the knowledge gained from discussions for the purposes of spreading propaganda against black people
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?
3. REBUTTAL - Argument from history
Pro states
Race-based genetic discussions produced nothing good. Ever.
I gave a number of reasons race-based genetic discussions have produced good. Pro will need to negate all of them.
Conclusion:
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
#4
1. Argument from morality
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.
Morality is crucial in finding what is acceptable. The topic deals with what is acceptable and unacceptable.
It appears that Pro is arguing that is is morally wrong to progress unless that progress in perfect.
Yes. We should strive for perfection.
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
Those are indeed benefits. Therefore, you must argue:
1. Those benefits outweight the harm.
Or
2. Those benefits come without harm.
2 is obviously proven false. Therefore, you are only left with 1.
1 is obviously proven false by the history, possibility and morality.
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?
Lack of action is morally acceptable over an action that contains evil.
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.
It was already explained what number 2 leads to. Killing 1 innocent person and using his organs to save 10 lives means that such action does much more good than evil.
If food runs out, killing 1 person and eating him would feed lots of people and even save their lives.
These actions all cause more good than evil. However, these actions are all unacceptable.
That argument has no practical application, which is why I would call it a kritik.
You still didnt present us with your moral system. Until you do, it remains that you are defending the position that good action is the action that causes more good than evil.
2. Argument from possibility
- 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,
Not an argument.
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.
Not an argument. Con is trying to say that any mention of race is included in the topic. That is not true. The topic only includes discussing genetic differences between races. Therefore, it only includes comparing races. But mentioning a race without comparing it to other races in terms of superiority and inferiority simply is not covered by the topic.
Why is Pro assuming that race-based genetic conversations only attribute to black people?
Not an argument.
3. Argument from history
- Extend
I gave a number of reasons race-based genetic discussions have produced good. Pro will need to negate all of them.
Wrong. Pro merely needs to prove one of these:
1. Race-based genetic discussions cause evil.
Or
2. Race-based genetic discussions cause more evil than good.
Or
3. Race-based genetic discussions cause similar amounts of evil and good.
Con, on the other hand, needs to prove that race-based genetic discussions cause much more good than evil.
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.
Bunch of personal attacks, really.
I gave 6 reasons why race-based genetic conversations are acceptable, and one of them is to combat racism. I extend all arguments.
It was already proven by history that race-based genetic conversations cause racism. They dont prevent it at all.
Conclusion
Argument from possibility and argument from history was dropped entirely. Con used a bunch of personal attacks, which was kinda rude.
I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that:
1. Discussing race-based genetic differences has greatly contributed to racism and violence throughout history, and will do so again if accepted.
2. Discussing race-based genetic differences causes evil.
3. Discussing race-based genetic differences causes much more evil than good.
My opponent did not challenge any of these. So they remain dropped. My opponent also did not present a comparison where he weights good and evil of discussing race-based genetic differences. My opponent did not show us the size of their benefit or how many people they would help.
My arguments, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated that such discussions have already caused mass murder on a world-wide scale. There is no benefit that can outweight that.
Round 3
Con
#5
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.
Pro
#6
Argument from morality
- Dropped entirely
Morality is divided on 3 best actions:
1. Action that causes only good and that contains no evil.
2. Action that causes more good than evil and that contains evil.
3. Lack of action.
1 is always the best of these three.
I proved that my opponent's position contains evil, therefore it cannot be 1.
I also proved that my opponent's position isnt 3, therefore the only way he could justify his position is by defending it as 2.
However, he never defended it as 2. Therefore, he clearly lost the moral argument.
Even if he did defend it as 2, I pointed out examples where 3 is better than 2. Therefore, he would have to not only defend it as 2, but also prove that 2 is better than 3 in this case. He did none of that.
I proved that my position allows for 1 to take place, since not doing 2 allows us to do 1 instead. Not discussing race-based genetic differences in public allows for discussing something more useful.
I proved that my opponent's position would result in much more evil than good. He never refuted that, and never provided his own comparison of harms and benefits. Therefore, he lost the moral argument.
My opponent tried to say that this isnt a debate about morality. However, that was already refuted in round 2.
Argument from possibility
- Dropped entirely
My opponent didnt even respond to this argument.
Argument from history
- Dropped entirely
My opponent never refuted historical examples of discussing race-based genetic differences leading not only to racism, but to mass murder on world-wide scale.
That alone is enough to make his entire position invalid.
Conclusion
With the 3 arguments I provided being crucial for topic and being all dropped by my opponent, it follows that discussing race-based genetic differences in public is undesirable and should be discouraged. To not do so would mean we learned nothing from history.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.