Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I already explained what race is..That's not answering my question.Do you think the modern concept of race resembles a theory rather than a fact? I want to know how you view your explanation. Is it a theory or a fact?
First of all, your question is incoherent. “Theory” has a meaning in science which is essentially no different than a fact. Colloquially, it means hypotheses, which makes no sense in this context. Calling race a fact on the other hand, also makes no sense. Race is observable, what would it even mean to say race is (or is not) a fact? What are you talking about?
I already explained what I think of race as. Why you are trying to parse between theory or fact is beyond me and irrelevant to everything I’ve said.
In case you need the reminder;
Are there physical characteristics clearly apparent within human beings that combined with our social nature makes perfect sense to group and study the impact of throughout our history resulting in our present state… yes of course.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
in fact the section in question was "Analyze events that involved or affected Africans from the founding of the nation through Reconstruction."
Which does not negate that the instructions include teaching how some benefited from slavery
The claim is "DeSantis is whitewashing slavery"
Not my claim. Read my words and respond to what I actually said.
whenever the left-tribe tries to go into specifics on anything else they throw up their hands and say "well it's not this that proves it but the whole context of: we know he's a racist already"
Not my argument. If you’re not going to engage in my actual words please don’t bother, I’m not interested.
You beg the question.The belief != the realityX = the belief there is a devil…
This isn’t an argument, it’s barely coherent. When you figure out what part of my post you take issue with feel free to point out put and explain why.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Your analogy of the Muslim school board is a false equivalency fallacy.The historical fact remains that over the course of slavery in N. America, slaves did (and their offspring), in some instances, benefit from slavery that aided them in slavery and whence they became freemen (or born post slavery).
The Muslim school board is a nearly perfect analogy.
Yes it is a fact that slaves learned some skills that did benefit some of them, just as it is a fact that thanks to 9/11, NYC was given the opportunity to revitalize its downtown area to include a brand new modernized tower which is now the tallest in the western hemisphere, a brand new modernized subway station, a brand new museum, and two beautiful waterfalls. Hell, while we’re talking about facts maybe we should even throw in the added revenue to NYC thanks to the added tourism to the downtown area because of it.
Whether we should include these facts in our efforts to inform our kids about how to reflect on these tragedies is another story.
Moreover, just think about the absurdity of what you’re fighting so hard to point to; Slavery in America occurred for about 400 years, so the overwhelming majority of slaves throughout our history never saw a free day in their lives. To spend any time focusing on the very few that learned some things that benefited them in some way after they were freed is preposterous.
But even worse than that, it wasn’t slavery that taught them these skills, it was the experience gained through work. The tragedy of slavery is not that they worked, it that’s they worked for free. If they were free to decide for themselves what livelihoods to pursue, they could have easily gained those same skills elsewhere. The only difference is that they would have been doing so at their own will, not someone else’s.
But yeah, let’s be sure to mention this “benefit” in our lesson plan.
The left’s (and your) denialism of historical truth is…
Complete strawman. There’s no dispute with regards to the facts here, this is entirely about which facts we prioritize enough to be included in the lesson.
Also, the governor does NOT pass laws. He or she only agrees (signs) or disagrees (vetos) what the Legislature does in drafting and passing state law(s).
The legislature is following his lead, and all of this falls under the governor’s signature legislative accomplishment; the Stop WOKE Act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think race resembles a theory rather than a fact?
I already explained what race is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Only a racist thinks (or will tolerate) the idea that racial labels have connotations of virtue or vice.Only a racist thinks (or will tolerate) the idea that concepts of virtue or vice have racial connotations.
All words have connotations based in their historical usage.
It’s not the concept of virtue or vice that comes with racial connotations, it’s the usage of words meant to convey virtue or vice being used to imply one race is better than another that gives it its connotation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He doesn't need to make an argument to deny your speculation about a secret meaning for the words he used.
No one needs to make an argument, carrying oneself respectably doesn’t need to be a priority for anyone who doesn’t care about that sort of thing.
If he didn’t want to engage in the very reasonable speculation regarding his position, he didn’t need to respond at all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@cristo71
@ADreamOfLiberty
@TWS1405_2
A group of African Americans were on the Florida Department of Education that put this curriculum together.One of the professors who was on that board made a response to Kamala Harris’ fallacious rant. (Scroll to 2:10 to listen to the professor’’s response correcting the nonsense twisting the reality of what the education sets out to establish)
Let’s break all of this down.
First, let’s take another look at the material in question. At the bottom of page 6:
“Benchmark clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instructions include how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit”
The document then goes on to list other instructions with regards to teaching slavery and by page 16 changes the subject entirely to American history. This isn’t a document spelling out the specific material to be taught, all of its instructions are just as vague as that above.
So for starters, we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.
Regarding the left’s response to this I might agree that it’s overblown, but not by all that much. The issue here isn’t about the 17 words included in this instruction. It’s the full context of what’s happening here. If this were the New York State board this would generate confusion more than outrage, but Florida under Ron Desantis has made it their mission to pass laws that just so happen to negatively impact black people. In fact it appears to be the defining characteristic of his political career.
Ron’s entire campaign platform has been to repeat woke every 5 seconds and make clear how he will end wokeness. So what is wokeness? According to his legal team it means “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them".
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in America just added to their school curriculum that slaves “in some instances” benefited from slavery.
This would be like a school board full of mostly Muslims that have in the past sided with Al Queda on some issues, added to a curriculum about 9/11 that because of the attacks, NYC was able to modernize and revitalize its downtown area.
If that happened you would have no issue seeing the problem here.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Progressives seem to believe that the only “skill” black people can truly learn is perpetual victimhood.
Uh, no. What progressives are reacting to here is the absurdity of ensuring students are taught the upside of enslaving an entire race of people for 400 years.
The question I wonder is, what other than racism would cause someone to hear about this and focus on their grievances with black victimhood rather than the absurdity the article just pointed out?
The floor is yours, looking forward to being enlightened.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Slaves did learn valuable things. Just look at Anthony Johnson. He and 3,700 of other freed blacks became slave owners themselves, over 12,000 collectively.
And this adds to the conversation how exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Political paranoia nonsense. That right there is exactly what a white guilt liberal progressive would say. Or just a liberal progressive propagating the victimhood mentality. Absolutely pathetic. And racist too. Just another excuse in a litany of excuses to encourage the continued proliferation of the culture of victimhood.
So… you don’t believe there are racists out there. Is that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you believe such a thing as "a white race" exists?
Is “White race” something I can reach out and touch? No of course not. Are there physical characteristics clearly apparent within human beings that combined with our social nature makes perfect sense to group and study the impact of throughout our history resulting in our present state… yes of course.
Your point?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Here is my original sentence. You probably thought I wont bother to copy it, but you were wrong."I just tell losers that hurt kids that they are morally and scientifically wrong.".
Once again, no one in this thread has claimed spanking children does’t hurt them, and nothing about your statement suggests you are arguing against that assertion. So the contact you are trying to concoct now was not there when you said this.
So you prefer to hurt kids so they wont bother you?
No. Children need to learn discipline. I don’t tell my child what to do for my own convenience. If they pick something off the floor and try to eat it I tell them no and they listen because they know what no means.
When they’re at the age where I can sit down with them and explain how germs and their digestive systems work we can try another approach.
Define harmful.What? You dont know the definition?
No genius, I don’t know your definition. Harmful can mean anything, so it needs to be specifically defined to stop us from talking past each other.
I see that you went on to provide it in your last post, which if I’m following right defines “hurting them” as causing depression, violence and anxiety, ultimately leading to a life of criminality and/or being a rapist, which just makes your question so much more ridiculous.
The question is not whether I or anyone for that matter anyone wants this absurd outcome for their children, it’s whether the treatment I am describing will lead to such outcomes, to which my answer is an emphatic no. Spanking them at a young age *only when necessary* is only part of the equation, balancing that treatment with love apart from that is the other half which you don’t seem to think has anything to do with this conversation judging by your responses.
To that other part I am reminded of the emotional bank account theory; every time you reprimand your child you are making a withdrawal, the more severe the reprimand the larger the withdrawal. All withdrawals need to be balanced by deposits (taking them to the park, reading to them, etc.)
I haven’t read the studies you cited in detail so perhaps you can enlighten me; how much attention have any of them paid attention to the positive attention the child received? Genuinely curious. I am also wondering how many of them focused on the age group I am talking about? I look forward to being enlightened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
@TWS1405_2
So, does anyone stand by this definition, or is it civilization crushing inanity, or somewhere in between, and why?
Yes.
First of all, this isn’t nor was it intended to be a dictionary. It’s material for a specific topic so they’re telling you what they will be primarily pointing to as they go through the material. That’s how everything from contracts to laws work, they’re not trying to redefine the term.
With that said, I agree with what they’re saying. Yes merit is or at least should be entirely about skills, abilities or credentials, but when you have a faction of the country fighting to maintain white dominance over our society it is quite predictable that they would latch onto a term like merit as a sort of code to say white people are better and their accomplishments are the proof, despite how those accomplishments were attained.
This doesn’t mean every white person who uses the term is racist, it means that anyone who cares about the very thing they’re preaching (merit) should understand the full connotations to the words they are using.
What actually happens however, is that so many who’re people become consumed by the possibility that they were just called a racist that they fail to hear any of the message that was just delivered.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I’ve provided an argument, you just scrolled past it.
You haven’t defined woke anywhere in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The Bible says in Genisis, that it took God 6 days to create everything.But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.So, putting two and two together, the metaphor the Bible uses, shows us that time works differently for God.
This is why I don’t argue with Christians about the Bible, because it’s a moving target. Everything is said to be a metaphor, so it means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
A order of pretty much everything in Genesis conflicts with science, non- metaphorically speaking of course.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re just as wrong as he is.
Then instead of just calling is wrong and then ignorant you could… I don’t know… provide an argument.
The original assertion was that you appear to be defining “woke” as; “the inclusion black people”. If that’s not your working definition feel free to correct it.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
That’s pretty much what I got. The political right’s slogan needs to be more clearly defined;
“[Include too many black people], go broke”.
Doesn’t have the same ring to it, but at least it’s clear what they’re talking about.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You claimed that you were not scientifically wrong. Now you know that you are.
Your original statement was made in a moral context, which has nothing to do with science. Now you are claiming what is scientifically wrong is the claim that spanking children doesn’t hurt them, which is a claim I never made.
Your whole argument comes down to a point where kids cannot fully communicate, but somehow still understand punishments properly.
No, what kids understand is that if they are going to get spanked when they do something, don’t do it. Every child goes through a phase, usually dubbed the “terrible twos” where they become consumed with testing their parents to see what they can get away with. It is during this phase that they need to understand their boundaries, talking to them is not going to get it done because they aren’t at the point where they understand complex thoughts. What they understand is “no” and “pow pow”. That’s about it. If you want to go through that phase begging and pleading with your two year old to behave that’s on you.
Science has shown that even a child being yelled at harms their brain, with visible negative changes to the brain that remain for a life time. Spanking children is worse. In fact, out of hundreds of scientific studies that were done on spanking, all without exception have shown that it is harmful.
Define harmful.
Actually, it is most relevant. If you think you should be able to hurt children for your pleasure, it follows that you cannot judge other groups in society who hurt children for their pleasure.
Exactly why this is so stupid. I never said, suggested nor implied that I should hurt my children for my own pleasure. You made that up entirely.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People who hit kids think that they are not hurting them. Science says that they are hurting them. Therefore, their opinion is scientifically wrong, incorrect.
This has nothing to do with our conversation.
Plenty of kids werent spanked. Almost all of them learned proper behavior, and did better as a group in learning proper behavior than spanked kids. They received love instead of spanking. Spanked kids are more likely to hurt others. Therefore, love is a better way to teach proper behavior. Communication is not based on just intellectual discussion. Rather, it is based on guiding others and encouraging them to do good. Communication is better than spanking.
I’m specifically talking about before they are capable of fully communicating. Looking through your studies, none that I have seen focus on this segment.
One study I came across talked about spanking infants resulting in likely injuries, which is far from what I’m talking about. Infants are not yet capable of connecting the dots between their actions and the punishment, so hitting them is just pointless and cruel.
Its interesting how people are hating map and basing their hate on studies that sexual activities hurt children, and then at the same time ignore studies that spanking hurts children and still spank children.So, thanks for justifying sexual activities with children.
This is just stupid, as well as irrelevant to anything I’ve said
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There’s no such thing as scientifically wrongThere is. You are thinking you are not hurting kids. Science says that it hurts kids.
Science can explain the impact of striking a child, it cannot tell you whether it was right or wrong. Those are two completely different things.
In all seriousness I do believe in spanking kids when they get out of line but only to a certain age.You like hurting them while they are young.
I believe in teaching them that there are consequences to their actions and that they need to recognize their parents as authorities. Small children don’t understand those concepts through intellectual discussion, so I see no other way to teach them that.
Some kids are sensitive, so yelling at them might get the job done. Hitting them is never the goal, getting through to them is.
But like I said, I’m only talking about in the earlier stages. If they learn this lesson before they were old enough to retain specific memories they’ll carry it subconsciously throughout their childhood into their teenage years. If you let it get beyond that point you’ll spend the rest of their growing up years pleading with them to listen to what you have to say. Sorry, not about to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the concerns of the “common person” matter in this conversation how?Exactly.
I was asking you a real question, but that’s ok because I’ve learned not to expect real answers from you. Good day.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont get emotional about this. I dont have personal interest. I just tell losers that hurt kids that they are morally and scientifically wrong.
There’s no such thing as scientifically wrong, science has nothing to do with morality.
In all seriousness I do believe in spanking kids when they get out of line but only to a certain age. Once they are old enough to explain themselves and what they were thinking I believe in talking it out. I think of it like the elephant and the anvil.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Translation; once I make my unsubstantiated argument you’ll come along and refute it to the point where I’ll have to just give up and walk away while calling you names.BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!Your delusions of grandeur and self-aggrandizement is absolutely HILARIOUS!!!!!Can’t prove me wrong, so you retort with this banal hokey bullshit!!! Too funny 😂
Thank you for proving my point.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If child misbehaves, it is often because child wants something. There is no need to hit the child. Just ask the child: "Please calm down. Could you tell me what do you want? Tell me what you want and we will see if we can make it happen.".
Bullshit. My kid steps out of line I’m spanking the shit out of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, the USA is not even in the top 10 of the World's smartest Countries.
Maybe things would be better if we weren’t so afraid of indoctrinating our kids with science and critical thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
one of the major two party’s in our country.Neither "major" party matters to the common person.
And the concerns of the “common person” matter in this conversation how?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ask Bernie Sanders supporters.
Right, ask them about how their complaints lead to a complete change in the way the DNC picks it’s presidential nominees.
I would go into further detail on why your one example fails even as a single example to support your claim, but that would seem pointless. Do you have anything other than one primary to support your claim that American elections are just an illusion of choice?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the media had no obligation to focus on Biden’s commentsYou are correct. Corporate Media has no obligation to inform the peasants what is going on in DC.
“You are correct. [insert made up argument here]”
If you have no intention of responding honestly you could just not respond.
Journalism doesn't exist anymore, which is why people in the video were "shocked" to discover the truth that the propaganda that was sold as "news" was not true at all.
If you want to argue journalism doesn’t exist anymore that’s fine, do so without repeating the same nonsense I have already addressed as you sit there pretending I haven’t addressed it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Elections are just the dog and pony show made to give us the illusion of choice.
So you believe every US election is fixed by some nefarious behind the scenes puppet master, is that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s not about whether the republicans lose, it’s how about how pathetically low our country has fallen that a man who might actually be charged with seditious conspiracy against the United States is leading in the polls for the nomination of one of the major two party’s in our country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yawn, Trumpmanbad.
And still the heavy favorite for the republican nomination. Not exactly something to yawn about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point was that your premise for what the media is reasonable for is wrong.
I also pointed you back to my previous post (#6) where I broke down in detail why the media had no obligation to focus on Biden’s comments. All you did was ignore every point I made to repeat your original assertion; that the people were unaware of his comments which proves the failure of the biased media.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It never ceases to amaze me how anti-left yo-yo’s will bend over backwards to argue that Trump is not a racist.Clearly you did not watch the video. Most of the people attributed those statements falsely to Trump.
So what? I did watch the video but that doesn’t matter because this is irrelevant to the point I just made.
Also, odd that you have a response to this but not to post 18.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He’s not a racist, he just said some stupid things that came out wrong
It never ceases to amaze me how anti-left yo-yo’s will bend over backwards to argue that Trump is not a racist despite all of the things he has said and done, meanwhile Biden throws out a few gaffs and they rush in to claim he’s a racist.
It’s beyond double standards, it’s like reverse standards. But that is exactly how we end up with a moron like Trump in the White House and a slew of impersonators trying to copy his style because that’s what works now on the political right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
There are two different kinds of anecdotes. One is the exception to the rule, the other is the rule. I am addressing the rule.
You have yet to demonstrate that this is the rule, that’s kind of the point of this conversation.
Statistics for what? Helps if you quote with context than without it. *FP*
The claim you are making.
HA HA! Proved you wrong and you spin it into this nonsensical tripe. Can't make this shit up. ROTFLMAO!!!
You don’t have to reply to every single statement I make. If you have nothing intelligent to say you can just not respond.
Progress in society is made one step at a time, that doesn’t mean one step causes the other. That’s the fallacy.YES, IT DOES when it comes to liberal progressive insane and outsane politics.
No it doesn’t. So there.
ONLY DEMOCRATS formed the KKK and since still continue to try to stop black people from being a part of American society.
You can’t seriously be this ignorant.
The Democratic Party of the early 20th century was the conservative political right party. The republicans were the progressive leftists. The parties switched about mid century.
It’s not the party label that matters, it’s the ideology. Yours is the one that centuries ago defended slavery.
Nothing else worthy of a response.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Irrelevant. Not only did the video show people who didn't know about the racist statements, they were ALSO not even aware of the apologies.A functioning media would have informed the population to both things and trust the American to decide what is sincere and what is not..The video exposes the failure of biased media.
No, it doesn’t.
The media’s job is not to inform everyone of everything, that’s what Google is for. The media’s job is to report stories that are newsworthy and to report them proportionally to their significance.
Biden’s comments, especially those he made decades ago, were not newsworthy for the reasons I already explained. Do you have any response to that, or are you just stuck in a feedback loop?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
ALL so-called apologies are empty and without sincerity. Fact.
See above
And when proven wrong, you do what all intellectual cowards do, the Potomac Two-Step.
Translation; once I make my unsubstantiated argument you’ll come along and refute it to the point where I’ll have to just give up and walk away while calling you names.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't about apologizing for being a racist. This is about exposing how many people don't know he was a racist because we have a broken media that doesn't care about everyday Americans.
The apology matters because it’s not the comments themselves that are newsworthy, it’s what the politicians comments tell us about the way they intend to use their power as well as the impact their comments have on the electorate.
When a politician apologizes for their comments, it shows two things;
1) That at minimum, said politician sees themselves as accountable to those who take issue with their comments. In this case; black people and their sympathizers
2) It demonstrates that such comments are unacceptable in our society, or at least within the segment that would consider voting for him
Both of these are what actually matter. Racism only in the mind of a politician is useless, but if they are likely to influence legislation with their mindset or signal to their supporters that it’s acceptable, that’s when it causes an actual problem (See Donald Trump). Joe Biden’s actions and the totality of his comments demonstrate the exact opposite.
According to the people on the video, they rated 10 out of 10 on the racist scale.
Same with Trump’s Charlottesville comments, yet anyone on the right would argue they don’t represent what he was actually saying that day. Turns out it’s easy to make someone look bad when you look only at a few words or sentences in isolation.
Agreed, MSM has brainwashed people on the right as well so that they don't know that racism is alive and thriving on the left.I am sure the redneck south would answer the same as the people in the video.
So… the argument is, what, that Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax are part of a plot to hide racism on the left?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
*Yawn*
Each of Biden’s statements were problematic, that’s why he’s apologized for them many times over. Trump has never once apologized for anything he’s said or done to offend anyone of another race, so there’s already a big difference there.
And the whopping 4 statements he pulled out are themselves pretty weak, which means this is really all they’ve got. Half of those themselves were poor attempts at jokes.
The reason mainstream media doesn’t spend much time talking at them is because a few off the cuff statements are irrelevant to what a candidate as president will stand for. There is a reason Trump is the candidate of choice of the KKK and why Trump supporters regularly display MAGA flags next to a swastica. Anyone who would change their vote to Trump or stay home solely because of this is an idiot.
The issues for those who actually care about combating racism are far bigger than this, so there is no reason to focus on it. The idea that this demonstrates media indoctrination is ludacris.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It's worth noting that there isn't much difference between Barkley's claim that "there are a lot black people who are unintelligent" and the claims of a garden-variety racist. I assume that Barkley meant to say something more nuanced. That more charitable analysis, though, is far from a "dirty dark secret." The notion that black irresponsibility is at least part of the "race problem" is widely shared among black America's most prominent figures, beginning—but not ending—with the president of the United States.
Black people are doing terribly in our society because they are inherently lazy and unintelligent, so they value things like street credibility over education - Racist
Black people are doing terribly in our society because they value things like street credibility over education as a result of centuries of slavery followed by decades of segregation and discrimination leading to a culture that has become detached from the mainstream of America thereby perpetuating the issue further - Not racist
The basic facts of the black community are really not in dispute, what separates racists from non racists is whether you believe the disparities are the result of inherent inferiorities (the very definition of racism) or of circumstances which black people have faced and been forced to try to overcome since they were brought here against their will centuries ago.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, yeah, that is often my problem since I often debate things that either dont have evidence, either the evidence comes from sources that voters dont accept, so it becomes like I have no evidence. I guess the solution is to only debate topics that have lots of widely accepted evidence, or just face losses.
Well yeah, I would agree with that statement. Perhaps you should challenge yourself to find more credible sources or focus a bit more on explaining why your sources should be accepted as credible. If others don’t accept it then why do you?
I myself really don’t care to go back and forth about sources either because that tends to be a black hole, that’s why I prefer to do more philosophical debates so I would say that’s another option.
I also don’t focus much on wins and losses, I find that judges on this site can be extremely biased, in my debates it seems like half the votes bring up counter arguments to my position in the RFD that my opponent never even made. The exercise and figuring out how to deal with the challenges is for me the point.
Well, logical fallacies are hard to deal with. It is mostly because it takes me more text to refute a fallacy than it takes my opponent to write it.
Dismantling rebuttals does tend to take more space. My way of dealing with this is of I instigate a debate I keep my opening round to a minimum, say 6k characters with an 8k or 10k limit. If I wanted a shorter debate, say 6k characters then start off with 4k. And if I find that I need more space than that for my opening round I would consider narrowing the scope of the debate so I can focus more on specific parts rather than the entire issue. Most debates come down to a single piece of the case anyway.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
if my case wins without using rebuttals, then thats a really good case.
Not necessarily. If you win without rebuttals it almost certainly just means the readers agreed with your position at the outset.
Rebuttals usually place a lot of drain on my debating. Like, having over 5000 characters split in segments and responding to each seems like too much work.
That’s why I recommend against shared BoP debates.
You recommend that I place burden on myself and not on my opponent? Well, I mean, I could do that. Its just that then I would have to be more careful in writing topic.
Yeah, that’s the point.
Some topics are simply auto-loss for Pro when burden is not shared, especially topics that have little evidence to support Pro's premises, or topics that are refuted by finding exceptions to the case.
If you don’t have evidence to support your position then that right there is your problem. But beyond that these are things you need to learn to handle. People will try to knock your case down with logical fallacies all the time, you’ve got to learn how to identify them and properly call them out.
The way I see it is if that’s what my opponent is lowering themselves to that means they’re losing and can find no other way to defeat my case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You mean like wokeness or transgenderism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yeah, I'm sure the woman who was verbally accosted at Starbucks by the guy claiming to be a woman - AND that the individual filming the event who was assaulted by the dude - both felt that their fear was just "dramatically overblown. *FP*So on and so forth.
This is like when a politician uses an anecdote of little Timmy who lived thanks to a new healthcare law to then proclaim that if you oppose the law that must mean you want little Timmy to die.
When I talk about your position being dramatically overblown I’m talking about on a societal level, you of course decided to go back to anecdotes.
Any individual experiencing a terrifying situation is justified in their fear, but we don’t change or decide on public policy because Sarah Beth got scared. You need to step back and look at the entire picture.
Oddly enough, I could sit here and give you plenty of anecdotal examples of how your activism has ruined lives and created just as much of a situation of real fear for trans people and you wouldn’t give a rats ass, so spare me the drama and theatrics.
They are not hard to find, not hard at all because they are increasing far beyond your obvious denialism.
Then provide the statistics
Out of 330 million, they would be very hard to find. The average is only about 1k shootings per year, and very few of them are "unarmed." Like 13 in 2019, for example. So no, you could NOT find "example after example" that would justify the whole asinine unsubstantiated BS "police brutality" claim against unarmed black males. I mean really, black males are shot by police (not always killed) at a rate of about 2.5-3x which pales in comparison to cops being shot and killed in the line of duty by black males at a rate of 18.5x. And despite this glaring fact, you certainly won't be sporting any black and blue flags in support of law enforcement killed by violent criminals.
So when it comes to trans people all you need are a few anecdotal examples, but when it comes to black people being killed all of a sudden the only thing that matters are statistics. Got it.
But it clearly is not a fallacy, it is a premised upon Precedential slopes, "which revolve around the idea that treating a relatively minor issue (gay marriage) a certain way now will lead to us treating a relatively major issue (the sexualizing of children, grooming children, transing children, invading women's spaces, etc) the same way later on."
Progress in society is made one step at a time, that doesn’t mean one step causes the other. That’s the fallacy.
Black people didn’t go from slaves to free to integrated to equal overnight, those were all accomplished one step at a time. It wasn’t the steps that got them there, it was the changing of society over time as ignorance was replaced with knowledge.
The same exact thing is happening with gay/trans rights. People are learning that they aren’t any different from the rest of us and deserve to be treated respectfully and included in our society. You can roll back rights all you want, that’s not going to undo the fact that future generations, who will know far better, will look back at you the same way we look at 1920’s White people who thought they needed to form the KKK to stop black people from being a part of our society.
"Your example from before was of some handful of activists taking over our entire society with policies that are harmful to the people of the country."Strawman fallacy.
It wasn’t. You’re either arguing that the laws around the country will be hijacked by a minority, or you’re arguing that the people of the country will disagree with you and self govern their way to laws you don’t like. It clearly wasn’t the latter.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Should they be allowed to steal money to maintain their bodily autonomy to smoke heroin? If you say yes to this, your biting the bullet. If you say no to this, then you believe that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy.
You are yet again trying to bootstrap the ‘right to theft’ as inherent to the right to fiscal autonomy. These are entirely separate things.
If person A can’t maintain their addiction without committing theft, then person A will not legally ethically or morally be able to maintain their addiction. The right to bodily autonomy is about choices, not ability.
Meth addicts are significantly more likely to steal from others than non meth addicts. Do you dispute this?
No, which is why issues like this are complicated. You are engaging in a black and white fallacy by trying to portray this and a simple choice between one right or another. It’s not.
Isn't that why socialists support Medicare for all, free housing, and free food, all because they believe the right to life is more valuable than the right to fiscal autonomy?
First of all, the right to life is specifically about abortion. Medicare, food stamps, etc. is a completely different issue.
Second, I’m not a socialist.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I could write 5 rounds in advance before the debate even starts, each round using characters to the max and each round containing new arguments instead of defending old arguments. That way, I dont even have to read my opponent's case or his refutations.
This kind of defeats the purpose of a debate. What you’re describing is just two sides presenting their own case with no regard for the objections of their opponent. Normally the idea of a debate is to test whether the case you present can hold up under rational scrutiny.
He couldnt merely refute my case or play much semantics with shared burden of proof. He would have to make his case.
I personally find that a shared burden of proof lowers the quality of a debate. Again, the purpose is for the two sides to clash, and as a judge it’s that clash that gives the reader a sense of who’s winning. Without that it’s really just a matter of whose case is more convincing, which is almost entirely going to be decided on the readers biases coming into the debate.
If you stand by your position, there’s no reason why the BoP should scare you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I seriously intended to expose what I believe is the very high chance that what you are alluding to is imprecisely defined and the resulting blurriness of all moral logic is a recipe for social conflict that has and will continue to manifest.
Yeah, that’s called politics.
Congrats, I guess you got me on that
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is no necessary connection between meth addiction and stealingDrug addicts are more likely to steal to pay for their drug addiction.
Correlation is not causation
So you believe that it's okay to take away the right to smoke meth in order to protect fiscal autonomy. This means you think (in this context) that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy. But since you are a socialist, this means you think the right to life > fiscal autonomy. So this would mean that according to you, right to life > bodily autonomy. So then you would be pro life. But your pro choice, so that's a contradiction.
Not sure who the “you” is in this sentence since none of this represents anything I have said or believe.
You are the one who necessarily tied meth use to theft, a premise I flatly reject, so everything that followed is a hypothetical aimed at pointing out that on principal there’s no contradiction.
Within that hypothetical I pointed out a basic principal; that one’s right’s end where another’s beings, typically expressed as “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose”. This basic idea would explain why if meth use necessarily lead to theft, that would be a valid reason to deny said right despite believing in one’s right to do what they wish with their own body.
I also have no idea where you got that I believe the right to life > fiscal autonomy.
You haven’t pointed out any actual contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course, it’s campaign season on a debate site.
Besides, sure beats another I hate trans people thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What’s remarkable is that the political right denies MAGA is a cult all while the very people running against Trump cannot criticize him in any way out of fear that the base will revolt.
You couldn’t have invented an easier way to tell.
Created: