CON did agree that "video games can be beneficial, but not necessary" in Round 3, but that is not a concession. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be incorporated at a policy level by lawmakers.
Honestly though, CON wouldn't even have to show that virtual workspaces are the specific alternative, but I believe that point was made. If CON adequately argued that ANY alternative is both cheaper and provides a similar benefit, that would be sufficient to fulfill his side of the debate. I believe he did so. But I can also see valid justification for those who disagree. Both sides could have argued better, which is why the voting was somewhat controversial.
Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games.
The argument wasn't perfect, but it was definitely there.
"Then onto the DNA argument. In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game, likewise you don't call Autocad with Tutorials a video game. We are talking with video games, not anything digital that aren't traditional text stuff."
The price point was also made in Round 1. Admittedly, this argument could have been much stronger. But it was definitely there and it was also supported by sources from both PRO and CON.
The resolution and description make clear that PRO is not just arguing that video games can be beneficial, but that they should be implemented by lawmakers on a policy level.
CON argued, in agreement with PRO's own sources, that "virtual workspaces" can provide similar benefits as "video games," but at a much lower cost. You can have a different opinion, but the reasoning is sound to vote CON.
Honestly, I think it comes down to one's approach to government spending. I am all for lower spending, so the cheaper option with similar results was more favorable.
You would be correct that there have historically been Bible commentators that have not understood, or have even misunderstood, the Hebrew language.
It seems today though that most critics of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality do not actually speak Hebrew, nor are they even familiar with the language themselves. This is important to remember when examining critical sources. It's also important to consider there is a consistent condemnation of homosexuality from rabbinic commentators (fluent Hebrew speakers) throughout history. It might be worthwhile to examine some of those sources as well. Just some food for thought.
"Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all."
Hebrew is a language that has continued until today. Are you saying that Jewish people have only begun to understand their own language recently?
There is no original copy of "the Bible" because the Bible is a collection of historical documents written at different times. This means you would have to substantiate your skepticism for each individual book where homosexuality is mentioned based on the manuscript evidence.
You may be thinking of later documents such as the gospel of Thomas, which you would be correct in saying are not part of the Bible. However, if you go to the store and buy a copy of "the Bible," it will not end at the book of John. It will end at the book of Revelation - the 27th book. Note that a gospel is a type of book in the Bible.
It is your debate though, so set whatever rules you like. However, if you do not allow 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy into the debate, you cannot fully or adequately address the question of whether "the Bible" considers homosexuality a sin.
There are 27 books in the New Testament, the first four books being the four gospels you referred to.
Your best bet would be to refer to the Bible as the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. As a disclaimer, Catholics try to throw in a few extra Old Testament books, but you can cross that bridge if you get there.
You might want to clarify exactly what you mean by the Bible in the debate description to avoid confusion or semantics. Your last comment seems to limit the biblical New Testament to Matthew, Mark, Like, and John.
That seems like a lot of trouble to go to, signing in and out of accounts to ask for permission. Just don't forget to be signed in to the right account when your commenting haha just joking
Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me either way so I'll stop poking fun about it.
Yes I was just pointing out an irony that he argued religion distinguished us from animals as moral people, but now we can abandon the very thing that apparently made us moral in the first place. I do believe that any moral system that does not include God is, at it's core, a system of "might makes right." But that is a debate topic all by itself.
You stated:
"Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness."
I completely agree with you here. And this is where worldview becomes so important. The way that one answers the question of WHY people do bad things determines what solution one arrives at to solve this "sin" problem, so to speak.
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
I don't know, this part was actually pretty convincing.
It occurred to me that paper12 and drlebronski seem suspiciously similar. Then I realized that the comments section would seem kind of funny now if that were true.
Yes, the problem is that they are trying to fundamentally change definitions. Racism, as they would like to define it, is no longer dependent upon an individual acting in a way that holds one race as superior. Rather, racism exists whenever racial disparities exist. And it is the system, rather than individuals, who is guilty as long as disparities exist.
And a guilty system must be deconstructed and replaced. They never want to tell you what their plan for replacement is though...
I think the definition that is intended would be closer to how Robin DiAngelo describes white supremacy:
"Race scholars use the term white supremacy to describe a socio-political economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white."
Put more simply, anything that promotes "white privilege" can be described as white supremacy. At least, according to some folks.
Perhaps to avoid the waste of what could be a good debate, you could choose a single aspect of the philosophical basis for the existence of a deity. Was there maybe a single point from the last debate that would be worth delving deeper into?
Personally, I think it is difficult to try to cover multiple arguments in a single debate on such a massive topic as this one. I also think choosing a single topic helps readers follow along and maintain interest. But that is just my opinion so do with it what you will.
The reason I'm asking for it to be removed is that, as you agreed, where someone is born plays a huge role in a person's moral influences. If that is eliminated from the discussion, there is no point in the discussion at all. But it's your debate so it's up to you. If you would like more clarity on my intention behind asking for it to be removed though, I am happy to provide that.
If you remove the following section from the description -- "EXCEPT what it does determine (not all the time) Is where you will most likely be born but I won't touch on this as it's not a debate on systemic racism" -- and increase the time for argument, I will accept the debate.
"Systemic racism definition: Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues."
I assume you sincerely believe that systemic racism as you have previously defined does in fact exist throughout the entire society of the United States, correct?
Wouldn't you agree that where someone is born (including family and surrounding culture) strongly influences their moral character? It seems odd to try to exclude that factor in a debate about morals.
Since voting is over perhaps it is now more appropriate to ask this question: do you see the conclusion that Critical Race Theory, which is the position you are arguing from, is actually racist?
I may have missed it, but I didn't see an answer to the question about whether it was possible the health disparity in the opioid crisis could have been caused by systemic racism toward white people.
I don't know if I would want to go too deep into actual health care policy. It seems that it would basically be about who can research the most accurate and relevant statistics regarding quality of care/wait times/mortality rates/etc. While it seems that universal health care falls miserably short in those categories, my main concern is more fundamental than that. In the current US health care system, I pay my own medical bills so my access to health care is really only limited by how much money I can pay for services. Under universal health care, the government pays my medical bills so my access to health care is limited by what the government will allow. The government is now in charge of making my healthcare decisions for me based on what they will pay for. I don't want some government bureaucrat in charge of determining whether or not certain services are medically necessary for me.
While this concept is relatively simply, it would probably be quite tedious to do a formal debate on it.
I'm not looking for a technical rewording. I'm just trying to get a general sense of whether your argument is dealing in our current reality or hypotheticals.
There are actually a growing number of books dealing with this issue. The two that immediately come to mind are Cynical Theories (Pluckrose, Lindsay) and Fault Lines (Baucham). The problem is that Critical Race Theory flew under the radar for many of us for too long. So now we're playing catch up while trying to keep our cities from burning to the ground during BLM peaceful protests.
But you still haven't answered what the end goal is. You've only provided temporary solutions to lessen, rather than eliminate, systemic racism in the current racist system. Let me rephrase the question. Is it possible that the US will ever reach a state where there is no systemic racism? Or is it possible that white people in the US will no longer be guilty of conscious or unconscious racism?
If so, what is the objective measure to know when this has happened?
I'll note the definition of racism in that document:
"The term 'racism' refers to an organized system, rooted in an ideology of inferiority that categorizes, ranks and differentially allocates societal resources to human population groups (Bonilla-Silva, 1996). It may or may not be accompanied by prejudice at the individual level."
Your suggestion is merely to try and improve a system that is fundamentally racist. If the system itself (rather than individuals) is racist, how can we ever fully end racism?
But the argument can't be narrowed because you're still operating from a fundamentally different worldview. You believe that a system can be racist, even if there are no individuals who are committing racist acts (outside of existing within the racist system). Therefore, any disparity MUST be the result of the racist system. There are no alternative possibilities that could be the root cause. It's an unfalsifiable position.
I wonder though, what system would you replace it with that would be absolutely free from any type of bias? Is there a system that could operate completely free from your idea of racism? Or are you simply a blind man promising us all the grass is greener on the other side?
I think fauxlaw is right that you will have to resolve the debate of whether systemic racism exists before you can even begin discussing the resolution. Alternatively, you could try to find a fellow Critical Race Theory adherent who doesn't agree that systemic racism causes health disparities. But I doubt such a person exists since anything and everything can be explained by racism.
He also included in the description that the policy could be "implicitly" racist. Which means he will simply find any policy where one's personal interpretation leaves the possibility of implicit racism. Then he will give an example of a negative outcome, claim that it was caused by the implicit racism of the policy, and accuse you of victim blaming if you try to attribute the negative outcome to something like fatherlessness rather than racism.
When you view the world through the oppressor/oppressed lens of Critical Race Theory, race is everything and everything is racist.
Well I had to use up a round just to figure out what you meant by a "sentient creature" since you failed to give any meaning to that. But like I said, that was probably a smart move since your position shielded itself from scrutiny through vagueness.
I think I will have to pass. It becomes extremely tedious having to try and focus on the actual topic while people just sling out a bunch of apparent "contradictions" in the Bible. Not saying that's what you would do by any means, nor am I saying that so-called problems in the Bible shouldn't be dealt with. I just feel like debates about the Bible end up turning into a bunch of mini debates about definitions and theology that don't allow the actual debate topic to be dealt with meaningfully.
That's because I essentially didn't have anything to argue against until the last round of the debate. But perhaps that was smart because then CON's system was put under minimum scrutiny.
You are just confirming that you do not understand what justification by faith means, which explains why you no longer consider yourself a Christian. I have provided Old and New Testament citations with explanations, but you are just falling back on the weak argument of baseless radical skepticism ("Well that's not what that text means!"). If you will not show enough intellectual integrity to honestly criticize the Bible, I see no reason to continue this back and forth. I got my answer for where you came up with the unique and unbiblical idea that everyone before Jesus went to hell, which is why I engaged in the first place.
By what standard?
I think you know...
CON did agree that "video games can be beneficial, but not necessary" in Round 3, but that is not a concession. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be incorporated at a policy level by lawmakers.
Honestly though, CON wouldn't even have to show that virtual workspaces are the specific alternative, but I believe that point was made. If CON adequately argued that ANY alternative is both cheaper and provides a similar benefit, that would be sufficient to fulfill his side of the debate. I believe he did so. But I can also see valid justification for those who disagree. Both sides could have argued better, which is why the voting was somewhat controversial.
Yes, I had considered that. But PRO is free to make that argument. I don't think it will hold up though.
Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games.
The argument wasn't perfect, but it was definitely there.
"In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game"
How does this not make the argument that there is a distinction between virtual workspaces and video games?
Comments like this from Round 2 made the point:
"Then onto the DNA argument. In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game, likewise you don't call Autocad with Tutorials a video game. We are talking with video games, not anything digital that aren't traditional text stuff."
The price point was also made in Round 1. Admittedly, this argument could have been much stronger. But it was definitely there and it was also supported by sources from both PRO and CON.
The debate that just won't die.
The resolution and description make clear that PRO is not just arguing that video games can be beneficial, but that they should be implemented by lawmakers on a policy level.
CON argued, in agreement with PRO's own sources, that "virtual workspaces" can provide similar benefits as "video games," but at a much lower cost. You can have a different opinion, but the reasoning is sound to vote CON.
Honestly, I think it comes down to one's approach to government spending. I am all for lower spending, so the cheaper option with similar results was more favorable.
You would be correct that there have historically been Bible commentators that have not understood, or have even misunderstood, the Hebrew language.
It seems today though that most critics of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality do not actually speak Hebrew, nor are they even familiar with the language themselves. This is important to remember when examining critical sources. It's also important to consider there is a consistent condemnation of homosexuality from rabbinic commentators (fluent Hebrew speakers) throughout history. It might be worthwhile to examine some of those sources as well. Just some food for thought.
"Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all."
Hebrew is a language that has continued until today. Are you saying that Jewish people have only begun to understand their own language recently?
Take longer if you want. I'm in no hurry and you have a week. It's up to you though
There is no original copy of "the Bible" because the Bible is a collection of historical documents written at different times. This means you would have to substantiate your skepticism for each individual book where homosexuality is mentioned based on the manuscript evidence.
You're welcome
You may be thinking of later documents such as the gospel of Thomas, which you would be correct in saying are not part of the Bible. However, if you go to the store and buy a copy of "the Bible," it will not end at the book of John. It will end at the book of Revelation - the 27th book. Note that a gospel is a type of book in the Bible.
It is your debate though, so set whatever rules you like. However, if you do not allow 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy into the debate, you cannot fully or adequately address the question of whether "the Bible" considers homosexuality a sin.
There are 27 books in the New Testament, the first four books being the four gospels you referred to.
Your best bet would be to refer to the Bible as the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. As a disclaimer, Catholics try to throw in a few extra Old Testament books, but you can cross that bridge if you get there.
You might want to clarify exactly what you mean by the Bible in the debate description to avoid confusion or semantics. Your last comment seems to limit the biblical New Testament to Matthew, Mark, Like, and John.
Ok now comments #1-3 are pretty funny.
"I gave him permission to add on to my argument"
That seems like a lot of trouble to go to, signing in and out of accounts to ask for permission. Just don't forget to be signed in to the right account when your commenting haha just joking
Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me either way so I'll stop poking fun about it.
Yes I was just pointing out an irony that he argued religion distinguished us from animals as moral people, but now we can abandon the very thing that apparently made us moral in the first place. I do believe that any moral system that does not include God is, at it's core, a system of "might makes right." But that is a debate topic all by itself.
You stated:
"Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness."
I completely agree with you here. And this is where worldview becomes so important. The way that one answers the question of WHY people do bad things determines what solution one arrives at to solve this "sin" problem, so to speak.
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
I don't know, this part was actually pretty convincing.
You know, I had my doubts until the opening argument. Compare to https://www.debateart.com/debates/3121-america-is-a-systemically-racist-country
It occurred to me that paper12 and drlebronski seem suspiciously similar. Then I realized that the comments section would seem kind of funny now if that were true.
Yes, the problem is that they are trying to fundamentally change definitions. Racism, as they would like to define it, is no longer dependent upon an individual acting in a way that holds one race as superior. Rather, racism exists whenever racial disparities exist. And it is the system, rather than individuals, who is guilty as long as disparities exist.
And a guilty system must be deconstructed and replaced. They never want to tell you what their plan for replacement is though...
I think the definition that is intended would be closer to how Robin DiAngelo describes white supremacy:
"Race scholars use the term white supremacy to describe a socio-political economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white."
Put more simply, anything that promotes "white privilege" can be described as white supremacy. At least, according to some folks.
Just an outside commenter here:
Perhaps to avoid the waste of what could be a good debate, you could choose a single aspect of the philosophical basis for the existence of a deity. Was there maybe a single point from the last debate that would be worth delving deeper into?
Personally, I think it is difficult to try to cover multiple arguments in a single debate on such a massive topic as this one. I also think choosing a single topic helps readers follow along and maintain interest. But that is just my opinion so do with it what you will.
The reason I'm asking for it to be removed is that, as you agreed, where someone is born plays a huge role in a person's moral influences. If that is eliminated from the discussion, there is no point in the discussion at all. But it's your debate so it's up to you. If you would like more clarity on my intention behind asking for it to be removed though, I am happy to provide that.
If you remove the following section from the description -- "EXCEPT what it does determine (not all the time) Is where you will most likely be born but I won't touch on this as it's not a debate on systemic racism" -- and increase the time for argument, I will accept the debate.
"Systemic racism definition: Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues."
I assume you sincerely believe that systemic racism as you have previously defined does in fact exist throughout the entire society of the United States, correct?
Wouldn't you agree that where someone is born (including family and surrounding culture) strongly influences their moral character? It seems odd to try to exclude that factor in a debate about morals.
Since voting is over perhaps it is now more appropriate to ask this question: do you see the conclusion that Critical Race Theory, which is the position you are arguing from, is actually racist?
I'm with the others that the wording is a bit confusing. Some clarification might be good
I think there is more that we agree upon concerning the nature of systemic racism than you realize.
Thanks for the response. Just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
I assume the answer would be no, but it would be helpful to hear it from you so I don't misrepresent you.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see an answer to the question about whether it was possible the health disparity in the opioid crisis could have been caused by systemic racism toward white people.
I don't know if I would want to go too deep into actual health care policy. It seems that it would basically be about who can research the most accurate and relevant statistics regarding quality of care/wait times/mortality rates/etc. While it seems that universal health care falls miserably short in those categories, my main concern is more fundamental than that. In the current US health care system, I pay my own medical bills so my access to health care is really only limited by how much money I can pay for services. Under universal health care, the government pays my medical bills so my access to health care is limited by what the government will allow. The government is now in charge of making my healthcare decisions for me based on what they will pay for. I don't want some government bureaucrat in charge of determining whether or not certain services are medically necessary for me.
While this concept is relatively simply, it would probably be quite tedious to do a formal debate on it.
I'm not looking for a technical rewording. I'm just trying to get a general sense of whether your argument is dealing in our current reality or hypotheticals.
Which way should your resolution be interpreted?
Systemic racism exists today and is currently causing real health disparities
OR
If systemic racism exists in any time or context, it would theoretically cause health disparities
That didn't answer any of my questions.
There are actually a growing number of books dealing with this issue. The two that immediately come to mind are Cynical Theories (Pluckrose, Lindsay) and Fault Lines (Baucham). The problem is that Critical Race Theory flew under the radar for many of us for too long. So now we're playing catch up while trying to keep our cities from burning to the ground during BLM peaceful protests.
But you still haven't answered what the end goal is. You've only provided temporary solutions to lessen, rather than eliminate, systemic racism in the current racist system. Let me rephrase the question. Is it possible that the US will ever reach a state where there is no systemic racism? Or is it possible that white people in the US will no longer be guilty of conscious or unconscious racism?
If so, what is the objective measure to know when this has happened?
I'll note the definition of racism in that document:
"The term 'racism' refers to an organized system, rooted in an ideology of inferiority that categorizes, ranks and differentially allocates societal resources to human population groups (Bonilla-Silva, 1996). It may or may not be accompanied by prejudice at the individual level."
Your suggestion is merely to try and improve a system that is fundamentally racist. If the system itself (rather than individuals) is racist, how can we ever fully end racism?
But the argument can't be narrowed because you're still operating from a fundamentally different worldview. You believe that a system can be racist, even if there are no individuals who are committing racist acts (outside of existing within the racist system). Therefore, any disparity MUST be the result of the racist system. There are no alternative possibilities that could be the root cause. It's an unfalsifiable position.
I wonder though, what system would you replace it with that would be absolutely free from any type of bias? Is there a system that could operate completely free from your idea of racism? Or are you simply a blind man promising us all the grass is greener on the other side?
I think fauxlaw is right that you will have to resolve the debate of whether systemic racism exists before you can even begin discussing the resolution. Alternatively, you could try to find a fellow Critical Race Theory adherent who doesn't agree that systemic racism causes health disparities. But I doubt such a person exists since anything and everything can be explained by racism.
He also included in the description that the policy could be "implicitly" racist. Which means he will simply find any policy where one's personal interpretation leaves the possibility of implicit racism. Then he will give an example of a negative outcome, claim that it was caused by the implicit racism of the policy, and accuse you of victim blaming if you try to attribute the negative outcome to something like fatherlessness rather than racism.
When you view the world through the oppressor/oppressed lens of Critical Race Theory, race is everything and everything is racist.
Well it looks like my evaluation of debates like this about the Bible wasn't completely unfounded.
Well I had to use up a round just to figure out what you meant by a "sentient creature" since you failed to give any meaning to that. But like I said, that was probably a smart move since your position shielded itself from scrutiny through vagueness.
I think I will have to pass. It becomes extremely tedious having to try and focus on the actual topic while people just sling out a bunch of apparent "contradictions" in the Bible. Not saying that's what you would do by any means, nor am I saying that so-called problems in the Bible shouldn't be dealt with. I just feel like debates about the Bible end up turning into a bunch of mini debates about definitions and theology that don't allow the actual debate topic to be dealt with meaningfully.
That's because I essentially didn't have anything to argue against until the last round of the debate. But perhaps that was smart because then CON's system was put under minimum scrutiny.
You are just confirming that you do not understand what justification by faith means, which explains why you no longer consider yourself a Christian. I have provided Old and New Testament citations with explanations, but you are just falling back on the weak argument of baseless radical skepticism ("Well that's not what that text means!"). If you will not show enough intellectual integrity to honestly criticize the Bible, I see no reason to continue this back and forth. I got my answer for where you came up with the unique and unbiblical idea that everyone before Jesus went to hell, which is why I engaged in the first place.
I'm glad this makes sense to at least one person!