" "racism" will always exist/possible to always exist because anything possible to go wrong that goes wrong will always leave room for the possibility."
1. You changed the claim. Nowhere in the debate title or description does it mention the word "possibility," yet your argument is merely that racism is always posisible?! You moved the goalposts. Unacceptable. If racism stops existing for even a second, then your title claim is invalidated, regardless if it ever arose again.
2. "anything possible to go wrong that goes wrong " This mangled version of Murphy's Law is hardly a proper argument, even if it did relate to the ACTUAL title claim. By the same logic, slavery will never be illegal because there will always be the possibility of things going wrong and the government re-legalizing it.
All "classes" (as well as status groups) as used in this context (i.e., middle class, etc) are socially constructed, by definition. Racism is also "socially constructed" in that it is derived from cultural norms and human psychology. That doesn't mean that racism isn't REAL. People need to stop pointing at stuff that the "woke left" are doing and crying social construct like that's supposed to discredit them.
It appears that the R1 argument was posted in the description? If he ever comes back and copies it to the actual debate this would be an interesting debate.
Isn't this the same reason Percy Jackson is 12 in the first book? Authors/creators make their protagonists the same age as the target audience for relatability.
In the example against burden of proof given by the website you linked, the burden of proof is absolutely held by someone claiming a teacup is orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. However, if this same person came into a formal debate against me, I would at least put in a line about the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. The fact that Mall similarly refused to make any arguments was equally frustrating on my part as a voter. If these had been the standard vote system rather than win/lose, I would likely have rewarded you either Conduct or Argument points on the grounds that Mall was ignoring his burden of proof.
While I agree the burden of proof is on Pro both for instigating the argument and making the positive claim, NOT making any argument against the claim feels antithetical to the spirit of debate and DebateArt specifically. You weren't getting any votes anyways.
Didn't want to beef it out in my vote, so here it is instead, but I definitely disagree with the idea of the entire Bible being considered a "singular subject." There are way too many contradictions in it to seriously consider it such, the Bible consists of dozens of books by different authors over a period of centuries if not millennia, and in this specific case the passages relating to divorce were literally laying down law for Jews and later Christians. In this case the Bible was functioning as a living legislative document. To compare it to U.S. law, the 18th amendment is still written in the corpus of the Constitution, even though it was nullified by the 21st. You can't say that oh, the constitution says two different things about whether the sale of alcohol is illegal, therefore the stance of "the entirety" can't be proven.
"I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it."
The incomprehensibility of infinite number sets is TOTALLY different from the incomprehensibility you're ascribing to God here. There are rules and theorems that allow me to know anything I want about any given number of that infinite set. Even whether a number is prime or not can be determined with enough time and computing power. The incomprehensibility of infinity is that the human mind is incapable of performing the operations necessary to view more than a few thousand digits without the aid of computers.
On the other hand, you claim that God is literally inscrutable to any efforts to fully understand It. Not that it's hard to understand, or expensive to calculate, LITERALLY INSCRUTABLE. Did you know that Lord Kelvin considered the mystery of how animals move "infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry." and then we figured it out? Only nine weeks before the Kitty Hawk flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times published an article estimating anywhere from another 1-10 million years to figure out the problem of flight. I see no reason to make the same mistake again and attribute some mysterious unknowability to something that I can't even say with any confidence exists.
Is he also infinitely nonexistent? infinitely boring? infinitely horny? infinitely evil? If not, why can you apply the concept of infinity to power, presence, and knowledge when referring to god but not those?
I believe that sex =/= (does NOT equal) gender as stated in your description. First of all, gender is based on social norms and perceptions and varies at least a little from culture to culture, while biological sex is determined by the expression of the individuals genetics.
"infinite interpretation of God"
those words mean almost nothing to me in that order. Do you mean God is infinite? If so in what way? And is God something capable of interpretation?
Depending on your definition of child, I've been one for at least half of my life. At no point did I think I shouldn't receive candy from anyone. Since his argument is purely from a dental hygiene perspective, I fail to see how my enjoyment of candy is different from that of a child's. If anything, a child should indulge even more since they haven't gotten their adult teeth yet.
In reality, I've been lucky to have very few cavities, and I've only ever had one filling. But the fact of the matter is that people should worry a lot more about other parts of their health than dental hygiene. Your joints, lungs and kidneys are some non-exhaustive examples that are much more difficult/impossible to replace/repair.
Saw this in my Quality Debates sidebar and it reminded me of this
https://img.ifunny.co/images/530c5d2b8f20bbcce052fb67b02889a4b03217fa7f71d3d3391e220ffa0293a6_1.jpg
"He didn't prove it would now be run at a deficit."
It already runs at a deficit?
You said that the federal prison system currently makes 5.8 billion and loses 182 billion every year. So unless you think the relatively small number of maxsec inmates being forced to perform slave labor could make up 177 BILLION dollars, they would STILL run at a deficit.
The main point that didn't come up imo is that maxsec prisoners are maxsec for a reason. Usually they aren't placed there for their crimes, but to prevent more violence in the prison itself. This includes inmates who commit assault/murder in prison, high profile cases where they're likely to get murdered themselves if put in a regular prison, and gang members and leaders. This is a very different category from the run of the mill rapists and murderers that you two kept bringing up. This is a class of prisoners that are extra difficult to work with, and can barely be trusted to eat in a cafeteria together without killing each other, much less doing jobs with tools and the like. My expectation would be that if there were any easy profit to be made employing maxsec prisoners in addition to the prisoners already doing $5.8 billion of work already, it would already be being done.
There are pros and cons to both.
Also is the debate only about in the context of video games?
I like undertale a lot, and it's really nice that it can be run on almost any computer system. There's no barrier to entry like there is for HD graphics FPS games like Apex or the new Halo. But there's a lot more of a spectrum than two genres. Doom wasn't a "pixel art" game, it had as high quality graphics as you could realistically get on the computer systems of the time. I'm not old enough to feel nostalgia for games like that but I can see why some people would.
Another thing I appreciate about pixel art is the room it leaves for artistic interpretation. you can draw fanart of a 8 bit sprite basically however you want bc there weren't any details before.
By definition, a scientist would say that miracles can't exist, that we live in a rules-based universe, not that they are unlikely. Any phenomena can be explained because we live in a causally determined universe to the best of our knowledge. Everything has a first cause. We're just still figuring some of them out ;)
I would need to refine it some, but something in regards to your claim that the whitewashing of Biblical characters is indicative of natural-born white racism.
"whites have changed the faces of the people in the Bible and have inserted themselves as the people of the Bible, which is utter ridiculous."
EMP grenades were a "conventional weapon" and I would argue that ion cannons were as well, but you do specify that it is against any ground army.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse_grenade
"I'm a professional writer at multiple publications. Remember when you criticized my writing style earlier? I'm trained to write in an AP Style format."
Based on what you've written here on this website, I find this unlikely. Even as a high school student, I have been able to notice a distinct style in my own writing that carries over between casual writing and academic. Your writing style in this debate does not reflect that of the linked article, however much the content may. You are not obligated to prove anything to me, and my opinion of you may matter little to you, but I would be curious to see any sort of proof that you are a professional writer.
"Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true ."
This came across as gloating to me.
Ultimately, every time you put forward a topic so vapid, vague, or non-controversial that no one accepts it, you fail. The point of DebateArt is not being right or uncontested about things. No one is posting topics like "π is 3.14..." that are obviously true. There is no Debate and there is definitely no Art in this topic. It better serves the purpose of the site to argue for the wrong position, as long as you do it well and learn something along the way.
" "racism" will always exist/possible to always exist because anything possible to go wrong that goes wrong will always leave room for the possibility."
1. You changed the claim. Nowhere in the debate title or description does it mention the word "possibility," yet your argument is merely that racism is always posisible?! You moved the goalposts. Unacceptable. If racism stops existing for even a second, then your title claim is invalidated, regardless if it ever arose again.
2. "anything possible to go wrong that goes wrong " This mangled version of Murphy's Law is hardly a proper argument, even if it did relate to the ACTUAL title claim. By the same logic, slavery will never be illegal because there will always be the possibility of things going wrong and the government re-legalizing it.
All "classes" (as well as status groups) as used in this context (i.e., middle class, etc) are socially constructed, by definition. Racism is also "socially constructed" in that it is derived from cultural norms and human psychology. That doesn't mean that racism isn't REAL. People need to stop pointing at stuff that the "woke left" are doing and crying social construct like that's supposed to discredit them.
I thought you had to complete debates to vote?
It appears that the R1 argument was posted in the description? If he ever comes back and copies it to the actual debate this would be an interesting debate.
I think you will find that I SHALL continue in sin.
Isn't this the same reason Percy Jackson is 12 in the first book? Authors/creators make their protagonists the same age as the target audience for relatability.
Would you be interested in debating this again with me?
I will be writing a vote for this soon. I have class in ten minutes so expect the vote in 2-4 hours.
Bump for last day to vote.
Thanks.
I would like the vote removed on this one as well.
I would like my vote on this debate removed on the grounds that I no longer agree with it.
In the example against burden of proof given by the website you linked, the burden of proof is absolutely held by someone claiming a teacup is orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. However, if this same person came into a formal debate against me, I would at least put in a line about the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. The fact that Mall similarly refused to make any arguments was equally frustrating on my part as a voter. If these had been the standard vote system rather than win/lose, I would likely have rewarded you either Conduct or Argument points on the grounds that Mall was ignoring his burden of proof.
While I agree the burden of proof is on Pro both for instigating the argument and making the positive claim, NOT making any argument against the claim feels antithetical to the spirit of debate and DebateArt specifically. You weren't getting any votes anyways.
" I never research before the debate starts"
Why? Do you like handicapping yourself?
I would recommend putting a definition for "biological reincarnation" in the description.
I'm a little exhausted from reading debates right now, but this looks well done at first glance. Mind asking me in a couple days?
Sorry for the long vote. I had a lot to say.
Didn't want to beef it out in my vote, so here it is instead, but I definitely disagree with the idea of the entire Bible being considered a "singular subject." There are way too many contradictions in it to seriously consider it such, the Bible consists of dozens of books by different authors over a period of centuries if not millennia, and in this specific case the passages relating to divorce were literally laying down law for Jews and later Christians. In this case the Bible was functioning as a living legislative document. To compare it to U.S. law, the 18th amendment is still written in the corpus of the Constitution, even though it was nullified by the 21st. You can't say that oh, the constitution says two different things about whether the sale of alcohol is illegal, therefore the stance of "the entirety" can't be proven.
"I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it."
The incomprehensibility of infinite number sets is TOTALLY different from the incomprehensibility you're ascribing to God here. There are rules and theorems that allow me to know anything I want about any given number of that infinite set. Even whether a number is prime or not can be determined with enough time and computing power. The incomprehensibility of infinity is that the human mind is incapable of performing the operations necessary to view more than a few thousand digits without the aid of computers.
On the other hand, you claim that God is literally inscrutable to any efforts to fully understand It. Not that it's hard to understand, or expensive to calculate, LITERALLY INSCRUTABLE. Did you know that Lord Kelvin considered the mystery of how animals move "infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry." and then we figured it out? Only nine weeks before the Kitty Hawk flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times published an article estimating anywhere from another 1-10 million years to figure out the problem of flight. I see no reason to make the same mistake again and attribute some mysterious unknowability to something that I can't even say with any confidence exists.
Edit: minor formatting for readability.
Is he also infinitely nonexistent? infinitely boring? infinitely horny? infinitely evil? If not, why can you apply the concept of infinity to power, presence, and knowledge when referring to god but not those?
Can't remember if you get notifs on your own debates without tagging or not, so here's a bump.
I believe that sex =/= (does NOT equal) gender as stated in your description. First of all, gender is based on social norms and perceptions and varies at least a little from culture to culture, while biological sex is determined by the expression of the individuals genetics.
"infinite interpretation of God"
those words mean almost nothing to me in that order. Do you mean God is infinite? If so in what way? And is God something capable of interpretation?
I would be interested but I would have to contend sex = gender out of the gate.
I enjoy pineapple juice too, but it's ridiculous to say that you can't get cavities from it.
Coca Cola has 10.6 g of sugar per 100ml. Pineapple juice has 23.
Depending on your definition of child, I've been one for at least half of my life. At no point did I think I shouldn't receive candy from anyone. Since his argument is purely from a dental hygiene perspective, I fail to see how my enjoyment of candy is different from that of a child's. If anything, a child should indulge even more since they haven't gotten their adult teeth yet.
In reality, I've been lucky to have very few cavities, and I've only ever had one filling. But the fact of the matter is that people should worry a lot more about other parts of their health than dental hygiene. Your joints, lungs and kidneys are some non-exhaustive examples that are much more difficult/impossible to replace/repair.
Edit: "a [lot] more"
Counterpoint: I fucking love candy and modern dentistry can replace my teeth as many times as my insurance will cover it.
Saw this in my Quality Debates sidebar and it reminded me of this
https://img.ifunny.co/images/530c5d2b8f20bbcce052fb67b02889a4b03217fa7f71d3d3391e220ffa0293a6_1.jpg
fyi I don't know who Andrew Tate is so I won't be debating this.
Like a good influence on masculine culture?
Could you elaborate on the meaning of the title? You'll have to at least define "good".
"He didn't prove it would now be run at a deficit."
It already runs at a deficit?
You said that the federal prison system currently makes 5.8 billion and loses 182 billion every year. So unless you think the relatively small number of maxsec inmates being forced to perform slave labor could make up 177 BILLION dollars, they would STILL run at a deficit.
The main point that didn't come up imo is that maxsec prisoners are maxsec for a reason. Usually they aren't placed there for their crimes, but to prevent more violence in the prison itself. This includes inmates who commit assault/murder in prison, high profile cases where they're likely to get murdered themselves if put in a regular prison, and gang members and leaders. This is a very different category from the run of the mill rapists and murderers that you two kept bringing up. This is a class of prisoners that are extra difficult to work with, and can barely be trusted to eat in a cafeteria together without killing each other, much less doing jobs with tools and the like. My expectation would be that if there were any easy profit to be made employing maxsec prisoners in addition to the prisoners already doing $5.8 billion of work already, it would already be being done.
Humans still have different beauty standards from other animals tho, so it's still eye of the beholder.
There are pros and cons to both.
Also is the debate only about in the context of video games?
I like undertale a lot, and it's really nice that it can be run on almost any computer system. There's no barrier to entry like there is for HD graphics FPS games like Apex or the new Halo. But there's a lot more of a spectrum than two genres. Doom wasn't a "pixel art" game, it had as high quality graphics as you could realistically get on the computer systems of the time. I'm not old enough to feel nostalgia for games like that but I can see why some people would.
Another thing I appreciate about pixel art is the room it leaves for artistic interpretation. you can draw fanart of a 8 bit sprite basically however you want bc there weren't any details before.
Universal and inborn appear to be conflated here.
By definition, a scientist would say that miracles can't exist, that we live in a rules-based universe, not that they are unlikely. Any phenomena can be explained because we live in a causally determined universe to the best of our knowledge. Everything has a first cause. We're just still figuring some of them out ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIKxVe4_Xw
I would need to refine it some, but something in regards to your claim that the whitewashing of Biblical characters is indicative of natural-born white racism.
"whites have changed the faces of the people in the Bible and have inserted themselves as the people of the Bible, which is utter ridiculous."
I would be interested in having a debate with you regarding racism in religion.
I ran out of space for 5 and 6. I will cover them in next round.
it's a formal debate convention.
This house believes that
If you could provide a better definition/examples for conventional weapons, I may accept.
EMP grenades were a "conventional weapon" and I would argue that ion cannons were as well, but you do specify that it is against any ground army.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse_grenade
You have convinced me of nothing. Good night.
"I'm a professional writer at multiple publications. Remember when you criticized my writing style earlier? I'm trained to write in an AP Style format."
Based on what you've written here on this website, I find this unlikely. Even as a high school student, I have been able to notice a distinct style in my own writing that carries over between casual writing and academic. Your writing style in this debate does not reflect that of the linked article, however much the content may. You are not obligated to prove anything to me, and my opinion of you may matter little to you, but I would be curious to see any sort of proof that you are a professional writer.
"Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true ."
This came across as gloating to me.
Ultimately, every time you put forward a topic so vapid, vague, or non-controversial that no one accepts it, you fail. The point of DebateArt is not being right or uncontested about things. No one is posting topics like "π is 3.14..." that are obviously true. There is no Debate and there is definitely no Art in this topic. It better serves the purpose of the site to argue for the wrong position, as long as you do it well and learn something along the way.