I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government. Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
Most products in the last 100 years tend to be a new variant of the same old thing. A "smart gun" with an electromechanical actuator could be viewed as a liability more often than not if feature can't be 100% bypassed, totally deactivated. They already make guns with integrated locking mechanisms, as well as external locking mechanisms, and mechanisms that are depressed when your hand is wrapped around the gun. I assume most people aren't too keen on paying extra to put batteries in their gun, or relying on electrolytic capacitors and various points of contact. One of the nice things about firearms is that it's still common practice to mass produce designs that can be relied upon for generations.
I don't think he lives in the US. When you vote, people like to see how the debate impacted you and why you voted the way you did. If you don't provide an explanation, then the mods will probably remove your vote if it gets reported.
"The Black IQ hasn't been rising in the last century. It's been pretty much stagnate, and that's why, at least for now, I do not support things like affirmative action, because it teaches people that they can have colonies of kids, they'll just get government support."
I don't know what to say to that last one. "Affirmative action" is a vague term, and I think its safe to say that traditional black Americana is being displaced in the real world, even if the institutional clout is as great as ever for the time being. Institutional racism in the 21st century is obsolete, and on its last legs anyway.
Is 40% still a glaring percentage that skews average away from the median and mode?
The US has a few pockets of really bad crime, but is overall quite safe. The thrust of that suggests that it would make sense to compare immigrants and their successive generations to the norms, as the majority of Americans do not live in prison, or the racialized ghetto associated with the prison population.
On the random IQ thing, assimilation is an issue
As a population assimilates, the average IQ will rise across decades, and going from 85 to 100 as families gain a foothold and give their children benefits they did not have is not out of the norm. Given there is a significant environmental component to how people approach a problem, in this context I tend towards viewing extreme IQ disparity symptomatically since a significant amount of people comprising a disparate population presumably have intellectual potential should they apply themselves, but are clearly less accustomed to the sorts of problems associated with academic success.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/
Is it racist to suggest that Blacks are better athletes?
Well, if it's because they are "black", then that would obviously be racist. Analogously to the subject of immigrants, a roughly proportionate amount of African Americans are immigrants when compared with the American populous in general. US crime statistics are still racially biased, so you ended up lumping old American families in with new American families. The commentary wasn't particularly useful in giving the reader an inciteful reflection of reality. Whatever nuance you expect of the reader isn't really common knowledge, and it would have been helpful if you took ten minutes to write something out that makes sense.
Yitz messed up on the incarceration statistic, saying over 40% of the black population is encarcerated, when the source says that 40% of the prison population is black. 40 Percent of 2.5 million inmates would only be 1,000,000 people, a small fraction of the black population, which numbers in the tens of millions.
The Republican party is not in fact, diabolically opposed to utilizing government for improving healthcare accessibility and accountability. Many of them just have a different approach. Republicans overall seem to have a stricter adherence to federalism at this time, and they tend to promote enabling individuals and families to partake in a regulated free market (with a safety net), while a significant amount of democrats tend to promote forms of a (bipartisan) public option, single payer (partisan) etc...
Is this intended for the American south? Otherwise, assuming you would stick to facts and eventually drop the racism, you can't really call "white" as an ethnic group in general like you can with blacks who share a relatively common history.
"Ok well just because it's subjective doesn't mean we cannot examine the morality to see whether or not it should be taken as a moral compass."
-PinkFreud
Wouldn't a compass ordinarily have an objective reference?
That's understandable. I'll give BMD a chance first. I'll think about it, and check if I have time. Since its Con, there shouldn't be too much research involved for me to provide a decent challenge to your arguments.
"If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking? "
I want someone like BMD to have the first shot over myself since I don't really watch the show and my history only goes back a couple of weeks. I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for. It doesn't seem reasonable for me to accept on condition of finding out what I am accepting.
Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
If the debate is supposed to be centered around this
"Steven Crowder by associating with racists and white supremacists has endorsed those views"
Then some random joke should only be used as supporting evidence. I would think that Omar can be held to the burden to prove that A) Steven Crowder is associating with racists, and B) that the association with those racists constitutes an endorsement of racist views.
Omar : "I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location. "
I'm not referring to anything in particular, but I would assume that someone is referring to an underlying biological distinction as being the source of shared social qualities, if that is how race is constructed.
Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned or implied as underlying the physical or social qualities, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.
Racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
The above definition indicates that if you discriminate against someone, and they happen to be of a different race, that you are therefore discriminating on the basis of a race. An invalid definition is not exactly confidence inspiring.
According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. My "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" philosophy to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, and ultimately imploding on its own while leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro demonstrates instinctively as if to justify themselves as a lesser of evil , even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
Thank you for the critique. According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. Essentially, my "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" position to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, allowing the argument to run its course naturally, ultimately implode on its own failings, leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro position you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro does instinctively to justify themselves as a lesser of evil, even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
To clarify, I don't care if my internet account wins or loses. I don't blame you for the forfeited round. I did fail to post in time, and I should have accounted for having a properly working device at the time I wanted to post. If you would like to discuss the ethics of your own choice, I would be fine with doing so over private message. I'm not accusing you of anything here in the comment section though.
Its not really about me. Its just a wasted debate now because its incomplete. I mean my position might still be weighted favorably or not, but the argument should have been added to round 4, and you opted out of final statements. Plus, I actually addressed some serious concerns that should have been noted just because of the nature of the topic.
I should not have to waste my time answering to disrespectful or dishonest misrepresentations. For one example being assumed under false pretense, I did not concede anything by saying "I would be inclined" and did not bring up any gun bans to begin with.
"Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives."
This is an example of two people wielding guns, who both decided up till a point in time, not to hurt one another. In real life, the mentality that the gun saves would need to be trained out of people. Situational awareness is paramount, and being prepared is crucial. You don’t know exactly how you will react under stress.
"My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do; I assume he concedes this point."
This is false, as I clearly did not ignore the statistics. It is unwarranted for me to validate or invalidate the statistics, and I advocate among other things not to “stoop to the level”, as explained in round one, which was disregarded by you up till round as was asserted “My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns.” By simply not stooping to their level, it is possible for the debater to stand testament to how shallow the “pro-gun” position is, having resorted to a reflection to the sycophantic nonsense displayed by others. I am not “anti-gun”, and in taking the “pro-gun” stance it must be disappointing not to have such an easy “opponent” to banter with. “We cannot argue for the consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.” - Snoopy
Once we have agreed to the establishment in round one, then we can start to have a meaningful conversation.
"I am talking about the risk in those instances where people want to protect themselves. Not the overall scheme of the likelihood of it happening."
I recall a story of someone who had a break in around 2 or 3 AM. It was dark, and they would normally be armed. They were home with their wife, and heard the break in, and footsteps coming down the hall. They carried regularly and normally relied on a firearm for protection, but at this time, it was unfortunately in another room and inaccessible. As the intruder neared, their heart racing the husband did the only thing he could to protect his wife, and took them on with their bare hands, rendering them unconscious. It was the neighbor coming home from their own bachelorette party. They then learned to have a proactive self defense strategy, got an alarm system, kept their phone charged, got a dog.
"Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?"
Suicide is intentional self-inflicted homicide.
The government needs to justify the imposition. Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
"You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad."
In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
Aren't you inclined towards lliberty?
Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government. Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
I meant to tag him, not you, but it didn't work properly so I didn't tag anyone. Then you replied to me.
He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
Property rights are at stake from a UK style confiscation.
Most products in the last 100 years tend to be a new variant of the same old thing. A "smart gun" with an electromechanical actuator could be viewed as a liability more often than not if feature can't be 100% bypassed, totally deactivated. They already make guns with integrated locking mechanisms, as well as external locking mechanisms, and mechanisms that are depressed when your hand is wrapped around the gun. I assume most people aren't too keen on paying extra to put batteries in their gun, or relying on electrolytic capacitors and various points of contact. One of the nice things about firearms is that it's still common practice to mass produce designs that can be relied upon for generations.
The NRA does not produce firearms.
You're welcome. I appreciate that.
I don't think he lives in the US. When you vote, people like to see how the debate impacted you and why you voted the way you did. If you don't provide an explanation, then the mods will probably remove your vote if it gets reported.
Aren't you going to say something?
What exactly do you want to debate? I'm not sure how we would go about otherwise, unless its just free style.
"The Black IQ hasn't been rising in the last century. It's been pretty much stagnate, and that's why, at least for now, I do not support things like affirmative action, because it teaches people that they can have colonies of kids, they'll just get government support."
I don't know what to say to that last one. "Affirmative action" is a vague term, and I think its safe to say that traditional black Americana is being displaced in the real world, even if the institutional clout is as great as ever for the time being. Institutional racism in the 21st century is obsolete, and on its last legs anyway.
Is 40% still a glaring percentage that skews average away from the median and mode?
The US has a few pockets of really bad crime, but is overall quite safe. The thrust of that suggests that it would make sense to compare immigrants and their successive generations to the norms, as the majority of Americans do not live in prison, or the racialized ghetto associated with the prison population.
On the random IQ thing, assimilation is an issue
As a population assimilates, the average IQ will rise across decades, and going from 85 to 100 as families gain a foothold and give their children benefits they did not have is not out of the norm. Given there is a significant environmental component to how people approach a problem, in this context I tend towards viewing extreme IQ disparity symptomatically since a significant amount of people comprising a disparate population presumably have intellectual potential should they apply themselves, but are clearly less accustomed to the sorts of problems associated with academic success.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/
Is it racist to suggest that Blacks are better athletes?
Well, if it's because they are "black", then that would obviously be racist. Analogously to the subject of immigrants, a roughly proportionate amount of African Americans are immigrants when compared with the American populous in general. US crime statistics are still racially biased, so you ended up lumping old American families in with new American families. The commentary wasn't particularly useful in giving the reader an inciteful reflection of reality. Whatever nuance you expect of the reader isn't really common knowledge, and it would have been helpful if you took ten minutes to write something out that makes sense.
Yitz messed up on the incarceration statistic, saying over 40% of the black population is encarcerated, when the source says that 40% of the prison population is black. 40 Percent of 2.5 million inmates would only be 1,000,000 people, a small fraction of the black population, which numbers in the tens of millions.
The Republican party is not in fact, diabolically opposed to utilizing government for improving healthcare accessibility and accountability. Many of them just have a different approach. Republicans overall seem to have a stricter adherence to federalism at this time, and they tend to promote enabling individuals and families to partake in a regulated free market (with a safety net), while a significant amount of democrats tend to promote forms of a (bipartisan) public option, single payer (partisan) etc...
Fixed
Yes
Yeah, you have a long character count for only having one day.
Is this intended for the American south? Otherwise, assuming you would stick to facts and eventually drop the racism, you can't really call "white" as an ethnic group in general like you can with blacks who share a relatively common history.
Wylted actually did a pretty nice job laying out the framework underlying their reasoning for a total gun ban.
...and on the seventh source, he rested
No, I wasn't implying that morality is objective with that question. No, I'm not playing word games.
Putting aside the flawed idea that the bible should interpreted to your subjective whims, Christianity is not about getting outcomes we like.
"Ok well just because it's subjective doesn't mean we cannot examine the morality to see whether or not it should be taken as a moral compass."
-PinkFreud
Wouldn't a compass ordinarily have an objective reference?
"Many including myself don't believe it's objective since in our opinions God doesn't exist. "
Then there would be no reason to entertain "God's Version", and your compass points towards the Black Pearl.
You claim to want to talk about the bible. If morality is objective, then you can't assume its subjective...seems intellectually dishonest.
I'm working too much this week, can't commit to a debate right now
That's understandable. I'll give BMD a chance first. I'll think about it, and check if I have time. Since its Con, there shouldn't be too much research involved for me to provide a decent challenge to your arguments.
"If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking? "
I want someone like BMD to have the first shot over myself since I don't really watch the show and my history only goes back a couple of weeks. I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for. It doesn't seem reasonable for me to accept on condition of finding out what I am accepting.
Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
If the debate is supposed to be centered around this
"Steven Crowder by associating with racists and white supremacists has endorsed those views"
Then some random joke should only be used as supporting evidence. I would think that Omar can be held to the burden to prove that A) Steven Crowder is associating with racists, and B) that the association with those racists constitutes an endorsement of racist views.
Omar : "I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location. "
I'm not referring to anything in particular, but I would assume that someone is referring to an underlying biological distinction as being the source of shared social qualities, if that is how race is constructed.
Mexicans are all sorts of colors, like Americans are
Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned or implied as underlying the physical or social qualities, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.
I would not accept that Mexican is meant as a race without proof. Mexico is a country, and not a country predicated on a racial construct.
Racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
The above definition indicates that if you discriminate against someone, and they happen to be of a different race, that you are therefore discriminating on the basis of a race. An invalid definition is not exactly confidence inspiring.
Eh, you didn't explain how the Pro's "main point" lends anything in favor or against Pro-Gun, and its not implied.
This is literally all you wrote: "My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant"
I do appreciate the critique as it pertains to my presentation though.
Edited
According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. My "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" philosophy to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, and ultimately imploding on its own while leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro demonstrates instinctively as if to justify themselves as a lesser of evil , even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
Thank you for the critique. According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. Essentially, my "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" position to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, allowing the argument to run its course naturally, ultimately implode on its own failings, leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro position you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro does instinctively to justify themselves as a lesser of evil, even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
Oh, I don't much care about the points.
I tried to post an argument and closing statement up in round five but it still failed. Thank You for your time
To clarify, I don't care if my internet account wins or loses. I don't blame you for the forfeited round. I did fail to post in time, and I should have accounted for having a properly working device at the time I wanted to post. If you would like to discuss the ethics of your own choice, I would be fine with doing so over private message. I'm not accusing you of anything here in the comment section though.
Its not really about me. Its just a wasted debate now because its incomplete. I mean my position might still be weighted favorably or not, but the argument should have been added to round 4, and you opted out of final statements. Plus, I actually addressed some serious concerns that should have been noted just because of the nature of the topic.
Argument Round 4, in Comments 21 through 19. Please Post up in single quote
I should not have to waste my time answering to disrespectful or dishonest misrepresentations. For one example being assumed under false pretense, I did not concede anything by saying "I would be inclined" and did not bring up any gun bans to begin with.
"Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives."
This is an example of two people wielding guns, who both decided up till a point in time, not to hurt one another. In real life, the mentality that the gun saves would need to be trained out of people. Situational awareness is paramount, and being prepared is crucial. You don’t know exactly how you will react under stress.
"My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do; I assume he concedes this point."
This is false, as I clearly did not ignore the statistics. It is unwarranted for me to validate or invalidate the statistics, and I advocate among other things not to “stoop to the level”, as explained in round one, which was disregarded by you up till round as was asserted “My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns.” By simply not stooping to their level, it is possible for the debater to stand testament to how shallow the “pro-gun” position is, having resorted to a reflection to the sycophantic nonsense displayed by others. I am not “anti-gun”, and in taking the “pro-gun” stance it must be disappointing not to have such an easy “opponent” to banter with. “We cannot argue for the consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.” - Snoopy
Once we have agreed to the establishment in round one, then we can start to have a meaningful conversation.
"I am talking about the risk in those instances where people want to protect themselves. Not the overall scheme of the likelihood of it happening."
I recall a story of someone who had a break in around 2 or 3 AM. It was dark, and they would normally be armed. They were home with their wife, and heard the break in, and footsteps coming down the hall. They carried regularly and normally relied on a firearm for protection, but at this time, it was unfortunately in another room and inaccessible. As the intruder neared, their heart racing the husband did the only thing he could to protect his wife, and took them on with their bare hands, rendering them unconscious. It was the neighbor coming home from their own bachelorette party. They then learned to have a proactive self defense strategy, got an alarm system, kept their phone charged, got a dog.
Darn, failed to post