"Maybe certain groups have bad cultures, economic statuses, etc because their IQs are low."
All scientists agree that IQ is determined by economic status and culture, not the other way around.
"Also, are you saying black culture is bad?"
Yes, I am.
"I highly doubt that a steam engine or a printing press (via white) is more important than a traffic light or the first open-heart surgery (via black)"
I'm sorry to break it to you, but the steam engine and the printing press are much, MUCH more important than the traffic light and heart surgery.
"1. Are mass shootings against innocent people considered to be an unlawful use of violence & intimidation?
2. If white-American males are mass murdering their fellow countrymen of the same nation, isn't that considered to be domestic terrorism??"
I love how you just dropped the entire part of the definition that said domestic terrorism must be for political gain and just decided to call all violence domestic terrorism.
I just want to point out that this difference in IQ is a result of different upbringing, culture, and economic status, not genetics. If it was genetics, there would be no great black scientists and politicians like Barack Obama, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Frederick Douglas, and thousands of others.
Mairj23: Not all white males are domestic terrorists
Also Mairj23: White males have a mental imbalance that causes them to be more violent and they should be labeled as domestic terrorists
Giving poor people higher salaries won't do anything, it will just cause inflation. In order for the salary/price ration to actually increase, the amount of wealth in a country has to increase. A higher salary won't equal more wealth if all the prices go up as well. It would be extremely unprofitable for companies to be forced to increase their salaries, and so they will have to raise prices as well. Giving people more money will not cause a boost in demand if all the prices increase as well.
Sure, you can't make profit without customers. But most customers don't work jobs that are below minimum wage, so no minimum wage won't affect them. Also, supply is important as well, the key is to find a golden ration between supply and demand.
There are plenty of liberal people on here as well (TheRealNihilist, PinkFreud, Ramshutu, etc). It just depends on who you interact with.
What are some of those "extremely basic misconceptions" about the minimum wage? I went on that discussion, and actually argued against the minimum wage, and I didn't see any misconceptions.
Most debates on this website are about God and abortion, actually. It's strange that we argue the same things over and over instead of focusing on interesting topics such as this one.
I'm extremely sorry for forfeiting that round. You see, I live in Asia while most DebateArt users live in the US, so the time zones are very different.
That's the definition I used. You must have misunderstood my comment. I pointed out that intent matters as well, and that is a flaw of consequentialistm since it does not care about intent.
I have nothing against you either. We are just discussing a topic. But if you want to save this discussion for the debate, I will do that. But before our conversation ends, I would like to say just one thing:
When people say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", it really pisses me off. A theory in science is not a random guess (that would be a hypothesis). A theory in science is higher than a fact, because a theory explains why facts are true or false. For example: the theory of gravity. It's a fact that objects with a density higher than air fall when we let go of them, and the theory of gravity explains why that happens. Similarly, it's a fact that animals have random mutations which give them a higher chance of survival, but evolution itself explains why that happens. If you say that evolution is "just a theory", are you saying that gravity is "just a theory" as well?
I guess I'm a consequentialist then. Intent doesn't matter, if someone intends to commit a criminal action, he is not commiting a crime. Crimes are planning, attempting, or commiting criminal actions.
"We are not animals."
Actually, we are. Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.
"Survival of the fittest and natural selection are not in play."
Actually, they are. Evolution is a proven scientific fact.
"But the moral system God created is."
You have not proved that such a moral system exists, you have not proved that God exists, and you have not proved that God is responsible for that moral system. So please, continue.
So far, your argument has been that love and good behaviour result in a longer and happier life. However, this does not prove that morality is objective and it does not prove that morality has been created by God.
Did I ever mention anything about why? Maybe I'm wrong, but I define intent as what you wanted to achieve, not why you wanted to achieve something. For example, if a criminal intends to rob a bank, the robbery is something he wants to achieve. It tells us nothing about why he wanted to achieve it.
I. They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
I don't know lol. I think we should judge people both by their intentions and their consequences, but I also think that consequences are more important, since consequences are what affect the world.
That's not what I said. Good intentions AND good results are what justifies something. If you tried to steal from North Korea but ended up destroying Amazon's website (idk just a comparison), that would be good intentions but bad results. If you tried to steal from North Korea and actually did it, that would be good intentions and good results. So there is a difference, both intention and outcome matter.
If you steal from North Korea or some criminal syndicate, I wouldn't be against that. However, whether what you do is moral or not depends on your goals. If your goal is just to get rich, I wouldn't call that very moral, but if your goal is to hurt the bad guys, there's nothing bad about that.
His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
I think Ramshutu summed this up best with his quote: "Everyone in reading this debate is now dumber for having read to it." Pro's arguments were one of the worst I have ever seen, and he forfeited when he saw that his crap was being obliterated.
I am aware of who Ben Shapiro is and I disagree with many of his viewpoints. On the Internet, he has become a famous meme by being a great debater, so that's why I chose him as my profile picture. I also find that picture of him with laser eyes obliterating his opponents quite funny.
Tap water is processed toilet water. Most drug particles in toilet water are removed, but a few pass the processing and get into tap water. Or did you never know that before?
Technically, you could define it as flat, since there is no curvature. But can a flat object have round objects (Earth) inside it? I don't think so. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that we don't know the shape of the universe, but it is definetely not two-dimensional.
I will accept if you define "creator". Because as I see it, a creator is a single YouTuber or a few YouTubers who make their own videos, while T-Series is a large company which uploads music videos made by other artists.
It's both: he does not care about others and he hates losing debates. Most people do not like to lose, so they will cling on to their absurd beliefs even when they understand those beliefs are pointless, instead of admitting that they lost. Mairj23 is one of those many people.
"This is a debate, not a school"
Oof.
"Maybe certain groups have bad cultures, economic statuses, etc because their IQs are low."
All scientists agree that IQ is determined by economic status and culture, not the other way around.
"Also, are you saying black culture is bad?"
Yes, I am.
"I highly doubt that a steam engine or a printing press (via white) is more important than a traffic light or the first open-heart surgery (via black)"
I'm sorry to break it to you, but the steam engine and the printing press are much, MUCH more important than the traffic light and heart surgery.
I thought you believed that something can't come from nothing? So how can life be created from nothing then?
"Class Dismissed"
I'm going to give PRO the conduct point becaue you made that statement.
"1. Are mass shootings against innocent people considered to be an unlawful use of violence & intimidation?
2. If white-American males are mass murdering their fellow countrymen of the same nation, isn't that considered to be domestic terrorism??"
I love how you just dropped the entire part of the definition that said domestic terrorism must be for political gain and just decided to call all violence domestic terrorism.
You should explain your position more in the next round. In the future, make sure to explain your position in the debate description.
Good job doctor. You have given poor mairj23 a prostate exam with your arguments.
I just want to point out that this difference in IQ is a result of different upbringing, culture, and economic status, not genetics. If it was genetics, there would be no great black scientists and politicians like Barack Obama, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Frederick Douglas, and thousands of others.
Mairj23: Not all white males are domestic terrorists
Also Mairj23: White males have a mental imbalance that causes them to be more violent and they should be labeled as domestic terrorists
Giving poor people higher salaries won't do anything, it will just cause inflation. In order for the salary/price ration to actually increase, the amount of wealth in a country has to increase. A higher salary won't equal more wealth if all the prices go up as well. It would be extremely unprofitable for companies to be forced to increase their salaries, and so they will have to raise prices as well. Giving people more money will not cause a boost in demand if all the prices increase as well.
I'm also against subsidizing corporations, but a minimum wage is not related to that.
If companies are forced to raise salaries, they will raise prices to keep the same profit margin. This makes any minimum wage pointless.
Sure, you can't make profit without customers. But most customers don't work jobs that are below minimum wage, so no minimum wage won't affect them. Also, supply is important as well, the key is to find a golden ration between supply and demand.
There are plenty of liberal people on here as well (TheRealNihilist, PinkFreud, Ramshutu, etc). It just depends on who you interact with.
What are some of those "extremely basic misconceptions" about the minimum wage? I went on that discussion, and actually argued against the minimum wage, and I didn't see any misconceptions.
Quite a lot of people on this website are liberal and atheist, actually. I don't know where you got that stat about conservative theists from.
Ah shit, here we go again...
Nevermind then.
Btw, this is not really related, but do you know the YouTuber "DrShaym"?
The way you said that makes it sound like there's an infestation of liberal atheists on this website.
Goodbye RM, you were too pure for this website...
Most debates on this website are about God and abortion, actually. It's strange that we argue the same things over and over instead of focusing on interesting topics such as this one.
I'm extremely sorry for forfeiting that round. You see, I live in Asia while most DebateArt users live in the US, so the time zones are very different.
That's the definition I used. You must have misunderstood my comment. I pointed out that intent matters as well, and that is a flaw of consequentialistm since it does not care about intent.
Consequentialism - Intent matters as well. Intending to do a bad thing is not the same as not intending to do a bad thing.
Non-Consequentialism (whatever they're called) - There is no way to find out someone's intent.
You know what, I don't know either. Each side's argument has flaws.
Would you consider yourself a consequentialist as well?
I have nothing against you either. We are just discussing a topic. But if you want to save this discussion for the debate, I will do that. But before our conversation ends, I would like to say just one thing:
When people say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", it really pisses me off. A theory in science is not a random guess (that would be a hypothesis). A theory in science is higher than a fact, because a theory explains why facts are true or false. For example: the theory of gravity. It's a fact that objects with a density higher than air fall when we let go of them, and the theory of gravity explains why that happens. Similarly, it's a fact that animals have random mutations which give them a higher chance of survival, but evolution itself explains why that happens. If you say that evolution is "just a theory", are you saying that gravity is "just a theory" as well?
I guess I'm a consequentialist then. Intent doesn't matter, if someone intends to commit a criminal action, he is not commiting a crime. Crimes are planning, attempting, or commiting criminal actions.
I think that there is a big difference between being skeptical about the opinions of scientists and actually believing the opinions of scientists.
"We are not animals."
Actually, we are. Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.
"Survival of the fittest and natural selection are not in play."
Actually, they are. Evolution is a proven scientific fact.
"But the moral system God created is."
You have not proved that such a moral system exists, you have not proved that God exists, and you have not proved that God is responsible for that moral system. So please, continue.
So far, your argument has been that love and good behaviour result in a longer and happier life. However, this does not prove that morality is objective and it does not prove that morality has been created by God.
>That doesn't tell you why they did it.
Did I ever mention anything about why? Maybe I'm wrong, but I define intent as what you wanted to achieve, not why you wanted to achieve something. For example, if a criminal intends to rob a bank, the robbery is something he wants to achieve. It tells us nothing about why he wanted to achieve it.
You can know someone's intentions if:
I. They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
II. They admit their intentions.
I don't know lol. I think we should judge people both by their intentions and their consequences, but I also think that consequences are more important, since consequences are what affect the world.
What historical documents are you basing this on?
I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.
True. We cannot know someone's intentions 100%, so it's more rational to judge people by the outcomes of their actions.
That's not what I said. Good intentions AND good results are what justifies something. If you tried to steal from North Korea but ended up destroying Amazon's website (idk just a comparison), that would be good intentions but bad results. If you tried to steal from North Korea and actually did it, that would be good intentions and good results. So there is a difference, both intention and outcome matter.
If you steal from North Korea or some criminal syndicate, I wouldn't be against that. However, whether what you do is moral or not depends on your goals. If your goal is just to get rich, I wouldn't call that very moral, but if your goal is to hurt the bad guys, there's nothing bad about that.
His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
I have no idea how you can consider stealing 6 figures a year "ethical".
I think Ramshutu summed this up best with his quote: "Everyone in reading this debate is now dumber for having read to it." Pro's arguments were one of the worst I have ever seen, and he forfeited when he saw that his crap was being obliterated.
I am aware of who Ben Shapiro is and I disagree with many of his viewpoints. On the Internet, he has become a famous meme by being a great debater, so that's why I chose him as my profile picture. I also find that picture of him with laser eyes obliterating his opponents quite funny.
True. But also, when someone says "flat", people imagine something completely flat like a sheet of paper.
Tap water is processed toilet water. Most drug particles in toilet water are removed, but a few pass the processing and get into tap water. Or did you never know that before?
Technically, you could define it as flat, since there is no curvature. But can a flat object have round objects (Earth) inside it? I don't think so. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that we don't know the shape of the universe, but it is definetely not two-dimensional.
I will accept if you define "creator". Because as I see it, a creator is a single YouTuber or a few YouTubers who make their own videos, while T-Series is a large company which uploads music videos made by other artists.
It's so ironic that the 100th debate on a website that aims to promote serious discussion is "The Universe is Flat".
Bill Cosby is a convicted rapist and sex offender.
It's both: he does not care about others and he hates losing debates. Most people do not like to lose, so they will cling on to their absurd beliefs even when they understand those beliefs are pointless, instead of admitting that they lost. Mairj23 is one of those many people.