sorry about introducing so many new arguments, I realize I've been researching too many historical ideas and not enough current issues. Hope it's okay.
thank you for the vote and spotting the crucial human rights argument! I had difficulty making my mind up whether to keep things practical (why we're currently rejecting India) or keeping things more theoretical (why China is admittedly bad and maybe there's a more objective example of a good country than US/Britain).
in hindsight, it might've been a bad idea to let the guy who beat me twice and was the only one to defeat Oromagi accept this debate. Though I have never seen you argue anything remotely related to health care, so it might be interesting to see how you handle a somewhat scientific related debate.
By the way... how good are you at debating universal health care policy? If you want, we can go for a friendly health care debate after this as this one’s pretty tense and filled with a lot of emotion.
I never expected you to be good at health care debates but here you are.
did you read the description and the sources offered? "Basic visual effects" doesn't mean "no watching at all". Your vote seemed to give the impression you didn't read that we were talking about the best of the best rather than whichever one should be kept.
POL.H4's citation link is broken. Take a look at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing if you need to see the actual supreme court decision. [Hereby called POL.H5]
please take a look at my newest policy debate on this same topic. There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.
pretty sure 99% of countries are now under scrutiny of "systemic racism". While I partially agree that Sowell may wipe out about 75% of my sources and arguments, if there are no clear policies, I think other countries should be meeting the standards for Systemic Justice. For example, I think the limited evidence on Japan Systemic Racism highlights that it's far weaker and acceptable than US's ridiculous amount of research.
In my opinion, coals arguments are simpler too reductive overall. Whiteflame could provide a case more succinct and powerful than mine. While it’s fallacious to assume that the bad outcomes automatically mean discrimination, that doesn’t mean all the studies are using wrong terminology. (Or failing to prove cause and effect)
When I am “Undefeatable “ I do not care about my personal experiences or emotions, for the most part. I’d gladly be a hypocritical racist if it gained me this much power (read my other debates) and didn’t inflict violence. Remember that I am utilitarian at heart. I merely gather research together and look at the evidence. There are almost no books other than Sowell that disprove systemic racism.
I have. But the evidence is overwhelming. It’s definitely harder to prove than age of earth or evolution, but I think it’s easier to prove than abortion or even gay marriage.
Keep in mind there was that one young age expert who claimed to have 20 arguments disproving old earth but they were each shot down convincingly
ACLU has a few good steps forwards making progress (https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/ending-systemic-racism-requires-ensuring-systemic-equality/). Fair housing, fair debt, and other policies ensure that we shouldn’t have any of the core problems in the heart of government. There’s also seldiora’s solution proposed of educating policemen and keeping them up to date on unconscious racism. Significantly reducing racism would definitely help.
experts seem to recommend " improved data systems, increased regulatory vigilance, and new initiatives to appropriately train medical professionals and recruit more providers from disadvantaged minority backgrounds." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194634/)
that's true, but I'm limiting my focus to health problems. My overall argument is too big and clunky to focus on. It's the same debate as before, I just didn't want to be wordy and say "systemic racism not only exists, but it exists in the health care sector specifically". [That's what I'm trying to argue]
nice win. I bet you could also disprove evolution if you really wanted to; I feel like the weak link between fossils and differentiation of micro/macro bear remarkable resemblance to "you can't use results to prove the past/present" [and individual vs systemic]. Not to mention alternate explanations with Noah flood is probably really problematic lol.
**Hubble's Law**: Pro claims that Galaxies moving far proves the expansion, and therefore the Big Bang [Missing a connection!]
> CON: "Has it *always* been expanding?" -- Lemaitre only proposed until 1931
--> COUNTER: Hubble observed in 1929, the earliest confirmation [Mitigate]
> CLARIFY: Big Bang wasn't "meaningfully proposed until AFTER the discovery of an expanding universe"
--> SOLIDIFY: Georges 1927 solved general relativity to predict Hubble's law, which is from the singularity
> CRYSTALLIZE: Big Bang not used to predict expansion, especially with Lemaitre timeline
I am not sure whose argument to buy here. Both kind of talk over each other and Pro has a lot of mitigation of Con's logical arguments work well enough to do okay despite Con's crystallize, but I'm generally confused due to round 1 failure to establish the crucial connection. Pro's argument is under a lot of problems here. I would say Con is actually arguably slightly winning.
**Universe Temperature**: Prove uniform temperature distribution [Missing a connection!]
**CMBr**: Argues that 1958, 1965 observed the afterglow of radiation to prove Big Bang
--> COUNTER: Prediction was observed already (repeated from before)
> CON: Horizon Problem raised (CMB shouldn't be isotropic)
> CON: Flatness problem (requirement for fine-tuning)
--> COUNTER: Surface only "appears" flat; regions could be in contact prior to inflation
> REBUT: CMB data didn't support the predictions
> SUPPORT: Inflation made no new predictions (a flexible framework), it is unfalsifiable, reliant on assumptions (doesn't explain big bang)
--> SUPPORT: There are six generic predictions made, with most data assisted by evidence, and solves problem of big bang model.
> CRYSTALLIZE: The uniform temperature still makes Big Bang impossible without cosmic inflation
> FINALIZE: No citation for predictions, neither examples in inflation [weak!], and still unfalsifiable
This argument is ambiguous and hard to decide, just as I decided before. While Con has a lot of flaws within Univ. Temp. and CMBR, Pro has a lot of empirical evidence. I'd argue that it is leaning pro at best.
As pro won one argument but lost the other one, I maintain that this debate is... very pretty much a tie. It's leaning Con in terms of doubt, but Pro bypasses a lot of Con's arguments because he has many logical explanations for the CMBr + Universe temperature.
More explanation would definitely help. I actually know next to nothing about evidence for and against the big Bang, despite my scientific background. So it's very hard to weigh arguments and even harder to judge if Pro developed enough proof and explanation to prove it.
Nicely done. I was inclined to also take con (in a different debate) due to not seeing the connection in premise, but pro tends to make a ton of very long dense arguments that are difficult to reduce logically.
just curious, you disagree with the premise right? I'm not 100% clear how you defeated Redlining and immigration, but voters somehow thought you won on that aspect as well.
Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge.
ah, damn. I focused too generally and forgot about the actual lives lost. You're right about that. Giving better numbers would've definitely helped, and I got lost in refuting Con's argument rather than going further in the first round.
to be fair, this was not a direct challenge, but a trickier version of my last debate in case someone like Benjamin wanted to accept.
I am not as malicious as I seem -- think of me as a trickster.
I've never seen someone debate like this before. It's unusual to see this much agreement from an opposing side.
I've been too busy these days, care to call for a tie?
No, it's still systemically racist against blacks. Giving out drugs is an accepted right in the US, however controversial it is.
weird argument. Here's the sources.
POL.H7.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ \
OCC4.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/september/disappointing-facts-about-black-white-wage-gap/
EDU1. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations
EDU5. aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic
EDU6. racismreview.com/blog/2011/07/12/racism-k-12/
SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
sorry about introducing so many new arguments, I realize I've been researching too many historical ideas and not enough current issues. Hope it's okay.
thank you for the vote and spotting the crucial human rights argument! I had difficulty making my mind up whether to keep things practical (why we're currently rejecting India) or keeping things more theoretical (why China is admittedly bad and maybe there's a more objective example of a good country than US/Britain).
Any other tips?
in hindsight, it might've been a bad idea to let the guy who beat me twice and was the only one to defeat Oromagi accept this debate. Though I have never seen you argue anything remotely related to health care, so it might be interesting to see how you handle a somewhat scientific related debate.
By the way... how good are you at debating universal health care policy? If you want, we can go for a friendly health care debate after this as this one’s pretty tense and filled with a lot of emotion.
I never expected you to be good at health care debates but here you are.
Sources: PSY1. drive.google.com/file/d/1k7EFYDIoJrc4NroagMLwRfsutlHODkCf/view?usp=sharing
HC1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4580597/
HC2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20983
HC3. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319180809
HC4.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/trans/EveryPlaceCounts/1_Highway%20to%20Inequity.pdf
HC5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220347/
HC6. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.116.004416
HC7. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000936
HC8.science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/447.abstract
HC9. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/351
HC10.pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf
HC11. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/
HC12. academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2019nhpc/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/29586
HC13. news.mit.edu/2020/letter-systemic-racism-mit-0701
HC14. v.gd/encyclo
the first one.
did you read the description and the sources offered? "Basic visual effects" doesn't mean "no watching at all". Your vote seemed to give the impression you didn't read that we were talking about the best of the best rather than whichever one should be kept.
POL.H4's citation link is broken. Take a look at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing if you need to see the actual supreme court decision. [Hereby called POL.H5]
You got it. The official decision downloaded from LexisNexis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3037-thbt-the-us-has-discriminatory-political-policies-regarding-minorities
please take a look at my newest policy debate on this same topic. There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.
Sources:
POL1. https://v.gd/racialformation
POL.H1. https://v.gd/redlining
POL.H2. huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Americas-Homeownership-Gap.pdf
POL.H3. https://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/#epi-toc-3
POL.H4. https://www.demos.org/blog/why-disparate-impact-claims-are-essential-racial-justice
POL.I1. https://v.gd/immigrationracism
POL.I2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953614001026
POL.V1.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/473003/systematic-inequality-american-democracy/
POL.V2 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/
OV1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/
OV2. https://v.gd/SystemicJimCrow
OCC1. https://v.gd/journalhealthracism
SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
pretty sure 99% of countries are now under scrutiny of "systemic racism". While I partially agree that Sowell may wipe out about 75% of my sources and arguments, if there are no clear policies, I think other countries should be meeting the standards for Systemic Justice. For example, I think the limited evidence on Japan Systemic Racism highlights that it's far weaker and acceptable than US's ridiculous amount of research.
In my opinion, coals arguments are simpler too reductive overall. Whiteflame could provide a case more succinct and powerful than mine. While it’s fallacious to assume that the bad outcomes automatically mean discrimination, that doesn’t mean all the studies are using wrong terminology. (Or failing to prove cause and effect)
When I am “Undefeatable “ I do not care about my personal experiences or emotions, for the most part. I’d gladly be a hypocritical racist if it gained me this much power (read my other debates) and didn’t inflict violence. Remember that I am utilitarian at heart. I merely gather research together and look at the evidence. There are almost no books other than Sowell that disprove systemic racism.
I have. But the evidence is overwhelming. It’s definitely harder to prove than age of earth or evolution, but I think it’s easier to prove than abortion or even gay marriage.
Keep in mind there was that one young age expert who claimed to have 20 arguments disproving old earth but they were each shot down convincingly
ACLU has a few good steps forwards making progress (https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/ending-systemic-racism-requires-ensuring-systemic-equality/). Fair housing, fair debt, and other policies ensure that we shouldn’t have any of the core problems in the heart of government. There’s also seldiora’s solution proposed of educating policemen and keeping them up to date on unconscious racism. Significantly reducing racism would definitely help.
Oh no... I suspect I made a terrible mistake.
experts seem to recommend " improved data systems, increased regulatory vigilance, and new initiatives to appropriately train medical professionals and recruit more providers from disadvantaged minority backgrounds." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194634/)
that's true, but I'm limiting my focus to health problems. My overall argument is too big and clunky to focus on. It's the same debate as before, I just didn't want to be wordy and say "systemic racism not only exists, but it exists in the health care sector specifically". [That's what I'm trying to argue]
I wanted to make it 1500's but realized circumnavigation was after that, so 1800/1900 wouldn't matter in my opinion.
I cannot use NASA. What more could you ask for?
nice win. I bet you could also disprove evolution if you really wanted to; I feel like the weak link between fossils and differentiation of micro/macro bear remarkable resemblance to "you can't use results to prove the past/present" [and individual vs systemic]. Not to mention alternate explanations with Noah flood is probably really problematic lol.
are we assuming Aliens exist?
This should be easier to fight than my now-16-page-paper on the topic. Care to take a jab?
do you think I did better than my previous time, at least?
Revote (clearer):
**Hubble's Law**: Pro claims that Galaxies moving far proves the expansion, and therefore the Big Bang [Missing a connection!]
> CON: "Has it *always* been expanding?" -- Lemaitre only proposed until 1931
--> COUNTER: Hubble observed in 1929, the earliest confirmation [Mitigate]
> CLARIFY: Big Bang wasn't "meaningfully proposed until AFTER the discovery of an expanding universe"
--> SOLIDIFY: Georges 1927 solved general relativity to predict Hubble's law, which is from the singularity
> CRYSTALLIZE: Big Bang not used to predict expansion, especially with Lemaitre timeline
I am not sure whose argument to buy here. Both kind of talk over each other and Pro has a lot of mitigation of Con's logical arguments work well enough to do okay despite Con's crystallize, but I'm generally confused due to round 1 failure to establish the crucial connection. Pro's argument is under a lot of problems here. I would say Con is actually arguably slightly winning.
**Universe Temperature**: Prove uniform temperature distribution [Missing a connection!]
**CMBr**: Argues that 1958, 1965 observed the afterglow of radiation to prove Big Bang
--> COUNTER: Prediction was observed already (repeated from before)
> CON: Horizon Problem raised (CMB shouldn't be isotropic)
> CON: Flatness problem (requirement for fine-tuning)
--> COUNTER: Surface only "appears" flat; regions could be in contact prior to inflation
> REBUT: CMB data didn't support the predictions
> SUPPORT: Inflation made no new predictions (a flexible framework), it is unfalsifiable, reliant on assumptions (doesn't explain big bang)
--> SUPPORT: There are six generic predictions made, with most data assisted by evidence, and solves problem of big bang model.
> CRYSTALLIZE: The uniform temperature still makes Big Bang impossible without cosmic inflation
> FINALIZE: No citation for predictions, neither examples in inflation [weak!], and still unfalsifiable
This argument is ambiguous and hard to decide, just as I decided before. While Con has a lot of flaws within Univ. Temp. and CMBR, Pro has a lot of empirical evidence. I'd argue that it is leaning pro at best.
As pro won one argument but lost the other one, I maintain that this debate is... very pretty much a tie. It's leaning Con in terms of doubt, but Pro bypasses a lot of Con's arguments because he has many logical explanations for the CMBr + Universe temperature.
More explanation would definitely help. I actually know next to nothing about evidence for and against the big Bang, despite my scientific background. So it's very hard to weigh arguments and even harder to judge if Pro developed enough proof and explanation to prove it.
Nicely done. I was inclined to also take con (in a different debate) due to not seeing the connection in premise, but pro tends to make a ton of very long dense arguments that are difficult to reduce logically.
If you are genuinely con on this topic, feel free to challenge and see why I am pro despite offering 30 studies in refutation.
Just a heads up... in round 1 con did already mention only the audience had to be persuaded. In case you missed it
just curious, you disagree with the premise right? I'm not 100% clear how you defeated Redlining and immigration, but voters somehow thought you won on that aspect as well.
Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge.
thanks for the vote, edge. Also Madman, you are CRUSHING me in the political topics haha. I think I'm pretty bad/mediocre at politics all in all.
about a week or so left.
ah, damn. I focused too generally and forgot about the actual lives lost. You're right about that. Giving better numbers would've definitely helped, and I got lost in refuting Con's argument rather than going further in the first round.
oh, very smart. But you'll have to do better than that to beat me!
https://smallpdf.com/shared#st=b787462f-a2e0-4b18-b5d0-ebe7cc19d253&fn=Transgender_exclusion_and_inclusion_in_s.pdf&ct=1619463283707&tl=share-document&rf=link
this one's pretty short.
wanna tie this debate instead? I accidentally forgot to extend debating period and nearly ran out of time. Two days seems too short.
Well.. my username is Undefeatable
I’m impressed; that’s got to be the strongest pro abortion argument I’ve seen that only glances over women’s rights
if you can defeat Weaker Edge in general terms, surely you'd have no problem in even more specific policy based debate?
I would've stopped after round 2. I think you should retry this debate against someone else. Not me. I find both sides very weird/hard to argue.
feel free to think about this one.
Neither of us are movie buffs (AFAIK). Are you willing to go completely out of our comfort zones?