Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

I would like to open this debate to prove pacifism to Christians. When I say "basic Christian philosophy, I mean concepts that all Christian religions agree on, such as the factuality of the sayings of Jesus, and the teachings of the bible*. Specific teachings of denomination, such as "infallible" teachings of the Pope, and Mormon doctrine, however, are not to be assumed true. When one is to imagine the idea of pacifism, it should be thought of as an opposition to all forms of killing, but not necessarily all forms of violence. *One must remember that while many churches have separate interpretations of the same writings or information, these can still be legitimately refrenced. I would like to start this debate by thanking my opponent for accepting this challenge and wishing him good luck.

m0dernv0ltaire

I would like to open this debate to prove pacifism to Christians. When I say "basic Christian philosophy, I mean concepts that all Christian religions agree on, such as the factuality of the sayings of Jesus, and the teachings of the bible*. Specific teachings of denomination, such as "infallible" teachings of the Pope, and Mormon doctrine, however, are not to be assumed true. When one is to imagine the idea of pacifism, it should be thought of as an opposition to all forms of killing, but not necessarily all forms of violence. *One must remember that while many churches have separate interpretations of the same writings or information, these can still be legitimately refrenced. I would like to start this debate by thanking my opponent for accepting this challenge and wishing him good luck.

Philosophy

According-to-basic-Christian-philosophy-one-should-take-a-pacifistic-approach-towards-warfare/1/

1.Biblical Justification While Con is correct when he points out Jesus' teachings against individual aggression, the passages he uses to express his opinion need only a small amount of deeper inspection for one to realize they do not actually oppose pacifism. Firstly, Con states that Rome was given the "right to bear the sword" in 13:1-4, and therefore Rome has the right to use warfare to provide civil defense. This, however, is an inherent misinterpretation of the passage states: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. When one looks at the last two sentences, one sees that the passege speaks about a government punishing criminals, not, as Con supposed, about civil defense. Secondly, Con states that in Luke 22:36, Jesus tells the apostles to carry a sword. However, these were not for self-defense, as he conscientiously stated two swords were enough. Two swords were certainly not enough to keep him from being arrested. The actual reason, which Jesus did, this was to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put in the ranks of criminals: two swords were enough to justify him being he of a band of brigands (Luke 22:37) 2.Biblical Warfare Con's second base argument is that because God seems to endorse Jewish wars in the Old Testament, it is acceptable. However, while it is correct that God remains the same, as do ethics, God never actually supported war. While God accepted the necessity of war to continue the chosen race, this did not make it ethical, which he knew. Therefore, when David, a king, wished to build a temple for God, it was not allowed. Although David had only fought for Jerusalem in the name of God, God said, "You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight." (1 Chronicles 22:8) God accepted that the Jews had to fight wars to survive, and because they were the chosen people he allowed it. However, this did not take away from the sins they committed through killing. 3.Christian Tradition Con states that the view of many early Christians that war was acceptable supports said notion. However, not all of the took this view, in fact, Aristedies, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Cyprian, and Tatian spoke against war. Regardless, an Ethos argument cannot be used to prove such an important moral question. 4. Jus ad Bellum/ 5. Jus in Bello (Just War Theory) While Just War Theory is a highly accepted theory in Catholic teachings, it is not universally recognized as factual. Therefore, Con must prove it rather than simply explaining it. I cannot argue against it if Con does not say why this line of thinking is correct. 6. Pure Ethics While I have already explain why biblical passages which supposedly propose war are misinterpretations, I would like to state the reason why I originally decided to contemplate the legitimacy of pacifism. I would like to ask all readers to think to them about the idea I will share, and I hope they can decide for themselves whether it makes sense. Being that both con and I are Christians, I will speak as if I was talking to him. Both of us, as Christians are aware that when we die, we will go to Heaven or Hell (Purgatory being only a path to Heaven). Martyrs knew this, which is why they chose to die for their own faiths. For a person to die is actually a good thing if they are going to Heaven, murder is only an evil because there is a possibility that you are Damning a human to Hell and eternal punishment. Using this line of thinking, you must pose the question to yourself, "If a sociopath were chasing you, wielding an axe, would it be right to shoot him?" I find the answer to be "No." by shooting this man, you almost certainly condemn him to Hell, but if you were to allow him to close in, you allow for him to change his mind, and let you live. Being that eternal life is so much more valuable to Christians than life of this world, is it not more important to almost certainly sacrifice your less valuable life for the salvation of a man? This is not an absolute argument, just a question I wished to ask all of the readers. It would be very helpful to me if they would respond in the comments. 7. Biblical Passages I would like to close off my argument by wishing my opponent good luck and quoting a few bible passages which seems to clearly support pacifism. "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing...." 1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' Romans 12:17-21 "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:44 ______________________________________________________________________ Sources: Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel; By: Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

m0dernv0ltaire

1.Biblical Justification While Con is correct when he points out Jesus' teachings against individual aggression, the passages he uses to express his opinion need only a small amount of deeper inspection for one to realize they do not actually oppose pacifism. Firstly, Con states that Rome was given the "right to bear the sword" in 13:1-4, and therefore Rome has the right to use warfare to provide civil defense. This, however, is an inherent misinterpretation of the passage states: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. When one looks at the last two sentences, one sees that the passege speaks about a government punishing criminals, not, as Con supposed, about civil defense. Secondly, Con states that in Luke 22:36, Jesus tells the apostles to carry a sword. However, these were not for self-defense, as he conscientiously stated two swords were enough. Two swords were certainly not enough to keep him from being arrested. The actual reason, which Jesus did, this was to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put in the ranks of criminals: two swords were enough to justify him being he of a band of brigands (Luke 22:37) 2.Biblical Warfare Con's second base argument is that because God seems to endorse Jewish wars in the Old Testament, it is acceptable. However, while it is correct that God remains the same, as do ethics, God never actually supported war. While God accepted the necessity of war to continue the chosen race, this did not make it ethical, which he knew. Therefore, when David, a king, wished to build a temple for God, it was not allowed. Although David had only fought for Jerusalem in the name of God, God said, "You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight." (1 Chronicles 22:8) God accepted that the Jews had to fight wars to survive, and because they were the chosen people he allowed it. However, this did not take away from the sins they committed through killing. 3.Christian Tradition Con states that the view of many early Christians that war was acceptable supports said notion. However, not all of the took this view, in fact, Aristedies, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Cyprian, and Tatian spoke against war. Regardless, an Ethos argument cannot be used to prove such an important moral question. 4. Jus ad Bellum/ 5. Jus in Bello (Just War Theory) While Just War Theory is a highly accepted theory in Catholic teachings, it is not universally recognized as factual. Therefore, Con must prove it rather than simply explaining it. I cannot argue against it if Con does not say why this line of thinking is correct. 6. Pure Ethics While I have already explain why biblical passages which supposedly propose war are misinterpretations, I would like to state the reason why I originally decided to contemplate the legitimacy of pacifism. I would like to ask all readers to think to them about the idea I will share, and I hope they can decide for themselves whether it makes sense. Being that both con and I are Christians, I will speak as if I was talking to him. Both of us, as Christians are aware that when we die, we will go to Heaven or Hell (Purgatory being only a path to Heaven). Martyrs knew this, which is why they chose to die for their own faiths. For a person to die is actually a good thing if they are going to Heaven, murder is only an evil because there is a possibility that you are Damning a human to Hell and eternal punishment. Using this line of thinking, you must pose the question to yourself, "If a sociopath were chasing you, wielding an axe, would it be right to shoot him?" I find the answer to be "No." by shooting this man, you almost certainly condemn him to Hell, but if you were to allow him to close in, you allow for him to change his mind, and let you live. Being that eternal life is so much more valuable to Christians than life of this world, is it not more important to almost certainly sacrifice your less valuable life for the salvation of a man? This is not an absolute argument, just a question I wished to ask all of the readers. It would be very helpful to me if they would respond in the comments. 7. Biblical Passages I would like to close off my argument by wishing my opponent good luck and quoting a few bible passages which seems to clearly support pacifism. "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing…." 1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' Romans 12:17-21 "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:44 ______________________________________________________________________ Sources: Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel; By: Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

Philosophy

According-to-basic-Christian-philosophy-one-should-take-a-pacifistic-approach-towards-warfare/1/

Biblical Justification Con counters my point on criminal punishment by stating that God does not qualify upon whom authority may be exercised, and that a state is therefore allowed to, for example, punish a government "that is carrying out systematic genocide". However, Con is incorrectly under the impression that God grants authority to governments to be used against wrongdoers in general, rather than against the people under said authority. God specifically states, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities..." This means that one must follow the authorities which one is subscribed under, it cannot mean that I am subject to the laws of all nations, and that in breaking a law of Italy they would be correct in punishing me. It was not America's duty, nor was it our right to invade Iraq seeking out Saddam Hussein. Not because he was not a "wrongdoer", but because America was not his own governing authority. Biblical Warfare Con's argument concerning David not being allowed to build a temple relies on the incorrect notion that a temple is intrinsically a "house of peace". This cannot be true, as the only way through which a temple could be an excursively peaceful place is if Judaism were an exclusively peaceful religion, which is what Con is attempting to disprove. Furthermore, research into the Jewish faith shows that a temple is for community prayer, study, and worship*. While all of these involve tranquility, they do not require peace insofar as a lack of violence. If the reason David were excluded from building a Temple was that he were unqualified to lead a community into prayer, than many Christian men, including Pope Urban II, who initiated the crusades, would have been disallowed from running services by God. However, David was only disallowed because he was unworthy to build a temple. Con continues to claim the Christ advocated self-defense based on the fact that he asked his apostles to carry two swords. However, this simply cannot be true. Christ specifically says that two swords is enough. This would not have been enough for defense from arrest, but enough to be seen as bandits. He also rebukes Peter when Peter attempted to fight the Jews, "'Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" Mathew25:52 "But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 25:51 "Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away!'" John 18:11 The only reason for Jesus wishing to incriminate for no purpose would have been to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put into the rank of criminals*. Christian Tradition Both Con and I seem to accept the fact that past Christian have accepted war by far most often, however, the idea that pacifism is so rare in Christianity that I bear the burden of proof is not accurate. The Community of Christ, the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Christadelphians all practice pacifism. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses alone have far more adherents that Judaism itself*. Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello We are both in agreement that this not an argument bt rather an explanation tool Due to time constriants I cannot contrast your contradiction to my "pure ethics" argument I will address this in the next round. _________________________________________________________ <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

m0dernv0ltaire

Biblical Justification Con counters my point on criminal punishment by stating that God does not qualify upon whom authority may be exercised, and that a state is therefore allowed to, for example, punish a government "that is carrying out systematic genocide". However, Con is incorrectly under the impression that God grants authority to governments to be used against wrongdoers in general, rather than against the people under said authority. God specifically states, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities..." This means that one must follow the authorities which one is subscribed under, it cannot mean that I am subject to the laws of all nations, and that in breaking a law of Italy they would be correct in punishing me. It was not America's duty, nor was it our right to invade Iraq seeking out Saddam Hussein. Not because he was not a "wrongdoer", but because America was not his own governing authority. Biblical Warfare Con's argument concerning David not being allowed to build a temple relies on the incorrect notion that a temple is intrinsically a "house of peace". This cannot be true, as the only way through which a temple could be an excursively peaceful place is if Judaism were an exclusively peaceful religion, which is what Con is attempting to disprove. Furthermore, research into the Jewish faith shows that a temple is for community prayer, study, and worship*. While all of these involve tranquility, they do not require peace insofar as a lack of violence. If the reason David were excluded from building a Temple was that he were unqualified to lead a community into prayer, than many Christian men, including Pope Urban II, who initiated the crusades, would have been disallowed from running services by God. However, David was only disallowed because he was unworthy to build a temple. Con continues to claim the Christ advocated self-defense based on the fact that he asked his apostles to carry two swords. However, this simply cannot be true. Christ specifically says that two swords is enough. This would not have been enough for defense from arrest, but enough to be seen as bandits. He also rebukes Peter when Peter attempted to fight the Jews, "'Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" Mathew25:52 "But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 25:51 "Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away!'" John 18:11 The only reason for Jesus wishing to incriminate for no purpose would have been to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put into the rank of criminals*. Christian Tradition Both Con and I seem to accept the fact that past Christian have accepted war by far most often, however, the idea that pacifism is so rare in Christianity that I bear the burden of proof is not accurate. The Community of Christ, the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Christadelphians all practice pacifism. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses alone have far more adherents that Judaism itself*. Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello We are both in agreement that this not an argument bt rather an explanation tool Due to time constriants I cannot contrast your contradiction to my "pure ethics" argument I will address this in the next round. _________________________________________________________ http://www.religionfacts.com... http://www.loveyourenemies.org... http://www.google.com...

Philosophy

According-to-basic-Christian-philosophy-one-should-take-a-pacifistic-approach-towards-warfare/1/

I apologize to my opponent and the voters for failing to complete my argument last round, in order to keep the same formant, my "pure ethics" response will conclude my fourth round argument. Biblical Justification "Rather, the point to be inferred here is that civil government is the only legitimate authority under which justice must be dispensed. Therefore, civil governments may justly undertake campaigns both to correct and resist wrongdoing." Con states that Paul's writings support the use of government force to correct crimes and evil. This is correct, I am not an anarchist nor have I ever mentioned the idea that the government not be allowed to enforce laws. What I am arguing is that the use of mortal violence is an unacceptable extreme. Con also uses the works of Wayne Grudem to argue that the obligation of a country to enforce law is an equal obligation to engage in war for national security. Grudem's main correlation, however, between these to circumstances is in naming the criminal a "robber or thief" and the invaders "murderers or thieves." There are, however, a number of differences. Most notably, enforcing law normally does not require lethal force, and therefore does not cause any important damage from a religious viewpoint. Fighting in a war, however, guarantees death, and causes moral damage which can not be justified from a Christian viewpoint. Con once again questions why God would command warfare and bless its participants if it were evil. As I explained before, God found Jewish war to be an acceptable evil in the interest of continuing the survival of the chosen race, he blessed people for following his commands, not simply for the act of killing people. Furthermore, because the Messiah had not yet come, the gates of Heaven would be closed until his arrival. The Jews were condemned to Hell until then, so their sins did not matter. Con also includes a ridiculous challenge asking if I can "seriously say with a straight face that American involvement in preventing the spread of Nazi tyranny during WWII was immoral?" Yes I can. Con's lack of respect for an entirely reasonable ideology shows an utter lack of open-mindedness. Biblical Warfare Con claims that warfare is an entirely acceptable practice, yet also says , "War, because it results in death and destruction, alienates mankind from God." How can anything be worse from a Christian perspective than alienation from God? Therefore, the only justification for war is if being conquered by one's enemy is worse that being alienated from God and possibly sent to Hell. Even the worst possible occurrence from being conquered is death. Death, however, is not nearly as bad as alienation from God, as death is not worse than even the slightest chance of condemnation. Con also cites the difference from church and state as an excuse for a country engaging in warfare. However, to Christians, the perfect world would have governments which followed Christian virtues. The reason for a separation between church and state is not to give governments to right to act immorally. Rather, it is a wise knowledge that there is no certain religion, and to impose any religion's values on any non member would be a great injustice. If any true religion were to surface, all countries would be expected to adhere to such a religion. Con mentions that Christ explicitly stated two swords were enough. Let me reiterate, two swords were not enough if Christ's purpose were self-defense, but were enough if it were to be arrested as a bandit. To interpret this as both a prophecy fulfillment and a recommendation for self-defense is ludicrous, as Christ often advocated submissiveness, especially in personal altercations. Con also suggests that Christ's rebuke of Peter was an attack of vigilante justice. This cannot be true, however, as Peter was not engaging in vigilantism. Peter's actions were as just an action of violence can be: his friend was unjustly arrested and would soon be killed, so he attempted to free his friend. Grudem also claims that Jesus wanted to avoid a military uprising against Rome, this could not be, however, as he did not even have enough supporters to attempt to free him from crucifixion How could Jesus expect anyone to attempt to overthrow ROME? Christian tradition While a small portion of Christians are pacifist, this is considering what an enormously popular religion Christianity is, being that around twice as many pacifist Christian exist that Jews, one cannot automatically lay the burden of proof on me. Pure Ethics Con once again presents situations he expects to shock me into defeat. While I would feel an obligation to protect the raped, it would be immoral to murder the rapists. I would get help, or shoot at the gangsters in the legs to distract them and save the raped, but I would not feel it necessary to kill the rapists. While it would be their own doing when they (presumably) went to Hell, it is the duty of all Christians to spread the word and aid the conversion of others. I believe Con's main difficulty in understanding this is his misunderstanding of the differences of the words just and moral. Justice, which he mentions frequently, has the objective of keeping all things equal and fair to those who work towards said goal. Justice is the reason for jailing criminals, they lose their right to justice when they commit crimes. Con often puts out situations where the just thing to do would be murder, however, this is not the way morality and Christianity works. Christianity values charity. One must recognize that a sinner is far more unfortunate than a person who is in great suffering, for a sinner will suffer for eternity. Therefor, it is more charitable to keep the interests of an evil doer in mind. Morality necessitates that even if someone steals from you, you may take back your money, but not more. If one is to kill a murderer chasing one down, one is sending him to hell, a far greater offense than to have been killed in the act of allowing the murderer to be converted before his death. Verses supporting pacifism While I admit most of these verses apply to personal conflict, any one person should exercise the same morals whether or not they are a part of a small or large conflict. I request that Con lay his last new arguments in the following round considering that I cannot respond to any round five arguments, and that I did not argue in the 1st round, while Con did.

m0dernv0ltaire

I apologize to my opponent and the voters for failing to complete my argument last round, in order to keep the same formant, my "pure ethics" response will conclude my fourth round argument. Biblical Justification "Rather, the point to be inferred here is that civil government is the only legitimate authority under which justice must be dispensed. Therefore, civil governments may justly undertake campaigns both to correct and resist wrongdoing." Con states that Paul's writings support the use of government force to correct crimes and evil. This is correct, I am not an anarchist nor have I ever mentioned the idea that the government not be allowed to enforce laws. What I am arguing is that the use of mortal violence is an unacceptable extreme. Con also uses the works of Wayne Grudem to argue that the obligation of a country to enforce law is an equal obligation to engage in war for national security. Grudem's main correlation, however, between these to circumstances is in naming the criminal a "robber or thief" and the invaders "murderers or thieves." There are, however, a number of differences. Most notably, enforcing law normally does not require lethal force, and therefore does not cause any important damage from a religious viewpoint. Fighting in a war, however, guarantees death, and causes moral damage which can not be justified from a Christian viewpoint. Con once again questions why God would command warfare and bless its participants if it were evil. As I explained before, God found Jewish war to be an acceptable evil in the interest of continuing the survival of the chosen race, he blessed people for following his commands, not simply for the act of killing people. Furthermore, because the Messiah had not yet come, the gates of Heaven would be closed until his arrival. The Jews were condemned to Hell until then, so their sins did not matter. Con also includes a ridiculous challenge asking if I can "seriously say with a straight face that American involvement in preventing the spread of Nazi tyranny during WWII was immoral?" Yes I can. Con's lack of respect for an entirely reasonable ideology shows an utter lack of open-mindedness. Biblical Warfare Con claims that warfare is an entirely acceptable practice, yet also says , "War, because it results in death and destruction, alienates mankind from God." How can anything be worse from a Christian perspective than alienation from God? Therefore, the only justification for war is if being conquered by one's enemy is worse that being alienated from God and possibly sent to Hell. Even the worst possible occurrence from being conquered is death. Death, however, is not nearly as bad as alienation from God, as death is not worse than even the slightest chance of condemnation. Con also cites the difference from church and state as an excuse for a country engaging in warfare. However, to Christians, the perfect world would have governments which followed Christian virtues. The reason for a separation between church and state is not to give governments to right to act immorally. Rather, it is a wise knowledge that there is no certain religion, and to impose any religion's values on any non member would be a great injustice. If any true religion were to surface, all countries would be expected to adhere to such a religion. Con mentions that Christ explicitly stated two swords were enough. Let me reiterate, two swords were not enough if Christ's purpose were self-defense, but were enough if it were to be arrested as a bandit. To interpret this as both a prophecy fulfillment and a recommendation for self-defense is ludicrous, as Christ often advocated submissiveness, especially in personal altercations. Con also suggests that Christ's rebuke of Peter was an attack of vigilante justice. This cannot be true, however, as Peter was not engaging in vigilantism. Peter's actions were as just an action of violence can be: his friend was unjustly arrested and would soon be killed, so he attempted to free his friend. Grudem also claims that Jesus wanted to avoid a military uprising against Rome, this could not be, however, as he did not even have enough supporters to attempt to free him from crucifixion How could Jesus expect anyone to attempt to overthrow ROME? Christian tradition While a small portion of Christians are pacifist, this is considering what an enormously popular religion Christianity is, being that around twice as many pacifist Christian exist that Jews, one cannot automatically lay the burden of proof on me. Pure Ethics Con once again presents situations he expects to shock me into defeat. While I would feel an obligation to protect the raped, it would be immoral to murder the rapists. I would get help, or shoot at the gangsters in the legs to distract them and save the raped, but I would not feel it necessary to kill the rapists. While it would be their own doing when they (presumably) went to Hell, it is the duty of all Christians to spread the word and aid the conversion of others. I believe Con's main difficulty in understanding this is his misunderstanding of the differences of the words just and moral. Justice, which he mentions frequently, has the objective of keeping all things equal and fair to those who work towards said goal. Justice is the reason for jailing criminals, they lose their right to justice when they commit crimes. Con often puts out situations where the just thing to do would be murder, however, this is not the way morality and Christianity works. Christianity values charity. One must recognize that a sinner is far more unfortunate than a person who is in great suffering, for a sinner will suffer for eternity. Therefor, it is more charitable to keep the interests of an evil doer in mind. Morality necessitates that even if someone steals from you, you may take back your money, but not more. If one is to kill a murderer chasing one down, one is sending him to hell, a far greater offense than to have been killed in the act of allowing the murderer to be converted before his death. Verses supporting pacifism While I admit most of these verses apply to personal conflict, any one person should exercise the same morals whether or not they are a part of a small or large conflict. I request that Con lay his last new arguments in the following round considering that I cannot respond to any round five arguments, and that I did not argue in the 1st round, while Con did.

Philosophy

According-to-basic-Christian-philosophy-one-should-take-a-pacifistic-approach-towards-warfare/1/

I accept, and look forward to, the debate! :)

Biologist

I accept, and look forward to, the debate! :)

Philosophy

Actions-Are-Amoral/1/

----Agreed Upon---- Through messages, the following has been agreed on, and should not be disputed. Resolution: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". My burden as PRO: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". John's burden as CON: "Ad Blockers Should Be Used". ----Definition---- Ad blocker: "a program that prevents an Internet browser from displaying online advertisements". ----General Arguments---- The arguments I will use for this debate are as follows. 1) Ad blockers hurt the online industry. Imagine if everyone had ad blockers! Web entrepreneurs like Philip Ferreira would go broke! And many commercial sites like Google, debate.org, Facebook, Myspace, Yahoo, eBay, YouTube, and many more would go out of business!!! 2) Often times, ad blockers disable important Internet browsing functions.[1] 3) Often times, the ads on a website are essential to the layout. Blocking these ads will make the look of a website odd and distorted. A few examples include newgrounds.com,[2] the hotmail inbox, ultimate-guitar.com, and many more. 4) Ad blockers are not to be trusted. They are inconsistent (particularly with flash ads). And often times give your computer spyware![3][4] 5) Internet ads are good; they help consumers find the products they want. To cite a very relevant example, two major debate.org users and friends of my opponent--Rezzealaux and PoeJoe--found debate.org through a facebook ad.[5] ----References---- [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

PoeJoe

----Agreed Upon---- Through messages, the following has been agreed on, and should not be disputed. Resolution: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". My burden as PRO: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". John's burden as CON: "Ad Blockers Should Be Used". ----Definition---- Ad blocker: "a program that prevents an Internet browser from displaying online advertisements". ----General Arguments---- The arguments I will use for this debate are as follows. 1) Ad blockers hurt the online industry. Imagine if everyone had ad blockers! Web entrepreneurs like Philip Ferreira would go broke! And many commercial sites like Google, debate.org, Facebook, Myspace, Yahoo, eBay, YouTube, and many more would go out of business!!! 2) Often times, ad blockers disable important Internet browsing functions.[1] 3) Often times, the ads on a website are essential to the layout. Blocking these ads will make the look of a website odd and distorted. A few examples include newgrounds.com,[2] the hotmail inbox, ultimate-guitar.com, and many more. 4) Ad blockers are not to be trusted. They are inconsistent (particularly with flash ads). And often times give your computer spyware![3][4] 5) Internet ads are good; they help consumers find the products they want. To cite a very relevant example, two major debate.org users and friends of my opponent--Rezzealaux and PoeJoe--found debate.org through a facebook ad.[5] ----References---- [1] http://www.marketresearchterms.com... [2] http://img110.imageshack.us... [3] http://www.download.com... [4] http://www.download.com... [5] http://www.debatef.com...

Technology

Ad-Blockers-Should-Not-Be-Used/1/

----Thanks---- I would like to thank my opponent at this point for accepting my debate, and to the readers who are reading it. Thank you. ----In Defense of My Arguments---- 1) My first argument--that ad blockers hurt the online industry--still stands. My opponent attempts to counterargue this point in two ways: (1) That it is not the place of webmasters to choose what you want to see; and (2) that ad blockers encourage ad makers to become more creative. To prove (1), my opponent enlists the "equivalent" example of being able to switch channels while watching television. However, television ads are vastly different because of two main reasons. Firstly, they (generally) reach a wider audience, and thus switching channels will not hurt the television industry as much. Secondly, switching channels requires an active thought process every single commercial break, which is simply not practical. Television is meant to be a passive activity, while Internet browsing is largely active. Obviously, your first counterargument does not hold. As you admit, "Ad blockers do take away ad revenue from certain people." My opponent's second counterargument does not hold either because it is both ridiculous and contradictory. It is ridiculous because there are simply no other ways to deliver ads through the Internet other than that of text, pictures, and flash. And getting more creative? I thought you were arguing against ads! 2) My argument--that ad blockers often times disable several internet browsing functions--still stands. My opponent's only problem with this contention is my sources. (Which is funny considering John sourced a completely unsourced section of a Wikipedia article.) However, I assure my source is reliable. Market Research is owned by a company known as GMI, one of the largest Internet research companies in the world. I'm glad that we got that cleared up. 3) My argument--that ad blockers will often times make websites look odd--still stands. Surely that blank section of odd lines bothered you when you visited newgrounds.com. And surely the big black space from ultimate-guitar looked strange and out of place. My opponent does offer a workaround, but workarounds only lead to more problems--more potentially infected computers, more user confusion, and even more wasted hardrive space. And furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect most people using ad blockers to download scripts just to get rid of a few ads. 4) My argument--that many supposed ad blockers contain malicious viruses--still stands. My opponent deems the people who download these programs as "idiots". How dare my opponent insult the thousands of innocent people who've had their files completely lost due to viruses and trojan horses! How dare my opponent! Clean and simple: Seeking ad blockers will often times lead innocent people to receive viruses. It is NOT their fault. Please address my argument without slander. 5) My argument--that Internet ads often help consumers find the products they want--still stands. I find it curious that my opponent uses an unsourced section of a Wikipedia article. What's more, is that my opponent uses a redirect to disguise his source. Could he be ashamed of not having a better source? He certainly had enough characters to post the real URL... I checked! Anyway, his counterargument that advertisements contain spyware should be ignored until proven. Also, he has not addressed my example about the two debate.org users Rezzealaux and PoeJoe. ----RE: Bandwidth limits---- "Today with flash ads, adverts can use up a considerable amount of bandwidth." Are you kidding me? The absolute largest internet ads are 40kb.[6] Going over bandwidth caps occurs when users watch too many movies, download too many illegal files, and h3x0rZ too many websites. I'd like to ask my opponent if he is trying to be sarcastic. Otherwise, I'll ignore this contention for now. ----RE: Mobile Phones---- First of all, Internet browsing via mobile phones is still relatively new--very few people prefer mobile browsing to computer browsing--and therefore, the argument of mobile phone browsing should hold very little weight in this debate. Secondly, most mobile phones can not deal with flash ads, so the size of them should be of no concern. What's more interesting is that my opponent is more concerned about the minuscule size of text/pic ads, and not worried about other, heavier files like--oh, I don't know--html. ----Conclusion---- All five of my contention stand. Both of my opponent's arguments have successfully been refuted. Thus far, the winner is obvious. ----References---- [6] <URL>...

PoeJoe

----Thanks---- I would like to thank my opponent at this point for accepting my debate, and to the readers who are reading it. Thank you. ----In Defense of My Arguments---- 1) My first argument--that ad blockers hurt the online industry--still stands. My opponent attempts to counterargue this point in two ways: (1) That it is not the place of webmasters to choose what you want to see; and (2) that ad blockers encourage ad makers to become more creative. To prove (1), my opponent enlists the "equivalent" example of being able to switch channels while watching television. However, television ads are vastly different because of two main reasons. Firstly, they (generally) reach a wider audience, and thus switching channels will not hurt the television industry as much. Secondly, switching channels requires an active thought process every single commercial break, which is simply not practical. Television is meant to be a passive activity, while Internet browsing is largely active. Obviously, your first counterargument does not hold. As you admit, "Ad blockers do take away ad revenue from certain people." My opponent's second counterargument does not hold either because it is both ridiculous and contradictory. It is ridiculous because there are simply no other ways to deliver ads through the Internet other than that of text, pictures, and flash. And getting more creative? I thought you were arguing against ads! 2) My argument--that ad blockers often times disable several internet browsing functions--still stands. My opponent's only problem with this contention is my sources. (Which is funny considering John sourced a completely unsourced section of a Wikipedia article.) However, I assure my source is reliable. Market Research is owned by a company known as GMI, one of the largest Internet research companies in the world. I'm glad that we got that cleared up. 3) My argument--that ad blockers will often times make websites look odd--still stands. Surely that blank section of odd lines bothered you when you visited newgrounds.com. And surely the big black space from ultimate-guitar looked strange and out of place. My opponent does offer a workaround, but workarounds only lead to more problems--more potentially infected computers, more user confusion, and even more wasted hardrive space. And furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect most people using ad blockers to download scripts just to get rid of a few ads. 4) My argument--that many supposed ad blockers contain malicious viruses--still stands. My opponent deems the people who download these programs as "idiots". How dare my opponent insult the thousands of innocent people who've had their files completely lost due to viruses and trojan horses! How dare my opponent! Clean and simple: Seeking ad blockers will often times lead innocent people to receive viruses. It is NOT their fault. Please address my argument without slander. 5) My argument--that Internet ads often help consumers find the products they want--still stands. I find it curious that my opponent uses an unsourced section of a Wikipedia article. What's more, is that my opponent uses a redirect to disguise his source. Could he be ashamed of not having a better source? He certainly had enough characters to post the real URL... I checked! Anyway, his counterargument that advertisements contain spyware should be ignored until proven. Also, he has not addressed my example about the two debate.org users Rezzealaux and PoeJoe. ----RE: Bandwidth limits---- "Today with flash ads, adverts can use up a considerable amount of bandwidth." Are you kidding me? The absolute largest internet ads are 40kb.[6] Going over bandwidth caps occurs when users watch too many movies, download too many illegal files, and h3x0rZ too many websites. I'd like to ask my opponent if he is trying to be sarcastic. Otherwise, I'll ignore this contention for now. ----RE: Mobile Phones---- First of all, Internet browsing via mobile phones is still relatively new--very few people prefer mobile browsing to computer browsing--and therefore, the argument of mobile phone browsing should hold very little weight in this debate. Secondly, most mobile phones can not deal with flash ads, so the size of them should be of no concern. What's more interesting is that my opponent is more concerned about the minuscule size of text/pic ads, and not worried about other, heavier files like--oh, I don't know--html. ----Conclusion---- All five of my contention stand. Both of my opponent's arguments have successfully been refuted. Thus far, the winner is obvious. ----References---- [6] http://www.iab.net...

Technology

Ad-Blockers-Should-Not-Be-Used/1/

----A Reminder---- I'd like to remind my opponent that by the common rules of debate, he may not post any new arguments in a closing argument. He may rebut, but may not introduce any more points other than the two he has already provided. ----Response---- "Sure ad blockers hurt the online industry, but that is not reason enough to stop using them. Me (sic){1} using Ubuntu linux hurts Microsoft, but that does not mean I should have to use Windows." True, but when you surf the web, you are expected to view the ads on the websites. Content providers provide content with the assumption that their web page will not be manipulated. They expect to receive compensation for the bandwidth their users/viewers take up. Being a webmaster is a job after all! Owning a particular brand of computer on the other hand, is not expected. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has admitted that ad blockers hurt to the online industry. "It comes down to the user choosing what content he or she wishes to view. They are the ones paying for their bandwidth, (sic){2} they should make the ultimate decision on what content they want to use it on." It comes down to the webmaster having their money scammed. They are the ones providing the content, and paying for their servers. Users should not be manipulating HTML for the purpose of deleting ads. Doing so is completely unfair to the webmasters, and is, in essence, a break of an unspoken agreement. Webmasters provide content for users, and they expect the users, at the very least, to view their ads. Can my opponent honestly say that people who use ad blockers are not at fault??? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot my opponent has conceded that ad blockers hurt the online industry. My opponent continues on by enlisting another example--the invention of the light bulb. However, this is a straw man argument. Never did I say that technology is bad, and that it takes too much effort. Yes, ad blockers are a form of technology, but so what? Ad blockers are in no way similar to the light bulb. The intent of the light bulb is noble--to easily carry around light. The intent of ad blockers is not--to essentially steal from webmasters. Lastly, I'd like to note that my opponent has ignored most of the content in my first point. Am I to assume my opponent concedes the many sub-arguments in it? "My problem is not the source, but the content from the source." That is irrelevant. My opponent has conceded that my source is reliable. My source says that ad blockers disable important internet functions. Ergo, my argument should still stand even in my opponent's eyes. Ad blockers disable important internet functions. "Plus the things I mentioned we're not workarounds... Also, because of the scripts and customization I have done, the sites mentioned do not look like my opponent describes them, they look just fine." Okay, subscribing to scripts is achieved by most people; they ask you to subscribe directly after instillation! Customization on the other hand, is not. My point that ad blockers can make web pages look awkward still stands. "Just because some people are not computer illiterate (sic){3}, does not mean tech savvy users should suffer." In using that statement, you must prove two points: 1) Most people are tech savvy; therefore ad blockers should be used by the general public. 2) Tech savvy users will not ever download ad blockers with viruses. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has conceded that many ad blockers contain viruses. "Their (sic){4} are many things one must download from the internet. There are risks, but we (sic){5} still do it." To prove this statement, my opponent enlists the example of word processors. However, what my opponent fails to see is that word processors (and other programs my opponent is thinking of) can be, and will most likely be used for good things (like typing essays, reports, stories, poetry, and much, much more). The only purpose for ad blockers is to block ads. As I have proven, that is bad. Why risk receiving a virus for such a lowly pursuit? "When I pasted the URL, debate.org broke the link. I had to use TinyURL {6} because without it the link would not have worked." That is a lie: <URL>... My opponent purposefully used tinyURL to cover up the fact that while he criticized my very reliable source (he conceded this), he was using a completely unreferenced section of a Wikipedia article. "It does not matter if ads take up 1KB of bandwidth or 200GBs or bandwidth, (sic){7} it's still up to the person who paid for the bandwidth to determine how to use it." Ad blockers steal money from webmasters. You are expected to spend a few kilobytes of hundreds of gigabytes to view the ads. (A kilobyte, by the way, is a millionth of a gigabyte.) Obviously, my opponent's argument that ads take too much space is irrelevant. If people go over their bandwidth limits, it is not because of internet ads. It is because of movies, illegally downloaded files, and hacks. "Most mobile phones and PDAs have very weak processors. When viewing an ad ridden site, a main concern is CPU usage. Your home computer may be able to load a flash ad in no time, but the 250Mhz processor in a PDA will probably kneel over and die." Again, mobile phones account for only a few Internet users. The majority of people view the internet through PCs. This argument holds very little value. But to counter it anyway, the flash player only needs 450Mhz to optimally play flash.[1] I urge my opponent to do a Google search to see how fast most cellphones are. Most, are well over 600Mhz. "Users that are tech savvy enough to get proper ad blockers are not the kind of people that would click on the majority of ads out there... A tech savvy person knows sponsored Google results from the regular results and would never click on them." Prove it. The burden is on you for the statement. I consider myself a tech savvy person. Rezz considers himself a tech savvy person. We both found debate.org through an ad. ----Conclusion---- I believe that I have successfully defended all five of my arguments. I have met the burden of proof as to why ad blockers should not be used. REMEMBER, MY OPPONENT AGREED THAT HE MUST PROVE THAT AD BLOCKERS SHOULD BE USED. HE HAS ONLY COME UP WITH TWO ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE CLEARLY BEEN DEFEATED. You, the audience, must now weigh my argument against my opponent's two. The winner is obvious. VOTE PRO!!!!! ----Corrections---- {1} "Me" should be "my" because the subject is a behavior. {2} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. {3} Double negatives should not be used, especially when they change your intended meaning. {4} Intended word was "their". {5} My opponent switched the point of view. {6} When combining two independent clauses with a subordinating conjunction, one must use a comma. {7} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. ----References---- [1] <URL>...

PoeJoe

----A Reminder---- I'd like to remind my opponent that by the common rules of debate, he may not post any new arguments in a closing argument. He may rebut, but may not introduce any more points other than the two he has already provided. ----Response---- "Sure ad blockers hurt the online industry, but that is not reason enough to stop using them. Me (sic){1} using Ubuntu linux hurts Microsoft, but that does not mean I should have to use Windows." True, but when you surf the web, you are expected to view the ads on the websites. Content providers provide content with the assumption that their web page will not be manipulated. They expect to receive compensation for the bandwidth their users/viewers take up. Being a webmaster is a job after all! Owning a particular brand of computer on the other hand, is not expected. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has admitted that ad blockers hurt to the online industry. "It comes down to the user choosing what content he or she wishes to view. They are the ones paying for their bandwidth, (sic){2} they should make the ultimate decision on what content they want to use it on." It comes down to the webmaster having their money scammed. They are the ones providing the content, and paying for their servers. Users should not be manipulating HTML for the purpose of deleting ads. Doing so is completely unfair to the webmasters, and is, in essence, a break of an unspoken agreement. Webmasters provide content for users, and they expect the users, at the very least, to view their ads. Can my opponent honestly say that people who use ad blockers are not at fault??? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot my opponent has conceded that ad blockers hurt the online industry. My opponent continues on by enlisting another example--the invention of the light bulb. However, this is a straw man argument. Never did I say that technology is bad, and that it takes too much effort. Yes, ad blockers are a form of technology, but so what? Ad blockers are in no way similar to the light bulb. The intent of the light bulb is noble--to easily carry around light. The intent of ad blockers is not--to essentially steal from webmasters. Lastly, I'd like to note that my opponent has ignored most of the content in my first point. Am I to assume my opponent concedes the many sub-arguments in it? "My problem is not the source, but the content from the source." That is irrelevant. My opponent has conceded that my source is reliable. My source says that ad blockers disable important internet functions. Ergo, my argument should still stand even in my opponent's eyes. Ad blockers disable important internet functions. "Plus the things I mentioned we're not workarounds... Also, because of the scripts and customization I have done, the sites mentioned do not look like my opponent describes them, they look just fine." Okay, subscribing to scripts is achieved by most people; they ask you to subscribe directly after instillation! Customization on the other hand, is not. My point that ad blockers can make web pages look awkward still stands. "Just because some people are not computer illiterate (sic){3}, does not mean tech savvy users should suffer." In using that statement, you must prove two points: 1) Most people are tech savvy; therefore ad blockers should be used by the general public. 2) Tech savvy users will not ever download ad blockers with viruses. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has conceded that many ad blockers contain viruses. "Their (sic){4} are many things one must download from the internet. There are risks, but we (sic){5} still do it." To prove this statement, my opponent enlists the example of word processors. However, what my opponent fails to see is that word processors (and other programs my opponent is thinking of) can be, and will most likely be used for good things (like typing essays, reports, stories, poetry, and much, much more). The only purpose for ad blockers is to block ads. As I have proven, that is bad. Why risk receiving a virus for such a lowly pursuit? "When I pasted the URL, debate.org broke the link. I had to use TinyURL {6} because without it the link would not have worked." That is a lie: http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent purposefully used tinyURL to cover up the fact that while he criticized my very reliable source (he conceded this), he was using a completely unreferenced section of a Wikipedia article. "It does not matter if ads take up 1KB of bandwidth or 200GBs or bandwidth, (sic){7} it's still up to the person who paid for the bandwidth to determine how to use it." Ad blockers steal money from webmasters. You are expected to spend a few kilobytes of hundreds of gigabytes to view the ads. (A kilobyte, by the way, is a millionth of a gigabyte.) Obviously, my opponent's argument that ads take too much space is irrelevant. If people go over their bandwidth limits, it is not because of internet ads. It is because of movies, illegally downloaded files, and hacks. "Most mobile phones and PDAs have very weak processors. When viewing an ad ridden site, a main concern is CPU usage. Your home computer may be able to load a flash ad in no time, but the 250Mhz processor in a PDA will probably kneel over and die." Again, mobile phones account for only a few Internet users. The majority of people view the internet through PCs. This argument holds very little value. But to counter it anyway, the flash player only needs 450Mhz to optimally play flash.[1] I urge my opponent to do a Google search to see how fast most cellphones are. Most, are well over 600Mhz. "Users that are tech savvy enough to get proper ad blockers are not the kind of people that would click on the majority of ads out there... A tech savvy person knows sponsored Google results from the regular results and would never click on them." Prove it. The burden is on you for the statement. I consider myself a tech savvy person. Rezz considers himself a tech savvy person. We both found debate.org through an ad. ----Conclusion---- I believe that I have successfully defended all five of my arguments. I have met the burden of proof as to why ad blockers should not be used. REMEMBER, MY OPPONENT AGREED THAT HE MUST PROVE THAT AD BLOCKERS SHOULD BE USED. HE HAS ONLY COME UP WITH TWO ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE CLEARLY BEEN DEFEATED. You, the audience, must now weigh my argument against my opponent's two. The winner is obvious. VOTE PRO!!!!! ----Corrections---- {1} "Me" should be "my" because the subject is a behavior. {2} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. {3} Double negatives should not be used, especially when they change your intended meaning. {4} Intended word was "their". {5} My opponent switched the point of view. {6} When combining two independent clauses with a subordinating conjunction, one must use a comma. {7} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. ----References---- [1] http://www.adobe.com...

Technology

Ad-Blockers-Should-Not-Be-Used/1/

Every time Adolf Hitler is brought up in the history books it seems that his only accomplishment was killing 6 million Jews during the holocaust; I believe that those numbers were largely falsified due to the fact that the 6 million figure was first published in American newspapers before all of the camps were found, the plaque displaying the body count of Auschwitz has changed from 4 million to one and a half million, and finally soviet micro films have surfaced showing the various tables containing the number people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who entered Auschwitz and those numbers never when above 200,000. Before Adolf was even in a position to be able to commit mass murder he was a soldier in the German Army during WW1. During his time in the army he volunteered for the most dangerous jobs like the runner who would deliver messages to and from the front lines, a job with a life expectancy of around 2 weeks; even when he was injured and sent back to a hospital he was itching to get back to the front lines and continue the fight. By the end of the war Adolf earned the Iron Cross 2nd class and the Iron Cross 1st class which is comparable to the Medal of Honor the American heroes earn. Adolf Hitler was, above all, a patriot who was willing to die for his country, a virtue that very few have. After the war Adolf saw his beloved country to fall to pieces under a broken republic and come close to being taken over by the communists. He joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party and with his gift of public speaking was able to win over Germany and pull it out of a depression much worse than the great depression in America. The most common argument against Adolf Hitler was that he killed 6 million Jewish people even though that can be easily disproved.

jacklykestacows

Every time Adolf Hitler is brought up in the history books it seems that his only accomplishment was killing 6 million Jews during the holocaust; I believe that those numbers were largely falsified due to the fact that the 6 million figure was first published in American newspapers before all of the camps were found, the plaque displaying the body count of Auschwitz has changed from 4 million to one and a half million, and finally soviet micro films have surfaced showing the various tables containing the number people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who entered Auschwitz and those numbers never when above 200,000. Before Adolf was even in a position to be able to commit mass murder he was a soldier in the German Army during WW1. During his time in the army he volunteered for the most dangerous jobs like the runner who would deliver messages to and from the front lines, a job with a life expectancy of around 2 weeks; even when he was injured and sent back to a hospital he was itching to get back to the front lines and continue the fight. By the end of the war Adolf earned the Iron Cross 2nd class and the Iron Cross 1st class which is comparable to the Medal of Honor the American heroes earn. Adolf Hitler was, above all, a patriot who was willing to die for his country, a virtue that very few have. After the war Adolf saw his beloved country to fall to pieces under a broken republic and come close to being taken over by the communists. He joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party and with his gift of public speaking was able to win over Germany and pull it out of a depression much worse than the great depression in America. The most common argument against Adolf Hitler was that he killed 6 million Jewish people even though that can be easily disproved.

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-not-a-bad-man/1/

I'm not saying that just because he was willing to die for his country that makes him a good person, even though we regard those kinds of people as heroes. What kind of Germany do you think is perfect? The one where you need enough Reichsmarks (the German currency during WW1) to fill a wheel burrow just to buy a loaf of bread? Or the one where bankers were taking advantage of the people sending even more into unemployment? May I also remind you that before Adolf came to power 1 in 3 people were unemployed. Also where does it say that he would "rather save a guilty German serial killer and kill a Jew who brought world peace". You aren't presenting any argument other than what you think he was like. I recommend you watch a documentary on Hitler called "The greatest story never told" It is all factual and provides more information than History books give.

jacklykestacows

I'm not saying that just because he was willing to die for his country that makes him a good person, even though we regard those kinds of people as heroes. What kind of Germany do you think is perfect? The one where you need enough Reichsmarks (the German currency during WW1) to fill a wheel burrow just to buy a loaf of bread? Or the one where bankers were taking advantage of the people sending even more into unemployment? May I also remind you that before Adolf came to power 1 in 3 people were unemployed. Also where does it say that he would "rather save a guilty German serial killer and kill a Jew who brought world peace". You aren't presenting any argument other than what you think he was like. I recommend you watch a documentary on Hitler called "The greatest story never told" It is all factual and provides more information than History books give.

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-not-a-bad-man/1/

My information comes from this documentary, ( <URL>... )I suggest you watch it. How do you know that he killed thousands of Jews? The only pictures I have seen of dead bodies in the Holocaust have been victims of typhus which was rampant during that time. Also where are all of those mass graves that they talk about? 6 million bodies must take up a lot of space. It is obvious that I shouldn't even bother find my other sources because you wont remove your stigmatism long enough to see that Hitler wasn't a bad guy. Try pretending that you were a National Socialist and look at what the British are doing, your arguments would be the exact same, they destroyed your country and killed tens of thousands of people.

jacklykestacows

My information comes from this documentary, ( https://www.youtube.com... )I suggest you watch it. How do you know that he killed thousands of Jews? The only pictures I have seen of dead bodies in the Holocaust have been victims of typhus which was rampant during that time. Also where are all of those mass graves that they talk about? 6 million bodies must take up a lot of space. It is obvious that I shouldn't even bother find my other sources because you wont remove your stigmatism long enough to see that Hitler wasn't a bad guy. Try pretending that you were a National Socialist and look at what the British are doing, your arguments would be the exact same, they destroyed your country and killed tens of thousands of people.

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-not-a-bad-man/1/

The ability to complete day to day tasks is not always easy for an adult with ADHD. These adults deal with difficulty paying attention, become easily distracted, inability to finish tasks, making careless mistakes, procrastination and disorganization. Medication to help in treating these symptoms can cause symptoms and reactions of their own that are not ideal. Research has sown that alternative therapies such as Meta-cognitive therapy, coaching therapy, and nutrition can be very effective in treating symptoms. Should medication be the answer or are alternative treatments the way to go?

katiedome

The ability to complete day to day tasks is not always easy for an adult with ADHD. These adults deal with difficulty paying attention, become easily distracted, inability to finish tasks, making careless mistakes, procrastination and disorganization. Medication to help in treating these symptoms can cause symptoms and reactions of their own that are not ideal. Research has sown that alternative therapies such as Meta-cognitive therapy, coaching therapy, and nutrition can be very effective in treating symptoms. Should medication be the answer or are alternative treatments the way to go?

Health

Adult-ADHD-and-alternative-treatments/1/

I accept the debate. Make your arguments.

9spaceking

I accept the debate. Make your arguments.

Society

Adults-from-the-age-of-10/1/

1. Studies show that people's brains do not mature until 21. I will give sources if my opponent asks, but this is proven and you can easily search this up. 2. 10 years olds are irresponsible and uneducated. On average about 5-6 year olds begin first grade, meaning that 10 year olds would only be 4-5th grade. Having them granted adult rights would be absurd since they are not wise enough to know everything my opponent listed, especially drinking alcohol or buying a house.

9spaceking

1. Studies show that people's brains do not mature until 21. I will give sources if my opponent asks, but this is proven and you can easily search this up. 2. 10 years olds are irresponsible and uneducated. On average about 5-6 year olds begin first grade, meaning that 10 year olds would only be 4-5th grade. Having them granted adult rights would be absurd since they are not wise enough to know everything my opponent listed, especially drinking alcohol or buying a house.

Society

Adults-from-the-age-of-10/1/

I win vote me.

9spaceking

I win vote me.

Society

Adults-from-the-age-of-10/1/

I think that people from the age of 10 years old should be classed as an official adult in society this would be amazing because we could all drive, drink alcohol, run for prime minister/ president, buy a house and basically anything we wanted, and it would be fun driving ( other debate of mine) so yeah vote thumbs up for this debate SKRUBS. Shoutout to my friend jack Rutter who has a account, I can't remember his name but yeah.👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖🤖👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖👽👽👽

sexy_as_hell

I think that people from the age of 10 years old should be classed as an official adult in society this would be amazing because we could all drive, drink alcohol, run for prime minister/ president, buy a house and basically anything we wanted, and it would be fun driving ( other debate of mine) so yeah vote thumbs up for this debate SKRUBS. Shoutout to my friend jack Rutter who has a account, I can't remember his name but yeah.👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖🤖👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖👽👽👽

Society

Adults-from-the-age-of-10/1/

I would first like to give you my condolences to the fact that you feel as if you are a second class citizen. However I would like to say that the lady whom you've portrayed as an icy interrogator had every right to be suspicious. If i were coming home from a long day of work and i see two shadowy figures in front of my house (which is considered private property) i'd be highly suspicious as well. Her questions were highly appropriate and she did not actually threaten you in any way or make any references to the fact that you were skateboarders. It was an assumption of your part that she was treating you with a sense (if any in reality) of hostility due to the fact that you were skaters, and not the fact that she was merely trying to ask you some questions that would reveal any intentions. It seems to me that your cries of injustice are greatly exaggerated. You claim that skaters are second class citizens how ever i have yet to see anyone decline service or be denied the right to vote or religion, i have yet to see a skater being refused in a public place (if there are rules or laws prohibit skating for safety reason is a different story, how ever if a known skater is not skating within these premises and does not have his board with him and is still refused access this would be a case of civil liberties being disputed, i doubt however the likelihood for such an event to happen). I would like to also bring up the point that using a personal narrative to sway the voters is incoherent, as personal narratives tend to be extremely bias and contain a bare minimum of facts within it's contents, and thus it is the responsibility of the voters to vote according to the facts at hand rather then emotional impulse. I would like to now address the point which you made, stating that the persecution of large groups of people are often condoned by small elements within those groups. There is no disputing this, for man is ignorant and the common man shall remain ignorant because he resists change for he is told when he is young that it is unacceptable to be different or weird. Thus men often persecute those who they do not understand and are unwilling to try and understand far more then they persecute those who are similar in nature and culture to themselves. How ever it is unfair to compare a skaters "suffering" to those of Muslims, Irish or Jews or any other groups similar in nature. Many people who are ignorant see these groups as cancer and feel that they must be irradiated, while at it's height of prejudicial skaters are just seen as a minor nuisance rather then an actual group detrimental to society. Another point i feel that i should raise is that, many of the persecuted groups don't have much of a choice in their way of life. If you are born middle eastern or black or latino, it's not as if you could change your ethnicity on a whim. The same difficulties can be applied when dealing with religious prosecution as well. I am well aware of the police/security-skater disputes in public places that have arose in recent years and has been made quite popular via youtube. Although i will admit that in a few cases that skaters were treated with some form of prejudice, however in most of the cases skaters are repeatedly told to stop skating in the area, and repeatedly the skaters ignore these requests. This it is not the fault of the enforcement since the orders were clear, rather it was the fault of the the receiving party (in this situation the skaters) for not abiding to the rules and authority. As for adults who hold no position in law enforcement, it is their right to intervene in situations where the safety of the general public (such as skating down a sidewalk where a number of people of using, giving reason to believe that a collision is inevitable), or when they believe that liability issues may be at stake (such as skating on private properties such as but not limited to private places of business, parking lots or homes, for if the skaters were injured the private property owner could hold some liability,vice versa if the skaters damages anything they could be held responsible and compensation could be troublesome especially when dealing with minors). If neither of these applies to the adult "policing" the skaters then one of two things could be assumed, that the adult is a very nosy person and has nothing better to do then intruding into other people's affairs and/or the person is a dick. As for the issue of respect, remember that respect is earned. It can never be bought or forced, the best way to earn the respect of you community would to give back to the community. Physically show that the image portrayed of skaters is a false one. Do not idle around complaining about discrimination when you yourself are not contributing to battle such stereotypes. Sure it may seem that this task to pull the skating community together to remake it's image is near insuperable but is nesscarry to escape your "persecution".

OldIronGuts

I would first like to give you my condolences to the fact that you feel as if you are a second class citizen. However I would like to say that the lady whom you've portrayed as an icy interrogator had every right to be suspicious. If i were coming home from a long day of work and i see two shadowy figures in front of my house (which is considered private property) i'd be highly suspicious as well. Her questions were highly appropriate and she did not actually threaten you in any way or make any references to the fact that you were skateboarders. It was an assumption of your part that she was treating you with a sense (if any in reality) of hostility due to the fact that you were skaters, and not the fact that she was merely trying to ask you some questions that would reveal any intentions. It seems to me that your cries of injustice are greatly exaggerated. You claim that skaters are second class citizens how ever i have yet to see anyone decline service or be denied the right to vote or religion, i have yet to see a skater being refused in a public place (if there are rules or laws prohibit skating for safety reason is a different story, how ever if a known skater is not skating within these premises and does not have his board with him and is still refused access this would be a case of civil liberties being disputed, i doubt however the likelihood for such an event to happen). I would like to also bring up the point that using a personal narrative to sway the voters is incoherent, as personal narratives tend to be extremely bias and contain a bare minimum of facts within it's contents, and thus it is the responsibility of the voters to vote according to the facts at hand rather then emotional impulse. I would like to now address the point which you made, stating that the persecution of large groups of people are often condoned by small elements within those groups. There is no disputing this, for man is ignorant and the common man shall remain ignorant because he resists change for he is told when he is young that it is unacceptable to be different or weird. Thus men often persecute those who they do not understand and are unwilling to try and understand far more then they persecute those who are similar in nature and culture to themselves. How ever it is unfair to compare a skaters "suffering" to those of Muslims, Irish or Jews or any other groups similar in nature. Many people who are ignorant see these groups as cancer and feel that they must be irradiated, while at it's height of prejudicial skaters are just seen as a minor nuisance rather then an actual group detrimental to society. Another point i feel that i should raise is that, many of the persecuted groups don't have much of a choice in their way of life. If you are born middle eastern or black or latino, it's not as if you could change your ethnicity on a whim. The same difficulties can be applied when dealing with religious prosecution as well. I am well aware of the police/security-skater disputes in public places that have arose in recent years and has been made quite popular via youtube. Although i will admit that in a few cases that skaters were treated with some form of prejudice, however in most of the cases skaters are repeatedly told to stop skating in the area, and repeatedly the skaters ignore these requests. This it is not the fault of the enforcement since the orders were clear, rather it was the fault of the the receiving party (in this situation the skaters) for not abiding to the rules and authority. As for adults who hold no position in law enforcement, it is their right to intervene in situations where the safety of the general public (such as skating down a sidewalk where a number of people of using, giving reason to believe that a collision is inevitable), or when they believe that liability issues may be at stake (such as skating on private properties such as but not limited to private places of business, parking lots or homes, for if the skaters were injured the private property owner could hold some liability,vice versa if the skaters damages anything they could be held responsible and compensation could be troublesome especially when dealing with minors). If neither of these applies to the adult "policing" the skaters then one of two things could be assumed, that the adult is a very nosy person and has nothing better to do then intruding into other people's affairs and/or the person is a dick. As for the issue of respect, remember that respect is earned. It can never be bought or forced, the best way to earn the respect of you community would to give back to the community. Physically show that the image portrayed of skaters is a false one. Do not idle around complaining about discrimination when you yourself are not contributing to battle such stereotypes. Sure it may seem that this task to pull the skating community together to remake it's image is near insuperable but is nesscarry to escape your "persecution".

Society

Adults-should-stop-policing-skateboarders/1/

Thin-Sliced Why should skaters receive any respect; aren't they just troublemakers? On the contrary, a skateboarder is as much a person as you are and is thus entitled to as much respect as anyone. Nevertheless, skaters are being discriminated against every day. I know this because I am a skater, and I have experienced the almost universal negative reception which skaters receive primarily from adults. The disgusting generalization of skaters as obnoxious and dangerous comes from a lot of fear and hatred. Shame on society. Adults must stop unnecessarily policing skaters because such actions are primitive, offensive, and unjust. It was mid-evening, and the neighborhood streets were already bathed in the pale orange light of the street lamps. Daniel and I cut through the street on our skateboards. We sped down the street on our boards, and then slowed to a stop in a cul-de-sac. "It's a great night for skating," Daniel said, getting off his board. "Yeah, it's cool and quiet," I agreed. We sat on the sidewalk on our boards in front of a house in silence for a moment. "We probably won't get to do this for awhile since school is starting soon," I said. Daniel responded with a nonchalant shrug. "Well," I began, rising to my feet, "let's enjoy it while we can." The two of us had begun to walk away from the sidewalk holding our boards. Just then, headlights pierced through the darkness and rounded the corner into the cul-de-sac slowly. Daniel and I stepped out of the car's way awkwardly as it seemed to approach us like some enigmatic red predator. With an electronic "woosh" the driver's side window sailed down. Inside was a blond woman, probably in her thirties, leveling a cold and questioning stare at us. "Who are you?" Her tone matched her gaze.p\ Daniel and I stopped and stood a couple of feet from the side of her car. "I'm Kevin, and this is Daniel," I said. "Where do you boys live?" she asked scarcely after I had replied. Still I ventured to answer politely, "Daniel lives up the street." "What are you doing here?" she asked. Once again, she almost cut into my reply. I began to feel vexed. This woman didn't care about my answers; she only wanted to interrogate me with disdain. "We're just chilling." "Yup, just cruising around," Daniel chimed in. "You're just chilling? Well what are you doing in front of my house?" she asked. "We were talking, m'am; we didn't even know this was your house," I returned. I had done nothing wrong, so I wasn't going to let a super suspicious woman upset me. She seemed perturbed that we hadn't kowtowed to her imaginary authority. She was also lacking justification for her hostile suspicions. "Well, it's dark out, and I was just wondering why you boys were hanging around my house," she said in her icy tone. I laid down my board and mounted it; Daniel did the same. "Forget about it because we're leaving," I said. And with that, my friend and I skated out of the cul-de-sac and back up his street. I was burning with anger and indignation. Who was this woman to interrogate me with such cold manners and narrow preconceptions? I'd just been subjected to prejudice of the most disgraceful kind, one based solely on a person's image. She was ill disposed to me from the moment she saw me. I had been thin-sliced. When you see someone with a diminutive figure and large glasses, you may automatically categorize them as a "nerd" without any basis for your judgement other than your perception of their appearance. She had seen two teenagers with skateboards and reduced us to troublesome, rowdy, profane, and dangerous youths who had no right to use the space of sidewalk in front of her house. We did not deserve the resentful recognition we had received from her. Her cold hostility resulted from the widely popular idea in communities that skateboarders menace and terrorize society. However, such thinking is archaic and small-minded. For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by Muslims, should we then classify all Muslims everywhere as violent and belligerent human beings? The answer is glaringly obvious. It took much time for me to get over my feelings of anger towards the injustice of being treated like a second class citizen. Eventually I moved on, but I know that this won't be the last time I am marginalized. In conclusion, society, particularly adults, should desist in treating skaters in a way that is demeaning. Treating my kind with disrespect and scorn will accomplish nothing besides causing them to retaliate and attack. Adults commonly and frequently generalize us on the account of their own bias. I admit some of our public reputation was earned, but does that mean we can't earn a better one? The Declaration of Independence states that, "all men are created equal," so don't skateboarders deserve basic human respect? In light of this, the next time you encounter a skater I hope you will accept that skater with an open-mind.

TheSempai

Thin-Sliced Why should skaters receive any respect; aren’t they just troublemakers? On the contrary, a skateboarder is as much a person as you are and is thus entitled to as much respect as anyone. Nevertheless, skaters are being discriminated against every day. I know this because I am a skater, and I have experienced the almost universal negative reception which skaters receive primarily from adults. The disgusting generalization of skaters as obnoxious and dangerous comes from a lot of fear and hatred. Shame on society. Adults must stop unnecessarily policing skaters because such actions are primitive, offensive, and unjust. It was mid-evening, and the neighborhood streets were already bathed in the pale orange light of the street lamps. Daniel and I cut through the street on our skateboards. We sped down the street on our boards, and then slowed to a stop in a cul-de-sac. “It’s a great night for skating,” Daniel said, getting off his board. “Yeah, it’s cool and quiet,” I agreed. We sat on the sidewalk on our boards in front of a house in silence for a moment. “We probably won’t get to do this for awhile since school is starting soon,” I said. Daniel responded with a nonchalant shrug. “Well,” I began, rising to my feet, “let’s enjoy it while we can.” The two of us had begun to walk away from the sidewalk holding our boards. Just then, headlights pierced through the darkness and rounded the corner into the cul-de-sac slowly. Daniel and I stepped out of the car’s way awkwardly as it seemed to approach us like some enigmatic red predator. With an electronic “woosh” the driver’s side window sailed down. Inside was a blond woman, probably in her thirties, leveling a cold and questioning stare at us. “Who are you?” Her tone matched her gaze.p\ Daniel and I stopped and stood a couple of feet from the side of her car. “I’m Kevin, and this is Daniel,” I said. “Where do you boys live?” she asked scarcely after I had replied. Still I ventured to answer politely, “Daniel lives up the street.” “What are you doing here?” she asked. Once again, she almost cut into my reply. I began to feel vexed. This woman didn’t care about my answers; she only wanted to interrogate me with disdain. “We’re just chilling.” “Yup, just cruising around,” Daniel chimed in. “You’re just chilling? Well what are you doing in front of my house?” she asked. “We were talking, m’am; we didn’t even know this was your house,” I returned. I had done nothing wrong, so I wasn’t going to let a super suspicious woman upset me. She seemed perturbed that we hadn’t kowtowed to her imaginary authority. She was also lacking justification for her hostile suspicions. “Well, it’s dark out, and I was just wondering why you boys were hanging around my house,” she said in her icy tone. I laid down my board and mounted it; Daniel did the same. “Forget about it because we’re leaving,” I said. And with that, my friend and I skated out of the cul-de-sac and back up his street. I was burning with anger and indignation. Who was this woman to interrogate me with such cold manners and narrow preconceptions? I’d just been subjected to prejudice of the most disgraceful kind, one based solely on a person’s image. She was ill disposed to me from the moment she saw me. I had been thin-sliced. When you see someone with a diminutive figure and large glasses, you may automatically categorize them as a “nerd” without any basis for your judgement other than your perception of their appearance. She had seen two teenagers with skateboards and reduced us to troublesome, rowdy, profane, and dangerous youths who had no right to use the space of sidewalk in front of her house. We did not deserve the resentful recognition we had received from her. Her cold hostility resulted from the widely popular idea in communities that skateboarders menace and terrorize society. However, such thinking is archaic and small-minded. For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by Muslims, should we then classify all Muslims everywhere as violent and belligerent human beings? The answer is glaringly obvious. It took much time for me to get over my feelings of anger towards the injustice of being treated like a second class citizen. Eventually I moved on, but I know that this won’t be the last time I am marginalized. In conclusion, society, particularly adults, should desist in treating skaters in a way that is demeaning. Treating my kind with disrespect and scorn will accomplish nothing besides causing them to retaliate and attack. Adults commonly and frequently generalize us on the account of their own bias. I admit some of our public reputation was earned, but does that mean we can’t earn a better one? The Declaration of Independence states that, “all men are created equal,” so don’t skateboarders deserve basic human respect? In light of this, the next time you encounter a skater I hope you will accept that skater with an open-mind.

Society

Adults-should-stop-policing-skateboarders/1/

Thanks for instigating this debate. Since this is a normative question, the burden of proof is shared. I assume that advertising refers to paid announcements by a business. Economic Arguments Argument 1: Advertising is almost always waste of resources Advertising is a waste of resources. Advertising comes in two forms: informative and persuasive. Persuasive advertising tends to be more prevalent than informative advertising; this ranges from celebrity endorsements to "advertising showdowns" between various major brands. This provides no tangible benefit to the consumer of these products, aside from the amusement of course. Instead, a lot of time, money and effort is spent on planning and executing tedious advertising ventures. This has an opportunity cost for the consumer: all this time, money and effort could instead be spent on improving the quality of the product and the quality of the customer's experience. Informative advertising is only not a waste of resources if it leads the customer to making an informed decision and purchasing the right product. I have outlined below why that is often not the case and the repercussions have already been mentioned above. Argument 2: Advertising will result in higher prices in the long run Since advertising creates a cost with no tangible benefit (in other words, customers wouldn't pay for advertising on its own), it drives up the costs of firms engaging in advertising. In the long run, this would result in higher prices for consumers, depleting consumer surplus and affecting their welfare. To say that an industry should exist simply because it provides employment to people is an economic threat, because it means that money is being spent on something that cannot generate growth. As economic growth is a macroeconomic goal of government, it would be the wise option to ban advertising. Non-economic Arguments Argument 3: Advertising can be misleading The firm producing the good has more information about the good than the buyer. This information asymmetry results in firms pushing the envelope in a bid to persuade consumers to purchase their products. Customers rarely understand the product and the industry before buying a good. Consequently, they do not know which product best suits their needs before they purchase it. Let's look both at persuasive and informative advertising. Persuasive advertising is easy to analyse. Persuasive advertising attempts to skew the customer's perception of their product with minimal consideration of whether the product really is suitable for the consumer. If a consumer sees an advertisement of one firm and buys its product, when instead the firm's competitor's product would have been more suitable, then the advertisement has succeeded in getting business for the firm, but it has come at a cost to the consumer. Informative advertising is a lot more, well some might even say altruistic. It attempts to give more information to the customer about the product and thereby enable the customer to make a more informed decision. However, very often, customers (especially first time buyers) are unable to weigh the options accurately on their own, or make an appropriate decision, because they are unaware of the criteria that go into purchasing the product. The customer, overwhelmed by the information, may end up choosing randomly to get out of their confusion, even if the advertised product is the right one for them. At the end of the day, it is important to understand the dynamics at play. Firms exist to provide benefit to consumers and households. Consumers do not exist to create jobs for firms. As long as firms are hiding behind advertising in a bid to escape their responsibility to consumers, the dynamic will never be at an optimal scale. As an alternative, firms may instead find it better to use the advertising money to fund an organization that will understand consumers' needs and send them to the right business. If one business gets a larger market share, then it would be an indication that they are doing something right that other businesses should emulate, and that we, as a society, would want continued in the future. We can therefore conclude that advertising should be banned. Looking forward to your response.

republicofdhar

Thanks for instigating this debate. Since this is a normative question, the burden of proof is shared. I assume that advertising refers to paid announcements by a business. Economic Arguments Argument 1: Advertising is almost always waste of resources Advertising is a waste of resources. Advertising comes in two forms: informative and persuasive. Persuasive advertising tends to be more prevalent than informative advertising; this ranges from celebrity endorsements to “advertising showdowns” between various major brands. This provides no tangible benefit to the consumer of these products, aside from the amusement of course. Instead, a lot of time, money and effort is spent on planning and executing tedious advertising ventures. This has an opportunity cost for the consumer: all this time, money and effort could instead be spent on improving the quality of the product and the quality of the customer’s experience. Informative advertising is only not a waste of resources if it leads the customer to making an informed decision and purchasing the right product. I have outlined below why that is often not the case and the repercussions have already been mentioned above. Argument 2: Advertising will result in higher prices in the long run Since advertising creates a cost with no tangible benefit (in other words, customers wouldn’t pay for advertising on its own), it drives up the costs of firms engaging in advertising. In the long run, this would result in higher prices for consumers, depleting consumer surplus and affecting their welfare. To say that an industry should exist simply because it provides employment to people is an economic threat, because it means that money is being spent on something that cannot generate growth. As economic growth is a macroeconomic goal of government, it would be the wise option to ban advertising. Non-economic Arguments Argument 3: Advertising can be misleading The firm producing the good has more information about the good than the buyer. This information asymmetry results in firms pushing the envelope in a bid to persuade consumers to purchase their products. Customers rarely understand the product and the industry before buying a good. Consequently, they do not know which product best suits their needs before they purchase it. Let’s look both at persuasive and informative advertising. Persuasive advertising is easy to analyse. Persuasive advertising attempts to skew the customer’s perception of their product with minimal consideration of whether the product really is suitable for the consumer. If a consumer sees an advertisement of one firm and buys its product, when instead the firm’s competitor’s product would have been more suitable, then the advertisement has succeeded in getting business for the firm, but it has come at a cost to the consumer. Informative advertising is a lot more, well some might even say altruistic. It attempts to give more information to the customer about the product and thereby enable the customer to make a more informed decision. However, very often, customers (especially first time buyers) are unable to weigh the options accurately on their own, or make an appropriate decision, because they are unaware of the criteria that go into purchasing the product. The customer, overwhelmed by the information, may end up choosing randomly to get out of their confusion, even if the advertised product is the right one for them. At the end of the day, it is important to understand the dynamics at play. Firms exist to provide benefit to consumers and households. Consumers do not exist to create jobs for firms. As long as firms are hiding behind advertising in a bid to escape their responsibility to consumers, the dynamic will never be at an optimal scale. As an alternative, firms may instead find it better to use the advertising money to fund an organization that will understand consumers’ needs and send them to the right business. If one business gets a larger market share, then it would be an indication that they are doing something right that other businesses should emulate, and that we, as a society, would want continued in the future. We can therefore conclude that advertising should be banned. Looking forward to your response.

Entertainment

Advertising-should-be-BANNED-from-TV-and-Radio/1/

Thank you for your robust response. Counter-argument 1: Cable? I couldn"t really follow your first point. When you say "advertising agencies" do you mean the firms that are paid to handle advertising for many clients, or do you mean the firm that is advertising its own product? Also, I"m not sure what you meant by "loss of funds". Either way, you conclude by saying that channel stations would raise the price of cable, which cannot be a desirable outcome for the consumer, and so advertising should be banned. Counter-argument 2: Advertising as a starting point for talented artists You are right to say that talented people have started in advertising, but that is a weak reason to support its existence. Talented people come from all walks of life. Some are known to have grown up in slums and ghettos, but that does not mean that we should preserve slums and ghettos. If an artist really is talented, they should not need advertising as a platform to begin with. Counter argument 3: People need commercials for breaks during TV shows I wasn"t very impressed by this argument. Are you suggesting that we should preserve a parasitic multi-billion dollar industry simply because people need to go to the bathroom? This is hardly the most important question here, but an alternative: why not play a musical interlude, or place short sketches in between TV shows instead? Counter argument 4: Just get Netflix or Hulu Well, I think that you"ve just established that advertisements are unnecessary. If they can work on platforms like Netflix and Hulu, then it is indicative that TV can be watched without advertisements. I have responded to all your arguments, though I"m not sure that you have responded to all of mine. Since my arguments still stand, I conclude that advertising should be banned. Thanks for this very interesting debate; it"s opened my eyes to new perspectives. a86;

republicofdhar

Thank you for your robust response. Counter-argument 1: Cable? I couldn"t really follow your first point. When you say "advertising agencies" do you mean the firms that are paid to handle advertising for many clients, or do you mean the firm that is advertising its own product? Also, I"m not sure what you meant by "loss of funds". Either way, you conclude by saying that channel stations would raise the price of cable, which cannot be a desirable outcome for the consumer, and so advertising should be banned. Counter-argument 2: Advertising as a starting point for talented artists You are right to say that talented people have started in advertising, but that is a weak reason to support its existence. Talented people come from all walks of life. Some are known to have grown up in slums and ghettos, but that does not mean that we should preserve slums and ghettos. If an artist really is talented, they should not need advertising as a platform to begin with. Counter argument 3: People need commercials for breaks during TV shows I wasn"t very impressed by this argument. Are you suggesting that we should preserve a parasitic multi-billion dollar industry simply because people need to go to the bathroom? This is hardly the most important question here, but an alternative: why not play a musical interlude, or place short sketches in between TV shows instead? Counter argument 4: Just get Netflix or Hulu Well, I think that you"ve just established that advertisements are unnecessary. If they can work on platforms like Netflix and Hulu, then it is indicative that TV can be watched without advertisements. I have responded to all your arguments, though I"m not sure that you have responded to all of mine. Since my arguments still stand, I conclude that advertising should be banned. Thanks for this very interesting debate; it"s opened my eyes to new perspectives. a86;

Entertainment

Advertising-should-be-BANNED-from-TV-and-Radio/1/

As if rude is a bad thing? I am brutally honest with my words and my wisdom. I live in a world filled with conformists and psychopaths. I don't wear a smile, a suit or a smooth hair cut. I tell you the truth - I let you know the pain within that truth, as I do not hold back on telling it. I do not care to make it easier for you, when it's your fault for not self-disciplining yourself and wondering why this man's passion cooks your existential withering. I can only imagine a world wherein our emotions become realistic traits which physically affect us, as per our anger causing our houses to set on fire; our depression causing us to drown in water; our ways of eating away at ourselves causing acid to rain from the heavens, eating holes through our flesh. A world where stupidity causes many pain; intelligence causing many happiness. A world where the wise lead the people - the unwise are kicked down until they treated their brain, like they would treat their loved one. A world where people would take a glass of water and drink it in sips, rather than take it all in at once, causing the experience to become watered down - realizing that they are nothing without this water. A world where people stopped playing god, to finally play human. A world where judgment ceased to exist, as this world of people would recognize that judgment is paradoxical as it can judge even death. A world where people would accept their emotions and release them, rather than bottle them up and fear those that let them go. A world where people do not pick and choose what they want in their life, as everything in life is a part, not a side. A world where a child would walk into a museum and say, I do not feel anything in this picture, but I do understand that the artist did a lot to make it so. A world where the brain and the heart can live together, where the brain deals with the objective; the heart deals with the subjective; the brain dealing with the Universe; the heart dealing with the "You need verse". A world where art, music and feeling trumps the argument, the abusive and the yielding. A world where people are free to flaunt their intelligence, their potential and their ability like those that can flaunt their ignorance, stupidity and negligence. A world where the wise weren't in pain, but were in paradise - and those that cause others pain, were restrained by a world that welcomed intelligence, knowledge and brain over nonsense. I see pain in everyone - I may inflict a type of pain, but the reason why it does not go further than a prick, is because the truth is like a rose; beautiful, yet can cause some pain. You don't even remotely know my intentions to base my character off of your own weak ability to sustain yourself through my words that do not take a second to allow you to hide in your comfort zone.

Aerogant

As if rude is a bad thing? I am brutally honest with my words and my wisdom. I live in a world filled with conformists and psychopaths. I don't wear a smile, a suit or a smooth hair cut. I tell you the truth - I let you know the pain within that truth, as I do not hold back on telling it. I do not care to make it easier for you, when it's your fault for not self-disciplining yourself and wondering why this man's passion cooks your existential withering. I can only imagine a world wherein our emotions become realistic traits which physically affect us, as per our anger causing our houses to set on fire; our depression causing us to drown in water; our ways of eating away at ourselves causing acid to rain from the heavens, eating holes through our flesh. A world where stupidity causes many pain; intelligence causing many happiness. A world where the wise lead the people - the unwise are kicked down until they treated their brain, like they would treat their loved one. A world where people would take a glass of water and drink it in sips, rather than take it all in at once, causing the experience to become watered down - realizing that they are nothing without this water. A world where people stopped playing god, to finally play human. A world where judgment ceased to exist, as this world of people would recognize that judgment is paradoxical as it can judge even death. A world where people would accept their emotions and release them, rather than bottle them up and fear those that let them go. A world where people do not pick and choose what they want in their life, as everything in life is a part, not a side. A world where a child would walk into a museum and say, I do not feel anything in this picture, but I do understand that the artist did a lot to make it so. A world where the brain and the heart can live together, where the brain deals with the objective; the heart deals with the subjective; the brain dealing with the Universe; the heart dealing with the "You need verse". A world where art, music and feeling trumps the argument, the abusive and the yielding. A world where people are free to flaunt their intelligence, their potential and their ability like those that can flaunt their ignorance, stupidity and negligence. A world where the wise weren't in pain, but were in paradise - and those that cause others pain, were restrained by a world that welcomed intelligence, knowledge and brain over nonsense. I see pain in everyone - I may inflict a type of pain, but the reason why it does not go further than a prick, is because the truth is like a rose; beautiful, yet can cause some pain. You don't even remotely know my intentions to base my character off of your own weak ability to sustain yourself through my words that do not take a second to allow you to hide in your comfort zone.

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

Or perhaps I faced the Universe's eye of the storm, while you just sheltered yourself in feelings and make-believe and wonder why your body reacts unexpectedly to my passionate vibes?

Aerogant

Or perhaps I faced the Universe's eye of the storm, while you just sheltered yourself in feelings and make-believe and wonder why your body reacts unexpectedly to my passionate vibes?

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

You base your life off of chemical tautologies - I base my life off of critical thinking.

Aerogant

You base your life off of chemical tautologies - I base my life off of critical thinking.

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

Come on and accept the debate and don't deny it, you know your wrong. You have been nothing but rude to the community.

saboosa

Come on and accept the debate and don't deny it, you know your wrong. You have been nothing but rude to the community.

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

You see, this is what you do. You first say a claim that makes nonsence to ANY of us. And then you be rude to us when we don't understand your unreasonable words.

saboosa

You see, this is what you do. You first say a claim that makes nonsence to ANY of us. And then you be rude to us when we don't understand your unreasonable words.

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

Now in english please? Anyone here speak gibberish? Come back to the debate when youre not acting like a jerk.

saboosa

Now in english please? Anyone here speak gibberish? Come back to the debate when youre not acting like a jerk.

People

Aerogant-is-rude-to-his-apponents/3/

Con May go first!

carman16

Con May go first!

Religion

Aethism-Does-More-Good-Than-Harm/1/

Friends, Families, Stalkers and Douche bags, here we witness...the redneck. He is blind, ignorant, and is just plain stupid on almost all issues. 1. I would like some proof that these 'Religious Texts" are real. 2. Also, why the so called "Lord" who makes us waste 4 hours every week making us listen to bull crap that we foret about in 20 minutes? ---------------------------------------------------- You may think im crude, but unfortunately, there is no way to explain this truth. Atheism, no religion, zip-zip-Nada. Most of the wars we have started are because religious practices, people disagreeing whose right, whose wrong. If we were free of hells grip (religion), imagine all the advancements we could make in the sciences, find out more about EVOLUTION. The reason why Galileo was imprisoned was because of RELIGION! Many Scientific documents from the past have been destroyed because of religion. Think of this, we would have our world, advancing, learning, faster then ever before! Good and Bad can be defined in the way its supposed to mean, not differing from culture to culture. So think of this, if you don't vote for me, AT ALL,your a mindless bastard that wants no progress and wants to live in fixed ideas that don't work. If you do vote for me, you vote for progress, you vote for vast knowledge. VOTE PRO

carman16

Friends, Families, Stalkers and Douche bags, here we witness...the redneck. He is blind, ignorant, and is just plain stupid on almost all issues. 1. I would like some proof that these 'Religious Texts" are real. 2. Also, why the so called "Lord" who makes us waste 4 hours every week making us listen to bull crap that we foret about in 20 minutes? ---------------------------------------------------- You may think im crude, but unfortunately, there is no way to explain this truth. Atheism, no religion, zip-zip-Nada. Most of the wars we have started are because religious practices, people disagreeing whose right, whose wrong. If we were free of hells grip (religion), imagine all the advancements we could make in the sciences, find out more about EVOLUTION. The reason why Galileo was imprisoned was because of RELIGION! Many Scientific documents from the past have been destroyed because of religion. Think of this, we would have our world, advancing, learning, faster then ever before! Good and Bad can be defined in the way its supposed to mean, not differing from culture to culture. So think of this, if you don't vote for me, AT ALL,your a mindless bastard that wants no progress and wants to live in fixed ideas that don't work. If you do vote for me, you vote for progress, you vote for vast knowledge. VOTE PRO

Religion

Aethism-Does-More-Good-Than-Harm/1/

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified. If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair? If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist. What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid. I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!

FunkeeMonk91

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified. If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair? If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist. What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid. I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

While I did mention the college application process, I was not using that as a separate topic. I was using that as justification for my standardized testing argument (in this case, and probably most of the debate), namely about the SAT. I was saying that the SAT is a huge part of the college admission process. Therefore, to have a bias SAT influence results of admission, creates an unfair system based solely on race. Although I cannot speak for all standardized tests, the SAT does, in fact, award point raises to certain ethnic groups. I read this on in a College Board article, but I can't seem to find it. Once I find it, I will post the link in a later round, so, voters, do not penalize me for that just yet. Your rebuttal about optional compliance with the race questionnaire is true, but irrelevant. Just because someone could, theoretically, select a race different to their own and gain any point boosts, doesn't make it any more justified. Your point about Gratz v. Bollinger only helps me. It is unconstitutional, that is my contention. However, if you are arguing that because it was found unconstitutional, College Board wouldn't do that, then that still doesn't work. That ruling only applied to university admissions. Michigan's scale system was not based on testing, but rather, it was based on an overall ranking given to a n applicant based on their resume. No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm specifically talking about SAT adjustment based on ethnicity. It is both unconstitutional, and by definition, racist. However, as we get into Affirmative Action in this debate (which isn't the topic, but could lend itself to the argument at hand) I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to whatever laws related to Affirmative Action, but rather the reasoning or the philosophy behind it. But universities do foster diversity. Just because one university is prominently white, doesn't mean that it is breeding segregation amongst minorities. Anyone is able to apply and go to any school. Isn't that enough? I'm sure that the principles of affirmative would not be implemented in a previously-all black college. Why isn't diversity fostered like it is in other places? Again, off topic, but I'd like to see a source of your claim of white affirmative action in early education programs. Because, I'm pretty sure they don't give preference to whites for preschool. Affirmative Action is racist, by definition: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." The whole principle of it is based on making up for racism in the past. That sounds nice, but it isn't reasonable for two reasons. 1) This country was founded on the notion that you didn't have to be held back by what your family did; you could advance your situation and start fresh. Sure, the things that happened to minorities over the last 400 years is awful, and we need to remember what happened. But why are people today being castigated because of things that they have no control over? 2) Affirmative action only builds barriers between groups. It gives people the impression that minorities need to be helped, and that they are not capable of doing it on their own. Sometimes, I think that many minorities themselves feel that way to a degree. In an equal country, everyone needs to be equal. White, black, Native American, Asian, or Latino, all people deserve a truly equal chances, specifically college. P.S. They don't even have a Middle eastern bubble on the SAT. Talk about "promoting diversity."

FunkeeMonk91

While I did mention the college application process, I was not using that as a separate topic. I was using that as justification for my standardized testing argument (in this case, and probably most of the debate), namely about the SAT. I was saying that the SAT is a huge part of the college admission process. Therefore, to have a bias SAT influence results of admission, creates an unfair system based solely on race. Although I cannot speak for all standardized tests, the SAT does, in fact, award point raises to certain ethnic groups. I read this on in a College Board article, but I can't seem to find it. Once I find it, I will post the link in a later round, so, voters, do not penalize me for that just yet. Your rebuttal about optional compliance with the race questionnaire is true, but irrelevant. Just because someone could, theoretically, select a race different to their own and gain any point boosts, doesn't make it any more justified. Your point about Gratz v. Bollinger only helps me. It is unconstitutional, that is my contention. However, if you are arguing that because it was found unconstitutional, College Board wouldn't do that, then that still doesn't work. That ruling only applied to university admissions. Michigan's scale system was not based on testing, but rather, it was based on an overall ranking given to a n applicant based on their resume. No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm specifically talking about SAT adjustment based on ethnicity. It is both unconstitutional, and by definition, racist. However, as we get into Affirmative Action in this debate (which isn't the topic, but could lend itself to the argument at hand) I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to whatever laws related to Affirmative Action, but rather the reasoning or the philosophy behind it. But universities do foster diversity. Just because one university is prominently white, doesn't mean that it is breeding segregation amongst minorities. Anyone is able to apply and go to any school. Isn't that enough? I'm sure that the principles of affirmative would not be implemented in a previously-all black college. Why isn't diversity fostered like it is in other places? Again, off topic, but I'd like to see a source of your claim of white affirmative action in early education programs. Because, I'm pretty sure they don't give preference to whites for preschool. Affirmative Action is racist, by definition: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." The whole principle of it is based on making up for racism in the past. That sounds nice, but it isn't reasonable for two reasons. 1) This country was founded on the notion that you didn't have to be held back by what your family did; you could advance your situation and start fresh. Sure, the things that happened to minorities over the last 400 years is awful, and we need to remember what happened. But why are people today being castigated because of things that they have no control over? 2) Affirmative action only builds barriers between groups. It gives people the impression that minorities need to be helped, and that they are not capable of doing it on their own. Sometimes, I think that many minorities themselves feel that way to a degree. In an equal country, everyone needs to be equal. White, black, Native American, Asian, or Latino, all people deserve a truly equal chances, specifically college. P.S. They don't even have a Middle eastern bubble on the SAT. Talk about "promoting diversity."

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

1) Maybe the SAT isn't a huge factor at Michigan, but many schools find it to be very important in admissions. However, I do agree with the fact that the new trend is to make extra curriculars the priority. But that does not mean that the SAT isn't a big part of the admissions process. 2) I got it! This article outlines a study done and talks about SAT adjustment. Some of the statistics I gave were a little off, but still, the point boots they give are significant. Also, it says the boosts are given at "Elite Universities," so they aren't given at every college. But nonetheless, it is still unfair. <URL>... 3) My source above negates your third point, since even though it is optional, they do it anyway. 4) Once I reread the article, I realized that the points are not given from College Board, so that was my mistake. They are given from the university. And yes, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am against it. Maybe its not happening at Michigan, but it's still going on. 5) I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. But I will say this: it's unfair to allow something like race or gender become the kind of thing that you would put in your resume with your other credentials. In the application process into any institution, your admission should be solely based on the content of your character, and nothing else. Do you not agree with the scenario I proposed earlier (two students, one white, one black, same credentials, but the black guy gets excepted because of the color of his skin)? Yes, the African American population is not as affluent as some of the other demographic groups. But that does not give anyone the right to deny someone a chance at a great school, just because of that persons ethnicity. 6) AA only promotes social inequity. It sends out a message that minorities can't do this on their own and that they need federal help. This isn't a good message. In a truly equal society, there wouldn't be a debate about Affirmative Action because people will be looked at as students and employees; not as white students and black employees. Everyone will be so unconcerned about which race gets what and what is fair and unfair because people won't be thinking in terms of groups of races. They will be thinking in terms of people as people regardless of color. Does that make sense? It's been a long day, so I hope I was clear. 7) Well, there's on problem with this point. The only reason why men are being so sought after in nursing and education is that there is such a shortage in women. Since the number of women interested in those fields is dropping, they are trying to expand their interest demographic, so that more people will go into those fields. Also, those sources never said anything about men being given preference over women. All they talked about was getting more men involved, because there are so few people in those programs (both men and women). Those articles were merely explaining how the nursing and education programs are increasing their (for lack of a better word) fan base. 8. I never said that without AA there would be no racism. I basically have the same conjecture as you, but mine is that a sans AA society would, slowly but surely, (nearly) remove discrimination from the country. As I stated above, AA gives the impression that minorities are inferior and can only get in schools/jobs if they are helped by the government. Also, it can be argued that AA even creates more resentment because of the white guy that is turned down for the job, even though he was just as qualified or more than the other guy/girl of another ethnicity. I know it's a movie, but a great example is the movie Crash, where Matt Dillon's character's father went out of business because of policies that resulted from affirmative action. As a result, Dillon's character carried that prejudice with him his whole life. I'm not saying we should do nothing about past discrimination. But it is unjust and unfair to do it at the expense of people whom had nothing to do with it. 9). Yes, the founding fathers were hypocritical, but that doesn't make what a lot of what they said wrong. The idea that all men and women should have a chance at success started with them. It is irrelevant whether they followed that or not. For example, I could say never to play hop scotch on the free way, but do it anyway. That wouldn't make the first statement false. So, you don't believe that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights, just because those things were written so long ago? The time of a document's birth has no relevance when discussing the truth behind it. I'm not being disadvantaged. In fact, I gain a lot from Affirmative Action, because I am Latino. But that doesn't justify AA at all. But your claim that AA has increased college attendance is completely false. I think a more reasonably explanation would be the rise in education standards all over the country. I mean, that's almost a 50 year span. I mean, 1960 was only 6 years after Brown vs. Board of Education which over turned the "separate but equal" clause. 1960 is hardly a decent reference point, since things have changed so drastically. 10) Your claim that Michigan is the most racist state is no more valid than mine about barriers. You can't measure racism with statistics, so neither of our points can be proved empirically. However, I proved circumstantially that AA does build barriers. Cases like the police officer in Crash are everywhere. AA is building barriers for sure. PS. Middle Eastern is not a race, but they have other ethnicities on that test as well. I have not taken a College Board test in a while, but I have seen ethnicities like Chicano/Mexican, Non-Mexican Latino, Pacific Islander (could be argued as race), and I think I even saw Carribean once. Of course, I have no way to prove that, but I know that they don't only have options for race on that test. The reason I mentioned that is becuase my good Persian friend hates how there isn't an option for him. He can't put Asian, because of the point reduction, so he has to put other, which is basically the same as putting white.

FunkeeMonk91

1) Maybe the SAT isn't a huge factor at Michigan, but many schools find it to be very important in admissions. However, I do agree with the fact that the new trend is to make extra curriculars the priority. But that does not mean that the SAT isn't a big part of the admissions process. 2) I got it! This article outlines a study done and talks about SAT adjustment. Some of the statistics I gave were a little off, but still, the point boots they give are significant. Also, it says the boosts are given at "Elite Universities," so they aren't given at every college. But nonetheless, it is still unfair. http://opr.princeton.edu... 3) My source above negates your third point, since even though it is optional, they do it anyway. 4) Once I reread the article, I realized that the points are not given from College Board, so that was my mistake. They are given from the university. And yes, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am against it. Maybe its not happening at Michigan, but it's still going on. 5) I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. But I will say this: it's unfair to allow something like race or gender become the kind of thing that you would put in your resume with your other credentials. In the application process into any institution, your admission should be solely based on the content of your character, and nothing else. Do you not agree with the scenario I proposed earlier (two students, one white, one black, same credentials, but the black guy gets excepted because of the color of his skin)? Yes, the African American population is not as affluent as some of the other demographic groups. But that does not give anyone the right to deny someone a chance at a great school, just because of that persons ethnicity. 6) AA only promotes social inequity. It sends out a message that minorities can't do this on their own and that they need federal help. This isn't a good message. In a truly equal society, there wouldn't be a debate about Affirmative Action because people will be looked at as students and employees; not as white students and black employees. Everyone will be so unconcerned about which race gets what and what is fair and unfair because people won't be thinking in terms of groups of races. They will be thinking in terms of people as people regardless of color. Does that make sense? It's been a long day, so I hope I was clear. 7) Well, there's on problem with this point. The only reason why men are being so sought after in nursing and education is that there is such a shortage in women. Since the number of women interested in those fields is dropping, they are trying to expand their interest demographic, so that more people will go into those fields. Also, those sources never said anything about men being given preference over women. All they talked about was getting more men involved, because there are so few people in those programs (both men and women). Those articles were merely explaining how the nursing and education programs are increasing their (for lack of a better word) fan base. 8. I never said that without AA there would be no racism. I basically have the same conjecture as you, but mine is that a sans AA society would, slowly but surely, (nearly) remove discrimination from the country. As I stated above, AA gives the impression that minorities are inferior and can only get in schools/jobs if they are helped by the government. Also, it can be argued that AA even creates more resentment because of the white guy that is turned down for the job, even though he was just as qualified or more than the other guy/girl of another ethnicity. I know it's a movie, but a great example is the movie Crash, where Matt Dillon's character's father went out of business because of policies that resulted from affirmative action. As a result, Dillon's character carried that prejudice with him his whole life. I'm not saying we should do nothing about past discrimination. But it is unjust and unfair to do it at the expense of people whom had nothing to do with it. 9). Yes, the founding fathers were hypocritical, but that doesn't make what a lot of what they said wrong. The idea that all men and women should have a chance at success started with them. It is irrelevant whether they followed that or not. For example, I could say never to play hop scotch on the free way, but do it anyway. That wouldn't make the first statement false. So, you don't believe that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights, just because those things were written so long ago? The time of a document's birth has no relevance when discussing the truth behind it. I'm not being disadvantaged. In fact, I gain a lot from Affirmative Action, because I am Latino. But that doesn't justify AA at all. But your claim that AA has increased college attendance is completely false. I think a more reasonably explanation would be the rise in education standards all over the country. I mean, that's almost a 50 year span. I mean, 1960 was only 6 years after Brown vs. Board of Education which over turned the "separate but equal" clause. 1960 is hardly a decent reference point, since things have changed so drastically. 10) Your claim that Michigan is the most racist state is no more valid than mine about barriers. You can't measure racism with statistics, so neither of our points can be proved empirically. However, I proved circumstantially that AA does build barriers. Cases like the police officer in Crash are everywhere. AA is building barriers for sure. PS. Middle Eastern is not a race, but they have other ethnicities on that test as well. I have not taken a College Board test in a while, but I have seen ethnicities like Chicano/Mexican, Non-Mexican Latino, Pacific Islander (could be argued as race), and I think I even saw Carribean once. Of course, I have no way to prove that, but I know that they don't only have options for race on that test. The reason I mentioned that is becuase my good Persian friend hates how there isn't an option for him. He can't put Asian, because of the point reduction, so he has to put other, which is basically the same as putting white.

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

There's a fundamental problem with the framing of your debate; you claim that the debate is only to be about standardized testing - but you go into several other types of affirmative action (like college admissions processes). In order to properly respond to your argument, one would have to go into those other areas that you've delved into - so hopefully you won't hold it against me when I do. I would first ask that you provide evidence that the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) gives points-based bonuses (or detractions) to people based on their racial affiliation, because I can find absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Such a claim strikes me as patently false for two reasons. First, identifying one's race on the SATs is optional so it is impossible to determine the race of the people taking the test (the question is also posed on the honor system, so if a white applicant wanted to apply for these alleged bonuses on the SATs, all they need do is fill in their race as African American). Second, points-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional per Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) so this system you're alleging of plus points for black applicants and minus points for Asian applicants would be unconstitutional. What I think you may be referring to is admissions processes and criteria at universities (which use SAT scores among many other variables to determine access into popular programs that have restrictions on how many applicants they will admit). If this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify. As to the general argument against affirmative action that you're making - you fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action works. The premise of Affirmative Action is that, all things being equal, public institutions should attempt to foster a diverse environment. That's it. There are no quotas, no points systems and minorities are not automatically given preference over whites. If an institution already has a diverse environment that reflects the general demographic characteristics of society, it is under no obligation to give anyone preference based on race or sex. Universities also weight a variety of other categories as well that no one seems to have an objection to, such as geographic region (Michigan universities, for example, give preference to residents of Michigan). Affirmative Action applies to ALL races and sexes; not just minorities and women. If whites or males are underrepresented in various academic programs (as they are in Early Childhood Education and Nursing) - affirmative action applies to them in those cases so they may be given slightly more consideration into those programs. I disagree fundamentally with your claim that Affirmative Action is racist. I would contend, conversely, that it is anti-racist. What is racist (a fact borne out by the myriad statistical quality of life indicators that attest to the lingering racial biases that exist in our society) is not using a program like Affirmative Action to take the implicit racial biases that exist in our society into account because it perpetuates those existing racial biases.

sethgecko13

There's a fundamental problem with the framing of your debate; you claim that the debate is only to be about standardized testing – but you go into several other types of affirmative action (like college admissions processes). In order to properly respond to your argument, one would have to go into those other areas that you've delved into – so hopefully you won't hold it against me when I do. I would first ask that you provide evidence that the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) gives points-based bonuses (or detractions) to people based on their racial affiliation, because I can find absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Such a claim strikes me as patently false for two reasons. First, identifying one's race on the SATs is optional so it is impossible to determine the race of the people taking the test (the question is also posed on the honor system, so if a white applicant wanted to apply for these alleged bonuses on the SATs, all they need do is fill in their race as African American). Second, points-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional per Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) so this system you're alleging of plus points for black applicants and minus points for Asian applicants would be unconstitutional. What I think you may be referring to is admissions processes and criteria at universities (which use SAT scores among many other variables to determine access into popular programs that have restrictions on how many applicants they will admit). If this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify. As to the general argument against affirmative action that you're making – you fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action works. The premise of Affirmative Action is that, all things being equal, public institutions should attempt to foster a diverse environment. That's it. There are no quotas, no points systems and minorities are not automatically given preference over whites. If an institution already has a diverse environment that reflects the general demographic characteristics of society, it is under no obligation to give anyone preference based on race or sex. Universities also weight a variety of other categories as well that no one seems to have an objection to, such as geographic region (Michigan universities, for example, give preference to residents of Michigan). Affirmative Action applies to ALL races and sexes; not just minorities and women. If whites or males are underrepresented in various academic programs (as they are in Early Childhood Education and Nursing) – affirmative action applies to them in those cases so they may be given slightly more consideration into those programs. I disagree fundamentally with your claim that Affirmative Action is racist. I would contend, conversely, that it is anti-racist. What is racist (a fact borne out by the myriad statistical quality of life indicators that attest to the lingering racial biases that exist in our society) is not using a program like Affirmative Action to take the implicit racial biases that exist in our society into account because it perpetuates those existing racial biases.

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

1) The SAT does not have a "huge" influence on the college admissions process. SAT scores actually count for very little in the overall matrix used during the college admissions process. The University of Michigan is a great example (not just because it's a prestigious university, but because it was ground zero for the affirmative action debate and was the impetus for the two major AA supreme court rulings). The application process for universities exists to ensure that the population admitted (due to scarce space) will be successful in college. Universities have found that standardized test scores (and GPAs) are poor predictors of college success (because they can be studied for and they don't measure skills that lead to success in a college setting - and GPAs vary from school to school because the varying level of academic rigor at high schools). At U of M, your GPA and SAT score only count a small bit in the overall decision to admit you. It's FAR more important to have a track record of things like "personal achievement" and "leadership and service" (even a factor like having lived in Michigan counts; out-of-state students are given less consideration - even the county you live in counts - they prioritize 'underrepresented counties' along with everything else). These quoted phrases come from U of M directly. I should also say that I work in higher education, so I have more than a passing familiarity with all of this. The comparatively little value of the SAT has actually prompted some universities (like the University of California) to threaten to drop it altogether (which is why the College Board recently overhauled it). 2) I still maintain that points are not allocated based on ethnic minority status for the SATs. Better hurry up and find that article. 3) My point about the voluntary nature of the "race" question on the SAT is perfectly relevant because it illustrates how pointless weighting the scores based on race is. If one can cheat the results - there's no way they can assign extra points ESPECIALLY if that would count toward the college admissions process. Universities aren't stupid; there's no way they would stand for points being arbitrarily assigned on something completely unverifiable like an optional demographics question on a standardized test. 4) If it's unconstitutional for U of M to use a points-based system of affirmative action - it's ALSO unconstitutional for the College Board which is a taxpayer-supported not-for-profit entity just like the University. BOTH would be violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment because if a points-based system is unconstitutional in one area - the precedent is established that it would be unconstitutional anywhere else (including hiring). I'm very familiar with the U of M admissions procedure that was deemed unconstitutional - I would also point out that minority status only accounted for 20 of 150 points. 5) Affirmative Action doesn't apply only to the admissions processes at universities - it also applies to outreach and support activities - virtually all universities that have AA admissions policies also have these other policies. Yes, people can apply to attend college; but the problem is - your race and gender determine your chances of going to college or succeeding once you've been accepted. I would even argue that these outreach programs are more important because they help give people who otherwise wouldn't even think of trying to go to college a chance to see that it is a possibility. 6) Affirmative action is a voluntary practice adopted by educational institutions and is one way of responding to racial/sexual inequity. Historically Black Colleges are another way of responding to the pervasive racism in our society. Yes, the students at HBCs might benefit from a more diverse learning environment - but given that they WORK and LIVE in a diverse environment - it's not as though they have a shortage of opportunities to interact with people of other races/backgrounds. 7) When I say that there are affirmative action programs that apply (for example) to white males for fields like Early Childhood Education - I mean the programs encourage men to go into Early Childhood Education AS A DEGREE PROGRAM IN COLLEGE - not that they encourage whites to go to preschool. As for evidence: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... 8) AA is anti-racist. The status quo without AA has discrimination already built in, so your assertion that AA is discriminatory is meaningless because the net result of your opposition to AA is advocating for the continuance of discrimination that naturally exists. AA is a measure that fixes the discrimination that already exists in society with the goal of eliminating discrimination altogether. Right now one's race or sex determines how much access they will have to various career fields (as well as a lot of other characteristics about their life, like their likelihood to end up in prison or their household income). AA is fixing that (and has been since the 1960s when it was first implemented). Slowly but surely, the inequalities are being remedied. What's racist is doing nothing to address past discrimination. 9) This country was founded by slave-owning white males who believed that if you were black, female, or you didn't own land - you shouldn't get to count in the governmental process. What the country was "founded on" in that respect is irrelevant today because we believe in markedly different things than the framers of the Constitution did. It's utter lunacy that you try to claim that the founding fathers were the patron saints of egalitarianism given the rampant inequities that they wrote into the Constitution (which had to be written out by later generations). Your claim that you're somehow being put at a disadvantage because Affirmative Action exists is baseless - especially when it comes to higher ed. If minorities were being given spots at colleges that belonged to whites - the percentage of the college-educated US population would remain the same. It has not. It has steadily increased from around 12% in 1960 to over 27% today. AA is making room for more people; not excluding people. 10) You can claim that affirmative action builds barriers between groups, but you have no evidence for that claim. Michigan, which eliminated AA two years ago with Proposal 2 is the most racially-segregated state in the nation according to a Harvard University study (and is showing no signs of desegregating). PS - I think "Middle Eastern" isn't on the SAT "race" question because "Middle Eastern" isn't a race; it's an ethnicity. Middle Easterners count as "Asians." Then again the whole notion of defining race is problematic and is a great example of the persistence of racism: <URL>...

sethgecko13

1) The SAT does not have a "huge" influence on the college admissions process. SAT scores actually count for very little in the overall matrix used during the college admissions process. The University of Michigan is a great example (not just because it's a prestigious university, but because it was ground zero for the affirmative action debate and was the impetus for the two major AA supreme court rulings). The application process for universities exists to ensure that the population admitted (due to scarce space) will be successful in college. Universities have found that standardized test scores (and GPAs) are poor predictors of college success (because they can be studied for and they don't measure skills that lead to success in a college setting – and GPAs vary from school to school because the varying level of academic rigor at high schools). At U of M, your GPA and SAT score only count a small bit in the overall decision to admit you. It's FAR more important to have a track record of things like "personal achievement" and "leadership and service" (even a factor like having lived in Michigan counts; out-of-state students are given less consideration - even the county you live in counts - they prioritize 'underrepresented counties' along with everything else). These quoted phrases come from U of M directly. I should also say that I work in higher education, so I have more than a passing familiarity with all of this. The comparatively little value of the SAT has actually prompted some universities (like the University of California) to threaten to drop it altogether (which is why the College Board recently overhauled it). 2) I still maintain that points are not allocated based on ethnic minority status for the SATs. Better hurry up and find that article. 3) My point about the voluntary nature of the "race" question on the SAT is perfectly relevant because it illustrates how pointless weighting the scores based on race is. If one can cheat the results – there's no way they can assign extra points ESPECIALLY if that would count toward the college admissions process. Universities aren't stupid; there's no way they would stand for points being arbitrarily assigned on something completely unverifiable like an optional demographics question on a standardized test. 4) If it's unconstitutional for U of M to use a points-based system of affirmative action – it's ALSO unconstitutional for the College Board which is a taxpayer-supported not-for-profit entity just like the University. BOTH would be violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment because if a points-based system is unconstitutional in one area – the precedent is established that it would be unconstitutional anywhere else (including hiring). I'm very familiar with the U of M admissions procedure that was deemed unconstitutional – I would also point out that minority status only accounted for 20 of 150 points. 5) Affirmative Action doesn't apply only to the admissions processes at universities – it also applies to outreach and support activities – virtually all universities that have AA admissions policies also have these other policies. Yes, people can apply to attend college; but the problem is – your race and gender determine your chances of going to college or succeeding once you've been accepted. I would even argue that these outreach programs are more important because they help give people who otherwise wouldn't even think of trying to go to college a chance to see that it is a possibility. 6) Affirmative action is a voluntary practice adopted by educational institutions and is one way of responding to racial/sexual inequity. Historically Black Colleges are another way of responding to the pervasive racism in our society. Yes, the students at HBCs might benefit from a more diverse learning environment – but given that they WORK and LIVE in a diverse environment – it's not as though they have a shortage of opportunities to interact with people of other races/backgrounds. 7) When I say that there are affirmative action programs that apply (for example) to white males for fields like Early Childhood Education – I mean the programs encourage men to go into Early Childhood Education AS A DEGREE PROGRAM IN COLLEGE – not that they encourage whites to go to preschool. As for evidence: http://www.sjvhc.org... http://www.careersandcolleges.com... http://www.aacn.nche.edu... http://www.minoritynurse.com... http://www.journal.naeyc.org... http://www.menteach.org... http://www.nea.org... 8) AA is anti-racist. The status quo without AA has discrimination already built in, so your assertion that AA is discriminatory is meaningless because the net result of your opposition to AA is advocating for the continuance of discrimination that naturally exists. AA is a measure that fixes the discrimination that already exists in society with the goal of eliminating discrimination altogether. Right now one's race or sex determines how much access they will have to various career fields (as well as a lot of other characteristics about their life, like their likelihood to end up in prison or their household income). AA is fixing that (and has been since the 1960s when it was first implemented). Slowly but surely, the inequalities are being remedied. What's racist is doing nothing to address past discrimination. 9) This country was founded by slave-owning white males who believed that if you were black, female, or you didn't own land – you shouldn't get to count in the governmental process. What the country was "founded on" in that respect is irrelevant today because we believe in markedly different things than the framers of the Constitution did. It's utter lunacy that you try to claim that the founding fathers were the patron saints of egalitarianism given the rampant inequities that they wrote into the Constitution (which had to be written out by later generations). Your claim that you're somehow being put at a disadvantage because Affirmative Action exists is baseless – especially when it comes to higher ed. If minorities were being given spots at colleges that belonged to whites – the percentage of the college-educated US population would remain the same. It has not. It has steadily increased from around 12% in 1960 to over 27% today. AA is making room for more people; not excluding people. 10) You can claim that affirmative action builds barriers between groups, but you have no evidence for that claim. Michigan, which eliminated AA two years ago with Proposal 2 is the most racially-segregated state in the nation according to a Harvard University study (and is showing no signs of desegregating). PS – I think "Middle Eastern" isn't on the SAT "race" question because "Middle Eastern" isn't a race; it's an ethnicity. Middle Easterners count as "Asians." Then again the whole notion of defining race is problematic and is a great example of the persistence of racism: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

1) The SATs aren't a big factor at most universities; <URL>... 2) The Princeton study was interesting. With respect to their findings; that eliminating AA would result in markedly less diversity on campus doesn't mean that the system is unfair because part of AA is the outreach. The bottom line is that in order to get in the door, minority students still have to meet the criteria. No one who is unqualified is given an unfair leg up. 3/4) Points are not currently being assigned at any universities for minority status during the admissions process in the United States. The reference to the points-based system dates from <PHONE>; well before the Supreme Court decision that rendered such points-based systems unconstitutional. Further, the points were never assigned at the level of the SAT test, as I maintained. 5) One of the most important components of AA is to have programs in place to seek out minorities and women and solicit or recruit them into college. There are a many people who would never think of college because there are major perceptual barriers that people have about attending that need to be overcome. I have no problem if two people are equal and the one of minority status is given preference. In the US, if someone of minority status attained equal credentials on the way to attending college as someone who is white - that means that they invariably had to work harder to get there given the latent biases people carry around with them and unconsciously apply to people of minority status. Some academics at Harvard have an excellent site that addresses this reality: <URL>... 6) The proof is in the pudding - since AA was implemented in the 1960s - our society has become MORE equal, not less. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the idea that AA sends out a message that is demeaning to minorities (and that minorities are then affected in terms of their achievement goals as a result of that). You're right; in a truly equal society people would be judged by the content of their character and not their physical appearance. Problem is - we don't live in a truly equal society yet. AA will get us there. The good thing is that we've made a lot of progress, and interestingly - it appears that we've hit upon the first "post-racial" generation in US history (that is to say, the "Millennials" think about race in a profoundly different way even from Gen Xers - the irony is that this is making addressing racial inequities more difficult because Millennials don't view themselves as having racial biases, but they still do; they're just subtler and more difficult to pinpoint and eliminate) 7) The shortage of nurses is just one reason that there are recruitment efforts targeting men. The other reason is that there is a practical benefit to having people of different backgrounds working in a field; it helps guard against groupthink that stifles innovation and critical thinking. It also improves the quality of care by helping more patients more easily relate to their service provider. It is for that reason that there are programs that try to recruit minority individuals into the police forces of most major cities. In addition to improving relations with the public by presenting a face that more accurately depicts the population at large, it breaks down groupthink and helps the rest of the force develop its cultural competence to understand the intricacies of the diverse population that exists in the US. Those links didn't talk about giving men preference over women because they don't need it. The challenge is getting them to think about the field; once you've got them thinking about it - they transcend the barriers. That is to say, if you're white and male, you don't face the same perceptual barriers that minorities and women do. 8) It's possible that a society without AA would slowly equalize. Given this country's sordid and tortuously-slow progress when it comes to improving the station in life of minorities - we deserve no benefit of the doubt. If it were left to the south to voluntarily eliminate slavery - it's very likely we'd still have slavery today because the pressures to keep that institution are so strong (like the perceptual pressures today). Crash is a good movie; I use it in the classes I teach. There are a couple of problems with the example of Dillon's character though: 1) he fundamentally misunderstands how AA works (less qualified people aren't given preference), and 2) he would be an angry bigot no matter what. Further - Dillon's character's anger only comes out in response to his father's poor treatment by the HMO (both when he molests Thandie Newton's character, and when he blows up at Shaniqua in the office after being denied out-of-network coverage). The more significant example of racism in Crash, however, is Ryan Phillipe's character - who shoots Larenz Tate's character after he reaches into his pocket for his St. Christopher statue. It's the perfect embodiment of the most prevalent kind of racism in society today; the latent kind I've been referring to. Phillipe's character considers himself not to be a bigot - but when he has to make a snap-judgment, his biases come out (the implication of the movie - one I agree with whole-heartedly / and one that is borne out by Implicit Association research - is that he wouldn't have been as trigger-happy had the hitchhiker he picked up been white). As I mentioned; the numbers of people in college have more than doubled since AA was implemented; I don't see that it has come at a cost to anyone else. 9) The founding fathers weren't hypocrites per se; they just believed in a different notion of equality and justice than we do today. In a factual sense - this country was not founded on true equality. Our understanding of true equality has evolved over time. I'm not disagreeing with the notion; I'm disagreeing with the historical presentation you were offering. I don't believe that people were "created," but I do believe in inalienable rights (regardless of how old the concept is; in point of fact it predates the Declaration of Independence and even the Magna Carta). I'm not being disadvantaged by AA either - and I'm white. As a result of AA, I've gained a great deal of new insights and perspectives through my higher education experience that I never otherwise would have had access to. This has helped me better understand cultural differences which allows me to better perform my job (which involves a great deal of cross-cultural communication). I'm not claiming that AA has increased college attendance (although that's possible). I'm claiming that it AA hasn't hurt white college attendance - a fact borne out by the statistics (that is to say, increasingly higher percentages of whites attend college). 10) I didn't say Michigan is the most racist state - I said it's the most segregated state. There's a big difference. Actually one could measure racism with statistics; though it would be difficult to control for the impulse of people to lie on such a survey and give the answer that they believe to be the most socially acceptable (the questions would have to be very cleverly designed). If you're claiming that AA is building barriers - it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate this with some sort of evidence other than a representation in a fictionalized movie portrayal. You can tell your Persian friend not to worry about filling in "Asian" on his entrance applications: it would be unconstitutional for the university to deduct points from his application for that (and if they did - he'd have one whopper of a civil suit on his hands).

sethgecko13

1) The SATs aren't a big factor at most universities; http://www.sourcebookscollege.com... 2) The Princeton study was interesting. With respect to their findings; that eliminating AA would result in markedly less diversity on campus doesn't mean that the system is unfair because part of AA is the outreach. The bottom line is that in order to get in the door, minority students still have to meet the criteria. No one who is unqualified is given an unfair leg up. 3/4) Points are not currently being assigned at any universities for minority status during the admissions process in the United States. The reference to the points-based system dates from 1980-1997; well before the Supreme Court decision that rendered such points-based systems unconstitutional. Further, the points were never assigned at the level of the SAT test, as I maintained. 5) One of the most important components of AA is to have programs in place to seek out minorities and women and solicit or recruit them into college. There are a many people who would never think of college because there are major perceptual barriers that people have about attending that need to be overcome. I have no problem if two people are equal and the one of minority status is given preference. In the US, if someone of minority status attained equal credentials on the way to attending college as someone who is white – that means that they invariably had to work harder to get there given the latent biases people carry around with them and unconsciously apply to people of minority status. Some academics at Harvard have an excellent site that addresses this reality: https://implicit.harvard.edu... 6) The proof is in the pudding – since AA was implemented in the 1960s – our society has become MORE equal, not less. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the idea that AA sends out a message that is demeaning to minorities (and that minorities are then affected in terms of their achievement goals as a result of that). You're right; in a truly equal society people would be judged by the content of their character and not their physical appearance. Problem is – we don't live in a truly equal society yet. AA will get us there. The good thing is that we've made a lot of progress, and interestingly – it appears that we've hit upon the first "post-racial" generation in US history (that is to say, the "Millennials" think about race in a profoundly different way even from Gen Xers – the irony is that this is making addressing racial inequities more difficult because Millennials don't view themselves as having racial biases, but they still do; they're just subtler and more difficult to pinpoint and eliminate) 7) The shortage of nurses is just one reason that there are recruitment efforts targeting men. The other reason is that there is a practical benefit to having people of different backgrounds working in a field; it helps guard against groupthink that stifles innovation and critical thinking. It also improves the quality of care by helping more patients more easily relate to their service provider. It is for that reason that there are programs that try to recruit minority individuals into the police forces of most major cities. In addition to improving relations with the public by presenting a face that more accurately depicts the population at large, it breaks down groupthink and helps the rest of the force develop its cultural competence to understand the intricacies of the diverse population that exists in the US. Those links didn't talk about giving men preference over women because they don't need it. The challenge is getting them to think about the field; once you've got them thinking about it – they transcend the barriers. That is to say, if you're white and male, you don't face the same perceptual barriers that minorities and women do. 8) It's possible that a society without AA would slowly equalize. Given this country's sordid and tortuously-slow progress when it comes to improving the station in life of minorities – we deserve no benefit of the doubt. If it were left to the south to voluntarily eliminate slavery – it's very likely we'd still have slavery today because the pressures to keep that institution are so strong (like the perceptual pressures today). Crash is a good movie; I use it in the classes I teach. There are a couple of problems with the example of Dillon's character though: 1) he fundamentally misunderstands how AA works (less qualified people aren't given preference), and 2) he would be an angry bigot no matter what. Further – Dillon's character's anger only comes out in response to his father's poor treatment by the HMO (both when he molests Thandie Newton's character, and when he blows up at Shaniqua in the office after being denied out-of-network coverage). The more significant example of racism in Crash, however, is Ryan Phillipe's character – who shoots Larenz Tate's character after he reaches into his pocket for his St. Christopher statue. It's the perfect embodiment of the most prevalent kind of racism in society today; the latent kind I've been referring to. Phillipe's character considers himself not to be a bigot – but when he has to make a snap-judgment, his biases come out (the implication of the movie – one I agree with whole-heartedly / and one that is borne out by Implicit Association research - is that he wouldn't have been as trigger-happy had the hitchhiker he picked up been white). As I mentioned; the numbers of people in college have more than doubled since AA was implemented; I don't see that it has come at a cost to anyone else. 9) The founding fathers weren't hypocrites per se; they just believed in a different notion of equality and justice than we do today. In a factual sense – this country was not founded on true equality. Our understanding of true equality has evolved over time. I'm not disagreeing with the notion; I'm disagreeing with the historical presentation you were offering. I don't believe that people were "created," but I do believe in inalienable rights (regardless of how old the concept is; in point of fact it predates the Declaration of Independence and even the Magna Carta). I'm not being disadvantaged by AA either – and I'm white. As a result of AA, I've gained a great deal of new insights and perspectives through my higher education experience that I never otherwise would have had access to. This has helped me better understand cultural differences which allows me to better perform my job (which involves a great deal of cross-cultural communication). I'm not claiming that AA has increased college attendance (although that's possible). I'm claiming that it AA hasn't hurt white college attendance – a fact borne out by the statistics (that is to say, increasingly higher percentages of whites attend college). 10) I didn't say Michigan is the most racist state – I said it's the most segregated state. There's a big difference. Actually one could measure racism with statistics; though it would be difficult to control for the impulse of people to lie on such a survey and give the answer that they believe to be the most socially acceptable (the questions would have to be very cleverly designed). If you're claiming that AA is building barriers – it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate this with some sort of evidence other than a representation in a fictionalized movie portrayal. You can tell your Persian friend not to worry about filling in "Asian" on his entrance applications: it would be unconstitutional for the university to deduct points from his application for that (and if they did – he'd have one whopper of a civil suit on his hands).

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

Are you a policy debater? Love to debate some Policy with you sometime! I'll roadmap in logical order just following your points. Point 1 - Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination. This is the major argument people use in defending Affirmative Action. White males claim they are now discriminated against because of this program. There are accusations that minorities get hired just for the sake of filling a quota. However, Affirmative Action's mission has never been about hiring less qualified workers, but about opening up equal opportunity and ensuring that equal opportunity with equal results. In fact, in a Bureau of National Affairs Employment Discrimination Report, most court cases concerning white males being turned down for a job are found not to be because of Affirmative Action, but because of a lack of qualifications and shortcomings. In theory, Affirmative Action is great. Now, to explain a bit, what we are arguing, is the theory of Affirmative Action. In practice, it may or may not work, but you are arguing that Affirmative Action is bad. Were you arguing that "In Practice, Affirmative Action is Bad" then we could talk about semantics, but we are not, so therefore any attack on the practice of Affirmative Action is moot. Point 2 - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Actually, the report mentioned earlier covers quite a good deal. What the report says si that, more often than not, the more qualified person got the job. This is important, because it means that the educated are rewarded, instead of the uneducated are rewarded. We also should look at this analytically. Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education. Point 3 - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. First off, a defensive attack. Basically your point only really attacks half of Affirmative Action. Secondly, this point is ridiculous. Student ability is almost impossible to determine, due to so many factors and unknowns. Also, if you look at this on a knowledge level, you have to realize that the school itself isn't harder than another school. School A isn't harder than School B, School A just is harder potentially. The student in question wouldn't be forced to take classes they weren't prepared for, and would take only the classes he/she thought they could pass. Also, because Affirmative Action actually increases education (see point 2) we would see minorities actually increasing in education, leading to this problem not even affecting the debate. Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. Also ridiculous, for several reasons. Just as a little pointer, I'm assuming you mean that getting rid of Affirmative Action gets a color-blind society. Now, this point is assuming that a color blind society is possible. It is empirically proven that such a society is impossible. Regardless of the possibility of it, not having Affirmative Action would just lead to less educational oppurtunities, and less pay for minorities. This itself would lead to a stereotypical image of minroties, which would just further racism. Another point is that when Affirmative Action was enacted, there was actually a drop in hate crimes, which leads me to think that the lack of Affirmative Action may have had a adverse effect on racsim, one that Affirmative Action solves for. And lastly, why is a color-blind society important? It would lead to more oppurtunity for minorities? Affirmative Action does that already. What is the impact of a color-blind society? Point 5 - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. First off, let me establish a question: What is the impact of this point? Why does it matter? So minorities feel babied? They still have better jobs! Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle, and the human psyche dictates the response : "I'll take the comfortableness". Point 6 - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact. Reasons Affirmative Action must stay: -We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action: - Increases Education - Give oppurtunities for minorities - Stops racism Also, let it be known that the final three points, hav eno reasons to be voters, there is no impact

Rousseau

Are you a policy debater? Love to debate some Policy with you sometime! I'll roadmap in logical order just following your points. Point 1 - Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination. This is the major argument people use in defending Affirmative Action. White males claim they are now discriminated against because of this program. There are accusations that minorities get hired just for the sake of filling a quota. However, Affirmative Action's mission has never been about hiring less qualified workers, but about opening up equal opportunity and ensuring that equal opportunity with equal results. In fact, in a Bureau of National Affairs Employment Discrimination Report, most court cases concerning white males being turned down for a job are found not to be because of Affirmative Action, but because of a lack of qualifications and shortcomings. In theory, Affirmative Action is great. Now, to explain a bit, what we are arguing, is the theory of Affirmative Action. In practice, it may or may not work, but you are arguing that Affirmative Action is bad. Were you arguing that "In Practice, Affirmative Action is Bad" then we could talk about semantics, but we are not, so therefore any attack on the practice of Affirmative Action is moot. Point 2 - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Actually, the report mentioned earlier covers quite a good deal. What the report says si that, more often than not, the more qualified person got the job. This is important, because it means that the educated are rewarded, instead of the uneducated are rewarded. We also should look at this analytically. Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education. Point 3 - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. First off, a defensive attack. Basically your point only really attacks half of Affirmative Action. Secondly, this point is ridiculous. Student ability is almost impossible to determine, due to so many factors and unknowns. Also, if you look at this on a knowledge level, you have to realize that the school itself isn't harder than another school. School A isn't harder than School B, School A just is harder potentially. The student in question wouldn't be forced to take classes they weren't prepared for, and would take only the classes he/she thought they could pass. Also, because Affirmative Action actually increases education (see point 2) we would see minorities actually increasing in education, leading to this problem not even affecting the debate. Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. Also ridiculous, for several reasons. Just as a little pointer, I'm assuming you mean that getting rid of Affirmative Action gets a color-blind society. Now, this point is assuming that a color blind society is possible. It is empirically proven that such a society is impossible. Regardless of the possibility of it, not having Affirmative Action would just lead to less educational oppurtunities, and less pay for minorities. This itself would lead to a stereotypical image of minroties, which would just further racism. Another point is that when Affirmative Action was enacted, there was actually a drop in hate crimes, which leads me to think that the lack of Affirmative Action may have had a adverse effect on racsim, one that Affirmative Action solves for. And lastly, why is a color-blind society important? It would lead to more oppurtunity for minorities? Affirmative Action does that already. What is the impact of a color-blind society? Point 5 - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. First off, let me establish a question: What is the impact of this point? Why does it matter? So minorities feel babied? They still have better jobs! Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle, and the human psyche dictates the response : "I'll take the comfortableness". Point 6 - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact. Reasons Affirmative Action must stay: -We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action: - Increases Education - Give oppurtunities for minorities - Stops racism Also, let it be known that the final three points, hav eno reasons to be voters, there is no impact

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-Bad/1/

I'd like to first off let it be known, that policydebategood, has accepted somewhere around 20 challenges from various people. I beleive that this means two things. Either he does have the time to respond to all of his debates, thus meaning he has no responses to my arguments and I win, or he simply didn't prepare himself well enough to debate. The first way means that I should win this debate, and the second way means that he should be given more time. We shall wait and see. Reasons Affirmative Action must stay: -We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action: - Increases Education - Give oppurtunities for minorities - Stops racism I have logically gone thru his points and responded as such, and I believe I have won on them. Thank you for your time thus far.

Rousseau

I'd like to first off let it be known, that policydebategood, has accepted somewhere around 20 challenges from various people. I beleive that this means two things. Either he does have the time to respond to all of his debates, thus meaning he has no responses to my arguments and I win, or he simply didn't prepare himself well enough to debate. The first way means that I should win this debate, and the second way means that he should be given more time. We shall wait and see. Reasons Affirmative Action must stay: -We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action: - Increases Education - Give oppurtunities for minorities - Stops racism I have logically gone thru his points and responded as such, and I believe I have won on them. Thank you for your time thus far.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-Bad/1/

Hmm.. first off, I apologize for the comment below. I had seen that you have not responded to my debate while responding to other, and didn't take into consideration you could have overlooked it. I urge the voters do disregard round two as everyone makes mistakes. First off; a clarification... Are we debating affirmative action in theory, or in practice? Point 1: Reverse Discrimination I must ask... did you read the links before posting them? They seem to all enforce my stance... 1st Link: Basically just talking about how the label of "reverse discrimination" shouldn't be used. 2nd Link: Talking about how Affirmative Action isn't reverse discrimination, but rather compensatory justice. 3rd Link: Basically talks about how the argument of reverse discrimination isn't a reason for affirmative action to be unjust or unfair. 4th Link: I think is the same as the first, if it isn't exactly the same, the ideas are similar. 5th Link: Talks about how Affirmative Action is fair and isn't reverse discrimination. Well I guess thanks for doing some research for me. It is ironic because you said that it is hard to find a link that says affirmative action isn't reverse discrimination. You just found five! I will reference them throughout the debate by referring to their number. Could you find a link that actually enforces your stance? Well this leads to several things. First, you demand I justify why reverse discrimination isn't a voter in the debate. Well, I think that links 2, 3, and 5 cover it. Basically reverse discrimination is compensation for the injustices perpetrated by racism and slavery (2), affirmative action doesn't become unjust because of reverse discrimination (3), and a regardless of affirmative action, white males hold 95-97% of high paying jobs (5). That means that Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate at all, and even if it did, it doesn't do it significantly and doesn't make it unjust. Point 2: Educational Standards. "If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now." I fail to see how upping the ante for education is bad, and as the fifth link states, white males hold 95-97% of high-level corporate jobs. This means that reverse discrimination isn't really happening. Affirmative Action is just a compensation for the injustices white males perpetrated upon minorities through racial prejudice. You also argue that some students would fall behind if accepted into schools that were out of their league. Logically this makes some sense, however I would like to see a link that says it is happening. Also, it isn't as if schools force people to take classes out of their level. If someone were to get accepted to Harvard even though they didn't deserve it, they could still take the easier classes. Also, affirmative action doesn't make minorities apply to colleges they know they couldn't deal with. If I knew I couldn't deal with Harvard, I wouldn't apply. Catch my point? Affirmative Action doesn't force a minority to apply to a college out of their league. It helps them get into colleges they may not have gotten into (if they are qualified). Point 3: Color-Blind Society. You conceded, not a lot to talk about here. Point 4: Condescending to Minorities "As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false." First off, I said "man", not black man, or white man or anything that would denote a specific race. I simply stated that, using the basic principals of humanity (namely the drive for comfort) a human will take a hand-out rather than pride. I never said that blacks need the hand out. That isn't what Affirmative Action is, anyway. Affirmative Action is compensation, not a handout. It helps minorities get the fair consideration they deserve. I was simply arguing that a minority would rather be helped by Affirmative Action that possibly face a poor lifestyle. If they don't need Affirmative Action, then that is great. However, if they get helped by it, that's great too. I think I should also note that you didn't state an impact on this, and I believe this means that the point doesn't matter. Point 5: Demeaning to true achievement. "I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally." Just saying you know people doesn't mean there is an impact. You still haven't stated the impact, just stated there is one. I wanted to know the impact and you didn't provide one. Again, you concede that this point is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Point 6: Education Is Increased "Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas." You just argued that opportunities decrease for all because of Affirmative Action. That argues my point actually. If there are more people competing for a job, it stands to reason that in order to stand out, more education is necessary. Point 7: Opportunity "Minorities already have opportunites." I never argued that they didn't. I'm just saying that Affirmative Action makes MORE opportunities. If we got rid of it, there would be fewer opportunities due to the inevitability of bigots discriminating against minorities. Point 8: Racism Affirmative Action is reparation towards people who suffered from discrimination. In that way, it is helping to end discrimination by giving a proverbial taste of your own medicine. Discrimination is a major part of Racism, and in the road to solving for the latter, the first has to be dealt with. That being said, your impact calculus runs on the assumption that my only offensive attacks were in my final three. However, offense (in debate at least) isn't making new arguments. If it were that simple, Pro would always win. A Offensive argument would be one that negates the previous argument, and conversely a defensive argument just says the point isn't important, or won't be that bad. I made offensive attacks on 1, 2, 6, 8. This means I have half offense and half defense. Also, comparing the quantity of points made isn't all of Impact Calculus. Impact Calculus, is (redundantly) the calculation of impact. To do this, one must look at the quality of the points as well. I believe the quality of my points outweighs your points. This was my point. Not only that, but I have negated your points, and extended mine. I look forward to other debates with you and thank you for your time.

Rousseau

Hmm.. first off, I apologize for the comment below. I had seen that you have not responded to my debate while responding to other, and didn't take into consideration you could have overlooked it. I urge the voters do disregard round two as everyone makes mistakes. First off; a clarification… Are we debating affirmative action in theory, or in practice? Point 1: Reverse Discrimination I must ask… did you read the links before posting them? They seem to all enforce my stance… 1st Link: Basically just talking about how the label of "reverse discrimination" shouldn't be used. 2nd Link: Talking about how Affirmative Action isn't reverse discrimination, but rather compensatory justice. 3rd Link: Basically talks about how the argument of reverse discrimination isn't a reason for affirmative action to be unjust or unfair. 4th Link: I think is the same as the first, if it isn't exactly the same, the ideas are similar. 5th Link: Talks about how Affirmative Action is fair and isn't reverse discrimination. Well I guess thanks for doing some research for me. It is ironic because you said that it is hard to find a link that says affirmative action isn't reverse discrimination. You just found five! I will reference them throughout the debate by referring to their number. Could you find a link that actually enforces your stance? Well this leads to several things. First, you demand I justify why reverse discrimination isn't a voter in the debate. Well, I think that links 2, 3, and 5 cover it. Basically reverse discrimination is compensation for the injustices perpetrated by racism and slavery (2), affirmative action doesn't become unjust because of reverse discrimination (3), and a regardless of affirmative action, white males hold 95-97% of high paying jobs (5). That means that Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate at all, and even if it did, it doesn't do it significantly and doesn't make it unjust. Point 2: Educational Standards. "If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now." I fail to see how upping the ante for education is bad, and as the fifth link states, white males hold 95-97% of high-level corporate jobs. This means that reverse discrimination isn't really happening. Affirmative Action is just a compensation for the injustices white males perpetrated upon minorities through racial prejudice. You also argue that some students would fall behind if accepted into schools that were out of their league. Logically this makes some sense, however I would like to see a link that says it is happening. Also, it isn't as if schools force people to take classes out of their level. If someone were to get accepted to Harvard even though they didn't deserve it, they could still take the easier classes. Also, affirmative action doesn't make minorities apply to colleges they know they couldn't deal with. If I knew I couldn't deal with Harvard, I wouldn't apply. Catch my point? Affirmative Action doesn't force a minority to apply to a college out of their league. It helps them get into colleges they may not have gotten into (if they are qualified). Point 3: Color-Blind Society. You conceded, not a lot to talk about here. Point 4: Condescending to Minorities "As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false." First off, I said "man", not black man, or white man or anything that would denote a specific race. I simply stated that, using the basic principals of humanity (namely the drive for comfort) a human will take a hand-out rather than pride. I never said that blacks need the hand out. That isn't what Affirmative Action is, anyway. Affirmative Action is compensation, not a handout. It helps minorities get the fair consideration they deserve. I was simply arguing that a minority would rather be helped by Affirmative Action that possibly face a poor lifestyle. If they don't need Affirmative Action, then that is great. However, if they get helped by it, that's great too. I think I should also note that you didn't state an impact on this, and I believe this means that the point doesn't matter. Point 5: Demeaning to true achievement. "I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally." Just saying you know people doesn't mean there is an impact. You still haven't stated the impact, just stated there is one. I wanted to know the impact and you didn't provide one. Again, you concede that this point is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Point 6: Education Is Increased "Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas." You just argued that opportunities decrease for all because of Affirmative Action. That argues my point actually. If there are more people competing for a job, it stands to reason that in order to stand out, more education is necessary. Point 7: Opportunity "Minorities already have opportunites." I never argued that they didn't. I'm just saying that Affirmative Action makes MORE opportunities. If we got rid of it, there would be fewer opportunities due to the inevitability of bigots discriminating against minorities. Point 8: Racism Affirmative Action is reparation towards people who suffered from discrimination. In that way, it is helping to end discrimination by giving a proverbial taste of your own medicine. Discrimination is a major part of Racism, and in the road to solving for the latter, the first has to be dealt with. That being said, your impact calculus runs on the assumption that my only offensive attacks were in my final three. However, offense (in debate at least) isn't making new arguments. If it were that simple, Pro would always win. A Offensive argument would be one that negates the previous argument, and conversely a defensive argument just says the point isn't important, or won't be that bad. I made offensive attacks on 1, 2, 6, 8. This means I have half offense and half defense. Also, comparing the quantity of points made isn't all of Impact Calculus. Impact Calculus, is (redundantly) the calculation of impact. To do this, one must look at the quality of the points as well. I believe the quality of my points outweighs your points. This was my point. Not only that, but I have negated your points, and extended mine. I look forward to other debates with you and thank you for your time.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-Bad/1/

- Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.

policydebategod

- Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-Bad/1/

Please excuse the forfeit. I must have lost track of the debate. - Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination. + I agree that affirmative action was not designed to promote discrimination. However, it does just that. Affirmative action is essentially that if a white person and a black person have the same qualifications, the black person gets the job. This is the same thing that happened to blacks in the 1960s only in reverse. Essentially, all that happen is that whites are discriminated against. This is no better than what blacks fought against in the civil rights era . Affirmative action = reverse discrimination: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... It is very hard to find sources that say that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination. The point is simple and definite: affirmative action is reverse discrimination. Your job is to justify reverse discrimination, which I feel cannot be done because it is essentially just discrimination. - Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education. + This is a bad argument and here is why: If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now. - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. Imagine a AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. Thus, when they're forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some students can't keep up. This isn't to say these students are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them. (Joe Messerli) Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. I'm not here to be overly combative. I conceed with your interpretaion of point 4. However, I still have the debate on all other points. - Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle. + As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false. - Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact. + I thought it was a good point to throw in here because I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally. - Increases Education + Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas. - Give oppurtunities for minorities + Minorities already have opportunites. - Stops racism + We all know that affirmative action has not and will not stop racism. It dies not even reduce it by one single person. I love your impact calculus despite how much I disagree with it. The three points you made are yor only offensive points and they each are false or unachievable. The 6 points I made were better, from experience and more realistic. Thank you.

policydebategod

Please excuse the forfeit. I must have lost track of the debate. - Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination. + I agree that affirmative action was not designed to promote discrimination. However, it does just that. Affirmative action is essentially that if a white person and a black person have the same qualifications, the black person gets the job. This is the same thing that happened to blacks in the 1960s only in reverse. Essentially, all that happen is that whites are discriminated against. This is no better than what blacks fought against in the civil rights era . Affirmative action = reverse discrimination: http://www.adversity.net... http://www.huppi.com... http://atheism.about.com... http://www.adversity.net... http://www.now.org... It is very hard to find sources that say that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination. The point is simple and definite: affirmative action is reverse discrimination. Your job is to justify reverse discrimination, which I feel cannot be done because it is essentially just discrimination. - Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education. + This is a bad argument and here is why: If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now. - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. Imagine a AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. Thus, when they're forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some students can't keep up. This isn't to say these students are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them. (Joe Messerli) Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. I'm not here to be overly combative. I conceed with your interpretaion of point 4. However, I still have the debate on all other points. - Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle. + As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false. - Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact. + I thought it was a good point to throw in here because I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally. - Increases Education + Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas. - Give oppurtunities for minorities + Minorities already have opportunites. - Stops racism + We all know that affirmative action has not and will not stop racism. It dies not even reduce it by one single person. I love your impact calculus despite how much I disagree with it. The three points you made are yor only offensive points and they each are false or unachievable. The 6 points I made were better, from experience and more realistic. Thank you.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-Bad/1/

Affirmative Action is a necessary part of today's society and it shall be the topic of this debate. First, I will provide definitions so that there is no confusion in the debate and the argument doesn't turn into one over semantics as so many debates fall to while avoiding the topic, which can be entertaining, but avoids the topic at hand. So, affirmative action is the active effort to improve the employment and educational opportunities for minorities. [1] I believe this is very necessary in our society and is something that (at the moment) we cannot do without. It may be possible that in the far future as hate crimes go down and religion dies out and people learn to accept things instead of wasting their time hating that we could be able to do away with affirmative action but that won't happen any time soon since we have groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and the Westboro Ministries. [2 and video] Affirmative action is necessary because America is a country that is flawlessly blossoming. Flawlessly blossoming in hatred. Well, since we seem to disregard the 14th amendment in the idea that a persons right to an opinion is more highly valued than a persons right to not be discriminated against, thank goodness the government does stick up for minorities with affirmative action. We have hate in this country therefore we need something to even the playing field a bit. If we didn't have this, there would be blacks that would never be hired, gays just coming out in middle or high school being expelled from schools and not accepted to others and inner city students being denied job opportunities that they are just as capable of doing than their suburban-raised peers. First off, without affirmative action, the discrimination in America would run the schools and businesses and the country could very possibly fall into a segregated state. If the college dean didn't want to allow blacks or women into his college, then there would be an all white male college. Discriminating and stereotypical. We need to encourage mixing of diversity to allow people to learn about each other and have a much more open society otherwise, hate groups such as the KKK or Westboro Church would gain members and return the country to a state of oppression. Anyone want to go back to slavery days? Without affirmative action, minorities might have to live under a stereotype for innumerable amounts of years which is completely unjust and inhumane. Affirmative action encourages us to broaden our horizons as a society and stop discrimination. African-Americans lived for centuries under a stereotype that they were less capable than whites. This was however broken by affirmative action, otherwise that may never have happened and to this very day it is very possible that Africans could have been hated just as they were in their slavery and the Klu Klux Klan could have run wildly through the streets slaughtering black people mercilessly. Affirmative action keeps society from moving back into the ignorance that once existed and which we can realize now that is completely false. Without it, it is very possible that we may disintegrate back into groups of witch-burners. We need affirmative action to counter existing hate. The gay community would be nowhere without affirmative action. We would all be broke and homeless in a good section of the country as in 30 states, LGBT people can be fired solely on the basis of their sexuality. The same would happen in schools and colleges and other places. In the other 20 states with laws prohibiting this however, affirmative action keeps LGBT people from losing their jobs. [4] We need affirmative action to counter hate and discrimination that goes on in our society, otherwise a good number of gay people would be fired simply because their boss doesn't like them or the bible tells that boss to hate them. Is this right? Of course not. I will extend my arguments in the next round. Until then, I anxiously await Con's response! 1 <URL>... 2 <URL>... 4 <URL>...

LLAMA

Affirmative Action is a necessary part of today's society and it shall be the topic of this debate. First, I will provide definitions so that there is no confusion in the debate and the argument doesn't turn into one over semantics as so many debates fall to while avoiding the topic, which can be entertaining, but avoids the topic at hand. So, affirmative action is the active effort to improve the employment and educational opportunities for minorities. [1] I believe this is very necessary in our society and is something that (at the moment) we cannot do without. It may be possible that in the far future as hate crimes go down and religion dies out and people learn to accept things instead of wasting their time hating that we could be able to do away with affirmative action but that won't happen any time soon since we have groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and the Westboro Ministries. [2 and video] Affirmative action is necessary because America is a country that is flawlessly blossoming. Flawlessly blossoming in hatred. Well, since we seem to disregard the 14th amendment in the idea that a persons right to an opinion is more highly valued than a persons right to not be discriminated against, thank goodness the government does stick up for minorities with affirmative action. We have hate in this country therefore we need something to even the playing field a bit. If we didn't have this, there would be blacks that would never be hired, gays just coming out in middle or high school being expelled from schools and not accepted to others and inner city students being denied job opportunities that they are just as capable of doing than their suburban-raised peers. First off, without affirmative action, the discrimination in America would run the schools and businesses and the country could very possibly fall into a segregated state. If the college dean didn't want to allow blacks or women into his college, then there would be an all white male college. Discriminating and stereotypical. We need to encourage mixing of diversity to allow people to learn about each other and have a much more open society otherwise, hate groups such as the KKK or Westboro Church would gain members and return the country to a state of oppression. Anyone want to go back to slavery days? Without affirmative action, minorities might have to live under a stereotype for innumerable amounts of years which is completely unjust and inhumane. Affirmative action encourages us to broaden our horizons as a society and stop discrimination. African-Americans lived for centuries under a stereotype that they were less capable than whites. This was however broken by affirmative action, otherwise that may never have happened and to this very day it is very possible that Africans could have been hated just as they were in their slavery and the Klu Klux Klan could have run wildly through the streets slaughtering black people mercilessly. Affirmative action keeps society from moving back into the ignorance that once existed and which we can realize now that is completely false. Without it, it is very possible that we may disintegrate back into groups of witch-burners. We need affirmative action to counter existing hate. The gay community would be nowhere without affirmative action. We would all be broke and homeless in a good section of the country as in 30 states, LGBT people can be fired solely on the basis of their sexuality. The same would happen in schools and colleges and other places. In the other 20 states with laws prohibiting this however, affirmative action keeps LGBT people from losing their jobs. [4] We need affirmative action to counter hate and discrimination that goes on in our society, otherwise a good number of gay people would be fired simply because their boss doesn't like them or the bible tells that boss to hate them. Is this right? Of course not. I will extend my arguments in the next round. Until then, I anxiously await Con's response! 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 http://www.kkk.bz... 4 http://gayrights.change.org...

Society

Affirmative-Action/11/

My apologies as I did not have the time available to me to post my argument last round. But anyway, onto Con's claims! 1. "Affirmative action does not end hatred" I never said that it did, just that it is an effective way to level the playing field for minorities that would otherwise be at a disadvantage since society does not look upon them as highly as a majority. 2. "Affirmative action punishes majorities" Affirmative action does not punish anyone except for those who harbor hatred or discriminate against a certain group of people. The purpose of affirmative action is to give special consideration to people who belong to minority groups when it comes to applying for a job or getting into a college or private school of some sort. [1] In most cases when people apply for something, the person who reviews the application does not even see the person to begin with and only if they identify as belonging to a minority group does affirmative action make an impact on them. Living and being part of a minority group is not easy since people who do belong to minorities face discrimination on a daily basis and may even be victims of hate crimes. Would it be fair to be harassed, referred to by derogatory phrases, or even be beaten or hurt and then on top of all of that worry if your application went through solely on the basis of your skin color? While people who belong to majorities do not have to worry about their emotional and physical safety, they also do not have to worry about facing discrimination when it comes to applying for a job or a school. Affirmative action is society's way of saying, "Minorities face too many hardships in their lives and while we can only do so much to provide for their safety, we can ensure that they will have equal opportunities when it comes to being employed or educated." 3. "Affirmative Action is illegal" In the statement that Con quoted from my opening argument, I did not mean that affirmative action would be illegal. I was only stating that it may become unnecessary in the future sometime. Right now, affirmative action is only ensuring that a person be considered for a job or education that, without this enforcement, may otherwise have been ignored simply if that employer didn't like blacks, gays or women. Affirmative action is only ensuring that each person be considered equally and if there is less discrimination in the future, then affirmative action would not have to enforce equality as strongly as it does now. 4. "Affirmative action is ineffective" Affirmative action is meant to provide for minorities who have most likely been affected by discrimination or by hate crimes. It has nothing to do with the economic status of the people and Con can't expect it to be doing the job of welfare and unemployment when affirmative action simply IS NOT welfare or unemployment. Conclusion: Affirmative action is the necessary reenforcement that people need to make sure that minorities will be able to apply for the same jobs that majorities can, join the same groups that majorities can and be educated in the same ways that are available to majorities. Without it our society would degrade itself back into the discrimination we saw towards the African American community where they had specific water fountains, bathrooms, bus seats and every measure was taken to ensure blacks did not interact with whites. Would this be right? Would this even be moral? Affirmative action does not allow peoples personal feelings towards minorities to play a role in their decision on whether that specific person be allowed into their school, their club or group or be employed in their business and it is necessary that things stay this way in our society as long as discrimination is present. 1. <URL>...

LLAMA

My apologies as I did not have the time available to me to post my argument last round. But anyway, onto Con's claims! 1. "Affirmative action does not end hatred" I never said that it did, just that it is an effective way to level the playing field for minorities that would otherwise be at a disadvantage since society does not look upon them as highly as a majority. 2. "Affirmative action punishes majorities" Affirmative action does not punish anyone except for those who harbor hatred or discriminate against a certain group of people. The purpose of affirmative action is to give special consideration to people who belong to minority groups when it comes to applying for a job or getting into a college or private school of some sort. [1] In most cases when people apply for something, the person who reviews the application does not even see the person to begin with and only if they identify as belonging to a minority group does affirmative action make an impact on them. Living and being part of a minority group is not easy since people who do belong to minorities face discrimination on a daily basis and may even be victims of hate crimes. Would it be fair to be harassed, referred to by derogatory phrases, or even be beaten or hurt and then on top of all of that worry if your application went through solely on the basis of your skin color? While people who belong to majorities do not have to worry about their emotional and physical safety, they also do not have to worry about facing discrimination when it comes to applying for a job or a school. Affirmative action is society's way of saying, "Minorities face too many hardships in their lives and while we can only do so much to provide for their safety, we can ensure that they will have equal opportunities when it comes to being employed or educated." 3. "Affirmative Action is illegal" In the statement that Con quoted from my opening argument, I did not mean that affirmative action would be illegal. I was only stating that it may become unnecessary in the future sometime. Right now, affirmative action is only ensuring that a person be considered for a job or education that, without this enforcement, may otherwise have been ignored simply if that employer didn't like blacks, gays or women. Affirmative action is only ensuring that each person be considered equally and if there is less discrimination in the future, then affirmative action would not have to enforce equality as strongly as it does now. 4. "Affirmative action is ineffective" Affirmative action is meant to provide for minorities who have most likely been affected by discrimination or by hate crimes. It has nothing to do with the economic status of the people and Con can't expect it to be doing the job of welfare and unemployment when affirmative action simply IS NOT welfare or unemployment. Conclusion: Affirmative action is the necessary reenforcement that people need to make sure that minorities will be able to apply for the same jobs that majorities can, join the same groups that majorities can and be educated in the same ways that are available to majorities. Without it our society would degrade itself back into the discrimination we saw towards the African American community where they had specific water fountains, bathrooms, bus seats and every measure was taken to ensure blacks did not interact with whites. Would this be right? Would this even be moral? Affirmative action does not allow peoples personal feelings towards minorities to play a role in their decision on whether that specific person be allowed into their school, their club or group or be employed in their business and it is necessary that things stay this way in our society as long as discrimination is present. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Society

Affirmative-Action/11/

Many thanks to Con for proposing this topic. Against Con's claims, I will argue that affirmative actions policies should not be categorically abolished from "law everywhere" because affirmative action policies can provide a pragmatic and legitimate solution to the problems posed by particular forms of institutional racism. To get the discussion started, I will provide a working definition of affirmative action and a brief opening statement. The Legal Information Institute defines affirmative action as the following: "A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future." [1] There are three things that must be taken into account in discussing affirmative action: intent, context, and effect. By definition, affirmative action refers to a set of policies that, in intent and effect, must "eliminate unlawful discrimination." As such, Con's claim that affirmative action "violates peoples right to equal opportunity" is, by definition, a misunderstanding of affirmative action. Within a context of a unlawful discrimination, if there exists a set of laws that can eliminate the unlawful discrimination, why should those laws be abolished? Affirmative action is a pragmatic solution to the problem of institutionalized racism, and is therefore legitimate in particular circumstances. [1] <URL>...

FourTrouble

Many thanks to Con for proposing this topic. Against Con's claims, I will argue that affirmative actions policies should not be categorically abolished from "law everywhere" because affirmative action policies can provide a pragmatic and legitimate solution to the problems posed by particular forms of institutional racism. To get the discussion started, I will provide a working definition of affirmative action and a brief opening statement. The Legal Information Institute defines affirmative action as the following: "A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future." [1] There are three things that must be taken into account in discussing affirmative action: intent, context, and effect. By definition, affirmative action refers to a set of policies that, in intent and effect, must "eliminate unlawful discrimination." As such, Con's claim that affirmative action "violates peoples right to equal opportunity" is, by definition, a misunderstanding of affirmative action. Within a context of a unlawful discrimination, if there exists a set of laws that can eliminate the unlawful discrimination, why should those laws be abolished? Affirmative action is a pragmatic solution to the problem of institutionalized racism, and is therefore legitimate in particular circumstances. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Education

Affirmative-Action/18/

Con's argument depends on a narrow and discriminatory concept of "merit." The argument goes like this: people should be admitted to college because of their merits taking the SAT, but neither race nor gender could be a component of merit. Con's trick here is to define merit so narrowly -- only test scores or examination results count -- and then stigmatize any other consideration as unwarranted preference and unlawful discrimination. Think about it: merit is just a word for whatever qualifications are deemed desirable for the performance of a particular task, and there is nothing fixed about those qualifications. Some medical schools now decline certification to aspiring doctors who have proven themselves technically and academically but lack the social skills to relate with patients. When colleges admit people on the basis of other factors, they are not abandoning academic merit but forging an alternative conception of academic merit rooted in the larger social, cultural, and historical context in which college admissions take place. Consider: if may be a qualification for a policeman or policewoman in the inner city to be black or Hispanic, and that does not make the people granting blacks and Hispanics those jobs racist, it makes them pragmatists. Likewise, it may be part of the merit and qualifications of a worker in a rape crisis center that she is a woman. College admissions weigh many factors and qualifications when deciding what consitutes a particular applicant's merit. To say the only qualification is SAT scores is to completely do away with many of the qualifications that various applicants have, and as I said, many times belonging to a particular ethnic or gender group can itself be a qualification. Finally, I'd also like to point out to Con that SAT scores and GPA can themselves be racist. According to studies, "affirmative action beneficiaries have succeeded in higher education and various occupations despite not having the required test scores or GPA, therefore exposing reified concepts of merit" as "intellectually biased." [1] SAT scores may demonstrate an applicant's access to "SAT prep" that others could not afford, and allowing such examination results to dictate college admissions as a whole is the same as allowing unlawful discrimination. Affirmative actions corrects against this. I think I have addressed the issue fully. Let me now address Con's question: what is institutionalized racism, and how does it work in today's society? Institutionalized racism is the kind of racism that is institutionalized, but cannot be punished legally. I have already given one example: using SAT scores is a form of institutionalized racism, as it is well-known that SAT scores favor particular ethnic groups, and it is also well-known that SAT scores do not show a correlation with the success of the ethnic groups that the scores do not favor. A few more examples of institutionalized racism should prove the point: Blacks and Hispanics get worse public education, because the urban schools they go to don't have as much money as the schools in white suburbs. The reason this happens is because public schools are financed from local property taxes, so in communities where houses and businesses are less expensive, the schools provide worse education. This is unfair, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination. Racial profiling could be considered another form of institutional racism. Then, of course, there is institutional sexism: women are paid less than men for doing the exact same jobs and holding the exact same qualifications. That's considered unlawful discrimination, but its institutionalized in such a way that it cannot be legally penalized. Clearly, the fact that systemic racism exists, unlawful discrimination, requires that measures be taken to counter-act the effects. Affirmative action is the set of procedures that are employed to eliminate this kind of unlawful discrimination. By definition, affirmative action cannot be unlawful discrimination because its intent and effect is to eliminate unlawful discrimination.

FourTrouble

Con's argument depends on a narrow and discriminatory concept of "merit." The argument goes like this: people should be admitted to college because of their merits taking the SAT, but neither race nor gender could be a component of merit. Con's trick here is to define merit so narrowly -- only test scores or examination results count -- and then stigmatize any other consideration as unwarranted preference and unlawful discrimination. Think about it: merit is just a word for whatever qualifications are deemed desirable for the performance of a particular task, and there is nothing fixed about those qualifications. Some medical schools now decline certification to aspiring doctors who have proven themselves technically and academically but lack the social skills to relate with patients. When colleges admit people on the basis of other factors, they are not abandoning academic merit but forging an alternative conception of academic merit rooted in the larger social, cultural, and historical context in which college admissions take place. Consider: if may be a qualification for a policeman or policewoman in the inner city to be black or Hispanic, and that does not make the people granting blacks and Hispanics those jobs racist, it makes them pragmatists. Likewise, it may be part of the merit and qualifications of a worker in a rape crisis center that she is a woman. College admissions weigh many factors and qualifications when deciding what consitutes a particular applicant's merit. To say the only qualification is SAT scores is to completely do away with many of the qualifications that various applicants have, and as I said, many times belonging to a particular ethnic or gender group can itself be a qualification. Finally, I'd also like to point out to Con that SAT scores and GPA can themselves be racist. According to studies, "affirmative action beneficiaries have succeeded in higher education and various occupations despite not having the required test scores or GPA, therefore exposing reified concepts of merit" as "intellectually biased." [1] SAT scores may demonstrate an applicant's access to "SAT prep" that others could not afford, and allowing such examination results to dictate college admissions as a whole is the same as allowing unlawful discrimination. Affirmative actions corrects against this. I think I have addressed the issue fully. Let me now address Con's question: what is institutionalized racism, and how does it work in today's society? Institutionalized racism is the kind of racism that is institutionalized, but cannot be punished legally. I have already given one example: using SAT scores is a form of institutionalized racism, as it is well-known that SAT scores favor particular ethnic groups, and it is also well-known that SAT scores do not show a correlation with the success of the ethnic groups that the scores do not favor. A few more examples of institutionalized racism should prove the point: Blacks and Hispanics get worse public education, because the urban schools they go to don't have as much money as the schools in white suburbs. The reason this happens is because public schools are financed from local property taxes, so in communities where houses and businesses are less expensive, the schools provide worse education. This is unfair, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination. Racial profiling could be considered another form of institutional racism. Then, of course, there is institutional sexism: women are paid less than men for doing the exact same jobs and holding the exact same qualifications. That's considered unlawful discrimination, but its institutionalized in such a way that it cannot be legally penalized. Clearly, the fact that systemic racism exists, unlawful discrimination, requires that measures be taken to counter-act the effects. Affirmative action is the set of procedures that are employed to eliminate this kind of unlawful discrimination. By definition, affirmative action cannot be unlawful discrimination because its intent and effect is to eliminate unlawful discrimination.

Education

Affirmative-Action/18/

In closing, I will defend my argument from Con's flawed responses and misunderstandings, followed by my responses to Con's closing arguments. 1. Con concedes I make a "good point." Con attempts to argue that the only qualification necessary for being a doctor is technical skill, but this is absolutely false. A doctor must be psychologically equipped to deal with the stress and pressure of the operating room, as well as the possibility of failure. Furthermore, consider patients who are terminally ill or with psychiatric problems; these people require a deeper understanding of humanity, as well as psychological toughness for dealing with these problems. Con's reduction of medical practice to pure technical skill is just that, reductive and an overly-simplistic view of medical practice and what qualifies on to be a doctor. (As a discrete aside, note that I am currently in medical school and am speaking from experience: if you don't have the required psychological/social skills, you will have a very tough time getting certified as a doctor). 2. Con falsely claims I am "missing the point" when it is in fact Con who has missed my point. Con insists that belonging to a particular group does not provide qualifications for someone, even though I have provided examples of jobs in which belonging to a particular gender or ethnicity does give one better qualifications. To say a man is equally qualified to work in a rape crisis center is insensitive to rape victims. In fact, not only is it insensitive to rape victims to say a man is equally qualified to work at rape crisis center, it is outright harmful to rape victims who find the courage to seek help. I urge Con and readers to speak with rape victims, ask them how they would respond if they went to a rape crisis center and the person working there was a man? It is a far cry from reality to say men are equally qualified as women to work in a rape crisis center, a far cry that is only possible by turning a blind eye to reality. 3. I forgot to cite my source [1] from Round 2. It was an honest mistake, and I am putting the source here: the peer-reviewed, academic book, Affirmative Action and the Meanings of Merit, by Bruce Lapenson. 4. Con argues that "SAT scores cant favor anyone." Why not? Physics examinations favor physicists, the bar exam favors people who have gone through law school, and the SAT favors people who have taken SAT prep. The amount of preparation one has to take a test has a direct effect on the results o taking the test. The fact that people who live in poverty tend to do worse on the SAT does not show that people living in poverty did worse because they are less qualified: it means that the SAT is a test designed to favor those who are not living in poverty. It would be just as easy to design a test that favors people who are living in poverty, or to design a test that favors the skills of Blacks and Hispanics. Then, would Whites would complain that the test was biased against Whites? A test is, by definition, designed to favor a particular group of people over others, namely, those with preparation. The SAT favors Whites and Asian-Americans over Blacks and Hispanics, and therefore, a Black who scores a 1400 has achieved roughly the equivalent of a White who scores 1500. Achievement and merit (the key word here is merit) is defined differently for different groups of people. Consider the following: if someone who studied Comparative Literature in college scores in the 90% on a graduate-level math exam, and a mathematician scores in the 95%, would you say the mathematician has more merit? I would say the Literature student is just as qualified to study math, the only difference being they don't have equal preparation as the mathematician and therefore scored lower. College admissions attempt to judge potential, and that must be weighed differently for different groups. 5. According to Con's bizarre logic, if a "single person in one of those poorer schools" is successful, then my argument is invalid. Con's thinking goes like this: if a single person person can excel within bad conditions, a single person from a poor background succeeding, then the bad conditions don't matter. Let me state it one more time, simple because I myself am still taking in how strange this logic is: if, from within group of people living in abject poverty, a single person is able to overcome the odds, then we should completely ignore the fact that the majority is performing worse than another group who is living in wealth. In other words, completely ignore poverty, ignore bad conditions, ignore hardship. Recall: Con is the one talking about equality of opportunity. According to Con, poverty has no relevance on equality of opportunity. The only thing that matters is how one performs, regardless of circumstances. This completely evacuates people from their context and personal situations. If someone grows up having to support their family with two jobs from the age of 13, and has no time to study or prepare for the SAT, is it reasonable to expect that person to perform as well as someone who had time to prepare? Is it reasonable to expect someone living in conditions where everyone around them is doing drugs and acting criminal to perform as well as someone who isn't? Is this equal opportunity? Affirmative action is a set of policies that are designed to create equal opportunity, not take it away. Con completely ignores social and economic context, as well as the reality of someone's personal opportunity, and instead only looks at results. Opportunity has nothing to do with results, it has to do with circumstances. Con's logic is bizarre on its face, and contradictory when investigated further. 6. Con states institutional sexism can be fixed without affirmative action. How? Con provides no solution. It is fixed by affirmative action by providing better opportunity for women to excel, thereby allowing them to get equal-paying jobs as men. Not sure what Con's argument against this is, since he hasn't really provided any. Now, onto Con's "facts showing the end of AA": 1. The fact that 5 states out of 50 have banned AA does not bode well for Con's case: that means the majority allows affirmative action, as well as the majority decision of the Supreme Court, who has deemed it constitutional. 2. As I said, the Supreme Court ruled as a majority that AA is constitutional and legal in college admissions. So why is Con bringing up a single dissenting Justice as a "big statement," if the majority of the Justices agree AA is beneficial? And, so what is a single Black person thinks AA is unjust. What is more important is that the White justices think it is justified, and that there are just as many Black academics who think AA is justified. And there are just as many Whites (myself) and Asian-Americans (my friends) who think AA is completely justified. Also, Con is appealing to an authority that was itself discredited in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, so it's a flawed appeal to authority on multiple counts. 3. I'm not debating the technicalities of how affirmative action is applied. It could just as well be the 3/4 rule, saying it has to be the 1/16 rule is simply a weak attempt to try discrediting affirmative action. AA is overall beneficial to society, and saying it isn't because you don't know how to apply is, is simply saying you don't know all the facts. Once we know the facts, and we know who belongs to a particular group that could benefit from AA because they are unlawfully discriminated against, then AA is completely justified. Figuring out who is part of that group is a completely different debate, although I'd argue imposing a 1/16 rule is unnecessary, and there are better solutions to this problem. 4. Con claims it's a "giant rambling mess." Says who? Con. This is all Con's imaginative speculation, unsubstantiated by facts. The facts show us that AA is justified when institutional racism exists.

FourTrouble

In closing, I will defend my argument from Con's flawed responses and misunderstandings, followed by my responses to Con's closing arguments. 1. Con concedes I make a "good point." Con attempts to argue that the only qualification necessary for being a doctor is technical skill, but this is absolutely false. A doctor must be psychologically equipped to deal with the stress and pressure of the operating room, as well as the possibility of failure. Furthermore, consider patients who are terminally ill or with psychiatric problems; these people require a deeper understanding of humanity, as well as psychological toughness for dealing with these problems. Con's reduction of medical practice to pure technical skill is just that, reductive and an overly-simplistic view of medical practice and what qualifies on to be a doctor. (As a discrete aside, note that I am currently in medical school and am speaking from experience: if you don't have the required psychological/social skills, you will have a very tough time getting certified as a doctor). 2. Con falsely claims I am "missing the point" when it is in fact Con who has missed my point. Con insists that belonging to a particular group does not provide qualifications for someone, even though I have provided examples of jobs in which belonging to a particular gender or ethnicity does give one better qualifications. To say a man is equally qualified to work in a rape crisis center is insensitive to rape victims. In fact, not only is it insensitive to rape victims to say a man is equally qualified to work at rape crisis center, it is outright harmful to rape victims who find the courage to seek help. I urge Con and readers to speak with rape victims, ask them how they would respond if they went to a rape crisis center and the person working there was a man? It is a far cry from reality to say men are equally qualified as women to work in a rape crisis center, a far cry that is only possible by turning a blind eye to reality. 3. I forgot to cite my source [1] from Round 2. It was an honest mistake, and I am putting the source here: the peer-reviewed, academic book, Affirmative Action and the Meanings of Merit, by Bruce Lapenson. 4. Con argues that "SAT scores cant favor anyone." Why not? Physics examinations favor physicists, the bar exam favors people who have gone through law school, and the SAT favors people who have taken SAT prep. The amount of preparation one has to take a test has a direct effect on the results o taking the test. The fact that people who live in poverty tend to do worse on the SAT does not show that people living in poverty did worse because they are less qualified: it means that the SAT is a test designed to favor those who are not living in poverty. It would be just as easy to design a test that favors people who are living in poverty, or to design a test that favors the skills of Blacks and Hispanics. Then, would Whites would complain that the test was biased against Whites? A test is, by definition, designed to favor a particular group of people over others, namely, those with preparation. The SAT favors Whites and Asian-Americans over Blacks and Hispanics, and therefore, a Black who scores a 1400 has achieved roughly the equivalent of a White who scores 1500. Achievement and merit (the key word here is merit) is defined differently for different groups of people. Consider the following: if someone who studied Comparative Literature in college scores in the 90% on a graduate-level math exam, and a mathematician scores in the 95%, would you say the mathematician has more merit? I would say the Literature student is just as qualified to study math, the only difference being they don't have equal preparation as the mathematician and therefore scored lower. College admissions attempt to judge potential, and that must be weighed differently for different groups. 5. According to Con's bizarre logic, if a "single person in one of those poorer schools" is successful, then my argument is invalid. Con's thinking goes like this: if a single person person can excel within bad conditions, a single person from a poor background succeeding, then the bad conditions don't matter. Let me state it one more time, simple because I myself am still taking in how strange this logic is: if, from within group of people living in abject poverty, a single person is able to overcome the odds, then we should completely ignore the fact that the majority is performing worse than another group who is living in wealth. In other words, completely ignore poverty, ignore bad conditions, ignore hardship. Recall: Con is the one talking about equality of opportunity. According to Con, poverty has no relevance on equality of opportunity. The only thing that matters is how one performs, regardless of circumstances. This completely evacuates people from their context and personal situations. If someone grows up having to support their family with two jobs from the age of 13, and has no time to study or prepare for the SAT, is it reasonable to expect that person to perform as well as someone who had time to prepare? Is it reasonable to expect someone living in conditions where everyone around them is doing drugs and acting criminal to perform as well as someone who isn't? Is this equal opportunity? Affirmative action is a set of policies that are designed to create equal opportunity, not take it away. Con completely ignores social and economic context, as well as the reality of someone's personal opportunity, and instead only looks at results. Opportunity has nothing to do with results, it has to do with circumstances. Con's logic is bizarre on its face, and contradictory when investigated further. 6. Con states institutional sexism can be fixed without affirmative action. How? Con provides no solution. It is fixed by affirmative action by providing better opportunity for women to excel, thereby allowing them to get equal-paying jobs as men. Not sure what Con's argument against this is, since he hasn't really provided any. Now, onto Con's "facts showing the end of AA": 1. The fact that 5 states out of 50 have banned AA does not bode well for Con's case: that means the majority allows affirmative action, as well as the majority decision of the Supreme Court, who has deemed it constitutional. 2. As I said, the Supreme Court ruled as a majority that AA is constitutional and legal in college admissions. So why is Con bringing up a single dissenting Justice as a "big statement," if the majority of the Justices agree AA is beneficial? And, so what is a single Black person thinks AA is unjust. What is more important is that the White justices think it is justified, and that there are just as many Black academics who think AA is justified. And there are just as many Whites (myself) and Asian-Americans (my friends) who think AA is completely justified. Also, Con is appealing to an authority that was itself discredited in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, so it's a flawed appeal to authority on multiple counts. 3. I'm not debating the technicalities of how affirmative action is applied. It could just as well be the 3/4 rule, saying it has to be the 1/16 rule is simply a weak attempt to try discrediting affirmative action. AA is overall beneficial to society, and saying it isn't because you don't know how to apply is, is simply saying you don't know all the facts. Once we know the facts, and we know who belongs to a particular group that could benefit from AA because they are unlawfully discriminated against, then AA is completely justified. Figuring out who is part of that group is a completely different debate, although I'd argue imposing a 1/16 rule is unnecessary, and there are better solutions to this problem. 4. Con claims it's a "giant rambling mess." Says who? Con. This is all Con's imaginative speculation, unsubstantiated by facts. The facts show us that AA is justified when institutional racism exists.

Education

Affirmative-Action/18/

I will gladly accept the debate. I look forward to dipping my toes back into debate.org with this one. I'll thank CalderKase for starting this discussion. Should be fun!

breaxxbaxx

I will gladly accept the debate. I look forward to dipping my toes back into debate.org with this one. I'll thank CalderKase for starting this discussion. Should be fun!

Politics

Affirmative-Action/36/

Definitions: " Affirmative Action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of "color, religion, sex, or national origin". Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs" [1] "A minority group is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth, health or sexual orientation." [2] The first thing one must understand when looking at affirmative action is understanding why many feel it necessary to begin with. The unfortunate reality is that racism still very much exists in our society. In the study "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" it was found that applicants with white sounding names were 50 percent more likely to get called for an interview than people African-American sounding names despite having similar resumes. [3] A pretty similar study was also done in New York City, and again, "black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a call back or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison." [4] The idea isn't that people are trying to be racist or are even aware of their racism, it's simply in their subconscious. "Lakisha" is still a name many white people would expect to see in an SNL sketch. There are many negative stereotypes about minorities that people like to joke about, and for many white people who haven't lived in the most diverse towns or cities, that's where they are getting their education on other people's cultures. The second thing that needs to be understood is how Affirmative Action is supposed to work. My opponent brought up the case of Hopwood v. Texas. It would be important to note that the ruling did not find anything wrong with the school implementing Affirmative Action, but how the school was implementing it: "The court reasoned that although affording a minority applicant a racial preference, or "'plus' factor,"29 would be constitutionally permissible, the failure of the law school's admissions process to "afford each individual applicant a comparison with the entire pool of applicants" unnecessarily and impermissibly offended equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment." [ 5] I would say that the case of Hopwood v. Texas isn't so much an argument against Affirmative Action but more of a case against specific ways of implementing Affirmative Action. And I would certainly agree that there are wrong ways to enforce it. But it is up to the individual schools and employers how they want to implement it, there is no set way. Some schools might set-up outreach groups to try to reach and gain interest from kids of color to apply to their school. That doesn't mean every black student who applies will be accepted, but it helps the school have more of a diverse group of applicants to pick from. We should also look at what schools look at when they're interviewing students. It's not just scores and numbers. Personality, background, whether or not they had family attend the school, etc. also play a role in whether or not they'll be accepted. You could be a high-scoring straight A student but still wouldn't necessarily be as desirable as a student who may not of had as high a GPA as you, but had family members who had previously attended the school. Affirmative Action is not giving unfair advantage to a specific groups of people, it is simply leveling the playing field in society that is not always fair to specific groups of people. We can't be colorblind when addressing these problems because we do not live in a colorblind society. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

breaxxbaxx

Definitions: " Affirmative Action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of "color, religion, sex, or national origin". Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs" [1] "A minority group is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth, health or sexual orientation." [2] The first thing one must understand when looking at affirmative action is understanding why many feel it necessary to begin with. The unfortunate reality is that racism still very much exists in our society. In the study "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" it was found that applicants with white sounding names were 50 percent more likely to get called for an interview than people African-American sounding names despite having similar resumes. [3] A pretty similar study was also done in New York City, and again, "black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a call back or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison." [4] The idea isn't that people are trying to be racist or are even aware of their racism, it's simply in their subconscious. "Lakisha" is still a name many white people would expect to see in an SNL sketch. There are many negative stereotypes about minorities that people like to joke about, and for many white people who haven't lived in the most diverse towns or cities, that's where they are getting their education on other people's cultures. The second thing that needs to be understood is how Affirmative Action is supposed to work. My opponent brought up the case of Hopwood v. Texas. It would be important to note that the ruling did not find anything wrong with the school implementing Affirmative Action, but how the school was implementing it: "The court reasoned that although affording a minority applicant a racial preference, or "'plus' factor,"29 would be constitutionally permissible, the failure of the law school's admissions process to "afford each individual applicant a comparison with the entire pool of applicants" unnecessarily and impermissibly offended equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment." [ 5] I would say that the case of Hopwood v. Texas isn't so much an argument against Affirmative Action but more of a case against specific ways of implementing Affirmative Action. And I would certainly agree that there are wrong ways to enforce it. But it is up to the individual schools and employers how they want to implement it, there is no set way. Some schools might set-up outreach groups to try to reach and gain interest from kids of color to apply to their school. That doesn't mean every black student who applies will be accepted, but it helps the school have more of a diverse group of applicants to pick from. We should also look at what schools look at when they're interviewing students. It's not just scores and numbers. Personality, background, whether or not they had family attend the school, etc. also play a role in whether or not they'll be accepted. You could be a high-scoring straight A student but still wouldn't necessarily be as desirable as a student who may not of had as high a GPA as you, but had family members who had previously attended the school. Affirmative Action is not giving unfair advantage to a specific groups of people, it is simply leveling the playing field in society that is not always fair to specific groups of people. We can't be colorblind when addressing these problems because we do not live in a colorblind society. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.chicagobooth.edu... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu...

Politics

Affirmative-Action/36/

To conclude I will simply reiterate the points I have already made. We do not live in a society where the playing field is level for all. This is especially true for many minorities. They still face discrimination in education and the workplace. Affirmative action is in place, not to give them a free ride, but to make the playing field somewhat level. It is not reverse discrimination, it is to get minorities to a point that they would be at if we did indeed live in a society that was colorblind. It is not about quotas or hiring under-qualified people (as that would obviously be a poor business decision), but simply to make sure there is some sort of attempt at diversifying their schools and businesses. That attempt doesn't always have to be successful, but that's all affirmative actions requires: some kind of attempt. Why is that important? Because it makes the people going the applicants aware of themselves and their own potential biases. So they can think about exactly why they have a tendency to choose Sara over Lakisha despite having identical resumes as the studies I mentioned in my argument suggest. I'd like to again thank my opponent for the debate.

breaxxbaxx

To conclude I will simply reiterate the points I have already made. We do not live in a society where the playing field is level for all. This is especially true for many minorities. They still face discrimination in education and the workplace. Affirmative action is in place, not to give them a free ride, but to make the playing field somewhat level. It is not reverse discrimination, it is to get minorities to a point that they would be at if we did indeed live in a society that was colorblind. It is not about quotas or hiring under-qualified people (as that would obviously be a poor business decision), but simply to make sure there is some sort of attempt at diversifying their schools and businesses. That attempt doesn't always have to be successful, but that's all affirmative actions requires: some kind of attempt. Why is that important? Because it makes the people going the applicants aware of themselves and their own potential biases. So they can think about exactly why they have a tendency to choose Sara over Lakisha despite having identical resumes as the studies I mentioned in my argument suggest. I'd like to again thank my opponent for the debate.

Politics

Affirmative-Action/36/

Affirmative action is not a "law" -- it's not a requirement imposed by the government -- and even if it were, it doesn't require that "businesses and schools maintain an equal amount of all race groups." Even in a "simple sense" (my opponent's words), affirmative action is not, and has never been, about admitting an equal number of blacks and hispanics as whites in college admisions. Affirmative action, per my opponent's definition, is a "policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture." The key words there are "policy" and "favoring." The specific policies that a university or business employs are subject to change; circumstances and history determine the "members of a disadvantaged group" and "suffer from discrimination" parts. Today, blacks and hispanics fall into that category, so that's where the debate focuses. 1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. [6] 2. Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action. And there are multiple reasons why they do that. Businesses want a diverse workplace because a diverse workplace is good for business. [1] [2] [3] And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society. [4] [5] 3. The fact that whites are the majority -- 77.7% according to my opponent -- is irrelevant. Affirmative action isn't about giving minority groups more workspace than the majority. It's not about equal numbers. Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination. Also note that one of the main reasons blacks and hispanics appear to have less "skills" than whites is because they face more adversity, they're disproportionately poorer, go to worse schools, etc. Affirmative action remedies the harms of unlawful discrimination and improves the success of businesses and improves college experiences. == Sources== [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... ;

FourTrouble

Affirmative action is not a "law" -- it's not a requirement imposed by the government -- and even if it were, it doesn't require that "businesses and schools maintain an equal amount of all race groups." Even in a "simple sense" (my opponent's words), affirmative action is not, and has never been, about admitting an equal number of blacks and hispanics as whites in college admisions. Affirmative action, per my opponent's definition, is a "policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture." The key words there are "policy" and "favoring." The specific policies that a university or business employs are subject to change; circumstances and history determine the "members of a disadvantaged group" and "suffer from discrimination" parts. Today, blacks and hispanics fall into that category, so that's where the debate focuses. 1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. [6] 2. Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action. And there are multiple reasons why they do that. Businesses want a diverse workplace because a diverse workplace is good for business. [1] [2] [3] And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society. [4] [5] 3. The fact that whites are the majority -- 77.7% according to my opponent -- is irrelevant. Affirmative action isn't about giving minority groups more workspace than the majority. It's not about equal numbers. Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination. Also note that one of the main reasons blacks and hispanics appear to have less "skills" than whites is because they face more adversity, they're disproportionately poorer, go to worse schools, etc. Affirmative action remedies the harms of unlawful discrimination and improves the success of businesses and improves college experiences. == Sources== [1] https://www.americanprogress.org... [2] http://www.entrepreneur.com... [3] http://www.forbes.com... [4] https://www.americanprogress.org... [5] http://www.usnews.com... [6] http://www.supremecourt.gov... ;

Politics

Affirmative-Action/45/

== What is racism? == "Racism" is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." == Is affirmative action racist? == No. Affirmative action doesn't discriminate "based on the belief that one's own race is superior." True, both affirmative action and racism discriminate on the basis of race. But affirmative action discriminates to remedy the results of racism and to increase diversity; racism discriminates to disenfranchise, exploit, and enslave blacks. Two very different motives and outcomes. Consider this analogy: Killing in self-defense and killing for money both involve killing. But killing in self-defense is clearly not the moral equivalent of killing for money. So too with affirmative action and racism. Both involve discrimination on the basis of race. But just as killing in self-defense isn't the same as killing for money, affirmative action isn't the same as racism. The key distinction is motive -- affirmative action discriminates with intent to remedy racism, whereas racism discriminates with intent to harm blacks. The outcome is also different: affirmative action helps blacks whereas racism hurts them. == Conclusion == My opponent concedes that affirmative action increases diversity, which in turn produces good outcomes for businesses and universities. In effect, affirmative action is good for the economy, good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares students for work in a global society. Given those impacts, my opponent cannot win this debate.

FourTrouble

== What is racism? == "Racism" is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." == Is affirmative action racist? == No. Affirmative action doesn't discriminate "based on the belief that one's own race is superior." True, both affirmative action and racism discriminate on the basis of race. But affirmative action discriminates to remedy the results of racism and to increase diversity; racism discriminates to disenfranchise, exploit, and enslave blacks. Two very different motives and outcomes. Consider this analogy: Killing in self-defense and killing for money both involve killing. But killing in self-defense is clearly not the moral equivalent of killing for money. So too with affirmative action and racism. Both involve discrimination on the basis of race. But just as killing in self-defense isn't the same as killing for money, affirmative action isn't the same as racism. The key distinction is motive -- affirmative action discriminates with intent to remedy racism, whereas racism discriminates with intent to harm blacks. The outcome is also different: affirmative action helps blacks whereas racism hurts them. == Conclusion == My opponent concedes that affirmative action increases diversity, which in turn produces good outcomes for businesses and universities. In effect, affirmative action is good for the economy, good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares students for work in a global society. Given those impacts, my opponent cannot win this debate.

Politics

Affirmative-Action/45/

My opponent forfeited. Vote Pro.

FourTrouble

My opponent forfeited. Vote Pro.

Politics

Affirmative-Action/45/

Those of African-American decent do not deserve the right to vote. The White settlers risked everything they had coming to America. Sure, African-Americans have been here just as long, but they came in chains. White settlers came to build a new life, and built one. African-Americans weren't imported until the White settlers had things built up, at least in the general area. Sure, the contributions of African-Americans are undeniable, but the US was founded by white hands and white minds standing on black backs. It wasn't the people's country, it was the white men's country. The Northerners may have condemned slavery, but they didn't dare put it in writing because the Southerners would never agree to it. The White Americans built America from the ground up, risking their own lives, and the African-Americans don't deserve the right to vote in it. (I'd like to say that I don't really oppose African-Americans voting, but this looked like a fun debate.)

MechMage

Those of African-American decent do not deserve the right to vote. The White settlers risked everything they had coming to America. Sure, African-Americans have been here just as long, but they came in chains. White settlers came to build a new life, and built one. African-Americans weren't imported until the White settlers had things built up, at least in the general area. Sure, the contributions of African-Americans are undeniable, but the US was founded by white hands and white minds standing on black backs. It wasn't the people's country, it was the white men's country. The Northerners may have condemned slavery, but they didn't dare put it in writing because the Southerners would never agree to it. The White Americans built America from the ground up, risking their own lives, and the African-Americans don't deserve the right to vote in it. (I'd like to say that I don't really oppose African-Americans voting, but this looked like a fun debate.)

News

African-Americans-deserve-the-right-to-vote/1/

I'm not sure what you mean by came first. The MayFlower landed in MA, and jump started the Puritan movement who's descendants wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution. Human life started in Africa, and the first people were black. Is that what your getting at? They were the ancestors of all of the humans in Eurasia and Africa. Just because the humans in Europe grew pale skin, doesn't mean that their ancestors were younger, they were the same people. Europeans just changed more than Africans did. Europeans were the founders of the US, and the African-Americans that just hung around for the ride don't deserve a vote.

MechMage

I'm not sure what you mean by came first. The MayFlower landed in MA, and jump started the Puritan movement who's descendants wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution. Human life started in Africa, and the first people were black. Is that what your getting at? They were the ancestors of all of the humans in Eurasia and Africa. Just because the humans in Europe grew pale skin, doesn't mean that their ancestors were younger, they were the same people. Europeans just changed more than Africans did. Europeans were the founders of the US, and the African-Americans that just hung around for the ride don't deserve a vote.

News

African-Americans-deserve-the-right-to-vote/1/

I firmly believe that all men are created equal. because all people are equal then they have the right to vote. Any one who honestly doesn't think this accept my challenge.

defleppard1691

I firmly believe that all men are created equal. because all people are equal then they have the right to vote. Any one who honestly doesn't think this accept my challenge.

News

African-Americans-deserve-the-right-to-vote/1/

Good point, according to Mendelian genetics the white gene is recessive to the African American gene thus African American gene came first thus they came first and therefore deserve to vote over whites.

defleppard1691

Good point, according to Mendelian genetics the white gene is recessive to the African American gene thus African American gene came first thus they came first and therefore deserve to vote over whites.

News

African-Americans-deserve-the-right-to-vote/1/

Hello, the first round is only to accept the debate. And the debate can go off-topic, if needed. The CON is supposed to be a Christian, please. And he should prove that there is afterlife. Good luck to the CON!

Lukas8

Hello, the first round is only to accept the debate. And the debate can go off-topic, if needed. The CON is supposed to be a Christian, please. And he should prove that there is afterlife. Good luck to the CON!

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

G"day, and good luck to CON. So lets begin, its hard to decide were to start, but anyway lets simply begin here. First of all, there aren't any true evidences that could show that there is (the) After-life. Next the problem is, even if After-life would exist then we could observe the process in which the shortly dead organic life, transfers and travels in a place that is where. This is weird, all organic forms are made out of molecules and so on. So why would they sutendly after death travell to a holy moly place, its inposible, because its stupid to say that atoms or any small particles go to a holy moly place. Organic forms (lets say life) are a complex composition of complex compounds, and when these die, these cant travell to a distand holy moly place. Death doesn't exist. All molecules didn't wanish, all that happened is that the processes that run a life form stopped. After the stop of the life, the life decays into new compounds that actually recycle through the complex process of nature. Too hard to imagine? Simply, when you see a dead opossum at the road, what is going to happen? He's going to decay, his immune system stopped to work. And many processes stop automatically, there will also be simple chemical reactions. However many insects, bacteria"s, fungi and other species that help at decaying of material. These species are going to get food and the by product will be literally plant food. So all organic material of a life is going through a life and after the "death", huh its going back to nature, but in a different form, because all parts of a body will be recycled into new material. Other life forms will use it, and the process goes on and goes on" Why because of the physical law: The conservation of energy. Have a few questions for religious people, are there actually any organic or any compounds at all in heaven/hell, what are the physics of heaven/hell and a stupid , but still necessary question where are the heaven/hell at all? Next, how could a human go to after life, if any other animal,plant,fungi, simple eukaryote life, bacteria, other life's, Extraterrestrials cant go the heavens. Looks like that the little species of Homo Sapiens is really the only of the many , many, many species or any life forms in the whole universe, that is allowed to go to Heaven/hell. How comes it? The evolution denies that. When did the first one go to heaven. We evolved from the previous species of the genus Homo, since were the only Homo species that still exists. I heard in the Simpson's, when bart asked a teacher in the Sunday school and the pater answered that monkeys or any other human-like but not human species aren't allowed to go to Heaven/hell. Every generation is a bit genetically different, because of selection, mutation" So that's how species are being created. And in some point in history, we can tell that there is a new species. Imagine it like: Homo Loly, evolved into Homo Sapiens. And sutendly only the H. Sapiens got allowed to go the Heavens/hell. Lets imagine it in a different way. An opossum would state that his species is the only species that can go to a place (described in the holy story book of the opossums) after death and no other species can. How seriously would you take them and how fair would it be for you. But we all know what happens after the opossum dies, he decays. So we freak out if any other species would state that they have after-life, but when religious humans talk about it in large institutions (aka church) then we think that this is normal. But even if after-life and any of the millions of religion would turn to be true, then how high is the possibility that the Christian God does exist. Do you know how many religions did and do exist and Christians believe only in the Christian one. The story book "Holy Bible", doesn't describe anything useful at all. Like were did god come from before the creation, what and where is the heaven/hell" Many people answered that the Holy moly after-life place is a different dimension, but how can this be true? It cant be: -Its not described in the bible -people from medieval ages didn't know that there is a different dimension (except the 2D,3D) - and still where are the evidences that the after-life place is in an other dimension -How that only the organic forms of a Human can go to the holy moly place, and how? We humans are still animals. For those, Homo Sapiens is in the genus Homo, family Homodiae, a part of the Primates and these are Mammal's, and these are Animals. So what differs us so much from other species, except our genetics and look-likes. What is the holy moly X that allows our species to go to that after-life place. But wait" Have you ever heard of the amazing activity of our brain before death? It isn't completely explained, but how high is the possibility that this before-death activity means that after-life and God exist? Those who actually survived and talked about it, explained amazing dreams, but what is a dream? And this answers that God hasn't been in their minds before death, ooh plus what evidences show that this is the Christian god, it could be any unknown force? And i"ll ,stop because i"ll continue in the next round. Good luck to you!

Lukas8

G"day, and good luck to CON. So lets begin, its hard to decide were to start, but anyway lets simply begin here. First of all, there aren't any true evidences that could show that there is (the) After-life. Next the problem is, even if After-life would exist then we could observe the process in which the shortly dead organic life, transfers and travels in a place that is where. This is weird, all organic forms are made out of molecules and so on. So why would they sutendly after death travell to a holy moly place, its inposible, because its stupid to say that atoms or any small particles go to a holy moly place. Organic forms (lets say life) are a complex composition of complex compounds, and when these die, these cant travell to a distand holy moly place. Death doesn't exist. All molecules didn't wanish, all that happened is that the processes that run a life form stopped. After the stop of the life, the life decays into new compounds that actually recycle through the complex process of nature. Too hard to imagine? Simply, when you see a dead opossum at the road, what is going to happen? He's going to decay, his immune system stopped to work. And many processes stop automatically, there will also be simple chemical reactions. However many insects, bacteria"s, fungi and other species that help at decaying of material. These species are going to get food and the by product will be literally plant food. So all organic material of a life is going through a life and after the "death", huh its going back to nature, but in a different form, because all parts of a body will be recycled into new material. Other life forms will use it, and the process goes on and goes on" Why because of the physical law: The conservation of energy. Have a few questions for religious people, are there actually any organic or any compounds at all in heaven/hell, what are the physics of heaven/hell and a stupid , but still necessary question where are the heaven/hell at all? Next, how could a human go to after life, if any other animal,plant,fungi, simple eukaryote life, bacteria, other life's, Extraterrestrials cant go the heavens. Looks like that the little species of Homo Sapiens is really the only of the many , many, many species or any life forms in the whole universe, that is allowed to go to Heaven/hell. How comes it? The evolution denies that. When did the first one go to heaven. We evolved from the previous species of the genus Homo, since were the only Homo species that still exists. I heard in the Simpson's, when bart asked a teacher in the Sunday school and the pater answered that monkeys or any other human-like but not human species aren't allowed to go to Heaven/hell. Every generation is a bit genetically different, because of selection, mutation" So that's how species are being created. And in some point in history, we can tell that there is a new species. Imagine it like: Homo Loly, evolved into Homo Sapiens. And sutendly only the H. Sapiens got allowed to go the Heavens/hell. Lets imagine it in a different way. An opossum would state that his species is the only species that can go to a place (described in the holy story book of the opossums) after death and no other species can. How seriously would you take them and how fair would it be for you. But we all know what happens after the opossum dies, he decays. So we freak out if any other species would state that they have after-life, but when religious humans talk about it in large institutions (aka church) then we think that this is normal. But even if after-life and any of the millions of religion would turn to be true, then how high is the possibility that the Christian God does exist. Do you know how many religions did and do exist and Christians believe only in the Christian one. The story book "Holy Bible", doesn't describe anything useful at all. Like were did god come from before the creation, what and where is the heaven/hell" Many people answered that the Holy moly after-life place is a different dimension, but how can this be true? It cant be: -Its not described in the bible -people from medieval ages didn't know that there is a different dimension (except the 2D,3D) - and still where are the evidences that the after-life place is in an other dimension -How that only the organic forms of a Human can go to the holy moly place, and how? We humans are still animals. For those, Homo Sapiens is in the genus Homo, family Homodiae, a part of the Primates and these are Mammal's, and these are Animals. So what differs us so much from other species, except our genetics and look-likes. What is the holy moly X that allows our species to go to that after-life place. But wait" Have you ever heard of the amazing activity of our brain before death? It isn't completely explained, but how high is the possibility that this before-death activity means that after-life and God exist? Those who actually survived and talked about it, explained amazing dreams, but what is a dream? And this answers that God hasn't been in their minds before death, ooh plus what evidences show that this is the Christian god, it could be any unknown force? And i"ll ,stop because i"ll continue in the next round. Good luck to you!

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

Hello once again. Well, I hoped to talk with a Christian about the actuall physics of the after-life, but anyway lets continue in your way. Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong. Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death. You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all. The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person. Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on. The basic definition of life rejects that. What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live. Simply imagine that you wont live after death. It isn't that hard, what was there of you before you came to this world? And in the previous round I didn't deny only the religious after-life, I was just focused on it. Anyway Good luck.

Lukas8

Hello once again. Well, I hoped to talk with a Christian about the actuall physics of the after-life, but anyway lets continue in your way. Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong. Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death. You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all. The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person. Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on. The basic definition of life rejects that. What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live. Simply imagine that you wont live after death. It isn't that hard, what was there of you before you came to this world? And in the previous round I didn't deny only the religious after-life, I was just focused on it. Anyway Good luck.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

Hi, for the final round. I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature. But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death. What CON mentioned is that after death of every specimen, that specimen leaves a legacy. Agree, but the legacy isn't after-life. And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes.

Lukas8

Hi, for the final round. I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature. But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death. What CON mentioned is that after death of every specimen, that specimen leaves a legacy. Agree, but the legacy isn't after-life. And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

I accept the debate but reject the premise that I must "prove that there is (an) afterlife". The debate topic is that the after-life doesn't exist which is theoretical by it very nature therefore it cannot be definitively proved or disproved. In addition, the BoP is on both parties since the statement "(the) after-life does not exist" is as equally assertive as the statement the after-life does exist.

ObjectivityIsAMust

I accept the debate but reject the premise that I must "prove that there is (an) afterlife". The debate topic is that the after-life doesn't exist which is theoretical by it very nature therefore it cannot be definitively proved or disproved. In addition, the BoP is on both parties since the statement "(the) after-life does not exist" is as equally assertive as the statement the after-life does exist.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

1. After-life does not imply heaven or hell, it merely implying that there is life after death. 2. In my arguments, I define a person as the combination of his brain and the information in it. My opponent is attempting to prove that the religious after-life doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, argue that this is merely one perspective of the meaning of after-life and instead will attempt to prove that the statement "the after-life exist" can be valid. First of all, the self of a human being is constantly changing through his life therefore at no point, during this process, can one be qualified as his true self. A true measure of life must encompass the totality of it This means that persons life must be evaluated through every single facet of their humans experience which includes the past. The human experience is caused by a person (see definition 2) interacting with the physical world. Therefore, a person's death doesn't not mean that the entire human experience is over. His personality, feelings and thoughts still live on in the memories of others. Therefore, a part of his life still exist after his physical life is over which makes the statement the after-life exists possible.

ObjectivityIsAMust

1. After-life does not imply heaven or hell, it merely implying that there is life after death. 2. In my arguments, I define a person as the combination of his brain and the information in it. My opponent is attempting to prove that the religious after-life doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, argue that this is merely one perspective of the meaning of after-life and instead will attempt to prove that the statement "the after-life exist" can be valid. First of all, the self of a human being is constantly changing through his life therefore at no point, during this process, can one be qualified as his true self. A true measure of life must encompass the totality of it This means that persons life must be evaluated through every single facet of their humans experience which includes the past. The human experience is caused by a person (see definition 2) interacting with the physical world. Therefore, a person's death doesn't not mean that the entire human experience is over. His personality, feelings and thoughts still live on in the memories of others. Therefore, a part of his life still exist after his physical life is over which makes the statement the after-life exists possible.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

My opponent is attempting to refute my claim that there is a metaphysical (philosophical) after-life. This however does not help him prove that there is not spiritual after-life. His premise: "Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong." First argument: "Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death." -> He is simply making the self-evident claim that at death a person physically dies. These are distracting arguments that do not address the issues. Restating his first premise: "You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all." Arguments: "The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person." -> Nonsensical phrase. Clarifying his first premise: "Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on." Argument: "The basic definition of life rejects that." -> Life is an ambiguous term that by its very nature cannot be definitively define. There is no definitive measure to define what should be consider life or what exactly life consist of. Therefore, definitions of life can have metaphysical (philosophy) implications or physical ones or both. "What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live." -> After-life does not imply eternal life in some form, it merely implies that after physical death there is some form of life that persists whatever the time frame. Whether it lasts one second or a year is irrelevant it still persists after physical life. If no one remember you, you have still left your mark on the world which means that your influence persists in this world.

ObjectivityIsAMust

My opponent is attempting to refute my claim that there is a metaphysical (philosophical) after-life. This however does not help him prove that there is not spiritual after-life. His premise: "Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong." First argument: "Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death." -> He is simply making the self-evident claim that at death a person physically dies. These are distracting arguments that do not address the issues. Restating his first premise: "You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all." Arguments: "The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person." -> Nonsensical phrase. Clarifying his first premise: "Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on." Argument: "The basic definition of life rejects that." -> Life is an ambiguous term that by its very nature cannot be definitively define. There is no definitive measure to define what should be consider life or what exactly life consist of. Therefore, definitions of life can have metaphysical (philosophy) implications or physical ones or both. "What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live." -> After-life does not imply eternal life in some form, it merely implies that after physical death there is some form of life that persists whatever the time frame. Whether it lasts one second or a year is irrelevant it still persists after physical life. If no one remember you, you have still left your mark on the world which means that your influence persists in this world.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

Supporting that life has metaphysical implications ; "I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature." Unsupported statement: "But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death." -> My opponent is still vaguely referring to his premise that life can only be seen from a physical stand point which I have shown to be not so since there are also metaphysic (philosophical) implications. Therefore, these arguments are simply repeating his premise without supporting it and also without addressing my previous arguments. "And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes." -> This is the operational definition of a biologist which I at not point challenged since I retorted that life could be defined in both a metaphysical and physical what. From the Wikipedia Locked article of life: "However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life." -> Because the article is locked it has reputability. In summary, my opponent has not proven his proposition that a spiritual God does not exist. While I on the hand have proven my proposition that the statement "The after-life exist" can be viewed as correct because of metaphysics.

ObjectivityIsAMust

Supporting that life has metaphysical implications ; "I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature." Unsupported statement: "But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death." -> My opponent is still vaguely referring to his premise that life can only be seen from a physical stand point which I have shown to be not so since there are also metaphysic (philosophical) implications. Therefore, these arguments are simply repeating his premise without supporting it and also without addressing my previous arguments. "And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes." -> This is the operational definition of a biologist which I at not point challenged since I retorted that life could be defined in both a metaphysical and physical what. From the Wikipedia Locked article of life: "However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life." -> Because the article is locked it has reputability. In summary, my opponent has not proven his proposition that a spiritual God does not exist. While I on the hand have proven my proposition that the statement "The after-life exist" can be viewed as correct because of metaphysics.

Religion

After-life-doesnt-exist/1/

I'm doing this because im doing a persuasive essay. Someone please help me i have good points. I think the age of consent laws should not be legal because people are going to do it anyway even if its illegal to do. For example if a 18 year old is dating a 14 year old before or even after he turns 18 and they feel that strongly for each other they are going to have sex if its what they want to do and legally right now in California it is illegal and would justify in a misdemeanor which would exempt the 18 year old from doing certain things but they are still going to do it because they want to its a rebellious teenager thing. My opinion is they laws should not exist they just make us want to do it more.

Foxxy

I'm doing this because im doing a persuasive essay. Someone please help me i have good points. I think the age of consent laws should not be legal because people are going to do it anyway even if its illegal to do. For example if a 18 year old is dating a 14 year old before or even after he turns 18 and they feel that strongly for each other they are going to have sex if its what they want to do and legally right now in California it is illegal and would justify in a misdemeanor which would exempt the 18 year old from doing certain things but they are still going to do it because they want to its a rebellious teenager thing. My opinion is they laws should not exist they just make us want to do it more.

Society

Age-of-consent-laws-should-not-be-legal/1/

omgosh... your right.... im beginning to change my feel on not having the laws... but i think they should be altered a little bit. i give up you won completely. now im changing my essay topic

Foxxy

omgosh... your right.... im beginning to change my feel on not having the laws... but i think they should be altered a little bit. i give up you won completely. now im changing my essay topic

Society

Age-of-consent-laws-should-not-be-legal/1/

OK i completely agree with you now. the laws should not be altered and should remain as is.

Foxxy

OK i completely agree with you now. the laws should not be altered and should remain as is.

Society

Age-of-consent-laws-should-not-be-legal/1/

I did learn something. I completely understand now. Thank you soo much.

Foxxy

I did learn something. I completely understand now. Thank you soo much.

Society

Age-of-consent-laws-should-not-be-legal/1/

All an atheist has to do is prove that god is not necessary for the universe to exist in order to prove he doesn't exist. If you can prove god mathematically wrong, logically wrong, or scientifically un-necessary, he doesn't need to exist. First to be able to do so, we must define god. Without god having a definition, you can not "believe" or "disbelieve" in him because you wouldn't know exactly what you are making claims about. To make it simple, we give god these traits: (a) perfect (b) immutable (c) transcendent (d) nonphysical (e) omniscient (f) omnipresent (g) personal (h) free (i) all-loving (j) all-just (k) all-merciful (1) the creator of the universe All we need to do is prove that these traits contradict one another. Here is an easy one we can prove: ""The Transcendence-vs.-Omnipresence Argument Here the incompatibility is between properties (c) and (f). The argument may be formulated as follows: 1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time). 2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent. 3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. 4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. 5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4). 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). The usual place at which this argument is attacked is premise 3. It is claimed that to transcend space does not entail being totally outside space. A being could be partly inside space and partly outside. Consider the Flatland analogy: a three-dimensional object transcends Flatland, and yet it exists within the Flatland dimensions (as well as outside). So, God could be like that. He exists within space (and, indeed, everywhere in space!) but he also exists outside space, the latter feature being what warrants calling him "transcendent." My only objection here is that the Flatland analogy does not quite make the idea of transcendence intelligible. We understand perfectly well how a three-dimensional object might "transcend" Flatland while still being (partly) within it. However, this is still talking about objects in space. To try to extend the analogy so as to talk about something that is "outside space as well as within it" is unsuccessful. That is something that we are totally unable to comprehend. In the end, the very concept of transcendence that is appealed to here is incoherent. This illustrates the point that defenses against incompatible-properties arguments may very well lead to incoherence or other objections to theism."" - Argument by Theodore M. Drange in Philo Volume 1, Number 2, article "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" Look up the article for multiple proofs such at this one. Secondly, because it is possible to prove an unrestricted negative (saying there isn't a way is performing just that, an unrestricted negative) then we can say "God does not exist anywhere" and find proof. "Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number . because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number. Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them." - Philo So all that is needed is to show that god is inconsistent, illogical, contradictory, or not necessary. I'm sure, as I have pointed out above, there are people who have disproved god. It's just if people are willing to swallow it or not.

Vi_Veri

All an atheist has to do is prove that god is not necessary for the universe to exist in order to prove he doesn't exist. If you can prove god mathematically wrong, logically wrong, or scientifically un-necessary, he doesn't need to exist. First to be able to do so, we must define god. Without god having a definition, you can not "believe" or "disbelieve" in him because you wouldn't know exactly what you are making claims about. To make it simple, we give god these traits: (a) perfect (b) immutable (c) transcendent (d) nonphysical (e) omniscient (f) omnipresent (g) personal (h) free (i) all-loving (j) all-just (k) all-merciful (1) the creator of the universe All we need to do is prove that these traits contradict one another. Here is an easy one we can prove: ""The Transcendence-vs.-Omnipresence Argument Here the incompatibility is between properties (c) and (f). The argument may be formulated as follows: 1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time). 2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent. 3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. 4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. 5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4). 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). The usual place at which this argument is attacked is premise 3. It is claimed that to transcend space does not entail being totally outside space. A being could be partly inside space and partly outside. Consider the Flatland analogy: a three-dimensional object transcends Flatland, and yet it exists within the Flatland dimensions (as well as outside). So, God could be like that. He exists within space (and, indeed, everywhere in space!) but he also exists outside space, the latter feature being what warrants calling him "transcendent." My only objection here is that the Flatland analogy does not quite make the idea of transcendence intelligible. We understand perfectly well how a three-dimensional object might "transcend" Flatland while still being (partly) within it. However, this is still talking about objects in space. To try to extend the analogy so as to talk about something that is "outside space as well as within it" is unsuccessful. That is something that we are totally unable to comprehend. In the end, the very concept of transcendence that is appealed to here is incoherent. This illustrates the point that defenses against incompatible-properties arguments may very well lead to incoherence or other objections to theism."" - Argument by Theodore M. Drange in Philo Volume 1, Number 2, article "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" Look up the article for multiple proofs such at this one. Secondly, because it is possible to prove an unrestricted negative (saying there isn't a way is performing just that, an unrestricted negative) then we can say "God does not exist anywhere" and find proof. "Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number . because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number. Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them." - Philo So all that is needed is to show that god is inconsistent, illogical, contradictory, or not necessary. I'm sure, as I have pointed out above, there are people who have disproved god. It's just if people are willing to swallow it or not.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-more-appropriate-than-Atheism/1/

Here is why your entire argument doesn't matter, attrition. A. You are giving god a definition yourself. I will then have to disprove "your" god or in other words a Spinoza god. B. If you dont give something a proper definition, it can not be "proven" or "disproven" or even debated. It does not exist if it is not defined in Philosophy. So, I have disproven god. I have disproven the Christian god. Therefore, I am atheist towards the Christian god. You can keep throwing gods at me, attrition, and they probably wont work very well. But that's all you're doing, creating gods to fit into the new discoveries scientists have made. We dont know where thunder comes from... give it to a god because it is unexplained... Now we know it is not a god. I can give you multiple examples like this. God is just a substitute until an actual law of nature is discovered by us. If you'd like, attrition, the invisible pink unicorn has just as much evidence as your idea of what a god might be. Unfortunately, it is not real (nor is it necessary, as I stated in my post above) to exist. There isn't much of an argument I can make against someone who wants to think up their own definition on things just for it to exist. I'm sure I could show you many ways in which the universe can exist without a god (and does work without a god). So, when you can establish just what god is, then we can talk if someone can believe in it or not. You can not believe or disbelieve something that doesn't have a definition, though. And that, attrition, is why I'm atheist and why atheism is above agnostic thought. Because atheists work on real things, real evidence. Agnostics work on the thought "We'll never know" because they never give things a true definition or think up things that haven't been established. They are the science fiction of ontology, and atheists are the science. And that, my friends, is my fever filled, strep throat, final argument.

Vi_Veri

Here is why your entire argument doesn't matter, attrition. A. You are giving god a definition yourself. I will then have to disprove "your" god or in other words a Spinoza god. B. If you dont give something a proper definition, it can not be "proven" or "disproven" or even debated. It does not exist if it is not defined in Philosophy. So, I have disproven god. I have disproven the Christian god. Therefore, I am atheist towards the Christian god. You can keep throwing gods at me, attrition, and they probably wont work very well. But that's all you're doing, creating gods to fit into the new discoveries scientists have made. We dont know where thunder comes from... give it to a god because it is unexplained... Now we know it is not a god. I can give you multiple examples like this. God is just a substitute until an actual law of nature is discovered by us. If you'd like, attrition, the invisible pink unicorn has just as much evidence as your idea of what a god might be. Unfortunately, it is not real (nor is it necessary, as I stated in my post above) to exist. There isn't much of an argument I can make against someone who wants to think up their own definition on things just for it to exist. I'm sure I could show you many ways in which the universe can exist without a god (and does work without a god). So, when you can establish just what god is, then we can talk if someone can believe in it or not. You can not believe or disbelieve something that doesn't have a definition, though. And that, attrition, is why I'm atheist and why atheism is above agnostic thought. Because atheists work on real things, real evidence. Agnostics work on the thought "We'll never know" because they never give things a true definition or think up things that haven't been established. They are the science fiction of ontology, and atheists are the science. And that, my friends, is my fever filled, strep throat, final argument.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-more-appropriate-than-Atheism/1/

Definitions: Agnosticism: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not. Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. It is safe to say that no one has ever proven or dis-proven the existence of God. Therefore, atheism is just another faith of a sort, in the final non-existence of a super natural being. The evidence doesn't support the existence, therefore God doesn't exist. Agnostics are more truthful, we don't have support of the evidence either way, but we'll keep an open mind. I might even go as far as saying that various religious groups conception of God doesn't exist, but that can't prove that a god of unknown origins doesn't exist. Prove to me, that I should be an atheist over an agnostic.

attrition

Definitions: Agnosticism: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not. Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. It is safe to say that no one has ever proven or dis-proven the existence of God. Therefore, atheism is just another faith of a sort, in the final non-existence of a super natural being. The evidence doesn't support the existence, therefore God doesn't exist. Agnostics are more truthful, we don't have support of the evidence either way, but we'll keep an open mind. I might even go as far as saying that various religious groups conception of God doesn't exist, but that can't prove that a god of unknown origins doesn't exist. Prove to me, that I should be an atheist over an agnostic.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-more-appropriate-than-Atheism/1/

That's really annoying Vi Veri. Im not going to even bother responding if you do eventual post an argument. On to the next debate...

attrition

That's really annoying Vi Veri. Im not going to even bother responding if you do eventual post an argument. On to the next debate...

Religion

Agnosticism-is-more-appropriate-than-Atheism/1/

You know, I said I wasn't going to reply to a post..but seeing as how you cheated death and all, I figured I would give it a shot. I am sort of amazed at how you so matter of factly put God in a nice little box called your definition. How you so conveniently try to frame God in a way that fits some pre-supposed version of what you (and admittedly many others) perceive God as. Although, I must say it did seem like you copy/pasted some previous essay. I will give you examples by which I disagree with you definition. Some I believe to be accurate most I don't. (a) perfect- Absolutely. As much as I am or you are. Anything that isn't perfect is only made that way by the definition by which humanity places a value upon something. Are butterflies perfect? Rainbows? Mold? Is nature perfect? (b) immutable: In other words un-changing. I think god could certainly change. If you believe in evolution, or if you agree that the Universe is expanding or perhaps you believe in the big bang. If as something as grand as the Universe has changed/ is changing why can't God. (c) transcendent: This is what the dictionary says about transcendence; 1.going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding. 2.superior or supreme. 3.Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite. b.Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. I give trancendence a maybe, depending on which definition you would prefer. Outside the Universe? Begs the question, does the Universe have a container? Is it wholly empty? Beyond normal space? It's not hard to imagine that there are possibilities of space beyond what we typically see. Physics' multi-dimension theory. Outside time? Remember Einstein's theory? Space and time are relative. (d) nonphysical: God absolutely can not be non-physical. Even if god exists beyond current understanding of physics, god existence does not and cannot break the laws of of physics. (e) omniscient: All knowing. I don't believe this to be an accurate necessity for god to have. Even if the spark of the Universe was initiated by god, I don't think God knows or would care to know what everyone in the universe had for breakfast. Perhaps god could find out, but those are two different concepts. Also, omniscience implies a certain level of consciousness that god may or may not have. (f) omnipresent: I would say this is an accurate requirement of god (g) personal: Absolutely not. Although there may be a personal connection to god in the same way nature is a personal connection, it is not a requirement that we can converse and ask personal favors of God. (h) free: I'm not sure what you mean by 'free'. (i) all-loving: This is simply one quality put on God by humanity. We could easily replace this with jealous, vengeful or spiteful. (j) all-just: Another human quality put to God that implies that God requires a certain order to his creation or that God has rules we must follow in order to be judged and rewarded or punished accordingly. (k) all-merciful. Once again showing mercy would require that God has a rule book by which to judge such matters. I dismiss that allegation. (1) the creator of the universe: Perhaps. Just as likely the Universe formed and then God became into existence. Even further, perhaps God is and/or is of the Universe. I whole heartedly don't agree with that definition. That is 'A' definition, not 'THE' definition. Perhaps in the traditional theist perspective, that definition works, but Vi Veri, you are debating an Agnostic here. Why would you think i would prescribe to such irrational personifications to God that traditional theists represent. I have shown you definition to be flawed so the rest of you argument is negated. The subject by which God may exist is so vast that one debate or even one book could not encompass it's entirety. Below are a few examples of where we may look to find God: Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics reveals the Universe to be a single gigantic field of energy in which matter is just a 'slowed down' form of energy. Further, Quantum Physics has discovered that matter/energy does not exist with any certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. (i.e. the 'Uncertainty Principle') Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness. (i.e. the Mind of God) (ME: In other words Quantum physics experimentation is showing that nothing may exist without some observer, with some level of consciousness, observing it. Perhaps the Universe couldn't exist without the Ultimate Consciousness, GOD) Quantum Physicist, Dr David Bohm goes further in his book 'The Implicate Order' in which he states that "primary physical laws cannot be discovered by a science that attempts to break the world into its parts." Yet this is the exact methodology of contemporary Western science which still taught in most of our educational institutions today. Bohm writes of an "implicate enfolded order" which exists in an un-manifested state and which is the foundation upon which all manifest reality rests. Bohm calls this manifest reality "the explicate unfolded order". Bohm goes on to say "parts are seen to be in immediate connection, in which their dynamical relationships depend in an irreducible way on the state of the whole system . . . Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and independently existent parts. As American physicist, Barbara Brennan, states in her book 'The Hands of Light': "Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realize that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole. As Nick Herbert in his book 'Quantum Reality' puts it, "Whatever the math does on paper, the quantum stuff does in the outside world.": The 'rules' of the Universe seem to change reflect the 'maths'. In other words, the mathematical formulas that were initially developed to describe the behavior of universe turn out to govern the behavior of the universe. Thus, if the maths is manipulated to produce some absurd result, the matter and energy somehow changes to behave in exactly that absurd manner to reflect the formula! The recent findings of Quantum Physics about the universe being made up of an "interconnected unbroken wholeness", examples of Non-Locality phenomena (Bells Theorem) and the 'Observer Effect' implying that consciousness underlies all reality, has striking parallels with the ancient Esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of an infinite Singularity (creative principle) which I (Alex Paterson) choose to call Source, and most others call God. However, none of this is surprising to those who have experienced the 'Oneness' associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state. In conclusion, atheism requires a level of faith that, as a skeptical agnostic I am not ready to take. Perhaps one day science will show us that no form of higher consciousness exists and our consciousness simply melts away in to oblivion. So long as the jury is out on the subject, agnosticism is more appropriate than atheism

attrition

You know, I said I wasn't going to reply to a post..but seeing as how you cheated death and all, I figured I would give it a shot. I am sort of amazed at how you so matter of factly put God in a nice little box called your definition. How you so conveniently try to frame God in a way that fits some pre-supposed version of what you (and admittedly many others) perceive God as. Although, I must say it did seem like you copy/pasted some previous essay. I will give you examples by which I disagree with you definition. Some I believe to be accurate most I don't. (a) perfect- Absolutely. As much as I am or you are. Anything that isn't perfect is only made that way by the definition by which humanity places a value upon something. Are butterflies perfect? Rainbows? Mold? Is nature perfect? (b) immutable: In other words un-changing. I think god could certainly change. If you believe in evolution, or if you agree that the Universe is expanding or perhaps you believe in the big bang. If as something as grand as the Universe has changed/ is changing why can't God. (c) transcendent: This is what the dictionary says about transcendence; 1.going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding. 2.superior or supreme. 3.Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite. b.Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. I give trancendence a maybe, depending on which definition you would prefer. Outside the Universe? Begs the question, does the Universe have a container? Is it wholly empty? Beyond normal space? It's not hard to imagine that there are possibilities of space beyond what we typically see. Physics' multi-dimension theory. Outside time? Remember Einstein's theory? Space and time are relative. (d) nonphysical: God absolutely can not be non-physical. Even if god exists beyond current understanding of physics, god existence does not and cannot break the laws of of physics. (e) omniscient: All knowing. I don't believe this to be an accurate necessity for god to have. Even if the spark of the Universe was initiated by god, I don't think God knows or would care to know what everyone in the universe had for breakfast. Perhaps god could find out, but those are two different concepts. Also, omniscience implies a certain level of consciousness that god may or may not have. (f) omnipresent: I would say this is an accurate requirement of god (g) personal: Absolutely not. Although there may be a personal connection to god in the same way nature is a personal connection, it is not a requirement that we can converse and ask personal favors of God. (h) free: I'm not sure what you mean by 'free'. (i) all-loving: This is simply one quality put on God by humanity. We could easily replace this with jealous, vengeful or spiteful. (j) all-just: Another human quality put to God that implies that God requires a certain order to his creation or that God has rules we must follow in order to be judged and rewarded or punished accordingly. (k) all-merciful. Once again showing mercy would require that God has a rule book by which to judge such matters. I dismiss that allegation. (1) the creator of the universe: Perhaps. Just as likely the Universe formed and then God became into existence. Even further, perhaps God is and/or is of the Universe. I whole heartedly don't agree with that definition. That is 'A' definition, not 'THE' definition. Perhaps in the traditional theist perspective, that definition works, but Vi Veri, you are debating an Agnostic here. Why would you think i would prescribe to such irrational personifications to God that traditional theists represent. I have shown you definition to be flawed so the rest of you argument is negated. The subject by which God may exist is so vast that one debate or even one book could not encompass it's entirety. Below are a few examples of where we may look to find God: Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics reveals the Universe to be a single gigantic field of energy in which matter is just a 'slowed down' form of energy. Further, Quantum Physics has discovered that matter/energy does not exist with any certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. (i.e. the 'Uncertainty Principle') Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness. (i.e. the Mind of God) (ME: In other words Quantum physics experimentation is showing that nothing may exist without some observer, with some level of consciousness, observing it. Perhaps the Universe couldn't exist without the Ultimate Consciousness, GOD) Quantum Physicist, Dr David Bohm goes further in his book 'The Implicate Order' in which he states that "primary physical laws cannot be discovered by a science that attempts to break the world into its parts." Yet this is the exact methodology of contemporary Western science which still taught in most of our educational institutions today. Bohm writes of an "implicate enfolded order" which exists in an un-manifested state and which is the foundation upon which all manifest reality rests. Bohm calls this manifest reality "the explicate unfolded order". Bohm goes on to say "parts are seen to be in immediate connection, in which their dynamical relationships depend in an irreducible way on the state of the whole system . . . Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and independently existent parts. As American physicist, Barbara Brennan, states in her book 'The Hands of Light': "Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realize that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole. As Nick Herbert in his book 'Quantum Reality' puts it, "Whatever the math does on paper, the quantum stuff does in the outside world.": The 'rules' of the Universe seem to change reflect the 'maths'. In other words, the mathematical formulas that were initially developed to describe the behavior of universe turn out to govern the behavior of the universe. Thus, if the maths is manipulated to produce some absurd result, the matter and energy somehow changes to behave in exactly that absurd manner to reflect the formula! The recent findings of Quantum Physics about the universe being made up of an "interconnected unbroken wholeness", examples of Non-Locality phenomena (Bells Theorem) and the 'Observer Effect' implying that consciousness underlies all reality, has striking parallels with the ancient Esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of an infinite Singularity (creative principle) which I (Alex Paterson) choose to call Source, and most others call God. However, none of this is surprising to those who have experienced the 'Oneness' associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state. In conclusion, atheism requires a level of faith that, as a skeptical agnostic I am not ready to take. Perhaps one day science will show us that no form of higher consciousness exists and our consciousness simply melts away in to oblivion. So long as the jury is out on the subject, agnosticism is more appropriate than atheism

Religion

Agnosticism-is-more-appropriate-than-Atheism/1/

I mean no hostility to my opponent in saying this: who cares about formality--let's debate. So, what is inconsistent about agnosticism? Your first speech is terribly vague.

poppinoffgrounds

I mean no hostility to my opponent in saying this: who cares about formality--let's debate. So, what is inconsistent about agnosticism? Your first speech is terribly vague.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-self-contradictory-in-at-least-one-way./1/

The main problem with my opponent's argument is that they are all based upon an unspecified position called "agnosticism"--there is no one identified as holding these supposed tenets and my opponent bases his understanding of this allegedly inconsistent position upon a dictionary definition, and anyone knows that dictionary definitions do little, if anything, to help one understand a philosophical position for the purposes of its analysis (just look up "Idealism" and then go read all of the scholarship on German Idealism and notice how little that definition tells you about a whole movement from which many common understandings of "Idealism" are mistakenly derived--notice this also in the case of British Idealism, Platonic Idealism--Berkeleyan Idealism!--well, you get the point). I'm not clear on the inconsistency, let alone the position, as I said before. From my studies in Greek, gnosis means knowing, or knowledge, and the alpha privative "a" means without. There are many philosophical positions in eastern philosophy that, through dropping one's assumption that they know, one develops a different and more refined mode of knowing (and this is even seen in Socrates' dialectical humility where he stops assuming he knows and decides to work with hypotheses to conclusions so as to sort out a good position to find knowledge)--but my opponent has not considered such a thing and has committed a fallacy, and this is seen in contention A: my opponent has claimed that agnostics think "either A exists or A doesn't exist" therefore "A might exist." One notices that the mode of existence is faultily inferred, the original premise was a strict binary existence (A or ~A) and the supposed conclusion infers a third existential value in the argument that wasn't seen in the premises (A, ~A, ?A--exists, doesn't exist, might exist). Therefore, contention A is fallaciously loaded (and also, as was said in my previous paragraph, commits the straw-man fallacy). Again, my opponent's claims are quite specious since they stem from this vague position known as "agnosticism" so, as I've shown, the basis for all the contentions are problematic such that all the contentions fall apart stemming from their faulty basis in contention A, however, my last point will be to clarify why my opponent has mistakenly thought that revelation (as found in contention B) makes the agnostic's position inconsistent. If one reads William James' lecture on religious experience, it's clear that revelation is such that its claims to truth cannot make any claim upon another person--that is, if God reveals himself to someone, that person is not able to make that truth into something that another must subscribe to, and if one attempts to, there must be an attempt at a derivation from the revelation since when explaining what God revealed to oneself to another person requires producing the infrastructure of rational grounds for the claim in question so as to make it consistent with reality, since, in revelation, reality is not what it is for the person having the mystical experience, nor can it be for anyone else hearing the experience. Thus, contention B is quite consistent with any epistemological humility that an "agnostic" may have (whatever the tenets of their position may be), since, even if God reveals himself to someone, as James might say, one doesn't quite know what thing was revealing truth, since mystical experience is quite fleeting and often plagued by mystery. In conclusion, I'll leave aside the bold overstatement that, as my opponent states in the summary, that the agnostic supposes no one can know anything (does anyone know of anyone who has made this claim aside from some philosophy professor trying to play out Descartes' skepticism in an intro course's lecture?--hell, even Descartes gets past his skepticism),--that is, I'll simply end by stating that my opponent's great faulting is supposing he has understood "agnosticism" as a formalized doctrine, when, in fact, he has merely created his own demon to wrestle with.

poppinoffgrounds

The main problem with my opponent's argument is that they are all based upon an unspecified position called "agnosticism"—there is no one identified as holding these supposed tenets and my opponent bases his understanding of this allegedly inconsistent position upon a dictionary definition, and anyone knows that dictionary definitions do little, if anything, to help one understand a philosophical position for the purposes of its analysis (just look up "Idealism" and then go read all of the scholarship on German Idealism and notice how little that definition tells you about a whole movement from which many common understandings of "Idealism" are mistakenly derived—notice this also in the case of British Idealism, Platonic Idealism—Berkeleyan Idealism!—well, you get the point). I'm not clear on the inconsistency, let alone the position, as I said before. From my studies in Greek, gnosis means knowing, or knowledge, and the alpha privative "a" means without. There are many philosophical positions in eastern philosophy that, through dropping one's assumption that they know, one develops a different and more refined mode of knowing (and this is even seen in Socrates' dialectical humility where he stops assuming he knows and decides to work with hypotheses to conclusions so as to sort out a good position to find knowledge)—but my opponent has not considered such a thing and has committed a fallacy, and this is seen in contention A: my opponent has claimed that agnostics think "either A exists or A doesn't exist" therefore "A might exist." One notices that the mode of existence is faultily inferred, the original premise was a strict binary existence (A or ~A) and the supposed conclusion infers a third existential value in the argument that wasn't seen in the premises (A, ~A, ?A—exists, doesn't exist, might exist). Therefore, contention A is fallaciously loaded (and also, as was said in my previous paragraph, commits the straw-man fallacy). Again, my opponent's claims are quite specious since they stem from this vague position known as "agnosticism" so, as I've shown, the basis for all the contentions are problematic such that all the contentions fall apart stemming from their faulty basis in contention A, however, my last point will be to clarify why my opponent has mistakenly thought that revelation (as found in contention B) makes the agnostic's position inconsistent. If one reads William James' lecture on religious experience, it's clear that revelation is such that its claims to truth cannot make any claim upon another person—that is, if God reveals himself to someone, that person is not able to make that truth into something that another must subscribe to, and if one attempts to, there must be an attempt at a derivation from the revelation since when explaining what God revealed to oneself to another person requires producing the infrastructure of rational grounds for the claim in question so as to make it consistent with reality, since, in revelation, reality is not what it is for the person having the mystical experience, nor can it be for anyone else hearing the experience. Thus, contention B is quite consistent with any epistemological humility that an "agnostic" may have (whatever the tenets of their position may be), since, even if God reveals himself to someone, as James might say, one doesn't quite know what thing was revealing truth, since mystical experience is quite fleeting and often plagued by mystery. In conclusion, I'll leave aside the bold overstatement that, as my opponent states in the summary, that the agnostic supposes no one can know anything (does anyone know of anyone who has made this claim aside from some philosophy professor trying to play out Descartes' skepticism in an intro course's lecture?—hell, even Descartes gets past his skepticism),--that is, I'll simply end by stating that my opponent's great faulting is supposing he has understood "agnosticism" as a formalized doctrine, when, in fact, he has merely created his own demon to wrestle with.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-self-contradictory-in-at-least-one-way./1/

The alleged discrepancies over formality. Firstly, I had never accepted Pro's definition, as was stated in my first speech, it wasn't clear where the alleged inconsistency comes from, as it wasn't stated until the second round; secondly, having judged many policy debate rounds, it's clear, many debates revolve around meta-debates--or, debates about the nature of the debate--and very rarely does a debate end without a set of issues being singled out as voting issues, issues which are not necessarily the main problem involved in contending the resolution, so, in short, I can legitimately debate Pro's definition: (1.) because I never agreed to any definition (which, for me, isn't so important, since Pro's contending my critique of his definition is his feeble attempt to maintain the integrity of his circular arguments) and (2.) all content of the debate is up for debate--again, the only literature Pro has on "agnosticism" in his speeches is a dictionary definition, weak (hence the vagueness of his position: I know of no one that lives a dictionary definition--and that's the burden, does he know of or can he cite any avowed agnostics?); thirdly, Pro needs to get straight on his second contention in this debate round, since, Pro uses subordinating conjunctions like "therefore" and operates with premises (things that precede a conclusion) to support his conclusions--if he, as I would suggest, reads Lewis Carroll's The Game of Symbolic Logic, he will see that any set of statements, so long as they have some relation to each other (and even if they don't) can be taken into a formal organization so as to derive a conclusion (even if that conclusion be that there is no conclusion), thus, to say he didn't intend his contentions and conclusions to be formulated into a "formal syllogism" is a red herring, for what is a debate if there isn't some logic to our support of a resolution? (and, to say you didn't intend a faulty logical consequence doesn't defend you from having fallen into that faulty consequence). Since I've shown there are issues with the conclusions Pro has drawn, I'll continue on to Pro's 3rd contention and A1; firstly, I'm not sure how to make any sense of A1 since if an agnostic, we'll dub them (A), knew someone else, we'll dub them (B), didn't know that God exists,--well, I don't see at all how the agnostic received that knowledge from God, they could have simply had a conversation: "Hey, do you know if God exists?"...and so forth, so, this is irrelevant; secondly, my arguments about revelation are not ineffective, actually, they support my claim that agnosticism is a position of epistemological humility, amongst many other positions of this variety: (1.) my opponent, Pro, faultily assumes that when someone has experienced revelation, and realizes that it's not clear what it was that revealed itself, though they intuit it to be God, and know that no others are going to be able to understand what they saw of reality at the moment of revelation--well, in short, my opponent wrongly assumes that the person having had revelation thinks that they know this truth personally, for what is a truth that no one can share with another?--what is a truth if it isn't clear where it came from, why it came, or what it pertains to?--I don't understand how my opponent can't see that a "personal truth" stemming from revelation, is a truth whose complexity cannot be understood in very simple terms much as other truths, like truth as correspondence, where one thing is true if it corresponds with another ("snow is white if and only if snow is white"); (2.) the burden of proof concerning the problems of a dictionary definition of agnosticism are not my burden, they are Pro's, he has no examples of anyone who lives agnosticism, it is a belief system, and belief systems are lived by individuals (and, in fact, they are often modified, dropped, held in abeyance, and so forth,--that is, they are subject to all sorts of changes because they are not static), so, Pro needs to show me some reference aside from a dictionary, since a dictionary also has definitions for belief systems like nihilism, which can't ever be lived, since even a nihilist must believe in physics for him to get up in the morning and walk over to his bath.

poppinoffgrounds

The alleged discrepancies over formality. Firstly, I had never accepted Pro's definition, as was stated in my first speech, it wasn't clear where the alleged inconsistency comes from, as it wasn't stated until the second round; secondly, having judged many policy debate rounds, it's clear, many debates revolve around meta-debates—or, debates about the nature of the debate—and very rarely does a debate end without a set of issues being singled out as voting issues, issues which are not necessarily the main problem involved in contending the resolution, so, in short, I can legitimately debate Pro's definition: (1.) because I never agreed to any definition (which, for me, isn't so important, since Pro's contending my critique of his definition is his feeble attempt to maintain the integrity of his circular arguments) and (2.) all content of the debate is up for debate—again, the only literature Pro has on "agnosticism" in his speeches is a dictionary definition, weak (hence the vagueness of his position: I know of no one that lives a dictionary definition—and that's the burden, does he know of or can he cite any avowed agnostics?); thirdly, Pro needs to get straight on his second contention in this debate round, since, Pro uses subordinating conjunctions like "therefore" and operates with premises (things that precede a conclusion) to support his conclusions—if he, as I would suggest, reads Lewis Carroll's The Game of Symbolic Logic, he will see that any set of statements, so long as they have some relation to each other (and even if they don't) can be taken into a formal organization so as to derive a conclusion (even if that conclusion be that there is no conclusion), thus, to say he didn't intend his contentions and conclusions to be formulated into a "formal syllogism" is a red herring, for what is a debate if there isn't some logic to our support of a resolution? (and, to say you didn't intend a faulty logical consequence doesn't defend you from having fallen into that faulty consequence). Since I've shown there are issues with the conclusions Pro has drawn, I'll continue on to Pro's 3rd contention and A1; firstly, I'm not sure how to make any sense of A1 since if an agnostic, we'll dub them (A), knew someone else, we'll dub them (B), didn't know that God exists,--well, I don't see at all how the agnostic received that knowledge from God, they could have simply had a conversation: "Hey, do you know if God exists?"…and so forth, so, this is irrelevant; secondly, my arguments about revelation are not ineffective, actually, they support my claim that agnosticism is a position of epistemological humility, amongst many other positions of this variety: (1.) my opponent, Pro, faultily assumes that when someone has experienced revelation, and realizes that it's not clear what it was that revealed itself, though they intuit it to be God, and know that no others are going to be able to understand what they saw of reality at the moment of revelation—well, in short, my opponent wrongly assumes that the person having had revelation thinks that they know this truth personally, for what is a truth that no one can share with another?—what is a truth if it isn't clear where it came from, why it came, or what it pertains to?—I don't understand how my opponent can't see that a "personal truth" stemming from revelation, is a truth whose complexity cannot be understood in very simple terms much as other truths, like truth as correspondence, where one thing is true if it corresponds with another ("snow is white if and only if snow is white"); (2.) the burden of proof concerning the problems of a dictionary definition of agnosticism are not my burden, they are Pro's, he has no examples of anyone who lives agnosticism, it is a belief system, and belief systems are lived by individuals (and, in fact, they are often modified, dropped, held in abeyance, and so forth,--that is, they are subject to all sorts of changes because they are not static), so, Pro needs to show me some reference aside from a dictionary, since a dictionary also has definitions for belief systems like nihilism, which can't ever be lived, since even a nihilist must believe in physics for him to get up in the morning and walk over to his bath.

Religion

Agnosticism-is-self-contradictory-in-at-least-one-way./1/

This is perhaps going to sound heartless, but it is simply an argument. People in Africa should not be given aid for schistosomiasis. Why? They have done nothing to deserve it. This is a world where we find ways to satisfy our own needs: if I'm hungry, I buy some food; if I'm in need of a place to live, I rent an apartment, buy a home, or help out a friend in exchange for being able to crash at his house for a while; if I'm bored, I buy a videogame or something else with which to entertain myself, and/or find friends who wish to have some mutual enjoyment together; if I'm sick, I buy medicine and medical attention. The point? No one need be 'given' aid for anything. If they want aid, they should trade for it. It's ridiculous to simply give it to them. If we're going to give away free medication and medical care to Africa, we should first have free medication and medical care here. Perhaps if medication was, as the saying goes, "growing on trees," it would be viable. However, that is not the case. Also, as my opponent said, "The process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage." Giving them aid would be like letting them cheat on this oh-so-important rite of passage. Truthfully, Con

beem0r

This is perhaps going to sound heartless, but it is simply an argument. People in Africa should not be given aid for schistosomiasis. Why? They have done nothing to deserve it. This is a world where we find ways to satisfy our own needs: if I'm hungry, I buy some food; if I'm in need of a place to live, I rent an apartment, buy a home, or help out a friend in exchange for being able to crash at his house for a while; if I'm bored, I buy a videogame or something else with which to entertain myself, and/or find friends who wish to have some mutual enjoyment together; if I'm sick, I buy medicine and medical attention. The point? No one need be 'given' aid for anything. If they want aid, they should trade for it. It's ridiculous to simply give it to them. If we're going to give away free medication and medical care to Africa, we should first have free medication and medical care here. Perhaps if medication was, as the saying goes, "growing on trees," it would be viable. However, that is not the case. Also, as my opponent said, "The process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage." Giving them aid would be like letting them cheat on this oh-so-important rite of passage. Truthfully, Con

Health

Aid-for-Schistosomiasis/1/

My opponent asserts that we should give free aid to Africans suffering from Schistosomiasis. He does not give a valid line of reasoning to support this, other than the vague notion that "it's the right thing to do." If Africans should get free aid for their medical problems, I should get free aid for mine. And I don't. Also, my opponent failed to respond, so I have no more to say. Hopefully my opponent will make a showing for round 3.

beem0r

My opponent asserts that we should give free aid to Africans suffering from Schistosomiasis. He does not give a valid line of reasoning to support this, other than the vague notion that "it's the right thing to do." If Africans should get free aid for their medical problems, I should get free aid for mine. And I don't. Also, my opponent failed to respond, so I have no more to say. Hopefully my opponent will make a showing for round 3.

Health

Aid-for-Schistosomiasis/1/

This comment, in its entirety, reaches the precisely enforced minimum character limit of one hundred

beem0r

This comment, in its entirety, reaches the precisely enforced minimum character limit of one hundred

Health

Aid-for-Schistosomiasis/1/

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease caused by several species of flatworm. The acute form of schistosomiasis is sometimes known as snail fever and cutaneous schistosomiasis is sometimes commonly called swimmer's itch. The disease affects many people in developing countries, and in certain African communities and east Asia, the process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage. We need to give aid to Schistosomiasis victims to improve Africa.

harold

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease caused by several species of flatworm. The acute form of schistosomiasis is sometimes known as snail fever and cutaneous schistosomiasis is sometimes commonly called swimmer's itch. The disease affects many people in developing countries, and in certain African communities and east Asia, the process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage. We need to give aid to Schistosomiasis victims to improve Africa.

Health

Aid-for-Schistosomiasis/1/

I will take the skeptical position, which is that there is no evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person that extraterrestrials currently exist on Earth.

AvalonXQ

I will take the skeptical position, which is that there is no evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person that extraterrestrials currently exist on Earth.

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

Sorry... I'm new. Hasn't this back-and-forth already used up Rounds #1 and #2?

AvalonXQ

Sorry... I'm new. Hasn't this back-and-forth already used up Rounds #1 and #2?

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

I look forward to it.

AvalonXQ

I look forward to it.

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

I believe in the existence of extraterrestrials.I'll argue to prove that point while my opponent will argue that aliens don't exist.

Feizel8

I believe in the existence of extraterrestrials.I'll argue to prove that point while my opponent will argue that aliens don't exist.

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

Great. This is how it's gonna lwork. Round 1- Prove your point. Round 2- Prove your point Round 3- Conclusion Key Concepts: UFO - Unidentified Flying Object Alien/Extraterrestrial - A being or form belonging to any world in our universe except Earth. Anything else you wanna add?

Feizel8

Great. This is how it's gonna lwork. Round 1- Prove your point. Round 2- Prove your point Round 3- Conclusion Key Concepts: UFO - Unidentified Flying Object Alien/Extraterrestrial - A being or form belonging to any world in our universe except Earth. Anything else you wanna add?

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

Sorry about that,I'm also new and I think we just made a mistake.Let me remake the debate and challenge you so we do this right.I'm also new by the way.

Feizel8

Sorry about that,I'm also new and I think we just made a mistake.Let me remake the debate and challenge you so we do this right.I'm also new by the way.

Miscellaneous

Aliens-do-exist.They-just-havent-made-themselves-public-yet./1/

Define "Alien"

Hurricane996

Define "Alien"

Philosophy

Aliens-exist./1/

You win as there is scientific PROOF that aliens do exist.

Hurricane996

You win as there is scientific PROOF that aliens do exist.

Philosophy

Aliens-exist./1/

I've been having a nice long think about the universe and I reached the conclusion that aliens probably do exist. I know this is a hotly debated topic so I was wondering if anyone wishes to challenge me? By alien I mean any form of biological being, be them micro or super.

LordKavstar

I've been having a nice long think about the universe and I reached the conclusion that aliens probably do exist. I know this is a hotly debated topic so I was wondering if anyone wishes to challenge me? By alien I mean any form of biological being, be them micro or super.

Philosophy

Aliens-exist./1/

Alien = a organism that originates from a world other than Earth. If you think about how how big the universe is, then surely it is near infinite. In an infinite universe, there is infinite possibilities. With infinite possibilities comes the possibility if aliens existing. Surely it can't be just us. I personally believe that aliens are quite far off so I don't believe the stories that people tell about green men or flying saucers. But then again, I don't totally disregard what they say. A man sees what he sees.

LordKavstar

Alien = a organism that originates from a world other than Earth. If you think about how how big the universe is, then surely it is near infinite. In an infinite universe, there is infinite possibilities. With infinite possibilities comes the possibility if aliens existing. Surely it can't be just us. I personally believe that aliens are quite far off so I don't believe the stories that people tell about green men or flying saucers. But then again, I don't totally disregard what they say. A man sees what he sees.

Philosophy

Aliens-exist./1/

Aren't you meant to be arguing with me?

LordKavstar

Aren't you meant to be arguing with me?

Philosophy

Aliens-exist./1/

OK, so running off of your 1st speech, it seems clear that this is going to be a positive/ negative impact debate. To clarify, whoever can make the best argument towards good things that will happen if they win, and/or bad things that will happen if their opponent wins, will be the victor. Fair enough? Next, as the con, I am advocating for a system that would not allow citizens to own guns. So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 3) As I am only advocating for CITIZENS not owning guns, it is safe to assume that on duty police officers will have firearms, and will provide as the defense for the "defenseless". Your next impact is a question, not an argument, but I'll show its insignificance anyway. You provide no warrant, rationale, or precedence in which a citizen has been attacked by their government, mush less needed a gun to defend themselves. The only citizens that would normally be attacked by the government are law- breakers, which flows into my argument #3 on your 1st point. So, at this point, I have made it clear why the bad things he said are not likely to happen, and why we shouldn't vote pro, I'll tell you why we should vote con. To do this I will use a series of negative impacts like my opponent, only I intend to support them with rationale and/or evidence. Point 1: Do you like children? I know I do, I believe that children are our future, they are a good thing to strive to protect. Well, a Harvard University Study published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall. VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children." Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." The availability of guns has a direct effect on the number of children being killed with guns. That's a good reason to vote con. Point 2: Since we are clearly valuing the protection of citizens, domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms. Under this same argument, to preempt the argument that women could use guns to defend themselves, I turn to the article A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is clear that domestic violence and deaths will increase due to domestically owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens. Point 3: The ownership of a firearm is actually more likely to make you a victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually statistically increases the harm that will be done to you, this directly opposes the pro's value of citizen protection because the ownership of guns does directly the opposite. Point 4: The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods." Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect. Summary: I have given 4 main points that show conclusively that citizens are harmed by firearms, more than they could be helped by using them for self- defense. I have given piles of creditable evidence to support each and every claim I make, something that my opponent fails to do. We are both valuing the protection of citizens, that's why he's saying we must have private ownership, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't. If a single one of my points stands in this round, we should vote con. As a final note, I challenge my opponent to retrieve evidence that is not from or derived from the research conducted by the NRA. The NRA has a direct economic incentive to produce false evidence, and I claim that they have done so on several occasions. They are a tainted source and should not be used in this debate.

bcaldwell100

OK, so running off of your 1st speech, it seems clear that this is going to be a positive/ negative impact debate. To clarify, whoever can make the best argument towards good things that will happen if they win, and/or bad things that will happen if their opponent wins, will be the victor. Fair enough? Next, as the con, I am advocating for a system that would not allow citizens to own guns. So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 3) As I am only advocating for CITIZENS not owning guns, it is safe to assume that on duty police officers will have firearms, and will provide as the defense for the "defenseless". Your next impact is a question, not an argument, but I'll show its insignificance anyway. You provide no warrant, rationale, or precedence in which a citizen has been attacked by their government, mush less needed a gun to defend themselves. The only citizens that would normally be attacked by the government are law- breakers, which flows into my argument #3 on your 1st point. So, at this point, I have made it clear why the bad things he said are not likely to happen, and why we shouldn't vote pro, I'll tell you why we should vote con. To do this I will use a series of negative impacts like my opponent, only I intend to support them with rationale and/or evidence. Point 1: Do you like children? I know I do, I believe that children are our future, they are a good thing to strive to protect. Well, a Harvard University Study published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall. VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children." Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." The availability of guns has a direct effect on the number of children being killed with guns. That's a good reason to vote con. Point 2: Since we are clearly valuing the protection of citizens, domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms. Under this same argument, to preempt the argument that women could use guns to defend themselves, I turn to the article A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is clear that domestic violence and deaths will increase due to domestically owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens. Point 3: The ownership of a firearm is actually more likely to make you a victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually statistically increases the harm that will be done to you, this directly opposes the pro's value of citizen protection because the ownership of guns does directly the opposite. Point 4: The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods." Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect. Summary: I have given 4 main points that show conclusively that citizens are harmed by firearms, more than they could be helped by using them for self- defense. I have given piles of creditable evidence to support each and every claim I make, something that my opponent fails to do. We are both valuing the protection of citizens, that's why he's saying we must have private ownership, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't. If a single one of my points stands in this round, we should vote con. As a final note, I challenge my opponent to retrieve evidence that is not from or derived from the research conducted by the NRA. The NRA has a direct economic incentive to produce false evidence, and I claim that they have done so on several occasions. They are a tainted source and should not be used in this debate.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win. But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own. Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no? Rebuttal: 1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public. 2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win. 3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!! OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that: 1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often. 2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often. 3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that. 4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often. Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN. At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.

bcaldwell100

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win. But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own. Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no? Rebuttal: 1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public. 2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win. 3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!! OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that: 1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often. 2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often. 3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that. 4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often. Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN. At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being. Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent. "You've forgotten the most important fact of all" That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!! "You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed." He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me. So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution. You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless. The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right. Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed. Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped. There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases. To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!

bcaldwell100

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being. Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent. "You've forgotten the most important fact of all" That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!! "You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed." He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me. So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution. You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless. The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right. Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed. Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped. There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases. To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens. Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself? Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.

revleader5

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens. Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself? Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?

revleader5

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone? The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded? You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.

revleader5

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone? The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded? You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Sorry, i just don't feel like debating on this issue, and i told you that on IM.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

dbershevits

Sorry, i just don't feel like debating on this issue, and i told you that on IM.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legal-for-adults/1/

"We hold these turths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unaliable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."- quote from Declaration of Independence I've noticed lately that people take the words in this statement to plainly. People, you should demand that the government acknowledge your right to the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to do almost anything as long as it does not hurt/harm/maim other people. All drugs should be legal as long as taken on own property at the age of 18.

liberalconservative

"We hold these turths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unaliable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."- quote from Declaration of Independence I've noticed lately that people take the words in this statement to plainly. People, you should demand that the government acknowledge your right to the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to do almost anything as long as it does not hurt/harm/maim other people. All drugs should be legal as long as taken on own property at the age of 18.

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legal-for-adults/1/

i am going to omit this round in order to continue the debate........................................................the periods are to meet the reqyuirement.............................................................................

liberalconservative

i am going to omit this round in order to continue the debate........................................................the periods are to meet the reqyuirement.............................................................................

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legal-for-adults/1/

i ask you the voters to vote for me because my enemy obviously doesnt want to follow through with the debate, that we'd agreed upon while talking on aim instant messager

liberalconservative

i ask you the voters to vote for me because my enemy obviously doesnt want to follow through with the debate, that we'd agreed upon while talking on aim instant messager

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legal-for-adults/1/

The government should not enforce any laws banning drugs. First round is acceptance. Burden of proof is on me to show why drugs should be legalized.

JorgeLucas

The government should not enforce any laws banning drugs. First round is acceptance. Burden of proof is on me to show why drugs should be legalized.

Politics

All-drugs-should-be-legal/1/