My opponent conceded the debate in his round 2 with no further argument presented than his racial accusation in round 1, which I consider a non-argument, but rather, the last desperate effort of a complete lack of argument by hurling personal attack. I accept that behavior exists in some, and this debate has, unfortunately, attracted just such a type. So be it. They exist, have always existed, and always will.
Nevertheless, I had further argument in mind, and I will explain it now:
I Argument: “Vice is a monster” I.a Alexander Pope offered us a scintillating example of human behavior in his Essay on Man. Quoting a portion of it, very familiar to some, perhaps new to some:
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mein,
As, to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."[1] We might be convinced that Pope’s words inspired by this 19th century poet were responsible for another commentary we know well:
“Familiarity breeds contempt.” However, as is usual with people who ignore history, it was, in fact, this latter phrase that occurred first, centuries before Alexander Pope, by one of the first landmark writers of the English language: Geoffrey Chaucer of the 14th century. Both phrases expose the vile human flaw so vulgarly expressed by my opponent’s first round: contempt for one another, which psychologists often diagnose as first contempt, or, rather, envy, anger, and hubris for one’s self.
[2] The referenced article contains the results of a study reported in the August 2017 issue of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: “Among the study's findings were that dispositional contempt was highly associated with dispositional envy, anger, and hubristic (inflated) pride. Since envy tends to be a response to the accomplishments of others, and hubristic pride is related to one's own perceived superiority, the researchers interpreted these links as suggesting that contemptuous people may be more sensitive to social evaluation and status.”[3] I.b Such personal feelings, brought on by the comparison of self with society, when the self is considered less than adequate in society, produces these feelings of envy, anger, and hubris, yielding contempt. In other words, the accusation made of another being racist is expressed to hide, by contempt, the racist tendencies of one’s self. Chaucer’s original familiarity breeding contempt grew into a further understanding by Pope of a progression of emotions: endurance, pity, and then full embrace. A monstrous condition, indeed, when directed improperly.
I.c And, exemplary of Pope’s attitude, is Oscar Wilde’s 1890 novel,
The Picture of Dorian Gray, which features the title character’s curious habit of being, outwardly, a gentleman of repute who, inwardly, was a caricature of the very seeds of contempt: envy, anger, and hubris. While Gray appeared somehow timeless as he aged, remaining a handsome sort, a portrait painted of Gray that he kept hidden in a locked room self-denigrated and devolved into Pope’s disgusting monster.
I.d Dorian Gray is a classic literary type. We can look to Oedipus, whose eyes he gouged out himself for the self-contempt of laying with his mother, or Hamlet, around whom virtually everyone dies, including Hamlet, or even the Joker of Batman fame, who, like Dorian, wears a mask as he denigrates society out of self-loathing.
I.e Once understood, the type that expresses contempt for others is on a path of self-destruction. This is not just literature, because literature is, on the whole, a mirror to society. It is why we [socially] are so familiar with these types. As Pogo, the comic strip character by Walt Kelly, once quipped,
“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”[4] What may be less familiar is that Walt Kelly was offering a parody of historic fact. In 1813, after the United States defeated Great Britain’s Royal Navy in the Battle of Lake Erie, naval officer Oliver Hazard Perry sent a victorious message to HQ:
“We have met the enemy and they are ours.”[5] Kelly acknowledged his phrase as a parody of Perry’s.
Pogo’s parody is a biting commentary of our own weaknesses. Some, many, are able to overcome them, at least with regard to racism, which is only self-contempt. After all, the discrimination some feel toward others is absurdly skin-deep, literally. It is that shallow. Embraced, it makes monsters of us. Shunned, it makes angels of us. That should not be a difficult distinction to make, and practice, and, in time, perfect such that all around us are celebrated for our diversity, not denigrated for it.
I.f Were we to enable ourselves to embrace, not vice, but virtue, who would then be inclined to murder our law enforcement officers because we accuse them of murdering us? In my observation, for example, I find the murder of George Floyd to have been an obvious, and better yet, on camera exposition of man’s cruelty to man in Minneapolis, in this case, a policeman’s knee at the neck of another man already subdued and in handcuffs; tortured unto death, entirely unjustified and the perfect graphic example of the subject of this debate. However, contrast that death with the one in Atlanta just two weeks later, when police shot a man. Some who are contemptuous of police in general wraps the two in the same package. However, the Atlanta incident is also on camera, and the full video exposes a flaw in the contempt: Rayshard Brooks failed a sobriety test. The police justly apprehended him and attempted to apply handcuffs per procedure. Brooks fought with police to prevent his apprehension, wrestled a taser from one officer, and ran from them. When they gave chase, Brooks turned and fired the taser. He was shot in response. The pursuant action by police was by training and policy. Simply put, resisting arrest is illegal. The time for a due process fight for rights is not at the time of arrest. Arresting a suspect is legal. That is the law. Violate the law; expect a response.
I conclude my argument in this debate. As my opponent has conceded, and, by his actions in this debate, and other issues, has been banned from DebateArt. He is done. I ask for your vote, but also declare victory. Thank you.
Didn't mean to leave you off. Just discovered can't have more than five recipients. Who knew? Thanks for voting.
Thank you all for voting, much appreciated.
Trent, it's all good, not like I need the points, just wondered
You probably deserved sources too. I just chose not to assign it out of laziness.
I'm not going to report your vote, but I'd appreciate an explanation why sourcing is a tie when Con offered zero sources. Not that quantity of sources is a measure, but, clearly, there is a distinct difference in the lack of quality sourcing when no source is offered while I have all hard data sourced.
Then I suppose the clock on the debate counts down, the forfeit of round 4 occurs, and I can enter my conclusion, and done. That's okay by me.
He is now fully banned from the site, so will not be participating further.
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
The restrictions imposed were against joining new debates, judging debates, casting votes, and finally reporting votes.
You were still able to complete debates to which you were already participating (and by showing improvement have the restrictions eased), comment, do forum stuff, etc.
Multi-accounting whilst banned is not allowed on this site.
hello. its EricT. I have a new account because my other was banned from everything
Ok. Thanks.
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
same source/reference as above
What does ibid mean?
That's too bad. However, we are engaged in a good one, and there will be others.
aw man. I wanted to finish up another debate and take this one. But, looks like I can't do it now.
Since there is such a dearth of quantitative data on the police violence issue, is there much evidence available to make a case for or against? I know of some sources, but it's certainly not a holistic data set. Something will inevitably be left out.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
What if a police dies in action? Would that be a law enforcement death? Or does it only apply to criminals/innocent bystanders?
I have added to definitions in full description "law enforcement deaths"
Define law enforcement deaths.
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
while it is actually a lie that injury isn't part of it, the main issue is deeper than just this. The frequency of wrongful convictions, overly-brutal sentences and the very pressures (financial and sociological) that drive one to crime are all very much harshest against those of the 'black' race due to many things in the past trickling down generations.
The gap between whites and blacks of average income, education quality and stuff like that is getting worse (but obviously not 'worse' than literal slavery) as time goes by. The less opportunity they have, the more pressures there are to become a criminal to ever be more than a blue collar worker for life on a dirt-cheap wage that can barely uphold themselves, let alone their families, especially if relatives get sick.
It's also the case that generally speaking, caucasians in poverty have somehow got distant relatives to help them out, however I am not suggesting that they have it 'easier' by a large margin at all. The issue is that the system is overall rigged against blacks because due to all the things I've mentioned there is a bias against people of that ethnicity that says they are more likely to have done crimes (since they're more commonly driven towards it as they are desperate for money and have far less opportunity to get it). This bias runs deep in both mentality of not hiring and promoting them as well as convicting them of crimes.
This is the core thing that needs to be altered in MANY 'white' countries that previously enslaved and continually discriminated against blacks in recent generations. The effect is still being had on blacks alive today and that is what needs to be stopped.