Instigator / Con
7
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#2620
Your proposal to the "race" problem......
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
SirAnonymous
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
11
1532
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?
How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"?
Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work. But you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge.
For questions , please comment /send a message.
Round 1
Do you care about solving the "race" problem?
I trust you perceive there is a problem.
Thank you for creating this debate, Mall.
Introduction
Do you care about solving the "race" problem?I trust you perceive there is a problem.
Yes, I perceive a problem, and yes, I care about solving it. However, for the purposes of this debate, I will be arguing as a devil's advocate. I want to make it extremely clear that I do not actually agree with quite a bit of what I am going to say. I will be arguing in this fashion because the terms of the debate set in the description essentially require this approach.
Definitions
The "Race" Problem: Con does not define what he means, but it is reasonable to infer that he means "The Problem of Racism," so this is the definition I will be using.
Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." [1]
Eliminate: "Completely remove or get rid of (something)" [2]
Framework
Before I launch into my proposal, it is necessary to determine the requirements for the proposal. There are a few clauses of the description that do this, so I will begin by examining them.
F1.1
What is your method...that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" (emphasis mine)
I interpret this to mean that my proposal must be able to replace or eliminate all racism, with no exceptions.
F1.2
[E]veryone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination
My proposal must further ensure that everyone will receive the "proper treatment." This is a vague term. Thankfully, Con appends the phrase "not involving 'racial' discrimination" to expand upon this meaning. Thus, I interpret "proper treatment" to mean "treatment not involving racial discrimination."
F2
[Y}ou do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
I further have to prove that my method is the best ever. This creates an exceptionally high burden of proof; however, I am confident that my proposal will rise to the task.
Implications of the Framework
In order to solve the "Race" Problem, my proposal must replace or eliminate all racism, ensure that everyone receives the proper treatment (i.e. treatment no involving racial discrimination), and be the best method yet. This framework has one important consequence: no proposal involving humanity can qualify. Allow me to explain.
In every society around the world, crime is a constant. No society is free from it. It must be noted that this is in spite of every society's best efforts to end crime. Furthermore, every society contains bigoted people. For example, there are countless examples of racially based slavery throughout history. One such example is American slavery. The vast majority of American slaves were Africans [3]. This was directly due to racism. To quote one of American slavery's principal defenders, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, slavery was "the proper status of the negro." [3] Even in today's society, which treats racism as an evil, racism is still present. One example of this is the enduring presence of the KKK, a white supremacist organization. [4] Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, despite our best solutions, problems like racism and crime will always be present. There is no way to "replace or eliminate all racism" so long as humanity exists, because humans are naturally depraved.
Proposal and Affirmative Argument
PAA1: The Only Solution
As demonstrated above, any solution involving humanity will fail to "replace or eliminate all racism." This leaves only one solution: eliminate humanity. If humanity is eliminated, racism will also be eliminated. Thus, my proposal to solve the problem of racism is the complete elimination of humanity.
PAA2: Does the Proposal Satisfy the Framework?
Recall that the framework of the debate requires my proposal to "replace or eliminate all racism, ensure that everyone receives the proper treatment (i.e. treatment no involving racial discrimination), and be the best method yet." I will examine how my proposal satisfies each of these three conditions.
PAA2.1: Eliminate All Racism
Eliminating humanity will most certainly eliminate all racism. No one will be racist or take racist actions because no one will be alive to do so.
PAA2.2: Proper Treatment
Recall that the only qualification Con puts on proper treatment is that it doesn't involve racial discrimination. Since eliminating humanity does not discriminate against anyone based on race, the proposal itself fulfills that requirement. Furthermore, racial discrimination will be impossible once the proposal is implemented, since no one will be alive to discriminate or be discriminated against. Thus, this proposal fulfills the requirement of ensuring that people receive the proper treatment, which is defined as treatment not involving racial discrimination.
PAA2.3: The Best Solution
My proposal must also be the best method yet. Recall that any solution involving the continued existence of humanity cannot fulfill the requirement of replacing or eliminating all racism. Thus, eliminating humanity is not only the best solution but also the only possible solution.
Conclusion
I have conclusively demonstrated that the proposal to eliminate humanity fulfills all the requirements laid out in the description. I have also demonstrated that it is the only possible solution. Thus, it is necessarily the best solution.
Over to Con.
References
Round 2
"As demonstrated above, any solution involving humanity will fail to "replace or eliminate all racism." This leaves only one solution: eliminate humanity. If humanity is eliminated, racism will also be eliminated. Thus, my proposal to solve the problem of racism is the complete elimination of humanity."
The proposal as the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence.
"What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?
How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"? "
"Recall that the only qualification Con puts on proper treatment is that it doesn't involve racial discrimination. Since eliminating humanity does not discriminate against anyone based on race, the proposal itself fulfills that requirement. Furthermore, racial discrimination will be impossible once the proposal is implemented, since no one will be alive to discriminate or be discriminated against. Thus, this proposal fulfills the requirement of ensuring that people receive the proper treatment, which is defined as treatment not involving racial discrimination."
This is misapplying logic like somebody saying "I want to feel no more pain".
But I basically said in the description , I want to live pain free by saying the following:
" "What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?
How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"? " "
Moving too fast with the semantics and moving in the wrong direction.
Everyone that receives proper treatment is known to get it how?
You can't tell me if I've been treated properly. I can only do that. I would have to be alive.
What does proper treatment mean?
I just said it doesn't involve something. I didn't say what it does involve. In other words, broad terms where many things can constitute proper treatment. So how do we know what proper treatment is?
It's whatever the person says that it is according to them. Just like any victim can explain what their victim hood is and not you or anyone as a non-victim. You can have your ideas and opinions , but the truth resides in the personal experience and feelings.
How would you work with others to improve "race " relations? There's no improvement or improvement in this , if others no longer exist.
Improvement is determined on a comparison scale. There's nothing to compare , nothing applicable in the case of a dead person or non-existent person.
So going this route may indicate that you couldn't come up with a proposal. You're saying there is none . Just live with the problem until you die . Then you won't have to deal with it anymore. Doesn't mean it's solved. It just doesn't exist to my new world in the afterlife if you believe in that sort of thing.
How would you have others work?
I can't work as a dead or non-existent entity.
I think you went too fast with arguing against a topic you thought was broad but was detailed in nature. I don't have to polish an essay but I can be concise.
"My proposal must also be the best method yet. Recall that any solution involving the continued existence of humanity cannot fulfill the requirement of replacing or eliminating all racism. Thus, eliminating humanity is not only the best solution but also the only possible solution."
How do you know when something is solved?
This proposal doesn't eliminate the problem. It eliminates people, possibly the worst mistreatment of all. The worst mistreatment there is. More horrible than that, depending on how we experience the elimination.
Back up , rethink this before setting that nuclear reactor off.
You don't cure cancer by killing the person. You save the person and persons by getting rid of cancer. You kill the person , cancer is still a problem. Why? It's still killing folks. So the problem of cancer absolutely was not solved.
Remember that removal comes with the solution in this topic context.
If I come up with a solution that allows folks to continue breathing, how is your proposal the only possible one that there is?
You'd have to prove, prove that I couldn't come up with a proposal and one better. How would we know it's better? We'd still be alive to verify.
"I have conclusively demonstrated that the proposal to eliminate humanity fulfills all the requirements laid out in the description. I have also demonstrated that it is the only possible solution. Thus, it is necessarily the best solution. "
So my friend , come up with one that includes us all still breathing as the description calls for.
Thanks, Mall.
Note: When I wrote this round, I had Pro and Con reversed in my head and wrote Pro when I meant Con. I believe I fixed them all, but if there are any left, understand that any mention of "Pro" actually means "Con," since I never referred to myself in the third person in this round.
Definitions
Con has not objected to the definitions I provided.
Dropped Arguments
Con has dropped the Implications of the Framework. Thus, my argument establishing that it is impossible to solve the race problem so long as humanity exists stands.
Rebuttals
R1: The Description
Con argues that:
the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence.
Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places.
R1.1: Proper Treatment
What does proper treatment mean?I just said it doesn't involve something. I didn't say what it does involve.
Precisely. Con failed to define proper treatment in any way other than that it is treatment that doesn't involve racial discrimination. If the instigator fails to define terms, then the contender may define them to his advantage. Any good debate manual can tell us this.
- "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." [1]
By failing to provide a definition of proper treatment, Con relinquished his authority to define it.
Con attempts to define proper treatment as follows:
It's whatever the person says that it is according to them. Just like any victim can explain what their victim hood is and not you or anyone as a non-victim. You can have your ideas and opinions , but the truth resides in the personal experience and feelings.
He argues that, by this definition, a person must be alive in order to tel us that they have received the proper treatment. This definition fails for multiple reasons. Firstly, as noted above, he has ceded his authority to define proper treatment. Secondly, it is factually incorrect. Proper treatment in this debate relates to racial discrimination, and racial discrimination is defined by the law and determined by the courts. [2] Consequently, proper treatment is not defined by one's own feelings, and Con's argument that people must be alive to receive proper treatment fails.
R1.2: Improvement
How would you work with others to improve "race " relations? There's no improvement or improvement in this , if others no longer exist
If humanity were eliminated, then all the negative aspects of race relations would be gone. That is an improvement. Thus, Con's argument fails.
R1.3: Work
How would you have others work?I can't work as a dead or non-existent entity.
Con argues here that it would be impossible to work to improve race relations if humanity is eliminated. This ignores the fact that the work done to improve race relations is the elimination of humanity. Thus, in my proposal, work is done to improve race relations, and Con's argument fails. Additionally, note that the description nowhere specifies that the work must be ongoing, so Con cannot argue that my proposal fails because the work stops once humanity is eliminated.
R1.4: Solving a Problem
You don't cure cancer by killing the person. You save the person and persons by getting rid of cancer. You kill the person , cancer is still a problem. Why? It's still killing folks. So the problem of cancer absolutely was not solved.
Con makes an analogy to cancer to support his point. He made a similar analogy earlier in his round with feeling pain. However, this analogy not only fails to help him but also supports my point. Killing one cancer patient would not stop cancer from killing other patient. However, killing everyone would stop cancer from killing anyone. The same logic applies to racism. Thus, killing everyone would solve the problems of cancer and racism.
R1: Conclusion
In each case, Con's arguments fail to demonstrate that the description required that humanity must still be alive. In fact, his last argument actually supported my proposal.
R2: Mistreatment
This proposal doesn't eliminate the problem. It eliminates people, possibly the worst mistreatment of all. The worst mistreatment there is. More horrible than that, depending on how we experience the elimination.
Recall that proper treatment in this debate only refers to treatment not involving racial discrimination. Thus, this argument does not affect my proposal's ability to fulfill the proper treatment requirement. Furthermore, note that this debate is only concerned with my proposal's ability to solve the problem of racism. Whether it causes other problems or mistreatment unrelated to racism is completely irrelevant. The only relevant point is whether or not my proposal solves the problem of racism. My proposal solves that problem, so it fulfills the requirements.
R3: A Better Solution?
You'd have to prove, prove that I couldn't come up with a proposal and one better.
I have already done so in the section "Implications of the Framework." Con dropped this section, so I have already proven this point. Furthermore, I did not even need to prove this point according to the original terms of the debate. Recall that the description only states that I have to prove that it is the "best method yet, possibly ever thought up." Whether someone could think of a better proposal in the future is irrelevant. I only need to prove that my proposal is better than all those that already exist. But in either case, my section "Implications of the Framework" proved that a better solution, and in fact any other solution at all, is impossible.
In addition to this, the existence of a better solution is a positive claim. According to Wikipedia,
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." [3]
Thus, Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a better solution.
R4: Semantics
Moving too fast with the semantics and moving in the wrong direction.
Con objects on the basis that my argument seems semantic and is moving in the wrong direction. Since Con failed to define any terms, establish any rules about the direction of the debate, or make a rule against troll proposals, he has no basis for this objection. If Con wishes to avoid semantic, trollish arguments in the future, then I suggest that he do those things.
Conclusion
Con has dropped my argument that no solution is possible so long as humanity exists. This in itself is enough for me to win. Furthermore, I have thoroughly demonstrated that the description does not require the continued existence of humanity and that my proposal fulfills every requirement laid out in the description. Finally, if Con cannot demonstrate the existence of a better proposal, then mine is the best by default. The burden of proof is on Con to show that my proposal is not the best. To do this, he must demonstrate the existence of a better proposal.
Back to Con.
References
Round 3
"Thus, my argument establishing that it is impossible to solve the race problem so long as humanity exists stands."
Ok,so no proposal then. Well give it some thought. If you really had one , maybe it would show some sort of practicality in the world to help make progress.
"the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence.
Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places."
Yes I didn't say explicit, I said based on the description upon reading it all, all of it, you would understand it's involving humanity still existing .
"Precisely. Con failed to define proper treatment in any way other than that it is treatment that doesn't involve racial discrimination. If the instigator fails to define terms, then the contender may define them to his advantage. Any good debate manual can tell us this."
In other words, justifying assumption of what somebody is saying without actually confirming. That's not dealing with truth, that's a copout with an assumption on your part . Advantage meaning easier to avoid refutation by not really dealing with what the person means.
Furthermore I didn't define it as no " racial discrimination". A word is not defined by telling you what it's not . It's defined by what it is .
I can tell you all day what something doesn't involve like many other things that don't involve that particular thing. I still have no clue of what that something means.
So you hijacked a word that was used by somebody else and you think assumption is greater than fact.
I'll say it again , maybe you don't understand personal experience and testimony. Treatment is determined by whomever receives it. I receive quality service from a business or something of the sort, I can only describe the type of quality I received.
Proper treatment can be anything deemed proper. Dictated and deemed by who? Is it you? Who are you?
"Con attempts to define proper treatment as follows:
It's whatever the person says that it is according to them. Just like any victim can explain what their victim hood is and not you or anyone as a non-victim. You can have your ideas and opinions , but the truth resides in the personal experience and feelings.
He argues that, by this definition, a person must be alive in order to tel us that they have received the proper treatment. This definition fails for multiple reasons. Firstly, as noted above, he has ceded his authority to define proper treatment. Secondly, it is factually incorrect. Proper treatment in this debate relates to racial discrimination, and racial discrimination is defined by the law and determined by the courts. [2] Consequently, proper treatment is not defined by one's own feelings, and Con's argument that people must be alive to receive proper treatment fails."
The individual defines what's proper to them.
What don't you understand about that?
"If humanity were eliminated, then all the negative aspects of race relations would be gone. That is an improvement. Thus, Con's argument fails."
Isn't "race relations" concerning how we live with one another?
What does it have to do with dead folks?
How is it improved? If my health is improved, improved, improved, it doesn't get that way by extinguishing it.
Notice how you're evading the other end of this. You say all the negative aspects are gone and the positive too. Don't forget to mention that. See improvement has to do with producing something better . Now if somebody can come up with a proposal that leaves us breathing, that would be better wouldn't it?
So improving the positive aspects of "race relations" or improving "race relations" by retaining them is better than eliminating them as to what the idea of improvement is, to enhance, boost, increase.
If I'm dead, there is no improvement of this sort. At that point I'm lifeless to improving "race relations". There is no increase to betterment to that regard.
"Con argues here that it would be impossible to work to improve race relations if humanity is eliminated. This ignores the fact that the work done to improve race relations is the elimination of humanity. Thus, in my proposal, work is done to improve race relations, and Con's argument fails. Additionally, note that the description nowhere specifies that the work must be ongoing, so Con cannot argue that my proposal fails because the work stops once humanity is eliminated."
How can I work on "race relations" when I'm dead I asked you?
I'm not improving "race relations". Your so called proposal is designed for me to eliminate "races".
"Con makes an analogy to cancer to support his point. He made a similar analogy earlier in his round with feeling pain. However, this analogy not only fails to help him but also supports my point. Killing one cancer patient would not stop cancer from killing other patient. However, killing everyone would stop cancer from killing anyone. The same logic applies to racism. Thus, killing everyone would solve the problems of cancer and racism."
What a defeated purpose. Your idea is for the killing of everyone in lieu of cancer doing it. So either way the result is still the same. How in the world was this an answer to killing cancer?
I'm in trouble as a lion is about to kill me. You come along, a so called problem solver. To solve the problem of the lion killing me, you kill me with a shotgun. It eliminates the lion from killing me. Why didn't you just eliminate the lion?
"Recall that proper treatment in this debate only refers to treatment not involving racial discrimination."
Your words , not mine. Some twisted logic of words used by somebody else to mean what you say they mean. It's like trying to tell me what my own opinion means to me. I still don't know how you're justified in dictating that. You're truly not but as a copout, as a STRAWMAN, this is your way of trying to avoid refutation.
A t.v., a car , etc., doesn't involve "racial discrimination". Do you understand that? Many things don't involve it. What is a car? A car doesn't involve "racial discrimination".
But what is a car? It doesn't involve "racial discrimination". That is still not telling me what a car is. But you used the word , you will have to tell me. The onus is on you and it ****stays****on you just like the burden of proof . I don't come along a prove what you're supposed to prove. I don't come along and define your own words.
"The only relevant point is whether or not my proposal solves the problem of racism. My proposal solves that problem, so it fulfills the requirements."
Incorrect. Your proposal has to solve the "race problem" by what the entire description says.
So it unpacks what solving the "race" problem is so we know you're on track. Your proposal to solve the "race" problem which means improve "race relations" and we know what that means . Also solving by working and having others to work with you on the solution. You would have to explain and demonstrate the detail of the work.
"You'd have to prove, prove that I couldn't come up with a proposal and one better.
I have already done so in the section "Implications of the Framework." Con dropped this section, so I have already proven this point. Furthermore, I did not even need to prove this point according to the original terms of the debate. Recall that the description only states that I have to prove that it is the "best method yet, possibly ever thought up." Whether someone could think of a better proposal in the future is irrelevant. I only need to prove that my proposal is better than all those that already exist. But in either case, my section "Implications of the Framework" proved that a better solution, and in fact any other solution at all, is impossible."
Remember the description mentioned that your proposal has to be the best one yet. So someway you have to prove that nobody, nobody, nobody at this time couldn't come up with something better. By starting off with us no longer be alive, you think that's the absolute the best.
You're saying being dead with "racism " unsolved is better than being alive with it solved meaning living without it's existence.
You think killing me is better instead of defeating what could kill me.
What a copout argument this is. Don't eliminate "racism" to not exist, just eliminate me so I don't exist. You might as well just say to get rid of "racism" , just let the "racist" mob lynch me. That "racist" mob is still in existence.
"Thus, Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a better solution."
You can setup a debate title such as this and I 'll accept it. For this debate, the description says the burden is on you.
You haven't proven your proposal is the best as they come. By your proposal , we won't be alive to verify if anything could of been truly better. I never claimed that there is anything better. I'm asking how do we know this is the best that there is? You can be wrong but we'll be dead before we can do anything about it according to you.
"Con objects on the basis that my argument seems semantic and is moving in the wrong direction. Since Con failed to define any terms, establish any rules about the direction of the debate, or make a rule against troll proposals, he has no basis for this objection. If Con wishes to avoid semantic, trollish arguments in the future, then I suggest that he do those things."
You fail to ask what somebody means when they say anything so you hijack their words. But it's ok, the truth has been demonstrated today.
"Finally, if Con cannot demonstrate the existence of a better proposal, then mine is the best by default. The burden of proof is on Con to show that my proposal is not the best. To do this, he must demonstrate the existence of a better proposal. "
The STRAWMAN approach as always won't work. I have no burden of presenting a proposal according to the description and you know that.
Now you're proposing that being dead with the "race problem" unsolved is better than being alive with no "race problem".
Just say that you couldn't come up with a proposal for us to live out our lives on.
See I believe this is true but in order to avoid that, instead of thinking harder, more critically to eliminate a problem , you copout. You run from the problem.
Going back to the problem with cancer that kills a person. How did I solve the problem of death by using death or allowing something else to cause it?
The point of stopping the cancer was to eliminate the fatality. So my goal to eliminate fatality was missed if I allow the person to die some other way.
The idea to do away with "racism" is to eliminate the mistreatment of human life. The goal is defeated with having no human life as "racism" doesn't mean anything to the dearly departed.
The point of the answer to replacing "racism" with proper treatment exists in the lives of people. It doesn't exist with no life for it to exist in.
I think what you're pulling is a half-hearted response to a full on request for an answer to an issue. You're saying , well we can be dead and that's that. Suggesting to be lifeless so we don't have to work at solving a problem. But I'm asking you to work at solving one.
It's the notion of a false victory. We're in a war and you think winning is for the other side not to win by them being destroyed even though we die along in destruction with them in the process.
You say "Well at least they didn't win". Nobody won, that's the point. The idea of victory is winning over those that didn't win, not just them that didn't win.
Going back to the cancer scenario, that's why people say the person ****lost****their battle with cancer.
There was no win against it or solution to it killing them.
**********You made no solution to "racism" that's used to mistreat people. You've sped up the worst result that "racism" can bring which is the destruction of us all .*****************
Thanks, Mall.
Notes
Before I begin, I would like to remind my opponent that I am arguing as a devil's advocate, i.e. I don't support my own proposal. I am merely arguing in favor of it for the purposes of the debate.
To the voters, I would like to note that my opponent often restated the same points in different words in his R3. Thus, I will not respond to everything he said line by line, although I will still address all of his points.
Dropped Arguments
Con has again failed to contend with the Implications of the Framework. Thus, my point that it is impossible to solve the race problem so long as humanity exists still stands. So long as that point stands, I have won the debate.
Rebuttals
R0*: Semantics
*Formerly R4. I moved it here because it's important
You fail to ask what somebody means when they say anything so you hijack their words.
I'll lay my cards on the table: yes. This is a competitive debate. The goal is to win. You failed to define your terms. By default, you ceded your authority to define terms to me, and I have no obligation to ask what you meant.
Note that Con has no refutation to the debate manual I presented, which demonstrates that, if the instigator fails to define terms, the contender gets to define them as though he were the instigator.
R1: The Description
Yes I didn't say explicit, I said based on the description upon reading it all, all of it, you would understand it's involving humanity still existing .
Con has conceded that the description does not explicitly require humanity's existence. My other arguments will deal with his assertion that the description implicitly requires it.
R1.1: Proper Treatment
Furthermore I didn't define it as no " racial discrimination". A word is not defined by telling you what it's not . It's defined by what it is .
Con says that words are not defined by what they are not. If I can find a counterexample, this will be disproven.
Definition of nothing:
"1: not any thing : no thing" [1]
The word "nothing" is defined by what it is not. Con's argument fails.
Treatment is determined by whomever receives it.
Con drops that proper racial treatment is determined by the courts, which disproves his claim that treatment is determined by whoever receives it. Extend this argument.
Con failed to define proper treatment, ceding his authority to define it. So far, the closest thing he has offered to a definition is that it is defined by the person receiving it, which is demonstrably false. On the other hand, I have provided a definition based off what was written in the description. For these reasons, voters should prefer my definition.
R1.2: Improvement
Isn't "race relations" concerning how we live with one another?
Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]
You say all the negative aspects are gone and the positive too. Don't forget to mention that.
The current state of race relations is overwhelmingly negative. America was swept by race riots protesting the killing of an unarmed black man [3]. China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people [4]. Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases [5]. Since the negatives outweigh the positives, eliminating humanity would be a net improvement to race relations.
R1.3: Work
How can I work on "race relations" when I'm dead I asked you?
Con drops that my argument that eliminating humanity is the work done to improve race relations in my proposal. Recall that the description did not specify that the work must be ongoing.
See I believe this is true but in order to avoid that, instead of thinking harder, more critically to eliminate a problem , you copout. You run from the problem.
No. My proposal eliminates the problem, which is exactly what the description requires.
R1.4: Solving a Problem
Your idea is for the killing of everyone in lieu of cancer doing it. So either way the result is still the same. How in the world was this an answer to killing cancer?
Because, in this analogy, the goal is to prevent deaths from cancer. Killing everyone would prevent anyone from dying of cancer. Returning to racism, the goal is to "replace or eliminate all racism." Eliminating all of humanity eliminates all racism. Con's analogy supports my argument.
R1: Conclusion
Con dropped my arguments regarding proper treatment and work. His only refutations for improvement are unsupported assertions. His analogy for solving a problem helps my argument. My arguments that my proposal meets the requirements still stand.
R2: Mistreatment
Incorrect. Your proposal has to solve the "race problem" by what the entire description says.
The description requires that my proposal "replace or eliminate all racism" and that there must be work done to improve race relations. Nowhere does it say or imply that my proposal can not cause problems or mistreatment unrelated to race.
The idea to do away with "racism" is to eliminate the mistreatment of human life.
Yes, but the goal of this debate was to make a proposal that would do away with racism. Any mistreatment unrelated to race is irrelevant to this debate. You cannot retroactively change the terms of the debate by requiring that my proposal does no non-racial harm when neither the resolution nor the description contained this requirement.
You made no solution to "racism" that's used to mistreat people. You've sped up the worst result that "racism" can bring which is the destruction of us all
The only results relevant to the debate is the elimination or replacement of racism and the improvement of race relations. Any other results, such as the elimination of humanity, are only relevant in how they impact the relevant results.
R3: A Better Solution?
So someway you have to prove that nobody, nobody, nobody at this time couldn't come up with something better.
I have already done so. Recall that Con dropped my argument that no solution involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. Thus, eliminating humanity is the only solution that fulfills the requirements set by the description. Consequently, it is impossible for anyone to come up with something better.
Also recall that the description stated that it had to the the "best method yet." Thus, my proposal only has to be better than any solution before it, so whether anyone could potentially think of a better one is irrelevant.
I have no burden of presenting a proposal according to the description and you know that.
According to the description, no. It is the circumstances of the debate that give you this burden of proof. I have proved that my solution is the only possible solution, and you have dropped that proof. Thus, the onus is on you to prove that there is another possible solution that is better. Furthermore, you must prove that this solution was already thought up before I made my proposal, since mine only has to be the best "yet".
Conclusions
Con has dropped my argument that eliminating humanity is the only possible solution. So long as that point stands, I have won the debate. On the other hand, I have demonstrated that my proposal fulfills the requirements laid out in the description. Furthermore, Con has dropped several of my arguments refuting his claims that the description requires the continued existence of humanity. Finally, he has attempted to retroactively change the terms of the debate by introducing requirements that are irrelevant to the race problem. My proposal meets the requirements and is the only proposal that can meet the requirements.
References
Round 4
(more replies in comments)
Improving " race relations" eliminating the negative would benefit us. Eliminating "races" would not benefit us. It does nothing for us in the end. We're dead, the dead does nothing. There's that word again twice. We would be without benefits. We should be talking about adding, increasing which comes with improving of a situation. You're proposing the taking away of a situation. Taking away everything including the benefits which I don't think you thought of until now. Your proposal needs more thought.
You mentioned a small amount of positives. This is why you work with a better proposal to
to better, improve, increase those positives.
"How can I work on "race relations" when I'm dead I asked you?
Con drops that my argument that eliminating humanity is the work done to improve race relations in my proposal. Recall that the description did not specify that the work must be ongoing."
Deflection
"No. My proposal eliminates the problem, which is exactly what the description requires."
Your proposal was to eliminate people directly instead of eliminating the "race problem" which this problem has eliminated how many in the past via lynching and so forth?
You didn't eliminate the problem. You rearranged the factors of the problem. Again the proposal is poor. It doesn't make sense or much difference because the focus or point of solving something is lost. Your proposal will only make as much sense as to why you see the "race" situation problematic to start with.
By this logic you're giving me, if this was the only option, we'd be better leaving things how they are. Least we be alive and have some fight capabilities , fighting for justice to avoid conflict, pain, harm or destruction in which your defeatist plan leads us to , that is destruction.
Let me explain how you can figure a proposal or a solution is valid to a problem.
I want my car to not make a particular noise. The suggestion is to get rid of the car to fix the problem. Here is why it's a half hearted suggestion not really fixing anything.
Not only will the noise still be there after I ditch it, it misses what the problem is which is not with the car but with the noise.
I want my car to not have the noise. I get a proposal to get rid of the car. It doesn't make sense as it fails to correspond to what's problematic. By failing , I still have a problem with my car. The whole idea of no noise will mean no problem. But in getting rid of the car, my problem is a car no longer mine although no more hearing a noise.
The first words of the first sentence to this car situation was "I want my car". *****I want my car***, so the proposal has to attach to that and include that.
That fulfills the requirement of the issue. What makes the proposal not half hearted is having the understanding of what makes the problem problematic. Not so simple as just getting rid of a noise.
Likewise with the "race" problem, the description unpacks in more depth of the problem. It's more explanatory with understanding the "race" issue made via "race" relations. Now you already completed the circle of communication with in regards to "race " relations. We communicated that there is positive and negative there in. So how would you work the solution into "race " relations which constitutes the "race" problem that would be an overall improvement?
You have to tie everything together . Not just looking at part of the language and ignoring the meaning of the other information. Now that I'm leading you to explore more layers of what was said in the description , the superficial value taken , assumption of rhetoric can be dismissed.
So after all that, your proposal to fix the "race" issue translates to what do you suggest to improve the positives of "race" relations. So I ask how do you work and work with others?
With all the information unpacked, working and working with others would have to do with improving the positives and not taking them away.
You can get a valid proposal understanding what makes the"race" issue because you understand what you're trying to solve. That is getting rid of the negatives, the " racism". One of the negatives is destruction. So don't offer an invalid proposal of the same.
"Because, in this analogy, the goal is to prevent deaths from cancer. Killing everyone would prevent anyone from dying of cancer. Returning to racism, the goal is to "replace or eliminate all racism." Eliminating all of humanity eliminates all racism. Con's analogy supports my argument"
Yet wasn't an improvement because the result was the same. There's no such thing as an improvement getting the same result. That's why I asked how would you improve "race" relations? You're not improving it by doing something negative in which people are already experiencing.
You don't improve my health with taking it away. Remember it's not just removal of something but it's a removal with a replacement which would be the improvement.
You continue to only look at some of the words in this exchange. You have to tie everything together. You just said it. The goal is to replace or eliminate but it's actually both. What do you replace "racism" with? Something to improve upon.
"Con dropped my arguments regarding proper treatment and work. His only refutations for improvement are unsupported assertions. His analogy for solving a problem helps my argument. My arguments that my proposal meets the requirements still stand."
Are you asking me what proper treatment is or no? If not , you drop it like it's hot, please.
My refutations for improvement are unsupported but yet are refutations. You have to prove that you can improve something by having no change in results or betterment at all. Your proposal is a stalemate using that word as a nice way of putting it. It's really much worse. It's no fulfilling of the requirements by no means.
"The description requires that my proposal "replace or eliminate all racism" and that there must be work done to improve race relations. Nowhere does it say or imply that my proposal can not cause problems or mistreatment unrelated to race."
Contradicting yourself as I'm asking how does improvement come with more problems and mistreatment?
At least in this setting, how?
Why would I contradict myself by asking for a proposal to contradict everything else?
Of course I'm not going to say and make those contradictions. I'm asking about solving problems . I'm not going to ask for a proposal to make problems. This is complete insanity if that's the argument you're going with.
"Yes, but the goal of this debate was to make a proposal that would do away with racism. Any mistreatment unrelated to race is irrelevant to this debate. You cannot retroactively change the terms of the debate by requiring that my proposal does no non-racial harm when neither the resolution nor the description contained this requirement."
I didn't change anything. You've forgotten that the terms "proper treatment" is a broad phrase and it's not what you say it is for all people. If it's what you say it is for all, you have to prove that you are the only source to definitions.
I did not say what the phrase means. I said one thing, one , one thing that it doesn't involve.
You really have to pay attention to words. Let's go back to the improvement of "race" relations because that was in the description.
You're not making any improvement by suggesting the harm of elimination that the"race" problem already serves us.
"The only results relevant to the debate is the elimination or replacement of racism and the improvement of race relations. Any other results, such as the elimination of humanity, are only relevant in how they impact the relevant results."
I don't know what was said here. But the bottom line is you offered no improvement of the current situation. You rendered the same fate of what many faced in history and today.
Do you really care to solve the " race " problem?
Those that want to get rid of the problem are not looking to get rid of themselves. That would bring out the worst in "race" relations, period.
"I have already done so. Recall that Con dropped my argument that no solution involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. Thus, eliminating humanity is the only solution that fulfills the requirements set by the description. Consequently, it is impossible for anyone to come up with something better."
I can just apply what the previous response was that I made. Down through history , people worked against oppression and the "race " problem. People died because of it or in purpose that the rest of us LIVE on. So you go ahead to try to prove that death is better than a beneficial life.
You don't even realize you're offering the same thing in essence and calling it better.
"Also recall that the description stated that it had to the the "best method yet." Thus, my proposal only has to be better than any solution before it, so whether anyone could potentially think of a better one is irrelevant."
Reapply the previous response.
"According to the description, no. It is the circumstances of the debate that give you this burden of proof. I have proved that my solution is the only possible solution, and you have dropped that proof. Thus, the onus is on you to prove that there is another possible solution that is better. Furthermore, you must prove that this solution was already thought up before I made my proposal, since mine only has to be the best "yet". "
What a twisted contradicted logic . You said according to the description , no. So moving the goalpost because you see fit , no. "It was the circumstances". In other words, somehow let's move the goalpost . " Furthermore , you must prove", no. The description won't allow that. The description will allow me to do the following:
"If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge."
No where in there says I prove a solution. I either determine your proposal is not the best or concede that it is.
If someone else has this proposal such as you, it's still no better. What you propose is that which is negative of what "race" relations can bring. This is no improvement. By this proposal , if this is the only so called way out of chaos, we're better off where we're at.
People fighting to stay alive everyday against brutality and you telling folks to kill themselves basically.
"Conclusions
Con has dropped my argument that eliminating humanity is the only possible solution. So long as that point stands, I have won the debate. On the other hand, I have demonstrated that my proposal fulfills the requirements laid out in the description. Furthermore, Con has dropped several of my arguments refuting his claims that the description requires the continued existence of humanity. Finally, he has attempted to retroactively change the terms of the debate by introducing requirements that are irrelevant to the race problem. My proposal meets the requirements and is the only proposal that can meet the requirements."
So this is what you have to deal with to come up with a better proposal.
We already agree about what's in "race" relations, the positives and negatives.
Then to improve "race" relations would be what?
A better proposal would be one that has improvement of the present situation.
Not having to mention that a benefit or positive over a non -positive is better but arranging a proposal that constitutes a change
Perhaps a 180 degree turn in results
Death by your elimination plan is not an improvement over death by a " racist" criminal action or act .
There's none in that so maybe next time around.
Thanks, Mall.
Dropped Arguments
(more replies in comments)
No. Con created this debate to have a 10,000 character limit, which I agreed to when I accepted it. Putting arguments in comments is a direct attempt to circumvent that limit. This is a clear conduct violation. I will consider any argument that is not within the actual debate to be dropped and request that the voters do the same.
Con dropped...
- My argument that no proposal involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. As I have said before, this argument alone is sufficient for me to win, since it means that my proposal is the only possibility. Con has dropped it in every single round.
- My argument in R0 that Con ceded his authority to define terms.
- My argument in R1.1 that my proposal satisfies the proper treatment requirement in the description.
Arguments
R1.2: Improvement
My refutations for improvement are unsupported but yet are refutations.
Con concedes that his refutations to my arguments in this point are unsupported.
Improving " race relations" eliminating the negative would benefit us.
Con concedes that eliminating the negatives of race relations is improvement.
Eliminating "races" would not benefit us.
The only relevant point is whether it solves the race problem. Any effects not involving the race problem are irrelevant.
You don't improve my health with taking it away.
The goals outlined in the description had nothing to do with the overall improvement of humanity. They related only to eliminating racism and improving race relations. Eliminating humanity achieves that goal. Whether it has the same results is irrelevant, as the only requirement was to eliminate the problem.
R1.3: Work
Con drops that my argument that eliminating humanity is the work done to improve race relations in my proposal. Recall that the description did not specify that the work must be ongoing."Deflection
No. I directly answered Con's question in R2 by saying that eliminating humanity is the work done. I was pointing out here that Con dropped my answer.
R1.4: Solving a Problem
I want my car to not make a particular noise.
Invalid analogy. Cars can be fixed so they don't make noise. As I've demonstrated, humanity cannot be fixed so it isn't racist.
Your proposal was to eliminate people directly instead of eliminating the "race problem"
Yes, but that eliminates the race problem as well.
R1: Conclusion
I have thoroughly demonstrated how my proposal fulfills the requirements in the description. Con has conceded and dropped several of my arguments in this section. The arguments he hasn't conceded or dropped don't hold up to scrutiny.
R2: Mistreatment
Contradicting yourself as I'm asking how does improvement come with more problems and mistreatment?
Con is ignoring that not all problems and mistreatment are related to race. My proposal eliminates racial problems and racial mistreatment. Any other problems or mistreatment is irrelevant to the debate.
But the bottom line is you offered no improvement of the current situation.
Whether it is a net improvement for humanity is irrelevant. The only relevant point is whether it solves the race problem, which it does.
R3: A Better Solution?
I have already done so. Recall that Con dropped my argument that no solution involving the continued existence of humanity is possible. Thus, eliminating humanity is the only solution that fulfills the requirements set by the description. Consequently, it is impossible for anyone to come up with something better.I can just apply what the previous response was that I made.
None of your responses address my point that the race problem cannot be eliminated so long as humanity exists.
You don't even realize you're offering the same thing in essence and calling it better.
I realize exactly what I am offering. Please remember that I am taking a devil's advocate position here. I don't support my own proposal. I'm just arguing it for the purposes of the debate.
You said according to the description , no. So moving the goalpost because you see fit , no. "It was the circumstances".
The description does not determine everything about the debate. There is nothing in the description that requires you to argue against the elimination of humanity. The circumstances of the debate require you to do so.
I either determine your proposal is not the best or concede that it is.
The only way to determine that my proposal is not the best is to prove that a different proposal is better. Otherwise, mine is the best by default.
Conclusions
Con dropped my argument that my proposal is the only possible solution to the race problem. This alone is enough for me to win arguments. I demonstrated that my proposal fulfills every requirement in the description. Con dropped or conceded most of his refutations to my arguments regarding the requirements, and those that he didn't drop or concede don't hold up. Con failed to present any alternative to my solution, leaving my proposal as the best by default. Vote Pro for arguments.
Furthermore, Con made a direct attempt to circumvent the character limit that he himself set. This is a direct violation of the terms he made by creating the debate and I agreed to by accepting the debate. Vote Pro for conduct.
Postscript
I wish to thank Mall for this debate. I enjoyed it, and I very much appreciate that you remained civil throughout.
This will be my last debate, and in fact my last significant action, on this website, at least for the foreseeable future. It is fitting that my time here ended with a debate that was completely satirical. One of my major goals on this site was to make people laugh and give them a bit of joy. Hopefully, my ridiculous proposal has succeeded in this goal.
You won't have to play devil's advocate by not choosing a self destruct proposal.
Just think critically , a little harder and come up with something in benefit to us all. It may take some time but just let me know when that eureka moment hits.
No easy way out, no short cuts home. No easy way out so giving in can be wrong.
If you want to improve "race" relations to rid of the "racism", vote yay here.
If you want to end all humanity to not deal with " racism", vote nay here.
Please remember that I am arguing as a devil's advocate. I don't support my own proposal. I am arguing for that proposal solely for the purpose of the debate.
Your proposal is to solve the problem, not hide from.
Keeping the positives would be an improvement over eliminating the positives with the negatives. If it isn't , you have to demonstrate how getting rid of a positive is better than keeping it. Something positive, something that benefits, you'd have to demonstrate having no benefit , no benefit, no benefit is better, is better, is better , is better than having a benefit.
I'm telling you , any chance to avoid refutation, you will take it. I'll resist avoiding to answer your questions. I got no place to hide.
"The current state of race relations is overwhelmingly negative. America was swept by race riots protesting the killing of an unarmed black man [3]. China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people [4]. Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases [5]. Since the negatives outweigh the positives, eliminating humanity would be a net improvement to race relations. to hide from."
Oh so you do have an idea of what "race relations" is. Don't do that disingenuous mess again.
"Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer."Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer.
Con failed to define proper treatment, ceding his authority to define it. So far, the closest thing he has offered to a definition is that it is defined by the person receiving it, which is demonstrably false. On the other hand, I have provided a definition based off what was written in the description. For these reasons, voters should prefer my definition."
I can't fail a test you never gave. You never asked the question, so how can I fail to answer it?
You don't understand the description or ignored much of it and came with a half hearted proposal that suggests our hearts to cease from beating.
Ignoring what somebody has to say or could say like they have no answer or reply is dishonest.
"Con drops that proper racial treatment is determined by the courts, which disproves his claim that treatment is determined by whoever receives it. Extend this argument."
This is STRAWMAN fallacy. I never made a statement that "proper racial treatment" is determined by the courts.
What is nothing? Somebody says it involves no thing of a car or nothing of driving one at least. So everything else that fits that response is nothing but not so.
What is sex? Certainly not playing video games somebody says. If that's all it is , then everything else I do , go to school, go to work, play with the dog , play with the children, pay taxes, talk to a minister, talk to a parent, etc. is sex. No, not correct, rethink that.
Again, what is a car? A car doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. What is justice? It's something that doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. This tells me nothing or not a thing of what they are. So therefore the language won't make sense when I have a mess of words all over the place with no definitions . I say something like I'm driving my justice in to get its tires rotated is asinine. Look at these cars or justices on the road. By those so called definitions that tells you what something is not, everything is so broad and non-specific because I define multiple things with the same so called, so called definition and these are really different things. You should see by now that this doesn't work. It's just plain silly.
Nothing is no thing or something without nothing. So it is something so the definition****is telling you what that thing is*****.
What is this ? Nothing. What is the what? A nothing. The keyword is ***what**. The ***what*** exists. That's why often times when we argue or talk about pre-existence, it doesn't include the condition of nothingness as that condition didn't even exist. Nothingness is understood as it is perceived to be which that is according to our reality. But according to pre-existence of everything, that reality or existence wouldn't exist either
"Definition of nothing:
"1: not any thing : no thing" [1]
The word "nothing" is defined by what it is not. Con's argument fails."
What is nothing? I'm asking ****what it is ****still. Not what it isn't. What it isn't would be telling me anything other than what it is which could be anything that isn't a void. A void is a thing as it has substance which makes it real for us to identify when it's present.
Your response didn't say it was not stated . You just said not explicitly stated. So yes it was still stated just stated indirectly and I went over with you on why the description is calling for something you didn't provide.
This was your response to "the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence."
Your response:
"Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places."
You added the word "explicitly". I'm agreeing it's not explicit or *****verbatim**** or ******direct****.
"Con has conceded that the description does not explicitly require humanity's existence. My other arguments will deal with his assertion that the description implicitly requires it."
The description still ***says**** what it says . The keyword you added was ****explicit****.
"I'll lay my cards on the table: yes. This is a competitive debate. The goal is to win. You failed to define your terms. By default, you ceded your authority to define terms to me, and I have no obligation to ask what you meant."
In other words, no interest in understanding somebody. You notice that with anything, you ask questions when you're interested in something. News reporters do it with any story they're pursuing. So on your part and to what you're saying, duly noted.
Yeah, they need to watch out for deranged privacy-obsessed knights who think exterminating humanity is the best solution for racism. Who knows what I might do next!
That's funny, I also thought of the exterminate humanity argument. Definitely watchlist material
Ohhhhh hohoho. Malls gotten better. He managed to point out the mistreatment of people and inability to solve the problem!
mall probably be like, "b-but... mind control! God's existence controlling us! PROVE IT, PROVE IT!"
Great minds think alike
Thanks. I have a bit of experience with satire.
Believe it or not, Sir and I literally came up with the same argument at around the same time. His argument here is pretty much a carbon copy of what I was going to argue
I think Mall will have a challenging time rebutting this point, its certainly a consequence of the strangely limiting description, also your game on satire is strong on this one.
You probably will. I just couldn't think of anything more to say. Once I'd demonstrated that it was the only possible solution, further arguments just seemed extraneous.
Damn it, you beat me to it. But I'll make my constructive better >:)
Behold my solution to Mall's requirement that the proposal has to be the best method yet. Now tell me: am I certifiable, or should I just be put on an FBI watchlist?
I'd prefer more time for arguments, but I want to use my idea, so I don't care as much.