Are races equal?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
There is only two racist theories to explain why some notorious ethnicities are always crime and welfare prone, regardless of which western society they inhabit. The first racist explanation is CRT, or Critical Race Theory, which proposes that the reason why ethnicities such as African blacks, Australian Aboriginals, and Pacific Islanders, are always dysfunctional, is because the racist white oppressors are keeping them down through "unconscious racism" (whatever that is?). The second racist explanation, is that these races have a "bell curve" of intelligence displaced from other races, and a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour a predisposition which is much greater than among other races. I think that the second racist explanation is the correct one. What do you think?
- CON argues that there are only two theories to explain why Black Africans, Australian Aboriginals, and Pacific Islanders are always crime and welfare prone.
- One is the theory is racist white oppression (which CON incorrectly labels as Critical Race Theory.
- The other is genetic predisposition to low intelligence and violence.
- CON argues that the second theory is true but fails to explain why.
- To make this argument true, CON must
- first, establish as true that Black Africans, Australian Aboriginals, and Pacific Islanders are always crime and welfare prone.
- PRO will assume that CON's conclusion has been made on the basis of insufficient or biased evidence until PRO establishes these facts.
- second, establish as fact that there are only two possible theories of explanation for the phenomenon.
- Are poverty or disenfranchisement potential factors, for example?
- third, establish why discredited subdivisions of human speciation based on phenotype are a useful framework
- fourth, eliminate White Supremacy as an alternative.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/displace#English
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/greater
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/violent
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/behavior
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- Regrettably, CON has made no argument.
- PRO requests that VOTERS find for PRO under the rules of full forfeiture.
- Thanks to Bogan for any easy win and thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.
"Equal opportunities, not outcomes."
>> That's called life. You only get out of it what you put into it.
"A death row inmate and a capitalist aren't equal in terms of wealth."
>> False equivalency fallacy
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Equal opportunities, not outcomes. A death row inmate and a capitalist aren't equal in terms of wealth.
Races are equal because everyone is equal
Thanks for voting!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7346-bsh1-memorial-profile-pic-pick-of-the-week-no-40-stand-with-ukraine?page=1
Latest compulsive shitposting by oromagi the compulsive quoter
Compulsion to shitpost... HAHAHAHA Fucking hell man you have like 60 threads of shitposting random crap about your weekly profile pic theme.
I love how RationalMadman never lets a lack of comprehension impede his compulsion to shitpost.
I love how Oromagi forgot to brown-nose Barney and has to do it now but still wants to wind others up that he doesn't feel he owes a thank you to, lmao!
Thanks for voting!
Thx for voting!
Quite so. The first two are races, and the third is an exercise in following the leader.
*Ducks objects thrown by angry F1 fans*
False. Nascar is not the same as Nurburgring 24h and that is not the same as the Monaco Grand Prix. /s
All right, no response. I am going to proceed as I would with any undefined R1.
“Some bloke”
Hi Bogan, welcome to the site! As instigator, you have the responsibility of formulating the argument to which the Contender will make a counterargument. Now you've spent your first argument on a process question. You could make your whole argument in Round2 but I would advise that would put you at serious disadvantage. If you'd like, we could ask the moderators to delete this debate and give you another crack at instigation. If you do so, feel free to invite me particularly or refuse me particularly (I am an experienced debater on this site and there's no dishonor to wanting a more balanced opponent). If permitted, I will happily re-accept.