Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#3682
Forced integration should have not been done
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
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.
When we're talking about "racial" integration or any sort of the kind, forcibly so by law is/ was not correct.
I will expound further in the debate rounds.
For questions, clarity, concerns, please send a message or drop a comment.
Round 1
So forced integration, what do I mean by that?
It's the obligatory association of things. When it comes to people, we have choices, we make choices.
I can decide who I will be in the company of and those I will press to avoid unless obligated by some authority.
As a result of being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil.
If you are doing well where you are, if it is not broke, don't attempt to fix it .
If you have a problem, do the very best with a solution but don't compound matters with social conflict.
There's a concept by Neely Fuller Jr. , to limit or minimize conflict by reducing, cutting back contact.
If someone has no love for you but hatred, don't design laws that allow no barrier and protection between the haters and the hated.
I believe in freedom of association. If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity .
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
DEFINITIONS:
FORCED is "simple past tense and past participle of FORCE"
FORCE is "power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power; violence; coercion"
INTEGRATON is "The act or process of making whole or entire. or since PRO seems to be talking about racial integration, "the process of fitting into a community, notably applied to minorities."
SHOULD is " Ought to; indicating opinion, advice, or instruction, about what is required or desirable."
DONE is "past participle of DO"
BURDEN of PROOF:
Wikipedia advises:
"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."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
I. RACE and RACISM
- Since the 2nd half of the Twentieth century, the association of race with discredited theories of racism has contributed to race becoming increasingly seen as a pseudoscientific system of classification.
- Race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
- "Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century."
- The continuance of racial concepts generally extends from the belief that humans should be ranked according to irrelevant phenotype and accorded privilege based on those rankings. Such concepts and groupings have changed over time according to folk taxonomies and political enfranchisement but 21st century scientific consensus considers such biological essentialism obsolete and discourages the use of racial concepts to describe human differences.
- Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
- PRO and CON agree that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
- Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate.
If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity .
- Striving for unity is a positive but beyond the question of unity is preserving everybody's equal right to access goods and services including the very general but publics examples you provide: business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods. Government services like schools in particular must provide equally free access or be guilty of enforcing unequal enfranchisement to citizens, a fundamental violation of human rights
- Most citizens in any democracy enjoy and prosper by the free exchange of differences and would not want that prosperity held back by segregated businesses, schools, communities, etc.
- particularly segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms
- Beyond these generalizations, it is hard to offer a specific refutation of case until PRO offers at least one specific example of forced integration, what entity enforced it, why PRO opposed that integration.
- Until PRO offers evidence for examination, his case is doomed to stand unproven.
- I look forward to PRO's ROUND 2.
SOURCES in COMMENTS
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forced
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force#English
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/integration
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/should
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/done
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
Round 2
"That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. "
Who cares? What does it matter who enforces it?
I don't think you're delusional about the existence or what has existed referred to as forced integration.
"Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate."
Boy that disclaimer goes over y'all's heads.
"PRO and CON agree that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy."
I would adjust this statement here from my position. Freedom of association is democracy, democracy is freedom of association.
Meaning the choice of associating is democratic or voluntary.
"If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity ."
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
If you disagree, would you go where you're not wanted if you had other constructive choices?
"Beyond these generalizations, it is hard to offer a specific refutation of case until PRO offers at least one specific example of forced integration, what entity enforced it, why PRO opposed that integration."
It's hard because what I'm saying is correct and not really controversial. Don't try looking for something to refute if it's not there.
The size of it all, the meat of it is basically everything that has been stated and put forth thus far.
It looks like we agree about freedom of association which is my position.
An example of forced integration is like I said with a business, the proprietor only wants to serve certain individuals.
The law comes forth to change that to serve any and all individuals.
Are you saying something like this is impossible or never happened?
These topics are not farfetched or out of reach. Reluctancy to associate isn't a fairy tale.
Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration .
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
Who cares? What does it matter who enforces it?
- Hitchen's Razor: "What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
- If you are going to instigate a debate about the injustice of a particular public policy, you had better be prepared to at least demonstrate that public policy was enacted by some government. Otherwise, you could talking about Alice in Wonderland for all we can tell.
I don't think you're delusional about the existence or what has existed referred to as forced integration.
- You can have no genuine information about my mental state and are not invited to speculate. Either get specific about what you are talking about or else admit you don't know what you are talking about and concede, please.
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO has not objected to any of CON's definitions. CON's definitions stand for this debate.
BURDEN of PROOF:
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
Boy that disclaimer goes over y'all's heads.
PRO's disclaimer:
The aim of this interaction, Is ... 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
- How can you evaluate the truth value of your conclusion without offering any evidence or even showing your premise? That is not teaching, that is preaching. Don't just tell us your conclusion and sit back satisfied. Show us what you studied or experienced that made your conclusion seem true to you.
I. RACE and RACISM
Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
- PRO has dropped this argument. Let's let stand the notion that all racism is based in pseudoscience and so an illegitimate rational or moral foundation for animosity towards strangers.
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
PRO and CON agree that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
Freedom of association is democracy, democracy is freedom of association. Meaning the choice of associating is democratic or voluntary.
- PRO concurs that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity . Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
- I don't know what "a focus to make unity" is supposed to mean but I clearly disagreed with the rest of it.
- Notice where I said, "Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate."
- You ignored this remark so I'll ask more directly:
- DO you agree or disagree with this statement?
- That is, do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?
- or, do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?
- In Round 1, I answered you question thus:
- "Striving for unity is a positive but beyond the question of unity is preserving everybody's equal right to access goods and services including the very general but publics examples you provide: business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods. Government services like schools in particular must provide equally free access or be guilty of enforcing unequal enfranchisement to citizens, a fundamental violation of human rights"
- Schools, neighborhoods, and communities are not mine and they are not your yours, they are public entities that must be managed by governments constitutionally and lawfully and in a democracy, that means equal access by all and no limitation or segregation by nonsensical standards such a race and fear of difference.
An example of forced integration is like I said with a business, the proprietor only wants to serve certain individuals. The law comes forth to change that to serve any and all individuals.
- Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services. You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.
- If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
- Most citizens in any democracy enjoy and prosper by the free exchange of differences and would not want that prosperity held back by segregated businesses, schools, communities, etc.
If you disagree, would you go where you're not wanted if you had other constructive choices?
- "Constructive choices" is highly relative and situational, so much so that the law can't be expected to account for it.
- Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists. No non-whites allowed.
- How far away does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive choice? 20 miles? 10miles? 1mile?
- It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product. What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas? What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
- There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
- If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
- But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.
- If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
- If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps. Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
- There's no clean delineation that might protect everybody's right to free association and so most public facilities and enterprises must remain available to all.
Beyond these generalizations, it is hard to offer a specific refutation of case until PRO offers at least one specific example of forced integration, what entity enforced it, why PRO opposed that integration.
It's hard because what I'm saying is correct and not really controversial.
- If that were true it would not be hard. You are having a hard time getting specific because segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms are demonstrably false, ignorant, and deeply offensive imposition on our modern sense of freedom and equality for all. You don't want to give specific example because as soon we examine the specific harms, the harms inflicting by segregation profoundly outweigh the minor personal discomforts of the racists.
Don't try looking for something to refute if it's not there. The size of it all, the meat of it is basically everything that has been stated and put forth thus far. Are you saying something like this is impossible or never happened? These topics are not farfetched or out of reach. Reluctancy to associate isn't a fairy tale. Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration .
- Seems like PRO is desperately avoiding the statement of any concrete fact that might be falsified. This alone should serve as evidence that even PRO knows his position is indefensible.
- I'll say again: until PRO offers evidence for examination, his case is doomed to stand unproven.
- I look forward to PRO's ROUND 3.
Round 3
"Who cares? What does it matter who enforces it?"
"Hitchen's Razor: "What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
"If you are going to instigate a debate about the injustice of a particular public policy, you had better be prepared to at least demonstrate that public policy was enacted by some government. Otherwise, you could talking about Alice in Wonderland for all we can tell."
It doesn't really matter because forced integration in general has existed.
Again ,do you deny the reality of being among those that do not welcome you?
I'm talking about integration in general. Not just so called "racially" , politically but socially as well.
Do you doubt that segregation existed too?
"You can have no genuine information about my mental state and are not invited to speculate. Either get specific about what you are talking about or else admit you don't know what you are talking about and concede, please."
Ok I'm going to ask you a specific question. Either you accept something is true or false.
Do you acknowledge the existence of forced integration ?
"To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO must define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole."
You keep saying "win" or "winning" but I guess you guys still haven't learned it means nothing to me but everything to the person that says whom has done such a thing.
An incidence of violence is not necessary but to appease you, have you heard of Sundown towns, the lynch mobs, the Klu Klax Klan ?
There is a refusal to associate and if there is a force to associate, there will be or has been deadly responses.
I'm not going to send you to the grave from a violent invitation when I have no problem with you walking on the same side of the street and sidewalk.
I'm not trying to call you delusional but some groups of people on this planet get handed down stories of these things that their kin folk have experienced.
You may not know anything about it but these things were going on.
"How can you evaluate the truth value of your conclusion without offering any evidence or even showing your premise?"
You do acknowledge the historical events of segregation, is that right?
If you don't, anything I tell you, I don't know why you wouldn't disregard it either.
If you don't acknowledge the history books, what good of my saying?
"That is not teaching, that is preaching. Don't just tell us your conclusion and sit back satisfied. Show us what you studied or experienced that made your conclusion seem true to you."
I like for you to tell me, tell us, does forced integration exist or has existed according to the history of the world?
"Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers"
How did I defend it?
"DO you agree or disagree with this statement?"
"That is, do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?"
"or, do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?"
I don't know to any of these questions.
Truth be told.
"If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible."
If I'm not mistaken, this response here is indicating an agreement with the topic statement.
Thanks
"There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate."
We don't know. You're just mentioning likelihood. Try it and see what happens. May God be with you in trials and tribulations.
"If that were true it would not be hard. You are having a hard time getting specific because segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms are demonstrably false, ignorant, and deeply offensive imposition on our modern sense of freedom and equality for all. You don't want to give specific example because as soon we examine the specific harms, the harms inflicting by segregation profoundly outweigh the minor personal discomforts of the racists."
That puts us right back at the question again. Do you accept the conflict of segregation/forced integration of the past and present?
If not, we're separated by realities, one delusional.
Just saying is all.
"Seems like PRO is desperately avoiding the statement of any concrete fact that might be falsified. This alone should serve as evidence that even PRO knows his position is indefensible.
I'll say again: until PRO offers evidence for examination, his case is doomed to stand unproven."
Ok I'm going to hold you to this example I just gave.
"Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration ."
If it is not forced integration, you have to prove me being obligated is somehow not forced.
This is basic illustration. When you're just reaching for something to continue to oppose on just because you're in an opposing position that in actuality may not be all that contrary as you thought , you ignore these basic relatable illustrations and expressions.
"If you are going to instigate a debate about the injustice of a particular public policy, you had better be prepared to at least demonstrate that public policy was enacted by some government. Otherwise, you could talking about Alice in Wonderland for all we can tell."It doesn't really matter because forced integration in general has existed.
- So, all forced integration everywhere should never have been?
Again ,do you deny the reality of being among those that do not welcome you?
- non-sequitur
I'm talking about integration in general. Not just so called "racially" , politically but socially as well.
- All of history is a series of forced integrations- every migration of peoples is a forced integration with another people elsewhere.
- Are you saying that Caucasians ought never have left that strip of land between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea?
- Are you saying that the Jews fleeing Egypt ought never to have forcibly integrated with the Canaanites?
- Are you saying that the Roman empire ought never to have forced Christianity upon Europe?
- Are you saying that no American has any right to that name except Native Americans?
- To object to the whole history of forced integration is to object to history of Civilization in its entirety.
- PRO needs to get more specific if we are going to debate the worth of some particular public policy.
Do you doubt that segregation existed too?
- No. The history of the world is rife with examples
Ok I'm going to ask you a specific question. Either you accept something is true or false. Do you acknowledge the existence of forced integration ?
- Yes. The history of the world is rife with examples
You keep saying "win" or "winning" but I guess you guys still haven't learned it means nothing to me but everything to the person that says whom has done such a thing.
- If true, you should forfeit this debate immediately and give me the win.
An incidence of violence is not necessary but to appease you, have you heard of Sundown towns, the lynch mobs, the Klu Klax Klan ? There is a refusal to associate and if there is a force to associate, there will be or has been deadly responses. I'm not going to send you to the grave from a violent invitation when I have no problem with you walking on the same side of the street and sidewalk. I'm not trying to call you delusional but some groups of people on this planet get handed down stories of these things that their kin folk have experienced. You may not know anything about it but these things were going on.
- Indeed, my paternal grandparents met at a Klan Rally and were raised in a whites only white supremacist Appalachian mountain town. Now that Klan couple has African-American and African great grandchildren, Vietnamese great-grandchildren, Navajo and old Tejano great-grandchildren. Professors and poets and corporate executives and International athletes and architects. Hooray for integration! Hooray for America!
You do acknowledge the historical events of segregation, is that right?
- You have not specified or indicated 20th Century American but I am familiar with many histories of segregation in that context, yes.
I like for you to tell me, tell us, does forced integration exist or has existed according to the history of the world?
- Yes
"Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers"How did I defend it?
- "being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil"
- "don't design laws that allow no barrier and protection between the haters and the hated"
- "If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity ."
- etc.
"DO you agree or disagree with this statement?""That is, do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?""or, do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?"I don't know to any of these questions.Truth be told.
- Hard to believe. After all the First Commandment of being an American is this:
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
- I don't think it is possible to become an adult American without having an opinion on this statement.
- No American would have cause to shrink from expressing these principles if believed.
- Therefore, I think you are afraid to state you opinion because you know it contradicts the first principle of Americanism.
- More specifically, your problem is not with forced integration as a principle, rather it is with the notion that every citizen should enjoy the same rights to freedom of association as you do.
"If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible."If I'm not mistaken, this response here is indicating an agreement with the topic statement. Thanks
- I am not aware of any law that prevents you from holding a Klan rally in your mother's basement. How is this an example of the forced integration you are complaining about? You are not forced to integrate your Klan meeting.
"There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate."We don't know. You're just mentioning likelihood. Try it and see what happens.
- We did try it between Emancipation and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is the era of Jim Crow, lynching, etc you mention. The result was very significant and well documented unequal outcomes by race, outcomes that are still reverberating through our culture 60 years later. 96% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats agree that racial equality has improved over the past 50 years.
Ok I'm going to hold you to this example I just gave. "Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration ."If it is not forced integration, you have to prove me being obligated is somehow not forced.
- If we're talking about America here, there is no law that forces you to work with someone you desire not to unless you have surrendered your freedom of association because of criminal wrongdoing or joining the Armed Forces, etc. That does not mean you have a right to have a right to have a job where you are kept safe from all the people you hate. You don't. Almost Americans choose to work with people that they desire not to because that is a big part of what participating in nation, society, culture, neighborhood, etc is all about. Its up to you to create a workspace where you don't infringe on the equal rights of people you hate irrationally but that means you can't have a job that interacts with the public, with the trade of goods and services, education, transportation, etc. Government does not owe you protection but if you want to hide yourself away from people because you're afraid of racial differences, the government will not stop you.
- You will probably need to be self-employed because no reasonable employer is going to take on an employee who is not willing to work with strangers based on irrational fears and stereotypes. Certainly, if I was an employer I would consider the statement "I won't work with someone I desire not to" disqualifying for any employee in any job.
- You probably need to stay away from most public services and functions because you have no right to protection from strangers just based on your ignorant prejudices. That is up to you but the government is not going to protect your freedom to associate at the expense of other people's freedom to associate and you have no rational expectation that the government should do so.
- You bring up Sundown towns, lynch mobs, and the Klu Klax Klan as if those were reasonable cases of refusing to associate but that is quite wrong. You cannot pretend that Black people have the same Freedom of Association and you strip away the right to walk a city's streets at night, or talk to a girl without getting strung up, or have their lives threatened for moving into a new neighborhood. That is not an exercise in Freedom of Association, that is demanding that your race be irrationally recognized by the government as being superior to others.
PRO DROPPED:
- Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
- Schools, neighborhoods, and communities are not mine and they are not your yours, they are public entities that must be managed by governments constitutionally and lawfully and in a democracy, that means equal access by all and no limitation or segregation by nonsensical standards such a race and fear of difference.
- Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services. You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.
- "Constructive choices" is highly relative and situational, so much so that the law can't be expected to account for it.
- Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists. No non-whites allowed.
- How far away does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive choice? 20 miles? 10miles? 1mile?
- It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product. What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas? What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
- There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
- If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
- But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.
- If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
- If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps. Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
- There's no clean delineation that might protect everybody's right to free association and so most public facilities and enterprises must remain available to all.
CONCLUSION:
- Ultimately, this debate boils down to the question PRO claims he doesn't know the answer to:
- That is, do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?
- If yes, then integration guarantees of those equal rights while segregation violates those rights, particularly for minorities.
- or, do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?"
- If yes, then your values are out of alignment with the American project and you have no rational expectation that our nation modify its core beliefs to promote your ignorance and comfort.
- I do think we have narrowed the topic, if still quite vaguely.
- If PRO's only example of forced integration is his personal desire to be given a job that protects him from his own irrational animosities towards strangers based on 19th century biological misconceptions, then I think VOTERS can find with confidence that this very minor discomfort counts as virtually nothing in the realm of public policy when weighed against the government's obligation to ensure equal rights for all citizens.
- I look forward to PRO's ROUND 4.
SOURCES:
Round 4
"So, all forced integration everywhere should never have been? "
I can't say all. I nor does the topic statement says all.
Going back to the first round, I drew up the context of such cases.
"Again ,do you deny the reality of being among those that do not welcome you?"
"non-sequitur"
Stumped you on that question.
"Are you saying that Caucasians ought never have left that strip of land between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea?"
I can't say. Was it a situation of forced integration?
The topic is forced integration. Not about somebody leaving a place.
"Are you saying that the Jews fleeing Egypt ought never to have forcibly integrated with the Canaanites? "
Depends on what became of it.
"Are you saying that the Roman empire ought never to have forced Christianity upon Europe?"
Depends on what became of it.
Before you ask these questions, think of the context and if doesn't apply, let it fly.
"Are you saying that no American has any right to that name except Native Americans?"
I'm not saying that because that's a separate topic to the one of this debate.
"To object to the whole history of forced integration is to object to history of Civilization in its entirety."
The word "whole " is supposed to mean "all" I believe. Which I just covered that.
"PRO needs to get more specific if we are going to debate the worth of some particular public policy."
I was specific starting off in the first round. Go back and review. Don't become intellectually dishonest. Unless you're sadistic and enjoy situations of forced integrations that ended up bloody , dog biting and water hose spraying.
Let us not be disingenuous about the world we're in.
"No. The history of the world is rife with examples"
Do you acknowledge that those segregated did not welcome those to integrate with them according to the obligation of the law?
i.e. moving into dominated communities.
"Yes. The history of the world is rife with examples "
Very good, now if two people cannot get along non-violently, do you encourage that they stay integrated or should separate?
"If true, you should forfeit this debate immediately and give me the win."
If you understand what I'm saying, others give it to you by their discretion, not me, not you.
"Hooray for integration! Hooray for America!"
As long as we can all get along. Not all of us can, truth be told.
"You have not specified or indicated 20th Century American but I am familiar with many histories of segregation in that context, yes."
I don't think you're for forced integration because healthy integration doesn't have to be .
"being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil"
"don't design laws that allow no barrier and protection between the haters and the hated"
"If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity ."
etc."
This is not me defending animosity. I'm saying things that have become of forced integration.
Let me clip correctly what was said in round one for complete proper context.
No where in there did I say in the "defense of animosity". Don't go building a straw man.
"As a result of being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil."
Please quote the complete sentence particular when the point is being chopped up upon not doing so.
The result from being pushed or forced to associate or integrate with those who have, who have animosity, who have hatred makes turmoil or a lot of teddy bears hung on fences .
"Therefore, I think you are afraid to state you opinion because you know it contradicts the first principle of Americanism."
This is not a topic about so called Americans, just people.
"More specifically, your problem is not with forced integration as a principle, rather it is with the notion that every citizen should enjoy the same rights to freedom of association as you do."
Never said I have a problem with forced integration. I'm not forced to integrate at the present. I do believe in freedom of choice. Why?
Just ask me what I believe and why. Don't put a spin on it and rearrange the terms.
I believe in this freedom because it can cause a constructive result. Just as plain as that.
"I am not aware of any law that prevents you from holding a Klan rally in your mother's basement. How is this an example of the forced integration you are complaining about? You are not forced to integrate your Klan meeting."
Ha, don't look at this so one sided. If I were to try to join the meeting where I know I'm not invited and not wanted, I'm forcing integration.
I'm not allowed there , see. When something is not allowed and there's a trespass, that's a violation of the allowance which is at that by force.
Also looking at it from all the attendees' perspective too, they're being made to associate.
This also speaks to working with someone I have to but don't want to.
Don't let this go over your head. The key terms " have to". The example is non-negotiable.
"That is not an exercise in Freedom of Association, that is demanding that your race be irrationally recognized by the government as being superior to others."
Just put the government out your mind. We're talking about any rate of forced integration surrounding the circumstances I laid out.
I can make it just about as plain as I can make it. Same question I asked you without complicating it with a lot of layers.
When you or those that are not wanted are found in a case of being in the wrong territory, a sundown town, constantly be guided by the green book, that book is a go-to code for places not wanted.
If a person has no choice but to go to one of those places, it's game over.
There was a film, " Driving Miss Daisy", shows what I'm talking about. One character said to the other, "why did you not use the rest station back there?" The other character did not want to force integration because there was no allowance.
That's it, it's just a place where you're not wanted or don't fit. You don't have to force something that fits. You don't force people to like,love or respect you, no. Allow it to happen naturally.
Forgive me if I left out any of your points. I didn't see anything new to address .
Hopefully you understand clearer now about basic forced integration.
I could also say sexual assault is forced integration .
Just think of unwanted company likes home invasion .
Not a pretty thing. Often doesn't end pretty.
Thx, Mall!
FORCED INTEGRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
PRO has given us no subject. That is, he has complained about a policy but has failed to explain who enforces this policy. Let's agree that PRO cannot win this debate without identifying a subject for his objection and offering at least one concrete example for us to evaluate.
Ultimately, PRO opted for a dodgeball game of "guess my thesis" PRO flat out refused to offer a single specific example of the policy he pretended to want to talk about.
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO never expressed any problem with proposed definitions but he also changed his definitions from moment to moment to refute any specific line.
Just put the government out your mind. We're talking about any rate of forced integration surrounding the circumstances I laid out.
- but then also says;
"don't design laws that allow no barrier and protection between the haters and the hated"
- If we aren't talking about governments and legal requirements to integration than I'm afraid nobody could possibly know what PRO is talking about.
PRO drops hints that he's talking about American de-segregaton- "green book" "Driving MIss Daisy" "bloody , dog biting and water hose spraying"
But then he also flat out denies that's his subject:
This is not a topic about so called Americans, just people.
PRO also denies that Europeans arrival in the Americas is an example of forced integration.
I'm not saying that because that's a separate topic to the one of this debate.
PRO just seems to be playing a private game of making us guess his topic and then troll any possible answer.
"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."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bore the entire burden of proof for this debate. To have any hope of winning this debate, PRO needed to define a subject, identify at least one incidence of violence by that subject enforcing the process of people coming together to make a community whole.
VOTERS will note that PRO denied any such responsibility and rebuffed every attempt by CON to get specific. Effectively,
PRO dropped his duty to instigate this debate.
I. RACE and RACISM
- Race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
- Therefore, when PRO defends his position of "animosity" towards strangers based on such discredited taxonomies, we should note that such animosities are most likely founded in irrational, scientifically illegitimate prejudices.
- PRO denies that he is defending his feelings of animosity, he just wants his turmoil to be respected without any kind of defense.
- "As a result of being pushed to associate with those you have animosity towards , it ignites turmoil."
II. FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
- PRO and CON agreed that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
- FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION "encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria."
- Obviously any individual's right to free association only extends to the point where that right limits the freedom of others to associate.
- When asked point blanks whether every citizens enjoys the same FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION, PRO disingenuously dodges.
- "Do you believe that every citizen enjoys the same equal rights to freedom of association and that those rights can't be limited by your personal preferences?"
- or
- "Do you believe that some citizen's rights are superior to the rights of others, and that governments should prioritize some citizen's rights before others on the basis of race?"
I don't know
- That's this debate in a nutshell. Democracies must have laws that protect all citizens' Freedom of Association, including equal access to schools, communities, businesses.
- PRO doesn't want to take a position on whether all citizens are equal but nevertheless criticizes govt for enforcing that equality.
- By simply refusing to examine any specific case, PRO makes his demands for segregation impossible to justify.
- particularly segregations based upon superstitious, irrational 19th century phobias and chauvinisms
- By design, PRO never allowed us to interrogate the logic or value of his criticism
- CON asks VOTERS to award CON arguments and conduct because PRO refused to present a falsifiable argument and instead played a game of "hide the thesis" for all four rounds.
- Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
- Please VOTE CON!
2 days left no votes
one week left- no votes
As soon as I saw the title of this debate I knew it was going to descend into semantics. Pro, just concede so you can save yourself, the judges and your opponent time because the debate is aa foregone conclusion.
Next time just maybe hash out the semantics prior to initiating the debate