-->
@TWS1405
--> @ShilaPoly want a cracker??
Is that a police bribe?
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.
Posts
Total:
167
-->
@Avery
I just didn't want to waste my time with arguing that "most of the time" =/= "always",
So you don’t want to defend an argument you made. Great. I will assume you concede.
logical fallacy accusations for every 2nd word I wrote, and things of that petty nature.
Perhaps use fewer fallacies in reasoning would probably be a better start.
This is just you not understanding that perception has some value, even if it's not perfect. It doesn't have zero value because people don't suddenly think most people of x race are racist.
Unless you can show one polling group is wildly delusional, I don't need to show biases are minimal because all races and political alignments have a chance to be biased in the manner you've described.
All groups have the capacity to fall for these issues. It's not reasonable to assume only White Republicans had these issues, and thus invalidates their response.
So here’s what you’re doing: your conclusion requires massive unsupported assumptions about the data, and what the data says. These assumptions are mostly pulled out of your a**.
You’re not defending the methodology behind the conclusion, how it works, how it applies: because if you tried, it would be obvious that the entire thing falls apart. You haven’t bothered to defend your reasoning, walk through the different groups, explain why and how all these factors cancel out… etc.
Instead you do what you do here; and just repeat over and over again how reasonable it is, and talk about it in wishy-washy vague terms so you don’t say anything specific enough to need to defend. Likewise, instead of addressing any of the specific reasons your conclusion can’t be drawn from the data, you wildly mischaracterize them. For example:
At the minimum: 37% of total responses and up to 49% of Republican responses are demonstrably inaccurate. Media, ideology, racial and personal bias are all different between different groups, and could easily and reasonably expected to generate wildly different errors in all different groups. Without knowing what errors there are, and what the underlying sources of bias in those responses really are - which you can’t - you cant make wild assumptions about the accuracy of peoples opinions.
You opine that to show this, I must show that peoples responses are “wildly delusional”. Or that this would mean people believe a group is racist “for no reason”.
Wtf? No, lol. Not only is that shifting the burden of proof - it also bears no resemblance to anything being suggested: that one group is over estimating or underestimating racism more than another doesn’t require anyone to be wildly delusional. Likewise, if more whites underestimate black racism than blacks because of the influence of media on their opinions - this isn’t them “suddenly think[ing] most members of x are racist”.
This is just peoples opinions being wrong for any one of the many reasons people have opinions that are wrong. You’re just trying to mischaracterize the reasonable objections as absurd so you can dismiss them without any analysis - a straw man.
You keep repeating this mischaracterization. I can’t force you to characterize these objections accurately - but I will keep calling you out on it.
So - let’s reiterate the issues with your point. Because you seem unable to actually respond to these points directly:
Individuals in the poll have opinions which under or over estimate the true number of racists in each group. At least 37% of the respondents over or under estimate; and at least 49% of republicans under or over estimate black racism.
You make wishy washy assertions that it’s all about personal experience: that if conservatives rate black racism higher than white liberals - it’s not because they are just overestimating a bit more than liberals because of some systemic bias- but that they experience more racism. (You don’t appear to apply this the other way around - that republicans report less white racism than liberals due to experience: and that liberal responses on white racism is closer to accurate - that would put the black and white levels of racism in the margin of error of the poll.)
On a practical level what does this “experience” even mean. Is it the number of whites you know vs how many times you’ve seen them be racist to blacks? Is it the number of cases you’ve seen someone be racist to you personally, or a friend, vs how many of that race you know? Or is it based on estimation you have of how representative the same is of all of that race? Is it identical for all groups in all ways? Or different from one group to another?
Is that “experience” based solely on outright racism, like someone calling you a slur, or is it based on you being treated differently, or some prejudice, or personal sensitivity you have? I that the same for each group, unmodified by media, social, ideological and cultural biases of those groups?
I don’t know - all you’ve provided is a wishy washy assertion that you don’t seem to want to explain with any detail or anything more than dismissive assertions and hand waving that this will all magically balance out. Somehow. For some reason.
This entire argument is held together solely by this wild assumption of experience - it makes no sense, and seems primarily to be assuming your own preferred conclusion. You defend it solely by reiterating that you think the assumption is valid; and avoiding going into any detail about it - ask no follow up questions.
If, on the other hand, things aren’t based exclusively on experience - or if there different groups and different races don’t view and react differently to racism. If one group is more likely to think a black is racist for doing something that is not really racist, or is more likely to think a white is not racist for doing something that is actually racist - or even something as simple as different groups having approaching the question differently due to levels of education, or ideological or cultural identity - then you’re assumption implodes; because different groups estimations for identical experiences could easily be wildly different and the whole thing doesn’t magically balance out like you repeatedly assert it will.
On the other hand; we know there are things that would absolutely bias different groups opinions in this poll that are not based on experience, and are absolutely not proportional. I helpfully listed them in the post you ignored:
Can the media change peoples opinions? Absolutely Could the right wing media - which is typically dismissive and critical of concepts of widespread white and systemic racism, and often highlight on cases of prominent black activists and groups being unreasonable - be influencing peoples opinions on white and black racism? Of course. How much? We have absolutely no idea - it could be a lot - it could be a little.
What about recognition of racism? Does everyone recognize racism in every race equally? Almost certainly not. Are white liberals and white republicans as just good as each other at recognizing racism in the white population? Unlikely. Which are better at it? Which overestimates or underestimates white racism by more? We have no idea. Is the group which often dismisses accusations of white racism as “woke” more potentially ideologically prone to underestimate white racism? Absolutely. Could one be underestimating more than the other overestimates? Absolutely. By how much and how does this impact the result: we have no idea.
How about black racism - are whites living in a diverse, populous city context going to have different answers to those questions than those living in rural or suburban settings? Quite possibly. Could the difference in personal experiences in these contexts lead one group to overestimate and another to underestimate the levels of racism? Quite possibly.
How about what they even mean by racism? Is what a liberal calls racism the same as what a Republican calls racism? Of course not. So liberals and republicans both apply this to all races equally? Probably not - given the above. If liberals overestimate white racism and underestimate black racism and republicans are the reverse - do they do so in equal or opposite ways? Or is there an imbalance? We have no idea.
What if most whites were a little bit racist, and whites racists leaned right wing; would whites racists be expected to massively underreport white racism - and overreport black racism? Quite possibly. Or in other words, if whites were way more racist than blacks - would it lead to whites reporting blacks more racist than whites? Quite possibly. How much of an effect does this have on the numbers? We have no idea.
Because of all of this, you’re entire supporting “argument” is destroyed from both ends - the reason you claim the conclusion is accurate is based on wild assumptions you cannot possibly know are true; and what we know about people and the data demonstrate that there are trivial reasons for which the various groups may give the answers that they do; while we can definitely presume this is a somewhat accurate representation of peoples opinions - we cannot make any assumptions about whether any of these opinions are actually valid - because of all the trivial reasons all of these opinions could be completely wrong.
This is your issue - you’re hide behind wishy washy explanations that are reliant on wild assumptions you can’t justify; and then simply pretend that it’s completely valid to presume that all of the potential sources of error that would obliterate the conclusion simply don’t exist.
You’re not defending the methodology behind the conclusion, how it works, how it applies: because if you tried, it would be obvious that the entire thing falls apart. You haven’t bothered to defend your reasoning, walk through the different groups, explain why and how all these factors cancel out… etc.
Instead you do what you do here; and just repeat over and over again how reasonable it is, and talk about it in wishy-washy vague terms so you don’t say anything specific enough to need to defend. Likewise, instead of addressing any of the specific reasons your conclusion can’t be drawn from the data, you wildly mischaracterize them. For example:
At the minimum: 37% of total responses and up to 49% of Republican responses are demonstrably inaccurate. Media, ideology, racial and personal bias are all different between different groups, and could easily and reasonably expected to generate wildly different errors in all different groups. Without knowing what errors there are, and what the underlying sources of bias in those responses really are - which you can’t - you cant make wild assumptions about the accuracy of peoples opinions.
You opine that to show this, I must show that peoples responses are “wildly delusional”. Or that this would mean people believe a group is racist “for no reason”.
Wtf? No, lol. Not only is that shifting the burden of proof - it also bears no resemblance to anything being suggested: that one group is over estimating or underestimating racism more than another doesn’t require anyone to be wildly delusional. Likewise, if more whites underestimate black racism than blacks because of the influence of media on their opinions - this isn’t them “suddenly think[ing] most members of x are racist”.
This is just peoples opinions being wrong for any one of the many reasons people have opinions that are wrong. You’re just trying to mischaracterize the reasonable objections as absurd so you can dismiss them without any analysis - a straw man.
You keep repeating this mischaracterization. I can’t force you to characterize these objections accurately - but I will keep calling you out on it.
So - let’s reiterate the issues with your point. Because you seem unable to actually respond to these points directly:
Individuals in the poll have opinions which under or over estimate the true number of racists in each group. At least 37% of the respondents over or under estimate; and at least 49% of republicans under or over estimate black racism.
You make wishy washy assertions that it’s all about personal experience: that if conservatives rate black racism higher than white liberals - it’s not because they are just overestimating a bit more than liberals because of some systemic bias- but that they experience more racism. (You don’t appear to apply this the other way around - that republicans report less white racism than liberals due to experience: and that liberal responses on white racism is closer to accurate - that would put the black and white levels of racism in the margin of error of the poll.)
On a practical level what does this “experience” even mean. Is it the number of whites you know vs how many times you’ve seen them be racist to blacks? Is it the number of cases you’ve seen someone be racist to you personally, or a friend, vs how many of that race you know? Or is it based on estimation you have of how representative the same is of all of that race? Is it identical for all groups in all ways? Or different from one group to another?
Is that “experience” based solely on outright racism, like someone calling you a slur, or is it based on you being treated differently, or some prejudice, or personal sensitivity you have? I that the same for each group, unmodified by media, social, ideological and cultural biases of those groups?
I don’t know - all you’ve provided is a wishy washy assertion that you don’t seem to want to explain with any detail or anything more than dismissive assertions and hand waving that this will all magically balance out. Somehow. For some reason.
This entire argument is held together solely by this wild assumption of experience - it makes no sense, and seems primarily to be assuming your own preferred conclusion. You defend it solely by reiterating that you think the assumption is valid; and avoiding going into any detail about it - ask no follow up questions.
If, on the other hand, things aren’t based exclusively on experience - or if there different groups and different races don’t view and react differently to racism. If one group is more likely to think a black is racist for doing something that is not really racist, or is more likely to think a white is not racist for doing something that is actually racist - or even something as simple as different groups having approaching the question differently due to levels of education, or ideological or cultural identity - then you’re assumption implodes; because different groups estimations for identical experiences could easily be wildly different and the whole thing doesn’t magically balance out like you repeatedly assert it will.
On the other hand; we know there are things that would absolutely bias different groups opinions in this poll that are not based on experience, and are absolutely not proportional. I helpfully listed them in the post you ignored:
Can the media change peoples opinions? Absolutely Could the right wing media - which is typically dismissive and critical of concepts of widespread white and systemic racism, and often highlight on cases of prominent black activists and groups being unreasonable - be influencing peoples opinions on white and black racism? Of course. How much? We have absolutely no idea - it could be a lot - it could be a little.
What about recognition of racism? Does everyone recognize racism in every race equally? Almost certainly not. Are white liberals and white republicans as just good as each other at recognizing racism in the white population? Unlikely. Which are better at it? Which overestimates or underestimates white racism by more? We have no idea. Is the group which often dismisses accusations of white racism as “woke” more potentially ideologically prone to underestimate white racism? Absolutely. Could one be underestimating more than the other overestimates? Absolutely. By how much and how does this impact the result: we have no idea.
How about black racism - are whites living in a diverse, populous city context going to have different answers to those questions than those living in rural or suburban settings? Quite possibly. Could the difference in personal experiences in these contexts lead one group to overestimate and another to underestimate the levels of racism? Quite possibly.
How about what they even mean by racism? Is what a liberal calls racism the same as what a Republican calls racism? Of course not. So liberals and republicans both apply this to all races equally? Probably not - given the above. If liberals overestimate white racism and underestimate black racism and republicans are the reverse - do they do so in equal or opposite ways? Or is there an imbalance? We have no idea.
What if most whites were a little bit racist, and whites racists leaned right wing; would whites racists be expected to massively underreport white racism - and overreport black racism? Quite possibly. Or in other words, if whites were way more racist than blacks - would it lead to whites reporting blacks more racist than whites? Quite possibly. How much of an effect does this have on the numbers? We have no idea.
Because of all of this, you’re entire supporting “argument” is destroyed from both ends - the reason you claim the conclusion is accurate is based on wild assumptions you cannot possibly know are true; and what we know about people and the data demonstrate that there are trivial reasons for which the various groups may give the answers that they do; while we can definitely presume this is a somewhat accurate representation of peoples opinions - we cannot make any assumptions about whether any of these opinions are actually valid - because of all the trivial reasons all of these opinions could be completely wrong.
This is your issue - you’re hide behind wishy washy explanations that are reliant on wild assumptions you can’t justify; and then simply pretend that it’s completely valid to presume that all of the potential sources of error that would obliterate the conclusion simply don’t exist.
-->
@Avery
Never dropped it lol. I think the double meaning is super obvious and you're a slimetoad for denying it. But I'm not going to harp on it forever because it's a waste of my time.
Stopping responding on a point - is dropping it. Any idiot, no matter how wrong, can protest that they stopped responding on a point because it’s a waste of their time. You lose the right to pretend your argument is valid if you refuse to defend it.
You just don't understand what I am saying. Your standard is still arbitrary lol. Unless you want to show the Republican response as being wrong or invalid, your big number gap has no impact.
I understand exactly what you’re saying - it’s just nonsense.
My “big number Gap” has a quantifiable impact - each republican response shifts the top line numbers by the same amount as 6 liberals. Thats the point I’m making, which has not been contested, is that given the large +/- difference in republicans - the top line numbers are telling you as much - or more - about how strongly Republicans feel as it does about Americans as a whole. That’s not “arbitrary” it’s not “no impact”
My “big number Gap” has a quantifiable impact - each republican response shifts the top line numbers by the same amount as 6 liberals. Thats the point I’m making, which has not been contested, is that given the large +/- difference in republicans - the top line numbers are telling you as much - or more - about how strongly Republicans feel as it does about Americans as a whole. That’s not “arbitrary” it’s not “no impact”
Yeah they would be absurd, but that's not the poll we're dealing with LOL. You needed to show that THIS poll was absurd.
I’m going to have to go with an analogy. As it seems you’ve deliberately ignored the point 3 times in a row.
Imagine, you were trying to show how safe cars were - by using hospital admissions for car accidents. I point out that if you don’t draw a distinction between death, and minor scrapes - such a measure would be meaningless - measuring it in this way would lead to absurd results; like treating 1000 deaths as more safe than 1001 minor scrapes.
For some bizarre reason you oddly fixate on the numbers I used to explain why the measurement is meaningless - rather than the fact that it’s inability to quantify a difference renders the measurement meaningless.
Imagine, you were trying to show how safe cars were - by using hospital admissions for car accidents. I point out that if you don’t draw a distinction between death, and minor scrapes - such a measure would be meaningless - measuring it in this way would lead to absurd results; like treating 1000 deaths as more safe than 1001 minor scrapes.
For some bizarre reason you oddly fixate on the numbers I used to explain why the measurement is meaningless - rather than the fact that it’s inability to quantify a difference renders the measurement meaningless.
Your standard of proof is ridiculous. You're basically arguing that human perception is so flawed that we can't conclude anything.
Huh? No I’m not. Wut?
I’m arguing that it’s completely invalid to arbitrarily assume that peoples collective opinions about the racism in others is based solely on some universal “experience” standard you can’t specify and which - some how magically - all balances out between no matter what segment or selection of races are chosen; as opposed to those opinions being subject to the influence of any one of a number of factors that we know can alter peoples opinions and which all massively differ between each of those groups - which could easily cause different groups to under or over estimate levels of racism in other groups.
I’m arguing that it’s completely invalid to arbitrarily assume that peoples collective opinions about the racism in others is based solely on some universal “experience” standard you can’t specify and which - some how magically - all balances out between no matter what segment or selection of races are chosen; as opposed to those opinions being subject to the influence of any one of a number of factors that we know can alter peoples opinions and which all massively differ between each of those groups - which could easily cause different groups to under or over estimate levels of racism in other groups.
We could have a poll on 'do you like cats?
You could take any poll that removes many of the potential examples of potential opinion bias in the results which doesn’t make it comparable a but that’s would be a bad analogy
You could, or course, have a poll on whether most cats or most dogs were assholes; and if it were a major political and social issue that draws strong opinions on all sides, with Republican media dismissing the idea of cats being assholes as woke propoganda, the left saying that there are a lot of asshole cats - not necessarily a majority, but the country is cat centric; cat owners overwhelmingly suggesting cats were not assholes, and dog owners who have a totally different perspective than predominantly cat owners; who could easily be suggesting that while only 25% of cats straight up try and murder anything that moves - most dogs bark at cats; but would that poll really be telling you anything meaningful about reality of whether dogs and cats were actually more assholeish? Not so much.
You could, or course, have a poll on whether most cats or most dogs were assholes; and if it were a major political and social issue that draws strong opinions on all sides, with Republican media dismissing the idea of cats being assholes as woke propoganda, the left saying that there are a lot of asshole cats - not necessarily a majority, but the country is cat centric; cat owners overwhelmingly suggesting cats were not assholes, and dog owners who have a totally different perspective than predominantly cat owners; who could easily be suggesting that while only 25% of cats straight up try and murder anything that moves - most dogs bark at cats; but would that poll really be telling you anything meaningful about reality of whether dogs and cats were actually more assholeish? Not so much.
If we used your standard for everything else, all studies, research, polls, surveys etc. would be invalid.
I very much hate to break it to you; but the idea that one cannot simply assume the reasons people hold a given opinion is because of direct experience - and that the conclusions on cause or validity of such opinion should not be drawn where systemic statistical biases could easily and practically exist to explain various responses and their differences - and in the case of highly politically charged opinions, what people believe should not be confused with what is true - is very much the standard used by studies, research, polls, surveys, etc.
Yeah shaky like Japan during an earthquake.
You haven't said anything new and you keep making the same mistakes. You made some good points in previous responses, mitigating the results of the poll somewhat, but everything you've posted here is tired and been addressed numerous times.
So this sounds like you’re setting up for your own capitulation.
You ignored the bulk of my points in my last post; you’ve dropped half the arguments - and you’re responding to those ones I’ve reiterated by using the same straw man to mischaracterize the objections - and the same vapid oversimplification to hide all the ridiculous assumptions baked into your conclusion.
In this respect you are right: calling you out for not addressing the arguments, repeating the same fallacious reasoning, and pointing out that you’re unable to actually defend the vapid assumptions you make when your position is scrutinized is not new - but this isn’t an issue with the points I’m making; but a testament to the inability to defend yours.
You ignored the bulk of my points in my last post; you’ve dropped half the arguments - and you’re responding to those ones I’ve reiterated by using the same straw man to mischaracterize the objections - and the same vapid oversimplification to hide all the ridiculous assumptions baked into your conclusion.
In this respect you are right: calling you out for not addressing the arguments, repeating the same fallacious reasoning, and pointing out that you’re unable to actually defend the vapid assumptions you make when your position is scrutinized is not new - but this isn’t an issue with the points I’m making; but a testament to the inability to defend yours.
However I suspect your only saying this so you can drop everything and stop responding whilst pretending you addressed everything (which you clearly haven’t)
If people still agree with you that only the White Republican response needs to be discarded because big number gap, or that we need to control for a billion variables because human perception is "so complex", or that we should reject this poll because it would have had issues if different people took it, then oh well. In my mind, the poll results stand.
You appear to confuse “peoples opinions on politically charged subjects that could potentially be influenced by an innumerable number of external factors, cannot be assumed to be broadly representative of reality, or that any biases in over or under estimation in those opinions all magically cancel each other out for no appreciable reason” with “Republican responses need to be discard”.
-->
@Ramshutu
I still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.
I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".
When are you available?
-->
@Avery
--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?
Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?
Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.
-->
@Avery
I still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable.
What “hardcore skepticism” and “sky-high bar” are you talking about? None of the examples I have given qualify as either of those things. Not even close.
I’ve called you out three times for this nonsense already lol.
If I have an objection that could be boiled to a single sentence, it’s not “skeptism”, it’s that “peoples opinions are influenced by a huge multitude of economic, social and politicial factors and influences that can introduce skew and bias into responses - it’s utterly nonsensical to assume for literally no reason that all these sources either don’t exist, or cancel out in some magical way that you won’t explain - such that somehow for some reason all individuals base their responses on exactly the same measure of reality as everyone else.”
This isn’t “skepticism” this is pointing out that your assumptions are dumb.
There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions.
The poll is, by its very definition - an opinion poll - it’s results, unambiguously and entirely - by definition - are merely expressions of perception.
The argument is about what broad conclusions can be drawn about the actual state of reality based solely upon what people say they believe about that reality.
There answer is almost nothing.
The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.
The assumptions are completely and comprehensively unreasonable; wildly so. I have listed out the exact specifics of why they are clearly and unambiguously unreasonable.
You keep ignoring them!
I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".
I have a tendency of disappearing for multiple weeks at a time - I have taken almost a week to reply to some of the more trivial objections - At a time where I have a generally lower workload - which does not lend itself well to having a debate without potential forfeits.
Saying that, if you’re unable to actually acknowledge any of the deficits in your argument here; it’s unlikely you’ll be able to do so in a debate either.
-->
@Shila
--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.
Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)
-->
@Avery
--> @Shila--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)
Your response does not qualify you as a debater.
-->
@Ramshutu
I have a tendency of disappearing for multiple weeks at a time - I have taken almost a week to reply to some of the more trivial objections - At a time where I have a generally lower workload - which does not lend itself well to having a debate without potential forfeits.Saying that, if you’re unable to actually acknowledge any of the deficits in your argument here; it’s unlikely you’ll be able to do so in a debate either.
Oh so you have the time to post 10,000's of characters in the forums, but you don't have the time to do the same in a debate. I mean just look at all the lengthy posts you've made attempting to deconstruct what I've said:
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
You've been consistently responding to me within days, so don't give us this bs "multiple weeks" excuse.
You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. I stopped in the forums when we started to repeat our arguments again; there's no point in continuing that. If you truly think I'm wrong, put some skin behind what you're saying and defend it in a debate, instead of cowering away in fear because of 'I aM sO bUsY!' when you're clearly not.
Step up or shut up.
-->
@Shila
Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)Your response does not qualify you as a debater.
You're a no-name noob with no record yourself to speak of.
Why would anyone need to justify their debate record to you LOL
-->
@Avery
--> @ShilaCan you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)Your response does not qualify you as a debater.You're a no-name noob with no record yourself to speak of.Why would anyone need to justify their debate record to you LOL
You don’t even behave like a female.
-->
@Shila
->@Avery--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.
Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila->@Avery--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*
I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know.
-->
@Shila
-->@TWS1405--> @Shila->@Avery--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know.
Every single time you reply to someone, and consistently respond to them, yes, you ARE debating/discussing with them. Hypocrite.
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila-->@TWS1405--> @Shila->@Avery--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know.Every single time you reply to someone, and consistently respond to them, yes, you ARE debating/discussing with them. Hypocrite.
I am just posting my comments. They are not formal debates.
-->
@Shila
I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know.Every single time you reply to someone, and consistently respond to them, yes, you ARE debating/discussing with them. Hypocrite.I am just posting my comments. They are not formal debates.
debate
dĭ-bāt′
intransitive verb
- To consider something; deliberate.
- To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
It doesn't have to be formal to be a debate/discussion you clown.
-->
@TWS1405
Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*
Yes, you're right. He's got nothing on his profile lol. And then he dodges your point: "I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know."
Pretty sure he wants more of my info to creep on me: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)
Rule for thee but not for me!