The Instigator
M0nK3Y
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

2s and 5s ; anti-racist whites are doomed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 92820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

M0nK3Y

Pro

2s and 5s

Anti-racist whites are doomed by chronic racial integration.

2s and 5s theory explains this doom.

In a raw sense, 2 is lesser than 5, and 5 is greater than 2 at a ratio of 2.5. In 2s and 5s theory whites are considered lesser and integrated races are considered greater at a ratio of 2.5.

In a case where other races are integrated with whites, 2s and 5s logic plays.

Humans are born racist. If a human knows itself, it will treat other races as different - not equal. The notion that all races are equal is social born.

There will always be racist people, and anti-racist people in some circumstances, speaking for yourself is never speaking for all, and 2s and 5s theory is focused on multiples and not one or ones. To say that one race has no evil intent, is to forget that some do and some don't. We must also consider the fact that people can change and often will change as others like them change.

The Governments who control the western world, are anti-racist, and therefore 2s and 5s logic will play. There will be people with evil intent, and people who are apt to switch their good intentions for evil ones.

There are racist people who don't use racist terms. Racism is more complex than a simple insult, it's a belief that sometimes goes unspoken.

The principles of 2, in 2s and 5s theory, is that the 2s in comparison to 5s, lack 3, and 3 represents racism, conspiracy and wordlessness.

2s neglect 3, and 5s accept 3, creating the difference between 2s and 5s.

Anti-racism can only be valid to an individual or group of individuals and not to a cohesive race. Therefore it is invalid, as races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept.

The 2s are living in an I & You world, whereas 5s are living in an Us & Them world. If it's an I & You world, then all races are equal because we do not look at any aspect of our species as above a single or a product of singles. If it's an Us & Them world, which I argue it is, then all races are different because we comprehend above singular aspects (an Us & Them world would reinforce what I have stated previously).

The 2s and 5s exist because of racial integration; again, 2s neglect 3 and 5s accept 3, creating 2s and 5s groups, logically.

For 2s to be anti-racist is to allow 5s to neglect the 3 that 2s neglect with the 3 that they accept. In most cases this will happen unknowingly, but wise people who understand 2s and 5s theory can be more technical. An other race person does not have to say a word, but simply exist in a white majority nation with a mind capable of switching it's intentions.

As there will always be some racist and some anti-racist in an I and You world, there will always be others races with evil intent against whites and vice versa. The problem is, western countries integrate other races chronically.

Neglecting racism is to leave us weaker to racism.

An other race person can have racist ideologies and never mention this publicly. This other race person will use wordless aspects against whites. An other race person can conspire against whites almost effortlessly because of 2s and 5s logic. Whites neglect themselves, other races may or may not, but other races may or may not exploit the the white races self-inflicted weaknesses.

As racial integration continues, the influence of other races will overpower white influence in societies where they originated, and 2s and 5s logic will play more wildly until the white race is doomed.
Cobalt

Con

Before we begin, I'll state for the record that I am not entirely sure what the "2s and 5s theory" fully means. I will, however, be making my arguments based upon what the opponent has said about the theory.

I will begin by explaining the terminology I will use when referring to certain concepts. Then, I'll construct a logical argument based upon the opponent's case and finally show it to be flawed. Lastly, it should be mentioned that as Con, I'll be showing that the opponent has not effectively demonstrated that "anti-racist whites are doomed."

Terminology

anti-racist white -- a caucasian person who is not racist and believes racism is a bad belief system

2 -- a person of any race who does not think in terms of racism, conspiracy or wordlessness

5 -- a person of any race who does think in terms of racism, conspiracy and wordlessness

outlier -- a person of any race who does possessess some, but not all, characteristics of a 2

doomed -- in danger of becoming extinct or severely diminished

I & You -- a thought pattern characterized by inclusiveness and togetherness

Us & Them -- a thought pattern characteized by racial exclusivity and isolationism

Syllogism

Here, I will translate the opponent's argument into logical syllogism(s).

Premise 1: Neglecting racism leaves us weaker to racism.
Premise 2: Other races can be racist toward us.

Inference 1: By P1 and P2, we can assume that by neglecting racism, we become more vulnerable to the racism of others.

Conclusion: Because anti-racism is increasing, anti-racist whites are doomed.


Analysis and Rebuttal

Premise 1

This is the premise that is not adequately justified in the opponent's argument.

According to the opponent, not practicing racism leaves us more vulnerable to have the affects of racism negatively impact us. This is not, however, logically justified.

Consider that being racist offers no particular strength to a person that can not be achieved by a non-racist person in the same circumstance. In other words, there is no additional knowledge or power gained by being racist. Feeling superior does not make one superior, nor does it give you any additional utility as compared to a non-racist or anti-racist.

Similarly, being anti-racist does not dimish one's utility in any way. It cannot be said that anti-racists are not cognisant of race, since one must understand race in order to be against discrimination based upon race.

Given this, we cannot conclude that being anti-racist in some way diminishes one's ability to hedge against the negative affects of the racism of others. Since the only differentiating factor between anti-racists and racists is an internal belief system, it follows that anti-racists of any race are not in some subordinate position because of their belief.

------------------

A simpler approach to this premise is to realize that a belief does not necessarily coerce a responsive action. Not all anti-racists will behave in an anti-racist way, just as all racists will not behave in a racist way. (The opponent himself alludes to this in his description of wordlessness.) 2's are not truly 2's in this sense, since no person is bound to action by their beliefs, indicating the ability of "wordlessness" across the board.

Inference 1

Since P1 is no longer valid, Inference 1 cannot hold. It cannot be denied that any given person, regardless of race, is capable of racism -- but the fact that anti-racism is not a weakness denies the possibility of this inference being held as true.

Conclusion of Proposition

As inference 1 is invalid, the conclusion falls as well.

Where We Are Now

I demonstrated here that there is no utility in being racist and there is no anti-utility in being anti-racist. As such, the difference between a racist and anti-racist is purely a system of belief, which does not necessarily translate to a system of actions. Because of this, we cannot hold that anti-racists, specifically anti-racist whites, are in any way disadvantaged by their belief system. This leads us to conclude that the opponent has not upheld the resolution that "anti-racist whites are doomed".

In order to be successful in this, the opponent would need to in some way demonstrate that:

A) Racism is a utility.
B) Anti-Racism is disadvantageous.
C) This disadvantage is significant enough to spell 'doom' for anti-racist whites.

A Pragmatic Approach

Even when discussing philosophy -- and perhaps even because we are discussing philosophy, it is often useful to ground oneself in some real-life examples and statistics. Here, we will discuss some of the pragmatic implications of anti-racism, racism, 2's, 5's and outliers.

In today's America, it is the general consensus that racism is seen as "bad" and "non-beneficial" to the American way of life. (This does not mean racism doesn't exist -- there are large groups that support racism.) Given this general attitude, there are many social constructs in place that hedge against racists.

Open racists find it difficult to get into politics, difficult to be treated with respect in collegiate education, difficult to establish interpersonal relations that exist in physical reaity (as opposed to a virtual reality) and they find it difficult to have their ideas taken seriously.

These social constructs have become increasingly relevant and strict in recent years, as "acceptance, tolerance and community" values have increased at the same time values of "racism, racial isolationism and segregationism" have decreased. The natural evolution of these social constructs indicate the exact opposite of what the opponent has proposed -- that "anti-racist whites" are becoming more powerful, just as "racist whites" become less powerful.

This social evolution toward anti-racism is not local to the US -- but is becoming a reality in more and more places around the world as time goes on. This implies that the world of "racism by any race" is dimishing at a rapid pace, spelling doom only for those who call themselves "racist".

By grounding this concept in reality, we can see that the opponent's position not only can't be upheld, but that the exact opposite is becoming the truth. 2's are becoming a vast majority, while 5's are dying out. (Either because of change of beliefs or literal death.) The opponent's philosophy may use the terms 2 and 5, but that does not mean 5's are somehow stronger than 2's just because 5 is mathematically greater than 2.

Conclusion

I have demonstrated that the opponent's argument is flawed, as there does not exist utility in being racist or disadvantage in being anti-racist. Given this, it cannot be said that "anti-racist whites are doomed". In proving this, I have denied the resolution.

I look forward to the opponent's next arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
M0nK3Y

Pro

Con has not understood the original post so he is arguing against a strawman.

Therefore, I repeat my original argument, and if Con doesn't understand it, I'll take a win on account of intelligence and not votes...

I'm not here for stats, I don't go accepting debates I don't understand.

So con...

2s and 5s

Anti-racist whites are doomed by chronic racial integration.

2s and 5s theory explains this doom.

In a raw sense, 2 is lesser than 5, and 5 is greater than 2 at a ratio of 2.5. In 2s and 5s theory whites are considered lesser and integrated races are considered greater at a ratio of 2.5.

In a case where other races are integrated with whites, 2s and 5s logic plays.

Humans are born racist. If a human knows itself, it will treat other races as different - not equal. The notion that all races are equal is social born.

There will always be racist people, and anti-racist people in some circumstances, speaking for yourself is never speaking for all, and 2s and 5s theory is focused on multiples and not one or ones. To say that one race has no evil intent, is to forget that some do and some don't. We must also consider the fact that people can change and often will change as others like them change.

The Governments who control the western world, are anti-racist, and therefore 2s and 5s logic will play. There will be people with evil intent, and people who are apt to switch their good intentions for evil ones.

There are racist people who don't use racist terms. Racism is more complex than a simple insult, it's a belief that sometimes goes unspoken.

The principles of 2, in 2s and 5s theory, is that the 2s in comparison to 5s, lack 3, and 3 represents racism, conspiracy and wordlessness.

2s neglect 3, and 5s accept 3, creating the difference between 2s and 5s.

Anti-racism can only be valid to an individual or group of individuals and not to a cohesive race. Therefore it is invalid, as races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept.

The 2s are living in an I & You world, whereas 5s are living in an Us & Them world. If it's an I & You world, then all races are equal because we do not look at any aspect of our species as above a single or a product of singles. If it's an Us & Them world, which I argue it is, then all races are different because we comprehend above singular aspects (an Us & Them world would reinforce what I have stated previously).

The 2s and 5s exist because of racial integration; again, 2s neglect 3 and 5s accept 3, creating 2s and 5s groups, logically.

For 2s to be anti-racist is to allow 5s to neglect the 3 that 2s neglect with the 3 that they accept. In most cases this will happen unknowingly, but wise people who understand 2s and 5s theory can be more technical. An other race person does not have to say a word, but simply exist in a white majority nation with a mind capable of switching it's intentions.

As there will always be some racist and some anti-racist in an I and You world, there will always be others races with evil intent against whites and vice versa. The problem is, western countries integrate other races chronically.

Neglecting racism is to leave us weaker to racism.

An other race person can have racist ideologies and never mention this publicly. This other race person will use wordless aspects against whites. An other race person can conspire against whites almost effortlessly because of 2s and 5s logic. Whites neglect themselves, other races may or may not, but other races may or may not exploit the the white races self-inflicted weaknesses.

As racial integration continues, the influence of other races will overpower white influence in societies where they originated, and 2s and 5s logic will play more wildly until the white race is doomed.
Cobalt

Con

I have to admit, I'm somewhat disappointed that the opponent's apparent arrogance stopped him from addressing my argument and/or presenting clarifications.

2's and 5's: The Theory?

A cursory Google search reveals that there has been no academic attempt to describe the "2s and 5s" theory, implicating the opponent as the creator of this theory. In fact, searching "2s and 5s race" brings about the following DDO forum post by Monkey [http://www.debate.org...], in which contains the exact arguments presented here, with no further explication.

The opponent states, "Con has not understood the original post so he is arguing against a strawman." Instead of explaining why I didn't understand it or specifically addressing any part of my argument he felt was flawed, he simply copy and pasted his first round argument.

He implies that this debate should only have been accepted by people who understand it, which is largely ludicrous considering no one understands it except Pro.

I'm all for coming up with new theories on social dynamics and whatnot, but it is not a mark of intelligence to produce a poorly written, ill-considered piece of writing on a previously non-existant topic and expect anyone to have an understanding of the subject. This self-serving attitude turns to arrogance when you refuse to explain your 'theory', instead simply repeating that which clearly was not understandable in the first place.

Given that this is a 5 round debate, I fully expect the opponent to specifically state what I'm not understanding about his theory, as well as making it clear. (Preferably with examples and statistics, like every other theory on social dynamics uses.) Lacking this, the opponent will not only assuredly lose the debate -- he will demonstrate himself a fool in the most Biblical of ways.

Statement regarding my Argument

Even if we assume I missed the idea behind the opponent's theory completely, there can be no doubt that I've understood his conclusion. It's stated in the resolution after all -- that "anti-racist whites are doomed".

In my argument, I looked at racism and the current state of the world, which brought me to the stunning conclusion that "anti-racist whites are not doomed". Regardless of whether I understood the opponent's argument, I directly presented clash to dismantle his conclusion.

If some man presented an argument in an unknown language, then concluded with the English statement, "therefore 1 + 1 = 3", one would not need to understand the entire body of the opponent's inscrutable argument, since the conclusion in and of itself was demonstrably false.

Similarly, the opponent has presented an argument which I have not understood by his own claim, but I have understood the conclusion. Furthermore, I demonstrated that said conclusion is false. At this point, the body of his argument is irrelevant, since his conclusion is demostrably false.

Despite this, I still wish to understand the opponent's argument in order to highlight the flaws within. (Or perhaps to learn a knew way of thinking about things. Who knows.) As such, I'll walk through his argument one step at a time and address the state of the argument from a "common sense position" along the way.

The Line-by-line analysis

Quotes are from the opponent's argument.

"Anti-racist whites are doomed by chronic racial integration."

This is a proposition. Assumably, the opponent will soon attempt to prove this as true.

"2s and 5s theory explains this doom. ... 2 is lesser than 5, and 5 is greater than 2 at a ration of 2.5. In [this theory] whites are considered lesser and integrated races are considered greater at a ratio of 2.5."

I am assuming that "whites" refers to "only whites" since "integrated races" can include white people amongst one or more other races. The ratio of 2.5 seems completely irrelevant. As we will see later, the justification for this difference of 3 is because 5's have 3 characterstics that 2s do not.

If this is true, the specific numbers don't matter, so long as the difference of 3 is preserved. This could just as easily be the "7s and 10s" theory or the "112's and 115's" theory, which would make the ratio 1.43 and 1.03, respectively. Given this, the "ratio of 2.5" is entirely irrelevant.

"Humans are born racist. ... The notion that all races are equal is social born."

Humans are also born unable to speak, do simple math or control their bladder. What a human is and is not capable of at birth is not necessarily indicative of their capabilities as an adult.

"There will always be racist [and anti-racist] people... [P]eople can change and often will change as others like them change."

This is a reasonably position.

"The Governments who control the western world, are anti-racist, and therefore 2s and 5s logic will play. There will be people with evil intent, and people who [will switch] good intentions for evil ones. There are racist people who don't use racist terms. [I]t's a belief that sometimes goes unspoken."

Again, fairly reasonable.

"...2s in comparison to 5s, lack 3, and 3 represents racism, conpiracy and wordlessness."

Ok.

"Anti-racism can only be valid to an individual or group of individuals and not a cohesive race. Therefore it is invalid, as races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept."

This is somewhat non-sensical. One cannot claim a characteristic or belief invalid simply because everybody doesn't believe that. Some Christians definitely exist, despite the fact that not everyone is a Christian. Similarly, there are some people who are anti-racist, despite the fact that not everyone is anti-racist.

It would be invalid to say "whites are anti-racist", but it is not invalid to say "some whites are anti-racist". The resolution itself implies this.

Furthermore, the line "races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept" doesn't make sense as a sentence and as an idea. Individuality cannot be "cancelled out" by race -- since a race is simply a group of individuals. We are biologically individual units, so "individuality" is a biological reality, not a man-made concept.

"The 2s are living in an I & You world, whereas 5s are living in an Us & Them world. If it's an I & You world, then all races are equal because we do not look at any aspect of our species as above a single or a product of singles. If it's an Us & Them world, which [Monkey] argue[s] it is, then all races are difference because we comprehend above singular aspects..."

If we are to assume that these descriptions of the worlds are correct, then I'd agree with the opponent -- all races are different. If they were all the same, the classification of "race" would be arbitrary and meaningless. However, we should not confuse the terms "different" and "equal".

Two things can be different, but equal. For instance, (4/2) and (2/1) are undoubtedly different, but equally as undoubtedly equal. The opponent can definitely prove that races are different, but he has yet to prove that they are not equal.

"For 2s to be anti-racist is to allow 5s to neglect the 3 that 2s neglect with the 3 that they accept."

This doesn't make grammatical sense. I'm assuming he means that 2s being anti-racist allows 5s to neglect the 3, as if they were incapable of neglecting them before.

"Neglecting racism is to leave us weaker to racism."

The opponent takes a sharp right term and makes this assertion. This assertion was addressed and fundamentally disproven in my previous argument. The opponent does not even attempt to prove this is true in his argument, either.

"[Silent racists exist.] Another race can conspire against whites almost effortlessly."

This is a highly abstracted assumption. It doesn't explain through what conspiratorial mechanism 2s will actually be harmed. The opponent needs to present how we are vulnerable. Sure, anti-white racists may want to hurt whites -- but the ability to do this has not been shown.

Conclusion

Out of space. More next round. I look forward to the opponent's explication.
Debate Round No. 2
M0nK3Y

Pro

M0nK3Y forfeited this round.
Cobalt

Con

The opponent has forfeited the previous round. Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
M0nK3Y

Pro

I will forfeit the argument, Con wins.

I know this is a bit rude, but I truly don't see that Con has respected my argument.

Con has not shown honor in this debate; instead, metaphorically, Con questions what the word 'honor' means.

I'd prefer to debate someone who understands the concept, and am not worried if the majority doesn't understand, because I understand it.
Cobalt

Con

The opponent has verbally forfeitted.

A common quote, commonly attributed to Einstein, is this:

"If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough."

I have given the opponent ample opportunity to explain his "2s and 5s" theory in a way that can easily be understood. He has not done this, leading one to the conclusion that the opponent does not know what he's talking about.

If an idea cannot be discussed, analyzed and challenged, it cannot be improved. If it cannot be improved, it will be forgotten. The opponent has benefitted no one in this debate, least of all himself. Instead of getting a unique look at race and racism, we've gotten a poorly written, pseudoscientific blurb that the opponent didn't even have the decency to elaborate on.

This has not been a debate. This thing you just read represents the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge and it should be reviled, hated and utterly disregarded.
Debate Round No. 4
M0nK3Y

Pro

Con wins, but...

Other races have an advantage over the White race at a ratio of 2.5 (2s and 5s theory is an explanation of this advantage and disadvantage).

The simple 2s and 5s theory.
Cobalt

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by M0nK3Y 7 months ago
M0nK3Y
If we are being serious, the primary reason we allow immigration is to boost the economy.

This fails on occasions.

There are other reasons such as war or our political image - sometimes, general kindness.

The wheels are in motion, another term I could use for 2s and 5s logic plays. Let's look at the laws that some Muslims are trying to pass in the UK; this is anti-western culture.

The wheels are in motion now, and the vehicle [of the other races], is only going to get faster. We will be stupid enough to let it happen, but we will become stupider, and they will become stronger.

To prove 'the wheels in motion', is quite difficult. Let's say, for example, our own laws (including mental health laws) will become more restrict - on the off-hand targeting people who, wordlessly, unknowingly, may be the heroes of the matter. Anti-racist whites may team up with other races, for a reason not related to other races racist ideologies.

It's very confusing, what could 'possibly happen'. However, we can understand 2s and 5s logic. It IS understandable. Those who do not understand it are probably, somewhat, anti-racist.
Posted by M0nK3Y 7 months ago
M0nK3Y
Con, I have your most recent longer argument. Had this been your first round argument, I would have given a solid response.

[the liberty to] conspire.
Other races, integrated with whites, have liberty to conspire against whites.
[the ideology of] racism.
Other races, integrated with whites, if organized well enough, can enforce racism upon whites.
[advantage in] wordlessness.
Other races, can do all this [conspire and progression toward racist ideology] wordlessly.

Whites do not have 'liberty to conspire', it's against the law.
Whites aren't right now enforcing a racist ideology upon other races, they are anti-racism.
Whites have a disadvantage wordlessly, because of prior weaknesses.
Posted by M0nK3Y 8 months ago
M0nK3Y
I'm not saying your stupid.

I'm asking you to provide a sensible counter.
Posted by M0nK3Y 8 months ago
M0nK3Y
If you don't understand the opening argument that you have the chance beforehand to consider, you shouldn't accept the debate! I want a debate with someone who surpasses the lexical and semantically argument, and debates the concept accurately.

It's as if you went line by line and criticized individual points, rather than reading it all, thinking, and then choosing points to counter; as I would do with your argument. I'm only showing the same respect you had given.

Trust me, I can write 10,000 words each argument if I want to, problem is, I feel as if your argument is more the opening one than my own.
Posted by Cobalt 8 months ago
Cobalt
Instead of explicating you just C/P your original argument? If I don't understand it, the voters aren't likely to understand either. If no one understands what you're talking about except you, you are doing a disservice to us for wasting our time and a disservice to yourself in not allowing your ideas to be tested.
Posted by M0nK3Y 8 months ago
M0nK3Y
Will have my debate up tomorrow, maybe.

I honestly don't know why you chose this debate if you do not understand it.
Posted by M0nK3Y 8 months ago
M0nK3Y
Yeah 42, be a judge ;)

Good luck Cobalt
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
It doesn't make you stupid for not understanding it Wylted. When I debated M0nK3Y on the idea, the idea was way more confusing, and I had to ask for clarification to see if I got it. So don't feel left out haha.

42
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
monk3y This is a much better version of your case than what was in our debate. You cleared up much of the confusion. You also added in new argument angles that didn't exist before. I won't debate this again, but I will keep an eye on this debate, and maybe judge it if you want.

42
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
I am not sure if not understanding this makes me stupid or pro a nutcase
No votes have been placed for this debate.