If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.
Debate Rounds (3)
Let's be clear about our definitions as they currently stand:
Right = True or correct as a fact
Wrong = Not correct or true
It's often pontificated that people are right or wrong based upon facts and statistics or some such thing. But this privilege of being objectively right has only been afforded to the white male hegemony who rule everything, even those who don't realise it. To redress this imbalance, we need to accept what minorities say even if they're wrong, because minorities are never really wrong. After all, wrong and right are patriarchal constructs that need the postmodern deconstructionalist treatment in order to address this grave injustice.
So here's my proposition for truth reformation:
Right = Me
Wrong = Something only neurotypical cis white male hetero-patriarco-capitalist gamers can be.
If I lose this debate, it clearly means that I win and you're a patriarchal shitlord.
First, he doesn't define what "oppressed" means.
According to the Oxford Dictionary (online version), "oppressed" means "Subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment:"
So if a slave, for example, says "My shovel is broken, so I'm unable to dig", but the shovel is obviously in good shape, does this mean the shovel is broken? Obviously not! Even if the leader accepts the slave's excuse, the shovel still works.
"If I lose this debate, it clearly means that I win and you're a patriarchal shitlord." Notice the argumentum ad homonym here. He insults me for winning the debate, how cute! :3 Insults aside, he's saying if I, PowerPikachu21, lose, I win by default. But wait... if I win... then he wins... does that mean I win? And does this mean it goes in a loop? (probably not, though).
Oxford Dictionary definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Fool, everyone who isn't in privilege or a self-flagellating minority knows that the Oxford dictionary supports the patriarchy.
One point I didn't make at the time was that white cis males edit the dictionary to their own will. Meaning any citation of any dictionary shows implicit support for the oppression your apathetic towards.
For instance, the Oxford definition clearly omits anyone who's mildly offended by direct or indirect criticism or jokes. clearly that's outright oblivious torture.
In this case, "Oppression" should really be defined as any offence taken by any minority.
As for the shovel, it absolutely is broken if the slave says it is. It's a logical contradiction to suppose that a minority can ever lie. It would be like supposing that 2+2=5 or that men are good. Logically impossible.
Far from being an ad hominem, 'Shitlord' is a monicker reserved for those who directly benefit from the patriarchy and have substantial rule within it. It is a highly respected title among the ruling class. Any white male straight etc. can be a shitlord, but being true to trickle-downery, some shitlords stand above the rest, with the current ruler being Sargon of Akkad.
I'll make a formula to illustrate who comes out as the victor for this debate:
A little algebra first: W = Win, L = Lose, M = minority or me, Y = You.
M + W = W
M + L = W
Y + W = L
Y + L = L
I hope that elucidates things for you.
As for your formula, you're saying "no matter what, Pro will win" and "no matter what, Con will lose". I get it now... You have poor sportsmanship, sir. The voters will agree.
You also are also saying the Oxford Dictionary is biased. I was pretty sure that it was a reliable source. Can you support this grand statement? Also, where did you get your definitions from?
Back in R1, you claimed "Wrong = Something only neurotypical cis white male hetero-patriarco-capitalist gamers can be.", which is still racist. So are you saying everything I say is wrong? And everything you say is right? If this is the case, then there would be no way for me to win... Jk, this means I could use reverse psychology to my advantage!
Example: "Seems like I lost this debate" means "I won this debate".
ALSO: White people cannot be trusted, according to you. I knew Mario was evil! "white people can't be trusted" is another example of ad homonym. You are directly attacking the person/group of people.
Oppression now apparently means that "any offence taken by any minority" What if, we say, this world you are suggesting exists. Who's the minority? (I cannot use the dictionary, as Pro doesn't trust anything white men say [racist]) Minority is, basically, a person who doesn't have a high position. According to your logic, the slave could just say "I am king now" and POOF! Slave is king! But this means king is now slave, then he could say "I am king" POOF! King! And they could simply fight for the throne just like that. If minority can be right all the time like that, they can warp reality. And this can be frustrating (This was in one Fairy Odd Parents episode). Anyways, if you can change reality, you're not minority anymore, this makes Barack Obama a minority (even though his reign is over, I think. or at least soon). But if Obama is a minority, he can warp reality, making him not minority again.
A await your response.
PS I am minority. I say this debate is over now. You will forfeit Round 3.
"...anyone can agree that "shitlord" sounds a lot like an insult." It certainly does, and it was specially devised by the patriarchy to deterr minorities from ever aspiring to obtain power. It's super effective.
In your king scenario, you're yet again assuming that the slave could ever lie, which I already covered in the previous round.
"If "right is right and right is wrong" how do we know the difference of right and wrong statements?" This is determined by who is saying it, the fundamental point in my instigation. 'Right' is only wrong if a shitlord is saying it.
The simple acknowledgment of ones role in a patriarchal society can hardly be dismissed as "bad sportsmanship." Minorities are objectively right all the time, Patriarchists are objectively wrong. Don't forget the fragility of your 'trustworthy' Oxford dictionary.
The very aim of this debate is to reevaluate the definitions of words. My definitions are composites of what leading intellectuals (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jessica Valenti, Bell Hooks and many more) propose in order for a cultural shift to take place.
Reverse psychology won't help you in this case. What's right/wrong is also determined by your thoughts, which you have very little control over. Your verbal concession alone tells us nothing about your state of mind, which is conscious of the evasive tactic you employed.
As a supporter of the patriarchy, you have an in-built and unchanging perception of things which can never be altered by words alone; to say you lose can't change your internalised belief that you've won. In my case, as a minority, my state of mind leads me to believe the truth.
I'm not calling out white people for being wrong for the sake of ad hominem attacks, it's merely observing the reality that privileged people can't see the truth.
"Who's the minority?" Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics, gays, bis, trans, agender, genderqueer, female, gender neutral, trigender, bigender, genderfluid, intersex, you get the idea (that covers most groups.)
Again, the slave has the truth internalised, so at no point could they proclaim monarchistic power since that would contradict their unchanging reality.
Obama is merely a puppet for the real world leaders to manipulate; corporations, media, and indeed, the patriarchy. He has no power, your example is obsolete.
PS you can't just go calling yourself a minority if you are part of the patriarchy. A black member pf the patriarchy only appears to be black; a female member only appears to be female. The patriarchy are masterly fraudulent.
PPS since I engaged in round 3, your definitely a not a minority.
In Round 1, you stated that minorities are always right. However! You also stated in Round 3 that right/wrong is opinion based. "Right = True or correct as a fact" AS A FACT! Minorities can have different ideas. Like, for example, some people think that abortion should be illegal. Others think it should be illegal. If you want proof, just browse this website! These people are likely minorities. 2 minority examples you said were women and blacks. There's a likelihood of some debates containing black/women for both Pro and Con in those debates. If they have contradicting ideas, which one's right? None of them are lying, as they are incapable of lying. Yet, they have different ideas. So which one is correct? Perhaps that answer comes from another debate between me and you. (a little less biased next time.)
Also, you're whole argument is that the rulers (and whites) are always incorrect. Whites cannot be trusted, and are incapable of being correct. But, I am a shitlord after all! I am your KING! Even though this is a bad thing, I can be certain for a fact that the letter 'e' will finish this sentence. As you can clearly see, the letter 'e' finished my previous sentence (the 'e' at the end of 'sentence'). I can be correct too.
And back to the whites at hand. I thought Martin Luther King Jr stopped this racist nonsense! You are directly attacking the whites, saying they "cannot be trusted". We had some pretty cool white presidents back then! George Washington, for example. A grand example of a trustworthy president was Abraham Lincoln, everyone says he "never told a lie".
And also, with my shovel example: the slave claimed that the shovel is broken, but it wasn't! This was an excuse for the slave to not have to work! You say, and I quote: "As for the shovel, it absolutely is broken if the slave says it is." the slave lied! (Oh, I should mention most slaves were African American; black.) Minorities are capable of lying.
And just to clear this up: If I win this debate, I win this debate! To say I've lost when I've clearly won is contradictory to reality, which minorities (such as Pro) are incapable of, as stated "the slave has the truth internalised, so at no point could they proclaim monarchistic power since that would contradict their unchanging reality." For easy's sake "slave" is metaphorically Pro, "monarchistic power" is the victor of this debate.
Good game, and vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never provided reasons as to *why* they were right, just that they are. They never provided sources to back up their ridiculous claims (that the definition of oppressed conforms to white males). I feel like pro was trolling throughout the course of the debate, saying that a minority can never lie, etc. Con rebutted pro's points, therefore pro didn't meet the BoP, con wins arguments. Conduct to con due to ad hominem personal insults directed to them from pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.