The Instigator
broes2863
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
aaltobartok
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Selectively Inclusive Cities and/or Groups are Just.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 877 times Debate No: 1664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

broes2863

Pro

Yes, their selective inclusiveness can be justified so long as the criteria for inclusion is just and the purpose and actions of the group are just. The fact that the situation could keep outsiders from gaining the ability to reach their need or desires is does not outweigh the justice of the group and the group's just decision to deny inclusion.
aaltobartok

Con

So...what you are basically saying is that if the Hamptons want to kick out anyone who isn't a heterosexual WASP that they can do that?

The declaration of Independence of this nation states clearly. "All men are created equal". The Constitution prevents discrimination.

'Nuff said.
Debate Round No. 1
broes2863

Pro

Yes, it does say that "all men are created equal..." and are entitled to "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

However, groups are generally created to further enhance and spread these unalienable rights...to whom they select. So, the groups do not violate the Declaration's clause of equality because it upholds the "unalienable rights."

Deciding to reject those who could possibly hinder the group's ability to pursue those unalienable rights does not connote inequality, rather it upholds justice and the Declaration of Independence by preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
aaltobartok

Con

Yes, however a group kicking somebody out to get "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would deny such to the person kicked out or denied entry.
Debate Round No. 2
broes2863

Pro

Being in a group does not insure the acquisition of those unalienable rights, but rather increases the odds of such happening and magnifies the effects. Conversely, not being a part of a group (or being rejected from one) does not violate the individual's rights nor does it eliminate the possibility of them every gaining their rights.

Exclusion from a group does no more to the individual's rights than remove the group as a means of achieving such liberties. There are still countless ways for an individual to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness" without inclusion into a certain group.
aaltobartok

Con

Being in a group does not insure the acquisition of those unalienable rights, but rather increases the odds of such happening and magnifies the effects. Conversely, not being a part of a group (or being rejected from one) does not violate the individual's rights nor does it eliminate the possibility of them every gaining their rights." It does violate the individual's civil rights as defined by the Constitution of the USA.

In brief, it is unjust to exclude people from groups, it is also illegal.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by broes2863 9 years ago
broes2863
Yea, I know its ethical, but he kept using the D of I as an argument so I kept countering.

I hadn't done a whole lot of historical background on it. It was just randomly posed to me one day and I thought I'd see what kinda of arguments I could find on here.

I know I'm not going to use the D of I now. lol.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
Oh and the debate is called

"Selectively Inclusive Cities and/or Groups are Just."

This is not a legal question but an ethical one, and it is not limited to the united states, so stop bringing the D of I and the constitution into this.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
wow this sucked. The issue of homogeneous populations being superior, anti-black home owner associations in the 1960's, immigration law from the 1800's to now, multicultural ethnic enclaves and the ideals of the melting pot vs the mosaic etc were never talked about in this debate. Terrible
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
i wish you would go into more detail on what you mean.
Posted by EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
Broes, did you paint chips as kid? Maybe had too much of the cotton candy that is hidden in the walls...
Posted by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
What groups would actually fall under this definition that you provide? It also doesn't seem to be much of a debate if you get to say that the group's criteria for determining membership and the purposes and actions of the group is Just, as that seems to be what the actual debate would be about. That also seems to be a non-existent group that would always be Just in actual practice.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by broes2863 9 years ago
broes2863
broes2863aaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
broes2863aaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03