The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should aboriginals be treated differentially?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,238 times Debate No: 17013
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Pro

Round one is for acceptance, rules, and definitions only
No new arguments may be presented after round 2.

I as the framer will be the only one making the rules to the debate; My opponent may however present any new definitions if they see it as necessary, or they may challenge my own definitions. if any-one who would possibly accept this debate has a problem, or question with the rules, or does not understand something about the debate as a whole, they should inquire about it in the comments section prior to accepting the debate.

After the debate has been accepted, I will only make clarifications about the round and arguments as I see necessary for the voters.

= Rules =
1. No Semantics; Use your common sense
2. No Vulgarity; keep it clean
3. No being intentionally rude; If you cannot argue a point in a civil manner, you have business making the argument in the first place.

= Definitions =
1. Should: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)
2. Aboriginals: original or earliest known; native; indigenous
3. Treated: to consider or regard in a specified way, and deal with accordingly
4. Differentially: constituting a difference

All definitions are from http://dictionary.reference.com...
Also please remember rule 1: the purpose of offering any definition is to provide greater clarity and insight into the round. Definitions are not meant to be grounds of debate.

Let's have some fun!
BlackVoid

Con

I accept all rules and definitions, though I have no idea where this is going to go. It seems like aboriginals could refer to any species, not just humans, and its never specified as to what exactly they are being treated differently from. But I'll just go with whatever interp Pro gives. I guess thats the fun in it.

And I agree, lets have a fun round!

Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

Let me just say it is a huge pleasure to be able to debate with my opponent again; he is fantastic opponent, and I look forwards to debating him again
My opponent has said they would accept what-ever I would throw at them, and adapt to it; so let's try something a little different.

=Rules=
5. All arguments and rebuttals must be as brief and concise as possible
6. There must be at least 4000 un-used character at the end of this round
7. the final round is restricted to 2000 characters.
---
Obs1: All I am required to do is prove that aboriginal should be treated differently, it can be either good or bad.

- Any time a new race comes into a new country; they are a guest and must treat it's original owners differentially then their own people.
- This differential treatment should be good, but it can also be bad
- when America was colonized we treated the Natives differentially; only in a bad way.
- Aboriginals know their own land, and differential treatment is beneficial for settlers
- Through differential treatment, culture is maintained
- differential treatment of many aboriginal species is necessary for sustaining the environment
- not treating aboriginal plants/animals differentially could lead to their extinction
- Differential treatment of aboriginal species of overall the greatest good, and thus should be chosen.

Please vote Pro
BlackVoid

Con

Given rule 5 and 6, this shold be interesting :)


O1: Treated means "to consider or regard in a specified way, and deal with accordingly". Therefore, I can allow us to think of aboriginals differently, but as long as we dont actually act on these thoughts, you vote con.


Con case


1. Treating them better is bad.

If we treat one race better than another, we are engaging reverse racism. To give special privileges to one group is to supress those of everyone else.


2. Treating them worse is bad.

If we treat one race worse than another, thats direct racism.


So if better and worse treatment are both bad, we're only left with equal treatment, the con position.


3. As far as the US goes, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. This includes aboriginals.


4. Being a Baptist, my opponent should agree with the following bible verse

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3.28

This directly implies equality for everyone, regardless of ethnicity.



Pro case


1. "they are a guest and must treat it's original owners differentially then their own people."

Thats racism. Promoting one race over another violates equality clauses of every religion, law, and egalitarian belief out there.


2. "This differential treatment should be good, but it can also be bad"

As expressed in my case, treating them good or bad is...bad.


3."when America was colonized we treated the Natives differentially; only in a bad way."

Just because we did something in the past doesn't mean we should do it now.


4. "Aboriginals know their own land, and differential treatment is beneficial for settlers"

Settlers can benefit from the aboriginal's knowledge, but what role does differential treatment play in this?


5. "Through differential treatment, culture is maintained"

No warrant. But besides, they could also maintain their culture if they were just left alone. We have no right to steal their prized gorilla heads or peacock feathers.


6. "differential treatment is necessary for sustaining the environment"

How?


7. "not treating aboriginal plants/animals differentially could lead to their extinction"

How?

But also, many species are becoming extinct because of aboriginals. Everyone knows them damn indians keep killing all our buffalo!


8. He says that "Differential treatment of aboriginal species of overall the greatest good"


But never explains why. Its also better to say "awesomest good" rather than "greatest good" because Awesome > Great.


Vote con.



Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I will go Con then Pro
Con-
O1:
-This is semantic, I could have defined "treated" as to fall in a medical sense; it still would not have fulfilled the framer's intent.
- Should in the resolution implies we are debating ideals not absolutes.

1.
-Racism is racial prejudice; this is not prejudice, it is simply action based on race.
- My opponent's argument is the same as saying one cannot celebrate Cinco de Mayo because it would be reverse racism.

2.
-The we should treat them better

3.
- Con doesn't warrant equal treatment; if they did aboriginals wouldn't exist as we would never invade their land.
- The debate is not exclusive to US so the constitution hold no ground.

4.
- equal protection does not mean no differential treatment If it did then we would not be able to choose out own religions.
- This is one of my favorite verses, sadly my opponent is using it out of context as it refers to Christ's love an acceptance.
- Romans chapter 1 http://bit.ly...
-The bible is my personal belief, not necessarily the weighing mechanism of the round.

Pro-
1. No it's right to property; extend attack on Con point 1
2. Therefore it should be good treatment.
3. Yes, we should treat them well instead
4. It plays the role of staying on aboriginal's good side; if they like settlers they will help them.
5. Extend my opponents Contention #3; if they are treated differentially, they can keep what keeps them unique.
6. Aboriginal plant and animal species.
7. You need to treat them as they need to be treated, not as your own plants need to be treated; also we stole the buffalo from the indians.
8. First, awesome implies great, greatest implies best. Second, refer to my arguments and attacks on Con.

Under-view: Differential doesn't necessarily mean better, if simple means different.
=Conclusion=
Vote Pro!
BlackVoid

Con

Pro talks a lot about treating natives well, but not differently.


My case


O1: Toss it. My opponent hasn't used an argument that would require me to use it, so its not really important.


1. Reverse-Racism

A. Pro thinks he's not engaging in racism since he's treating aboriginals differently rather than thinking of them differently.

However, treating one ethnic group differently is a product of racism. If we thought aboriginals were equal to us, we wouldn't give differential treatment. So by giving the minority special benefits, he is engaging in reverse racism.

B. "my opponent's argument is the same as saying one cannot celebrate Cinco de Mayo because it would be reverse racism"

Not applicable. White people can celebrate Cinco de Mayo if they want to, as its not a special privilege reserved only for Mexicans.


2. Racism

"The we should treat them better"

He conceded the argument that treating aboriginals worse than us is bad. Giving them special privileges is the only ground he has left.


3. Constitution-mandated equality


1. "Con doesn't warrant equal treatment; if they did aboriginals wouldn't exist as we would never invade their land."

A. Nothing to do with constitution.

B. The resolution references differential treatment now, not years ago. So us invading their land before has no bearing.



2. "The debate is not exclusive to US so the constitution hold no ground."

I asked in comments whether this was US specific and got no response, so I just put this in there. But considering that treatment of Native Americans is an important issue, US specific responses are topical.


3. "equal protection does not mean no differential treatment If it did then we would not be able to choose out own religions."

We're not treating somene differently by letting them pick their religion. I have no idea where this is coming from.


4. Bible-mandated equality

1. " (the verse) refers to Christ's love an acceptance"

I know. The point is that we should mimic his egalitarian ideals.


Pro gives us a link to a page of bible scripture, but never says what the argument coming off of it is, nor what its even for...


2. "The bible is not necessarily the weighing mechanism of the round."

That doesn't mean it should have no consideration in this round whatsoever, since my opponent said he agrees with it.



Pro case


1. The right to property is nontopical. Everyone has a right to property, not just natives. So respecting property rights is not differential treatment and thus irrelevant.

2. Non-topical. Good treatment =/= different treatment. He needs to justify treating natives better than ourselves.

3. Non-responsive to my rebuttal. Extend that we dont have obigations to natives to correct past injustices.

4. Non-topical. Staying on the native's good side only requires us to treat them nicely, not differently. This is an important distinction.

5. Natives keep their culture by us not violating their property rights, which as previously indicated does not require differential treatment.

6. The only reason we would want to give special rights to one species over another is if its endangered, and requires protection. In that case, the treatment is a product of it being endangered, not aboriginal. So again non-topical.

7. His rebuttal did nothing to show us how treating natives equally leads to extinction.

The buffalo issue was a joke.

8. Decided by other points. The Awesome vs Great was a joke too.


Pro isn't meeting his burden. He's wanting to treat natives kindly. Thats cool, but he needs to treat them differently, not just kindly. Until he meets that burden we're voting con.











Debate Round No. 3
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
BlackVoid

Con

Well thats unfortunate. He only had to write 2000 characters...

Seeing as my arguments weren't refuted, mainly how his last speech wasn't really topical, I urge you to vote Con. Hopefully we can complete a debate some other time.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
It's alright; I've been at a friend's house, so I should have made time to do the round.
I'm just disappointed because this was a really good round, and I actually had most of my rebuttal already written up.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Well, it happens. Sorry if my delay threw you off.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
:I Crap.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Got back earlier than I thought. Post whenever you want. Thanks!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Yeah I can do that :D
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
I'll be away until late Monday. So if you could wait about 2 days before posting that would be really great.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"So theoretically, I could run ten arguments against everything you said and there's no way you could respond."

The Gish-Gallop generally invokes the banhammer.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Lol Yeah I guess so, but you are able to if you want.
I'm going to be honest, I really don't care if I win or lose any debates on this site so it wouldn't bug me if you did that. Losing only bothers me when my opponent either makes no sense, or has legitimately lost.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Lol I was kidding. The voters would tear me apart, and its unfair anyway.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Do it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
BangBang-CoconutBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Wretched rambling debate. Tie except conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
BangBang-CoconutBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a shame BBC didn't reply in the last round, it was kind of interesting. Anywho Pro gave no firm reason as to why we should engage in racism or as Con pointed out, reverse-racism, simply because we are dealing with aboriginals.