The Instigator
DB9KIT
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should social stratification exist in today's world ?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,811 times Debate No: 60269
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DB9KIT

Con

Before we get into the first debate round, my opponent is supposed to acknowledge that..
1) ad hominem abusive (attacking persons rather than points) is prohibited here.
2) try to avoid a logical fallacy commonly known as "appeal to pity," as it doesn't make our debate logical enough. ( however, it's okay to appeal to emotions occasionally)
3) scientific evidence, such as research, studies, experiments, so on and so forth, is not necessary. (it takes too much time to do meta-analysis. We can come up with something conjectural.
Now let us get started.
The topic to be discussed here is "should social stratification exist nowadays?"
Beforehand, I will develop an operational definition of the term "social stratification" first to make sure that my opponent and I will be on the same page.
The term social stratification, in this debate, basically means a system of pecking order where one can be superior to others in terms of social power or social status. Yet virtually all members in a society willingly accept unequal power. Other sorts of power are considered irrelevant here. Concrete examples of societies with social stratification, as far as I know, are India and Thailand.
For this topic, I would say I totally disagree with the idea of social stratification.
First and foremost, I think it seems morally wrong that one has to be born inferior. Every person on Earth deserves basic human rights, meaning they must be born socially equal. No one person can oppress others, and no one person can be inferior to others as well. If with social stratification system, a society will be full of discrimination, sexism, or even mistreatment. I believe if people had a shared value that everyone is equal, societies would be more peaceful.
Secondly, I would say that were people to be bestowed with equality, a society is likely to produce more geniuses. In an equal society, we can expect more precocious children. Why? In a typical stratified society, youths "must" respect the elder. People who are younger cannot display their disagreement to those of older age; otherwise, the younger will be considered violating norms and disrespectful. For example, In Thailand, typical conservative Thai teachers think, or are thought, of themselves as the source of knowledge. In contrast to those in many European societies, these teachers cling to the belief that they are always right; students cannot argue or initiate a debate. Otherwise, students will be deemed rude. This the-elder-must-be-right belief causes students' creativity to erode. Instead of constructing environments in classroom open to healthy debate, these teachers unwittingly force these students to believe every single word they say. Therefore, students will not be capable of thinking outside the box, unable to initiate things by themselves, unable to devise something innovative and creative, and thus be incapable of having their intelligence developed.
blackkid

Pro

Social stratification is, for all rights and purposes, simply the idea that people can be broken up based on various statuses with generally a socioeconomic standard being the norm. It is not the same as a caste system. The reason I make this point is because social stratification is the norm, it is not wrong, it does not destroy, and it is healthy for a society by and large particularly because instead of producing a necessarily demeaned standard for others the superiority (which extends from the home to entire countries or conglomerates of countries and unions) and inferiority propositions can be placed on well-balanced and earned statuses.

I present my reasoning as counter-reasoning to all of your cases through a numerical list:

1. "First and foremost, I think it seems morally wrong that one has to be born inferior.", I argue that the people themselves are not necessarily recognized as inferior. In places where this is so it is purely cultural however all societies have social social stratification therefore even the most progressive societies on the planet do not necessitate a caste system and therefore a derogatory state of human conditions in the philosophical sense ( being genuinely "lesser" ).

2. "Every person on Earth deserves basic human rights, meaning they must be born socially equal.", I contend that basic human rights does not grant social equality. All humans have the right to go to a school and be educated however there is no uniformity to quality even if there is a base standard. Some people will go to better schools and therefore be at an educational advantage. In order for there to be social equality this practice must be banned. Other practices including opportunities for clubs and groups, item ownership, and resource management must all be terminated as well.

3. "No one person can oppress others, and no one person can be inferior to others as well.", to this I simply state that having a better car is not a form of oppression and being an expert in any field is a form of technocratic superiority. There is no way to avoid the differentiation that causes stratification however that does not mean that the differences are oppressive or create a definitive state of derogatory and perilous inferiority.

4. "If with social stratification system, a society will be full of discrimination, sexism, or even mistreatment.", this is not necessarily true. In micro-communities such as businesses social stratification can be seen. This does not guarantee the leaders abuse their power and the employees become peons for the leaders to jerk around. The cultural choices of the populace are not signs or evidence of the corruption of the natural formation itself but their choices and their willingness to accept and encourage the system's corruption.

5. "I believe if people had a shared value that everyone is equal, societies would be more peaceful.", again looking at microcosms we note that star players on teams, star performers at businesses, star students in specific fields, etc. are not necessary disruptive elements to human life. I content that recognition actually begets peace as granting everyone a role is good for them. I would say that instead of shared value people simply need equal opportunity for greatness.

6. "Secondly, I would say that were people to be bestowed with equality, a society is likely to produce more geniuses. In an equal society, we can expect more precocious children. Why? In a typical stratified society, youths "must" respect the elder. People who are younger cannot display their disagreement to those of older age; otherwise, the younger will be considered violating norms and disrespectful.", I disagree. First your IQ is mostly defined by your genetics so producing genii is mostly defined by who you are breeding versus how you treat them. Secondly I think that the issue of respect in general has little to do with the issue of granting exploration to children; there's no reason why the two can't coincide. I believe that a cultural standard is not the same as an inherently restrictive standard to stratification since as noted above it can be seen in many places.

7. "For example, In Thailand, typical conservative Thai teachers think, or are thought, of themselves as the source of knowledge. In contrast to those in many European societies, these teachers cling to the belief that they are always right; students cannot argue or initiate a debate. Otherwise, students will be deemed rude. This the-elder-must-be-right belief causes students' creativity to erode. Instead of constructing environments in classroom open to healthy debate, these teachers unwittingly force these students to believe every single word they say. Therefore, students will not be capable of thinking outside the box, unable to initiate things by themselves, unable to devise something innovative and creative, and thus be incapable of having their intelligence developed.", as there are no citations required on either side I'll simply state that this is false. Children in general are "indoctrinated" worldwide and branching out is generally done outside of the school even in the most progressive environments. It's basically reserved for adulthood or near-adulthood in the global eye and rarely does it break this trend specifically because the stratification is justified. A teacher is the source of knowledge for the student depending on their age as encouraging research too early in life actually stunts the ability to properly research things; asking questions is always good but contending with the teacher is disruptive to the other person's trying to learn without being confused themselves.

The situation differs based on elements like private tutors vs. public schools not one's social status in the relationship itself.
Debate Round No. 1
DB9KIT

Con

Well, first of all, I might agree with you that the Indian caste system might not be counted as social stratification, since the system goes beyond what's called "social stratification". But I'm to remind you that the example I gave you in the first round was what's been happening in Thailand. I would be delighted if you help me come up with any resolution for things happening in Thailand due to the presence of the stratified system.
In this round, I would like to do counter reasoning against what you've mentioned in the last round.
Your saying "I argue that the people themselves are not necessarily recognized as inferior. " is not true of all people, yet it's true for only few people. They are consciously aware of their inferiority, but they just accept it. A great deal of discrimination is rife across the globe, yet it seems there would be no one silver bullet for this problem. One cannot deny that discrimination becomes prevalent stems from people being divided into classes. Once they are socially separated, their minds unconsciously start to classify people of another class and think of those people as different. As a matter of fact, they are not different than we are. Social stratification itself makes it psychologically possible for us to think that way. What if there is no stratification? What if people don't know the word "social classes"? I think without it, people are gonna think of everyone as the same body, and thus the stratified system would be in extinction. Where there are stratified systems, people in higher classes do not treat people in lower classes as they do to people of the same class. Apart from that, that you said even the most progressive societies on the planet do not necessitate a caste system is absolutely true. I decidedly agree with you here. But, I would rather say we are debating under the topic Should Social Stratification Exist.....? That means we all do know that it's impossible for a society to survive without the system. We are not talking about its possibility though because everyone knows its not possible, but let's just assume it is for the topic's sake. Anyway, I think you were being out of the topic talking about the possibility.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the second point of your counter reasoning is, again, true, but partially true. I don't think what you've mentioned is called social inequality, but rather economic inequality. But if you still want to insist on that point. I would say many governments and organizations in the world have already come up with solutions to deal with this equality already. That is there are many organizations offering scholarships for effective students, which seems to be the best way to diminish, or at least minimize, this gap of inequality. However, I might refute you in that this is supposedly considered economic inequality rather than social inequality. (which is, again, out of the topic I've defined)

For the third point of your counter reasoning, I would say having a better car is just a form of inferiority, but not a form of oppression. If one is to feel jealous of another one's expensive car, I think it's solely because of his greedy mind. In all seriousness, to briefly conclude, I would say that these, and again, are apparently not a form of "social inequality". However, these are all just the inequality stemming from the amount of knowledge and economic power, which one can achieve, depending on their skills and training. ***

For all forth point of your counter reasoning, you didn't prove my claim wrong. That's because I said "with social stratification," a society will be full of discrimination. However, your analysis implies that "some" society will anyway have no problems within this system. << You just basically told me that however in some societies there's no problem resulted from the stratified system. Your statement can be interpreted that a few micro-communities are good with the system (which means there are a lot more that have trouble with it). That's the same as what I claimed. All in all, discrimination, sexism, and mistreatment are still rife, and you don't prove me wrong.

Now comes the fifth point, how unequal those people are to people like us who are not superstars in any field? Yes, they are not necessarily disruptive elements to human life. Surely, they certainly cannot oppress us, because they just do different kinds of jobs than us.

at the sixth point, I "totally" disagree with the idea that producing genii is defined by who you are breeding versus how you treat them. One of the IQ tests known as "G" suggested that human aptitude is genetic. However, it can develop through training. That's why encouraging and reinforcing students to be critical plays a significant role in prompting their IQ development. Apart from that, the fact is that Thailand and Japan, for instance, are ones of the countries that students work hard the most. Unfortunately, the result turns out that Japan's education system outperforms Thailand's. (which Japan's educational system has, perhaps has no, gap between teachers and students).

For the seventh point, I would subvert all of your argument by citation. The information is from the book Cross Cultural Psychology: critical thinking and contemporary applications by ERIC SHIRAEV DAVID LEVY Chapter 5 (intelligence) page 133.
blackkid

Pro

#7: I cannot access your citation so it's not admissible as evidence. You need to either make it accessible or drop it as a citation and choose another or produce counter reasoning but whatever the case you cannot use citations no one but you and owners of materials not required for the debate can actually access. Just to clarify I tried.

In Order:

#1: I proposed a refutation by example. "Should Social Stratification Exist?", "There is nothing inherently evil about it, and it is human nature, so yes."; this is my position.

I am confused as you posit, "A great deal of discrimination is rife across the globe, yet it seems there would be no one silver bullet for this problem.", but then, "Social stratification itself makes it psychologically possible for us to think that way. What if there is no stratification? What if people don't know the word "social classes"? I think without it, people are gonna think of everyone as the same body, and thus the stratified system would be in extinction." These two statements contradict each other, one suggests that Social Stratification is a by-product and the other suggests that it is the main problem (the "silver bullet" approach) and if it were solved the mainstay would be solved. You distinctly bring up Classism but that is a type, not actually the embodiment, of Social Stratification since the topic in question can be as simple as "parent" to "child".

A) Social Stratification as a by-product, the removal of this portion of the system does not solve the underlying problems. Social Stratification is a basis, but not the birthplace, of discrimination as it is generally an after-effect. Considering Majority Power in a country, for instance, can be based on many things from economic status which is fluid to racial status which is biologically static to health which can be both however the stratification happens after, not before, classification.

B) Social Stratification as the problem, the removal of this portion of the system doesn't alleviate the overlying problems. There is no reason why even in a system where everyone is equal (let's take a preschool classroom for instance) and of equal standing there will not be infighting and inherent separations or cliquish behaviors. Just do the natural formation of groupings there's no reason to see Social Stratification as the mainstay issue. It's existence has no effect on the natural behavior relating to grouping even within closed systems such as classrooms of younger children where natural affinity towards others is far more raw than in other age groups.

As for going off-topic I don't see where I am talking about a possibility.

#2: Economic Inequality is a type of Social Inequality. Diversity programs and scholarship programs are not my main focus as when I speak of clubs the very nature of some are simply exclusionary (for instance, "Girl Scouts" is sexist as is "Boy Scouts", just by refusing to allow entry of the other sex) based on biological factors that have nothing to do with economic status. Some clubs are built only for certain professions and so forth and so on and while we do not look at them as "wrong" this too is actually a form of social inequality based on exclusionary measures and a basis for Social Stratification, I.E. The "Nurses Lounge" vs. the "Doctor's Lounge" instead of just a lounge for all healthcare professionals, and you've parking spots in garages dedicated to the doctors but not all the nurses and so forth and so on. My point is that your claim, "Every person on Earth deserves basic human rights, meaning they must be born socially equal." is unsupported, and it still is, as basic human rights does not grant you access to the IEEE even if you're not an engineer because you're human. If at any point there is a restriction of entry then there is a state of social inequality relative to both birth and life choices, as seen with clubs for professions and clubs for children of a specific sex.

#3: Fullness, "...to this I simply state that having a better car is not a form of oppression and being an expert in any field is a form of technocratic superiority." > "... I would say having a better car is just a form of inferiority, but not a form of oppression.", how is this a response? You didn't explain how having a better car would be a standard for inferiority at all. The rest seems to stem from this misunderstanding but you need to lay the basis for how this was derived from that for me. I do not understand.

#4: "If with social stratification system, a society will be full of discrimination, sexism, or even mistreatment.", your quote, and language, undermines you. You used the term "Will", so yes it is disproved by showing that it is possible that it "will not". I.E. "All bulls will charge.", "This bull will not." is a refutation by example. Your claim of an all encompassing scenario is not true and you acknowledge it by admitting that some do indeed not produce these cultural issues and coexist with Social Stratification. Your claim is not "most", and if you choose to attempt to take that position, it's now unsupported without reason to believe.

"Your statement can be interpreted that a few micro-communities are good with the system (which means there are a lot more that have trouble with it). That's the same as what I claimed. All in all, discrimination, sexism, and mistreatment are still rife, and you don't prove me wrong." The interpretation you chose ("few") isn't supported except by your opinion which is influenced by your bias on the issue (that you believe it is a standard versus an abnormality) however I would argue the opposite since Social Stratification even on the national scale does not necessarily directly connect to any given issue in a nation and furthermore I support the notion that it's actually a side-effect versus the mainstay which in turn means that I reject the notion that Stratification came first. Cultural mythology often exists in relation to Ignorance, a separate issue, and has nothing to do with Social Stratification though it may effect it.

#5: But that is Social Stratification in action. It's the majority of all cases in realistic day-to-day life. It is relatively impossible to acknowledge this and work with your claim in #4 that it's "few". This is most corporations on the globe regardless of size, most sports, most communities, and most homes.

#6: I believe this is a misnomer. A "Genius" is a person who biologically has a brain that meets a certain IQ standard when tested. A "Knowledgeable Person" is a person who simply is very smart, and the two aren't inherently connected, you do not need a high IQ (or at least to be a genius) to produce a knowledgeable person and not all genii become knowledgeable people. The two are very separate. So when you are talking about hard work it double-backs on itself because the core logic behind being a genius is that it's easier, not harder, so the effort required is lesser, not greater, which means that the work ethic comparisons don't produce any clear conclusion towards a person's aptitude genetically. This is off-topic though and should be dropped; how intelligence works is far more complicated than how well you do in IQ tests and school.
Debate Round No. 2
DB9KIT

Con

DB9KIT forfeited this round.
blackkid

Pro

Vote for Con! :)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
If this is debate is still up in a few days I'll accept.
I'll be arguing society can't exist without stratification.
So you can go prepare a defense.
And I will be using scholarly journals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
DB9KITblackkidTied
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: Pro successfully showed that not all the problems Con brought up were necessarily the case. Con's forfeit hurts him, here, removing his opportunity to respond. So argumens and conduct to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.