The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Teaching discrimination to our children makes for a healthy society.

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 4 votes the winner is...
AbandonedSpring
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 64373
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

Discriminating is a good thing.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Thanks for starting this debate! To begin, I will give a definition:

Discrimination: "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"

To agree with pro, you must believe that treating others unfairly is a good thing. This is completely unfair, and in no way should be taught to our children. And in no way could this lead to a healthy society. Discrimination is what lead to the civil war, which inevitably split our nation. Discrimination did not create a healthy society, rather a perfect opposite. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died, yet you stand here and claim that what so many of those ignorant confederates killed and were killed for would create a healthy society.
Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

That is your definition, not mine. Discrimination is simply not wanting to be around a person because of some trait.Being unfair has nothing to do with it. I would not want my children around a drunkard, or a sex addict or a homo, or a habitual liar or a thief. That is not being unfair, it is being a responsible parent.I even discriminate concerning what they eat and drink and what goes in their minds through media. Behavioir, actions and words are all legitimate things to discriminate over. NEVER over skin color or height or gender. Those things people have no control over . All the other things are done out of free will choices.

On the other hand YOU have the same right to invite all those people in to influence your kids.
AbandonedSpring

Con

That is not my definition, it is Merriam-webster.com's. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Since you didn't offer a counter definition, mine still stands. Treating anyone unfairly is unjust. Since my definition still stands, you go against your own argument. You are for discrimination, yet you are against the unfair treatment of others. Treating others unfairly because of skin and gender is discrimination, you can't cherry pick definitions. If you believe in discrimination, then you must believe in treating people unfairly based upon skin color, age, gender, and all things that are associated with unfair treatment. It is simply inhuman to discriminate against someone because of their identity.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
"Him stating a definition does not make it legitimate" Correct. However, him stating a definition FROM AN ACCEPTED SOURCE actually does make it pretty legitimate. That's why it's a commonly used source. Now, printed dictionaries and the most formal sites possible might list "discriminate" with your definition, yet this is not the definition that is used in our society, which is what really matters. And then you make some nonsense attempt at an ad hominem, insulting not only Zanomi3 but his/our whole generation. The reason he mentions "old-fashioned" is because the things you believe in are, in fact, old-fashioned. That's not derogatory in any way; it's simply pointing out that the beliefs you hold are not common with today's world, thus making them "old-fashioned."
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
zanom.... Him stating a definition does not make it legitimate.The definition stands. Discriminating is simply accepting or not accepting a trait. Now he can argue about what traits I reject or accept. But not the definition of a term.He is the one that threw the race card in there I did not.

I stand on what I said. We should teach our kids to discriminate according to behavior, or lifestyles.I mentioned some of those I reject. Homo's, addicts, liars, thieves, sexual perverts,adulterers, coveteous. I could go on and on.

You speak like old-fashioned is somehow a disease. It is a good life. Not the mess you young people are making of the world.And the old hippy communists of the 60's you worship.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Actually, cheyenne, Abandoned was completely correct in stating his definition. If you wanted to go off of some other definition, even your own, you should have stated it. Because you didn't state anything in the first round, Abandoned was allowed to state the definition for the debate. Strange, actually, because you stated in the comments that this would be a semantics debate, yet you failed to provide any definitions.

Also, I fail to see any proof of anything you said in your last comment. You basically just state things that you believe, and often times things that are fairly old-fashioned (not only in this debate, but basically all other debates).
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
Your arguing outside of a debate. it's irrelevant
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Of course I can choose definitions. The word discriminating is accepting the best. He has discriminating taste in wines. Your argument is weak that is why you choose to make my definition what YOU want it to be.

The reason I brought this up is everytime a black man, Obama , is criticized, we are attacked for discrimination. To the point that it is meaningless.I do discriminate against Obama. Not his race, but his behavior and the way he thinks. That is not at all unfair. What is unfair is being labeled discriminating by political opponents.Or racist.When the color of his skin has nothing to do with it.

The real racism was when 95% of blacks voted for Obama. Just because he is blac

miss.......Talk about being biased. You have not said one kind thing about any person who goes to church.You are the one that is intolerant, bigoted,narrow-minded, prejudiced,and quite frankly what is profound you do not see this about yourself.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
this is a Christian attempt to justify prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness and hatred contradicting the very basis of their faith. The level of hypocrisy and stupidity most of these people exhibit is truly profound.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Discrimination is just like money. It has been misrepresented. Money is not the root of evil. Love of money is. Discrimination is also not evil. Misusing it is.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
As far as the civil war goes, very few fought over slavery. The north fought to preserve the union. And most of the south fought against an overbearing federal government. Slavery was just the catalyst, not the determining factor.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
I think if you have an issue with my argument, then you should debate me on it
Posted by Rwicks 2 years ago
Rwicks
I think you are using the Straw Man illogical fallacy and quite possibly the Slippery Slope as well. Discrimination does not equal slavery or mass murder or war or genocide. Someone may discriminate and not believe that it was ok for 620,000 people to die. Someone may discriminate and not believe the Confederate states were right or that slavery is ok. Also, you are Begging the Question/using Circular Reasoning. Treating others unfairly is unfair because it is unfair?

Yes, treating a group of people unfairly is wrong, but you're not making a very good case for it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Putt-Putt 2 years ago
Putt-Putt
cheyennebodieAbandonedSpringTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't back up any of their arguments
Vote Placed by Luxray2854 2 years ago
Luxray2854
cheyennebodieAbandonedSpringTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con messed up putting the "That's your definition not mine". Pro returned with a powerful rebuttal and shut down their argument therefore getting my points into Convincing arguments. Con also gets my points into reliable sources because he actually gave a source.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
cheyennebodieAbandonedSpringTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con, the only guy with sources, has unrefuted arg's.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
cheyennebodieAbandonedSpringTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con; Pro should not have chosen a topic in which they needed to cherry-pick definitions. Also, as Pro did not list any definitions, Con was correct in stating his, which would stand as the definition for the debate. Arguments to Con because his arguments went unrefuted. Sources to Con because of the definition. Conduct remains a tie, as well as Spelling and Grammar (mostly I guess).