The Instigator
MoonDragon613
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
drumbum565
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

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: 2/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,169 times Debate No: 2695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (11)

 

MoonDragon613

Pro

Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

1. Such individuals are oppressive and oppress the general populace.
To Oppress is "to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority". This accurately expresses the behavior those with heightened racial sensitivity. Through hate mongering, stirring fear and hatred, they attempt to impose their views of what is right/wrong, and what they believe to be racially appropriate, on the general population.

2. Such individuals are dangerous to the expression of free speech.
In today's society, it is not only the federal government that suppresses the expression of speech. Private enterprise and public institutions suppress free speech as well, at the "outcry" of the vocal minority of those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity. The President of Harvard was dismissed for making statements about women, a baseball analyst for Fox was fired for making a joke. Although most people in society hold sacred the freedom to express oneself, to express oneself in public, because of those with heightened sensitivity, it has become impossible for public figures to make just about any remark on race.

3. Such individuals are a stumbling block to the resolution of racial tensions.
Why is freedom of speech so important for society? Well for one, it allows us to discover, accept, and respond to, for example, the truth. But those with heightened race/gender/etc. sensitivity are resistant to accepting any differences between race. They are steadfast in their assumption of equality between people of different ethnicities when we have no reason to expect such. Hispanics and Asians are shorter than Caucasians. Indians and Caucasians have more body hair than Native Americans. Racist stereotypes are popular in our culture because all too often they hold truth. The inability of such individuals to accept innate differences between people inhibits mutual understanding, the first step towards solving racial tensions.

4. Such individuals jeopardize the spirit of humor.
When it comes down to it, all funny jokes make fun of someone. Some funny jokes make fun of Clinton's sexual transgressions, some funny jokes make fun of Bush's Bushness. Perhaps the funniest of these are race/gender jokes. Straight men everywhere love to complain about the irrational nature of women with their colleagues while women everywhere (straight or otherwise) love to make fun of men who think with the wrong head. Stereotyping if FUNNY. Racist jokes are just that, jokes. They are not personal attacks. They do not destroy the credibility of a group of people. They do not put people's lives or jobs in danger. In fact, they do just the opposite. What better way to diffuse a tense scenario between a husband and wife than to reassure each other that the faults are just the natural foibles of the opposite sex? Humor is important to the health and vitality of society. In fact, at times, humor is what makes life to precious. Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity through hate mongering, threaten to take this away from us.

For all these reasons, I am proud to oppose the hate mongering of those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity and for these reasons I believe them to be a danger to society.
drumbum565

Con

To start things out I would like to submit the following definitions.

Danger: liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

Let it stand for this debate that as the Pro did not set a society in which we are discussing we should assume we are speaking about the world society.

So for someone to be dangerous to society they must cause harm to the society as a whole.

I would like to submit the following observation that what a society believes to be good for it is not necessarily good for it. An example of this would be Prohibition. We believed that banning alcohol would be good for our society, but it obviously wasn't.

Therefore my sole contention is as follows

WE CAN NOT KNOW IF SOMETHING IS DANGEOUS TO SOCIETY OR NOT. One might say that something is dangerous to the current mindset of a society but one can not say that something is dangerous to society because they don't know what will accualy be a good thing or a bad thing. So unless my opponent can prove that he is omnipisent he can not uphold his own resolution therefore you must vote pro.
Debate Round No. 1
MoonDragon613

Pro

It's sad to see a perfectly good debate topic wasted on someone of such profound unsurpassed stupidity. And just as depressing to have to expend time and energy responding to such insipid arguments. But be that as it may, since the person I originally challenged declined to accept, it appears I have no choice but to respond to the person who took my challenge. (Please don't take this personally. I have nothing against you per say, just the garbage you post)

The summation of Con's argument is:
"what a society believes to be good for it is not necessarily good for it."
"WE CAN NOT KNOW IF SOMETHING IS DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY OR NOT."
and "So unless my opponent can prove that he is omniscient he can not uphold his own resolution" (with spelling corrected)
and as an example he cited Prohibition.

It annoys me to have to respond to an argument that collapses on its own lack of merits. If we accept the argument made by Con, we do not know if racism is bad for society. The KKK, who knows? Slavery, ehh, maybe good, maybe bad. Murder, larceny, rape, pillaging, torture on American citizens, who knows? Maybe good for society, certainly we can't be sure that it's dangerous to society because, after all, no one's omniscient. Are terrorists dangerous to American society? How bout the National Debt? How about massive rates of unemployment? Dangerous to society? I don't know. I'm not omniscient. How can I possibly argue these things are dangerous to society. I simply cannot know for sure.

There are many things we cannot know for sure. Just because I believe arsenic is dangerous to my health, well, I can't know for sure can I?

Onto my arguments, they have not been addressed. Any of them. Those with heightened racial sensitivity are oppressive to society, endanger free speech,
obstruct the resolution of racial tension, and jeopardize the spirit of humor. Therefore they are dangerous to society.
drumbum565

Con

IF insults are how you debate then you can win this debate I don't care about it anymore, but for the record in your arguments you are talking about the individual not the society I.E. (murder is bad for the individual yes, but bad for society I don't know you could be killing the next Hitler) IF you ever want to argue without out insults then take a challenge but if this is how you debate, go trade insults with a novice. Vote for me if you want to but I'm not submitting a 3rd argument.
Debate Round No. 2
MoonDragon613

Pro

I typically reserve the most vitriolic of attacks on those who are most deserving. For the record, your arguments have no merit whatsoever. Your justification for murder is "hey who knows, maybe you'll murder the next Hitler." And as I said, I don't dislike you personally. I just dislike how you took this debate when you had no arguments at your disposal.

If someone was arguing: "Universal Healthcare is good for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows.

If someone was arguing: "Smoking in public areas is bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows.

If someone was arguing: "Terrorists are bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows.

If someone was arguing: "Killing those who disagree with my points of view is bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows.

Do you see why your argument is so flawed yet?
drumbum565

Con

drumbum565 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by scruffy_35 5 years ago
scruffy_35
I'm sorry that drumbum wasn't able to continue with this debate. He passed away in the middle of this debate. He was a friend of mine and he was part of the debate team in highshool and it was his passion. i know this happened a long time ago and this doesnt matter I just wanted to let you guys know. this was the last debate he was ever a part of and I love being able to read his words again.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
Present me with sound, well reasoned arguments and you will have nothing except my respect. Present me with good arguments but on nebulous grounds and I will respond with sharp jabs of sarcasm. Take on a debate, present one argument of no merit, and then run away, I will respond with the contempt that is befitting.

Now that being said, I could however apologize for the ... overly caustic nature of my commentary. And perhaps I should have used more sarcasm, more euphemisms, and perhaps I should have been more oblique in my criticisms. And so yes I will deliver an apology, a sincere apology but restricted only to the severity of my remarks.

sorry drumbum.
Posted by Novan_Leon 8 years ago
Novan_Leon
MoonDragon, it's a shame you won. Your insults greatly hurt your side and were very unnecessary. Take a bit of your own medicine and be less judgmental and more focused on logic and reasoning in your debates.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
Con: Make a better attack. You ran one incredibly weak argument. MoonDragon responded, basically saying that your argument was abusive (which is true). You didn't respond.

Easy choice.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by C4747500 8 years ago
C4747500
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by drumbum565 8 years ago
drumbum565
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 Thoreau 8 years ago
Thoreau
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 TonyX311 8 years ago
TonyX311
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 8 years ago
polka-dots323
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 Gespenst 8 years ago
Gespenst
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Statesman 8 years ago
Statesman
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 JonJon 8 years ago
JonJon
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
MoonDragon613drumbum565Tied
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