Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman
Debate Rounds (4)
If Con forfeits any round, I win. If Con uses ad hominems, I win. Happy debating!
I look forward to a very interesting debate with you.
I was laughing to myself when I read in the comments that you wanted to debate me. Normally I don't go to the effort to destroying someone with an IQ south of 80. But for you sir, I will make an exception.
Your debate is worthless straight off the bat. "Tradesmen and laborers are clearly normal humans." "Clearly normal." That's your argument? You silly little man. How would you possibly know what is "clear"? Subhuman is defined as "of a lower order of being than humans", thus, all tradesmen and laborers need to be is of a lower order. And evidently they fit that bill. I don't care about your pathetic attempt to involve the United Nations. They're just a weak and deluded pack of fools anyhow, and they don't apply job criteria when categorizing humans and non-humans.
Your point about those at the top of the food chain simply adds to my argument, you brainless baboon. I thought this was supposed to be a debate. You are absolutely correct about wealth and power. It's the same as if the fish died in the sea we would not have our wealth. If the bacteria disappear from the planet we would all perish. The disturbed and diseased tradesmen and laborers are on the same level as these things. Just because we need the tradesmen, doesn't mean they're not disgusting, inhuman, moronic fools.
Just like you are. Surrender now, before your micro penis crawls back inside your body to hide. But what could I expect from such a coward.
The end. I win.
Well, to start us off, whether or not I'm subhuman is not up for debate, therefore it is pointless to bring it up. I would ask you to please stop using pointless arguments, because it doesn't help your point at all. The same applies to my IQ.
I was looking forward to an interesting philosophical debate on the humanity of those less fortunate than us, but clearly I won't be getting that, so I'll just have to make do with what we've got. Also, when it was said for me to refrain from using ad hominem, I didn't expect pro to start firing it at me from every direction. Nevertheless, I'll continue to refrain for the remaining duration of this debate.
I'm not arguing that subhuman's definition isn't a "lower order of being than humans," what I'm arguing is that tradesmen and laborers aren't subhuman according to that same definition. So far, I have yet to see any actual evidence from pro to support his theory. I, on the other hand, do have evidence. According to Oxford, the definition of a human is (in zoological terms) (1) "belonging to the genus Homo." According the the definition of subhuman provided by pro, a subhuman is a lesser being to a human. Here you can see a discrepancy. A subhuman is one who is lesser than a human, and a human is a being that belongs to the genus "Homo." Even if we go with the name given by pro back in the first argument, that tradesmen and laborers are "Homo Tradiens," they would still classify as full humans according to the Oxford Dictionary. I can go further. According to research published in the Journal Nature referenced in this article (2), All humans have a similarity of 99% to everyone else classified as human. This means that the difference between you, me, and the man who makes shoes for a living is less than 1%.
Your statement about the United Nations being a "weak and deluded pack of fools" might very well be true, but only because people don't respect them enough. The fact is, the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights is a document that exists to stop some of the events that occurred during World War II to occur again. By ignoring said document, you undermine its power, which leads to more powerful people ignoring it. If the President of the United States of America stopped caring about Human Rights, the US could simply suspend one's citizenship rights under the pretence of terrorism, and they could spy on you, kidnap you, torture you, gas you, etc. The Holocaust happened because Hitler ignored what have become the basic rights of all humans, as I've defined above, everywhere. Not only this, but the UN is the only organisation stopping the world entering a Nuclear apocalypse on the outbreak of war. In fact, the US and the Soviet Union were so close to destroying each other, the UN was the only thing that kept everyone safe. I'm not sure if you've ever played the game Fallout, but the society in that is what I would call a best case scenario in the event of worldwide Nuclear war, and if you survived into that society, the people who would be valued the most are those who can make things, build things, wire things. The tradesmen and laborers would be the only reason society lives on. Respect of the UN is what will eventually either keep many people alive, or doom them all.
You call all tradesmen and laborers worthless, and you say that they'll all be replaces soon anyways. The Buggati Veyron is often called the fastest car in the world, and is highly respected by many many people. That car is completely hand-made by tradesmen. The reason why so many people like cars like that is because they are often handcrafted, and that gives them prestige. Many people would look upon the jobs of those few men and women and wish that they could be apart of something like that.
I would ask that for the remainder of the debate, pro refrains also from using ad hominen. It doesn't help prove your point, and can be seen (when used the way it has been used already) as bad form. I would hate for you to lose the debate in such a way.
masterdrave forfeited this round.
Seeing as Pro forfeited this round, I'll make this short.
Tradesmen and Laborers exist, as humans, because they are a very fundamental part of everyone's lives.
I could make reference to a popular web show that deals with the issue of treating the "working" class as beings lesser than humans (1), even if it doesn't do it all that well. There are a lot more people who are laborers and tradesmen then there are other jobs. If you treated these people as lesser beings, they will, because they are human, fight back for themselves (Martin Luther King being a prime example of this phenomenon). I'm not a psychologist, but I think one only needs to look at the world and the state it is in to realise that humans are fundamentally violent and selfish beings. If after the peaceful protests, America didn't buckle, I would place a lot of money on the African Americans becoming very violent in their efforts. 80% of the world's population holds just 20% of the power, but being the massive 80% that it is, it's also the group most likely to cause change to the world. Being sentient beings - no matter how often they try to prove they aren't - the workforce will fight back at the bad treatment. In the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (2), the peasants of the feudal system, those that would be called laborers in this day and age, rose up against their superiors in order to make change. In the end, that revolt was suppressed, but if you look at a list of all the recorded revolts (3), you can see that there are many revolts that have occurred throughout history, and while you can see that most of the time the "peasants" have been suppressed or otherwise defeated, they have also caused large changes some of the time. and in the last 80 or so years, most of the revolts have been successful.
Kill yourself you trady cunt.
Well, this has been an experience.
I would like to thank Pro for said experience, I've never debated against someone so hell bent on insulting everyone else in the world.
Tradesmen and laborers are as human as everybody. They have the same feelings, similar experiences, the same types of friends, a spouse, or at least a lover. They probably have similar highs in their lives, as well as the same lows. The only difference between "us" and "them" is how we go about earning our money, and what we spend it on. This world may be full of violence and destruction, but everyone has someplace, somewhere, that they go to, and just get away from everything. Money doesn't equal happiness. I know people who've been to places like Cambodia, or Thailand, and they all said when they came home, that even though they didn't have much, they were some of the happiest people they've ever met. Tradesmen and laborers don't have piles of money, but they don't need it. Studies (1) show that all you need to be happy is $75,000 a year. Above that, and you won't feel an happier.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.