The Instigator
Dorie
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
One_Winged_Rook
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,774 times Debate No: 27590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Dorie

Con

I will be arguing against racism and in favor of affirmative action on the grounds that racism is unjustified and affirmative action ensures equalized opportunities.

You can structure your argument however you'd like, but I will be using each round to argue, no intro or conclusion. Sources and/or professional input are, as always, valued but not necessary.

Also, this argument is confined to the US only (simpler, I think).
Let me know if I left out any important parameters and/or if there are any you'd like to add.
Good luck!
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

To begin... the debate shall be claimed as

(A) Resolved: There is a Justification for Racism that is Valid
----((a) that social/political/spatial integration is detrimental, thereby, segregation is positive and (b) might even extend to that we should be actively against one another... (a) would be the only thing I'd be trying to prove, though we might end up at (b))
or
(B) Resolved: Affirmative Action hinders society Progress from achieving Goal X
----(while I believe Goal X is interstellar travel and the continuation of our Species, you can argue for another one) ---- (Affirmative Action is defined as creating policy that actively makes up for the shortcomings of a person's race, assumed those shortcomings are real)
or
(C) Resolved: Integration of the Races is a Negative thing for our Genetic Code
----(thereby making our genetic code weaker in some way, or some other justification)

I would like to debate (A), but choose whichever you would like, as they are all viewed as "Racist" nowadays.
I think it makes it a much more concise debate than just "racism is valid"
And I suppose we can focus on the US, but I think being able to talk about difference places in the world is important, since that's where we all came from and where our genetics split (assuming we have a genetic link).

ALSO-

We need to specify all the Races we're talking about here, so I will list them

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

(1) Caucasoid - Those normally considered of European/Middle Eastern Descent
(2) Negroid or Congoid - Those normally considered Sub-African Descent (black - Nubian)
(3) Capoid - Those considered Northern African Descent (though, as seen, they get pushed to southern Africa)
(4) Mongoloid - Asians and Native Americans
(5) Australoid - Aboriginal Austrians, (not the criminals put there by GB)

However, we do have to expand on the Caucasian Race as well, since I think Caucasian diversity is the most relevant on both the US scene and the Global scene (obviously the divergences between the Hutu and the Tutsi are a big deal to them [Hotel Rwanda... watch it!], they don't really effect the global scene..... the fight between Anglos, Aryans and Slavs almost caused the end of the world)

So, we can divide the Caucasian Race up as you wish, but I'd suggest

(I) Anglo-Saxon - Those of descendants from Germanic Tribes who conquered Britain
(II) Middle Eastern - Arabs, Persians, Egyptians - I'm wayyyyy oversimplifying this group
(III) Hebrew - Jews
(IV) Nordic - Northern Europeans, blond hair, blue eyes... Aryan?
(V) French - Very close to Anglo, but many clear distinctions
(VI) Slav - Eastern European, intermingled with Nordic as well
(VII) Mediterranean - Southern European, Greek, greasy hair, possibly intermingled long ago with African
(VIII) Spanish/Hispanic - Dark/Yellowish skin, black hair, possibly intermingled long ago with African, Hispanic intermingled with Mongoloid

Another example of how we can classify the Races
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

(i) African
(ii) New Guinean & Australian
(iii) Pacific Islander
(iv) Southeast Asian
(v) Amerindian
(vi) Arctic Northeast Asian
(vii) Northeast Asian
(viii) European Caucasoid
(ix) Non-European Caucasoid

We can even classify them like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

It should also be noted that anyone who is of "mixed" race between the races that we have specified is considered SEPERATE from their original race. However, these people are VERY important because they show the qualities that they inherited from each Race. For example, we can argue for the differences between Mulatto's and their ancestors on both sides. For example, on average, African-Americans are 20% European. (with figures as high was 50% in the northeast to as low as 10% in the south http://en.wikipedia.org...) This can be argued as both a good and a bad thing. (You would have to prove that the mixed raced is better than either of their racial ancestry, whereas, I'd be arguing that the mixture of races has diluted their original race and left them as something less than the sum of their parts)

What we should seek to decipher:

(Q1) Does each race possess unique qualities?
(Q2) Are the qualities of each race equal in all categories? Are their qualities of equal value?
(Q3) Are there benefits to integration? Of all races or only some?

There's more questions to answer, for sure, but I think that's a good place to start.

I think the B.O.P. is on BOTH of us here (you never stated)? You need to prove your resolution, and I the antithesis of it. So make sure you make a Positive statement that is in direct contrast to my proposed resolutions

Here are some examples of your resolution that I will be refuting.

(A) Resolved: There is a Justification for Racism that is Valid
----((a) that social/political/spatial integration is progressive, thereby, desegregation is positive in some way (define the way)
or
(B) Resolved: Affirmative Action helps society Progress towards Goal X
----(while I believe Goal X is interstellar travel and the continuation of our Species, you can argue for another one) ---- (Affirmative Action is defined as creating policy that actively makes up for the shortcomings of a person's race, assumed those shortcomings are real)
or
(C) Resolved: Integration of the Races is a Positive thing for our Genetic Code
----(thereby making our genetic code more robust in some way, or some other justification)

So, this is kind of two arguments in one, each arguing for a Resolution that is juxtaposed to the others.
I'm not sure why I want to do it this way, but I think it has to do with you being the initiator and being Con. I feel like I have to make a PRO statement, with the BOP entirely on me, even though you should really be the one making a PRO statement that I can refute. But, we do get 8,000 characters, so I don't think it'll be a problem for space.. I guess we'll find out!

I will note that a debate very close to this (slavery as opposed to racism) is how my favorite style of debate came about (Lincoln/Douglas). That said, I think it's important to note that a lot of what they did was an experiment... they did not know what exactly would happen with the slaves being freed). They justified on grounds that at the time were not very well understood (On the Origin of the Species came out in 1859, the famous Lincoln Douglas debates were 1858). They were going on pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious grounds (as religion can make the argument that blacks are descendants of Ham, who was and all his descendants cursed.... though this isn't across the board accepted). They did not even have a concept of Evolution, yet alone a full understanding of it. So, while I appreciate the experiment they conducted, and understand the grounds for which they argued.... it's been 150 years since those decisions were made, I think we can re-evaluate their opinions, supportive arguments, and their conclusions.

Lastly, please do not say at any time "he didn't support anything with facts!" (I realize you haven't done it yet)... it's really disrespectful. If this is done, I'm out. If you want justification for something I've said, quote out the fact that is in dispute, ask for clarification and I will defend it (either with a source, or with logic). But blanket attacks will only make me walk away from this debate. I am also aware of the sensitive nature of this debate, but I won't hold my tongue, with that, please refrain from comparing me to historical figures or movements, everything should be credited on it's merit, not by who is saying it or who has said it.

(PS, you said no introduction, but this basically had to be an introduction for me since you didn't define the topic at all)
Debate Round No. 1
Dorie

Con

Ok, so I am not all together clear on a couple things, but I am going to integrate my questions into my argument, as I'd rather not waste another round tying up loose ends.
I will probably touch on A, B, and C, but have most interest in A and C, as I see them to be closely related and can easily apply to all peoples, not just present Americans. If you'd like to talk about different places, you may. I just thought it could make the task overwhelming as there are many many combinations of peoples who have shared the same lands throughout space and time. Some were peaceful and others were far from it, so there is certainly plentiful history to draw from.
You may use whichever of the 3 racial divisions you put forth. I don't see any one as markedly better or worse.
BOP is indeed equally on both of us. I chose Con because of how the topic was phrased. It seemed to make sense.

I'll first address the 3 questions you put forth:
Q1) Does each race possess unique qualities?
I think the clear answer is yes. Physical qualities alone should answer this question, but as I'm sure you know, there are other less obvious qualities that trend higher in some groups than others.
Q2) Are the qualities of each race equal in all categories? Are their qualities of equal value?
I propose that the qualities are of equal value overall, but are best suited for the adaptive conditions that gave rise to them in the first place (example: tall, skinny people cool themselves better than short, fat people; this is beneficial in basketball perhaps, but was designed to survive the dessert). However, given that many of those conditions no longer apply (we dont have to chase down our food, etc.), its very common for those traits to be re-purposed. That being said, with regard to the first part of this question-- no, not all races have equal ability in all categories. That is why the answer to #1 is yes.
Q3) Are there benefits to integration? Of all races or only some?
Yes, of course there are. Bringing different skills together can surely offer more benefit than the same number of people, all with the same skills and weaknesses. We have uses for all different qualities. There is no reason, to praise some traits over others, when the uses of each depend so heavily on situational need.

Ok, now to apply those answers to the big questions (A-C):
A)There are two points I'd like to make here. 1. Integration (ie: non-segregation) is not harmful and can in fact be positive. and 2. There is NO benefit to differing groups fighting each other based solely on their differences. This could in fact be severely detrimental to the human race, not to mention hinders progress.
1. In the past, there have been many ideas about why different people should not mix personally, socially, politically, etc. Some used to think there were diseases that could be passed back and forth. Others used to profess that certain races were in fact another species. These, as well as many other ideas about race, have long since been debunked and put to rest. SO, given that these ideas are behind us and widely agreed to be false, I see little risk or harm in modern integration of all peoples. If anything, the modern world should show that more so than race, factors like money, status, and eduction unite (and divide) people just as strongly. Looking back at Q1-3, you may be thinking, "Well you said races are distinctly different and now you're saying there's no reason they cannot mix and live together-- what gives?" Thats true. They are different AND can live together. How? Well, in the simplest terms, living with those who are different has ALWAYS been something humans have done. It is simply a question of degrees of difference. If you take the skin color out of the equation and focus only on the characteristic and physical differences that remain, it is likely that that gap between any two people has nothing to do with race. Even within groups there can be enormous variation. The thing about race is it lets us color code those difference in certain groups. However, it does not in fact mean that those color-coded differences are any greater. And that is exactly why segregation is pointless. It harps on perceived differences.
Further, segregation takes an active and often violent effort to enforce, thus requiring extra input and risking higher losses. Yet, the benefits are marginal, if any. Those who support it may gain peace of mind. However, the quantitative benefits are few as compared to a system in which resources (including natural skills and abilities) are pooled for the greatest possible outcome. Thus, the differences that justify segregation are no greater than the differences we live with every day. The mere act of segregation requires risk and added effort towards a benefit-less cause. And, by segregating we actively pass up a certain group of resources that could otherwise go towards overall progress.
2. As for the idea that visibly different groups might be best suited to simply fight each other: nonsense. While there are some fights that yield measurable gains such as land, resources and power, race wars just for the sake of race wars offers only bloodshed, loss and chaos. Not only is there nothing to gain from annihilating another group of people, simply for the sake of it, but it is also a HUGE resource drain (as are most wars). If humans were (for some crazy reason) to spend the next X years fighting each other across racial lines with the intent of wiping out all "other" or non-self groups, it would be a huge step backwards for humans as a species. We have made thousands of years of progress and to revert to senseless fighting would be tragically backwards. The most amazing inventions and innovations have come from brilliant minds that were allowed to think rather than fight. The resources needed to create the things that move us forward have been available because they were not lost to pointless wars. The manpower needed to turn a handful of people into a strong nation comes only if those people may channel their lives and their skills to productive means. If the goal is progress, there is none to be found in race wars. At the end of it all, if (and it's a HUGE if) we hadn't cleared the earth of every human life, those that were left would have only smoldering tatters from which to rebuild humanity. Its a sad post-apocalyptic image. And the odds of failure would be great. Simple survival would be a daily task. And our future kin would be no better off than our ancestors that lived in caves. As a matter of fact, their odds of success would be far lower.

This all seems like a simple risk/benefit analysis to me. The risk of segregation and eventual race war is alarmingly high, no matter who's side you're on. It would certainly lead to strife, violence, hatred, war, injustice. Progress would be left by the wayside as fighting became priority #1. And the benefits are few at best. Those committed to segregation would enjoy brief victory, while those disadvantaged by forced removal would absorb the loss and start stoking the fire of resentment and hate that would later serve as fuel for war. There would be no true winners of any race war. All sides would endure devastating losses to people and resources alike. Anyone left standing at the end would have little to work with. Manpower would be scarce. Our food sources depleted or destroyed. Much energy would be lost to the fight. The greatest minds, bodies and souls from each group would probably be lost (this ties into C a bit, but more on that later). Realistically, the whole planet would probably be devastated, if not irradiated at the end. No one can, in earnest, call that progress.

Next round I'll talk about B and C.
Good luck!
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

(Q2) "its very common for those traits to be re-purposed." Interesting you should say this... what about the people who do not have any traits that can be re-purposed for fit our society?
Q3) "We have uses for all different qualities. There is no reason, to praise some traits over others, when the uses of each depend so heavily on situational need." - I followed you until this. I agree variation is good, but necessarily (by your argument) all qualities are not good (since by changing them, we are rejecting the contrary quality). The truth is, our genetics are binary. You either have taller or shorter, fatter or skinnier, smarter or dumber, stronger or weaker, darker hair/skin/eyes or lighter hair/skin/eyes. You seem to be arguing that differentiation is better.... BUT integration makes for SAMENESS! If we continue on our separate paths, our divergence will only become greater. If we integrate, we will become MORE like each other, and the separate traits which we desire will be assimilated to a singular.

1. "Integration (ie: non-segregation) is not harmful and can in fact be positive." - You give many reasons here why the past reasons people gave for segregation/racism are wrong (diseases, species) you don't actually give reasons FOR desegregation or integration, which is part of having the BOP.

"If you take the skin color out of the equation and focus only on the characteristic and physical differences that remain, it is likely that that gap between any two people has nothing to do with race." - Skin color is NOT the only thing differentiating between races, it is the most obvious one, for sure... but there is much more than just skin color; listed in my argument.

"Further, segregation takes an active and often violent effort to enforce" - While this would possibly be true today, it was a much more violent path to desegregation (600,000 in the Civil War) It would be hard to convince that the Civil War somehow SAVED American lives. In other words, there were more deaths caused on the path to desegregation than if desegregation was never aspired. Additionally, I'm not convinced that if segregation was re-instated, that you would see a "race war" or anything of the like in America. The whites might fight the whites on it, and possibly the blacks fight the blacks as well.. and I don't think the Hispanics would fight at all... I think the amount of fighting between the races might actually DECREASE with segregation. (I'm talking true segregation, not just water fountains, bathrooms and restaurants ... i'm saying as low down neighborhoods and possibly all the way up to the state level)

2. "There is NO benefit to differing groups fighting each other based solely on their differences." I never once said this... the closest thing I said was "we should be actively against one another", to be actively against does not mean fight a war or something of that nature, but to keep them not only separate, but un-equal. The civil strife that may result from this action could not be called a war (lest you count the Civil War, which was crafted and fought predominantly by people of the same race on behalf of another). This discounts your entire counter-argument to (2).

I also think it's measured that after declaring that LD is my favorite style of debate, you use an policy style extreme disadvantage against me resulting in the extinction of the human race - "At the end of it all, if (and it's a HUGE if) we hadn't cleared the earth of every human life, those that were left would have only smoldering tatters from which to rebuild humanity". Typically, that's only used as a disadvantage of someone's proposal, not making up a proposal of your own and discounting it:a strawman.

With all that said, onto my side:

For starters, you seemed to act as if the only difference between the races is the color of their skin. This was either ill-intention or misinformed, i'll assume the latter.

For starters, bone structure is different so much that they can tell the race by skeletal structure alone.
Additionally, intelligence across races is undeniable.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

People argue what the reason for it is, but no one denies that it exists.
Apologists will say socio-economic reasons, but I think the link that I provided (and corresponding chart) shows quite clearly that socio-economic reasons don't explain everything.

This is just the same as differences in athletic abilities

http://en.wikipedia.org...

These are things you already know, even if you ignored them in your arguments, so I'm not sure why I'm restating them.
A concept you may or may not have heard though is comparing the abilities of humans to the abilities of dogs. Now, you could say "we're different than dogs!", but as someone who believes in evolution... this should not worry you.

For one, mixes breeds often leads to the mixed animal containing the worst features of both dogs
http://www.canismajor.com...

Outside of that, lets compare.
Dogs are across-the-board regarded as having different temperaments, different intelligences, different abilities, yet they can breed with each other.
People of different races are the same way.

All of that doesn't matter though, because I realized through your arguments that I'm never going to actually be able to convince you of anything with regards to this... no matter what evidence I would show because it isn't something that is perfectly clear by logic. I'll admit that. Logic doesn't prove either side. You have to use studies and base things off your own experience, which... admittedly, both sides can use to say whatever they want. And no matter what the differences are between the races, it would be hard to take the jump from those differences to the conclusion that we ought to be racist; especially since you seemed to stop talking about racism and started talking about "equality" like it could possibly be achieved while still maintaining separate races and talking about race wars. The truth is you can believe in segregation and racism without thinking we are superior or inferior, just different.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

also

So, all of that doesn't matter and I want to change up the debate... if that's alright with you?

I'd like to now discuss this
===> Should government policy regarding race relations be handled by the Federal Government, the State or by the People.

This is kind of a changing it back to a "affirmative action" debate, because it's one that we don't hold as strong convictions. And I don't want to arguing on what the policy should be, just who should handle it.

Whaddaya think?
Debate Round No. 2
Dorie

Con

Frankly, I'm rather confused about a number of things you brought up.
First- you're done with this debate? Where does that leave this topic then?
Second- now you'd like to discuss Affirmative Action? Or general race relations? But not their validity- which level of government should determine these things? I don't really see much of a debate there, but if you'd like to present your stance, we can try it.
Further:
"I also think it's measured that after declaring that LD is my favorite style of debate, you use an policy style extreme disadvantage against me resulting in the extinction of the human race"---- What's LD? What policy style?

As for your arguments, I am aware of the statistical difference in intelligence, bone structure and athletic ability. Just because I didn't bring it up doesn't mean I don't know or don't validate it.
However, even if you were to take these differences and disregard the array of possible reasons for them, I see no reason to segregate based on these numbers.
About your comparison to dogs, I am not sure what your point is. I see how they are similar. Yet mixed breeds are no more likely to inherit only bad qualities than they are to inherit only good qualities. Even with dogs/people of the same general lineage, offspring can inherit good, bad or mixed traits. Also, it is commonly acknowledged with dogs that obsession with breed purity can often make for bad temperament and/or low intelligence as well as genetic mutations due to the genes being too similar to combine successfully. And just look at dogs-- they mix all the time, which only INCREASES variety. It provides for more possibilities rather than making them all the same.
If by 'actively against' you did not mean fighting or war, please-- what DID you mean? Also, again, how is that productive?
Finally-- Q2) Yes, there are surely some skills that cannot be efficiently repurposed. However, I don't see this as a racial issue.
Q3) Of course not all qualities are good. But problems emerge in ALL groups of people. Ideally, as many as possible of these bad traits are bred OUT of the population, but realistically that will never happen.
As for binary genetics... not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)
As I'm sure you know, there can be full or partial dominance (co-dominance). This depends on the trait, but for example, a white and a red flower may be able to make white, red AND pink flowers. So some traits may be watered down rather than eliminated.
And reasons FOR desegregation-- dissipates feelings of superiority or inferiority between groups, allows for pooling of different skills, sharing of ideas, etc., in the context of the US-- you cannot provide the same opportunities, rights, benefits, etc. under segregation. So unless you're proposing we go back and write racial inequality into the nation's founding documents, I cannot possibly see how it could work under the fundamental tenets of the country.
One last thing-- about equality, I reject your idea that just because "perfect" equality cannot be reached (whether this is between genders, races, etc.) it should not be valued and strove for. Perfect justice is near impossible, but I likewise reject the idea that we should give up on that. You could say perfect health is impossible too (perfect _____ many things are impossible actually), but again, no reason to stop trying.

So I guess its up to you how you'd like the rest of this debate to proceed. I'll follow your lead.
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

Now that's more like it!
You still have flawed arguments, but I think that was a fitting response.

And I want to switch it over to no longer debating anything about the topic of actual racial differences and that effect on us personally TO how government should handle the issue. Not so much race relations, but how government legislates and enforces any law regarding to race. We can continue to respond to one another on the topic of racial disparity, but I'd rather focus on the legislative side.

"I don't really see much of a debate there"? Does that mean you believe it should be handled by the Federal Government? Because I don't... I don't think government should make any legislation regarding race at all, and at WORST it should be reserved for the States. (Things like hate crimes, affirmative action, desegregation...etc)

LD - LD is Lincoln-Douglas Debate... they were debates between then-US Senate Republican candidate for Illinois Abraham Lincoln and Illinois US Senator Stephan Douglas. (A simple Google search would have done it). The style of Debate means that it is based, not off of experimental evidence or implication of affected policy - but based on ethics, values, logic and philosophy.

Policy style - Policy debate is debate that is heavily focused on the implications of the proposed policy. It is also a debate format that uses more anecdotal and experimental evidence. Philosophy is not used as much as practicality and implementation. In competitive debate, it is often done that you take the opponents proposal and point out how it will lead to nuclear holocaust (as that is clearly the worst possible outcome).

We haven't set the standard for what type of debate we're doing, but I have never given much credit to the type of policy debate that is won by declaring annihilation.

"To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance."
-Jonathan Schell

Yea, that's the argument used... but I don't give it credit... because we can never know what will cause extinction, nor do we have experimental grounds for it (since it's never happened, besides the dinosaurs). And if that is the case, we shouldn't do what they did... we need to get off this Rock.... and wasting time improving Race relations or helping those who lag behind is not helping us do that.

"Just because I didn't bring it up doesn't mean I don't know" - you used in your arguments that "If you take the skin color out of the equation and focus only on the characteristic and physical differences that remain, it is likely that that gap between any two people has nothing to do with race."... this is quite misleading... because it must have SOMETHING to do with race

"However, even if you were to take these differences and disregard the array of possible reasons for them, I see no reason to segregate based on these numbers." - And that's where I gave up the argument... because I realized that is going to be true for ANYTHING I say.

"Yet mixed breeds are no more likely to inherit only bad qualities than they are to inherit only good qualities." - I gave a source for mine... where's yours?

"due to the genes being too similar to combine successfully." I'm not arguing for in-breeding.... which is how this generally happens (and even then.. when the genes do combine successfully, they are a magnificent presentation of their breed...http://www.dogbreedinfo.com...) So, while you do have mishaps... you also get the best

"just look at dogs-- they mix all the time, which only INCREASES variety." Only because we do keep purebreds too, if we didn't.. then there would be no purebreds left and all we would have left is mutts, and as they all bred together, we'd only have one brand of mutt left.... no.. its BECAUSE we limit their breeding that there is variety.

"by 'actively against'...what DID you mean?" - The same way we're 'actively against' communism.. or we're 'actively against' Iran... are we at war with them? no.. I might even take it as far as saying how Israel treats the West Bank (not Gaza, because up until recently, that was a war)... which is a toughie for you, huh! Call it war and you're admitting Israel's war against them.. call it not war and you concede my point that you can be actively against and not fighting or war. Either way... I was talking in the sense that we are 'actively against' Columbia, or Cuba, or at the very minimum the way America is 'actively against' China, Russia, France (hehe... French)

Also, again, how is that productive? - This one is gonna take more words than I can fit here.

Q3) Of course not all qualities are good. But problems emerge in ALL groups of people. Ideally, as many as possible of these bad traits are bred OUT of the population, but realistically that will never happen.

"As for binary genetics... not quite." - No.. I got it... red flower and red flower makes pink flower... wait.. no.. red gene makes flowers redder, white gene makes flowers whiter... binary.... maybe I didn't use the word correctly? I thought I continued to explain with height. I didn't know the word, but it's either one way or the other... from one of the parents genetic code, when you add the other parents, those genes line up... and each gene line-up is either AA (full dominant), Aa (still dominant) or aa (full recessive). So, if you want to keep all the dominant genes, if you keep adding the recessive genes, the dominant genes will get wiped out, zero.

"dissipates feelings of superiority or inferiority between groups" - we care about peoples feelings now? either way.. feeling superior or inferior isn't justified, we're different, not inferior or superior... so if people feel that way... sounds like their problem

"allows for pooling of different skills" - please expand on this further

"sharing of ideas" - this was a separate debate that we never did, to my dismay... we need to do it sometime... sounds like I would be partial to argue that the sharing of ideas is a negative thing, no?

"the context of the US" - We changed the constitution to end slavery, why can't we change it to establish segregation?

"One last thing-- about equality" -.. "equality/I spoke their word/as if a wedding vow...but I was so much older then/I'm younger than that now"

This was the one part of your debate that you got a little off track.. I never said that "equality" shouldn't be strove for because it can't be accomplished... I simply didn't say that.. in fact, I just read over my argument and I'm not even sure where it could be construed that I was implying that. - so, another Straw man... I did say that "equality" could not be achieved, but so do you... because it can't... that is not... in any way, my reasoning for not striving for it.

Striving for equality is a waste of resources.

I don't really have enough room to make any good arguments... you can response to this, or go on to the federal/state/people who takes care of it thing
Debate Round No. 3
Dorie

Con

Ok, so we can use Round 5 to discuss how exactly laws/regulations regarding race should be passed, enforced (or not), etc.? The reason I didn't see it as much of a debate is because I don't know that its so much about WHO passes (or doesn't pass) laws, etc., but more a question of how MANY laws/regs you'd see as appropriate. Anyways, let's hash it out regardless..

I think that we're basically on the same page about dogs and genes and debate styles. I cannot promise that I will strictly adhere to LD, but if thats your preference, by all means, go for it. I see what you're getting at with dogs, but I do not think segregation is necessary for any genetic means. The idea that EVERYONE will interbreed and pure lineages will be lost is no more likely or rational than human annihilation. Its not impossible of course, but the odds are slim. Also, some lineages of peoples HAVE been outbred overtime, but I'd say thats just nature-- some exceed, but others do not.

Pooling of different skills-- simply what it sounds like-- allows for different people with different abilities to use those skills within the same system to accomplish one goal. If you have a whole culture of academics, I wouldn't expect to see much artisanship or many skyscrapers (someone has to build them, etc.). Mixed skills allow for specialization and ultimately progress. **Mind you, the actual distribution of skills in each society over time may vary, but this is quite specific so I'd rather speak generally*

It is generally agreed (historically) that sharing ideas is beneficial to people as a whole. But yes, this could be a whole other debate.

Why can't we change the constitution to establish segregation?
For starters, it would violate the ideas our nation was founded on. It invalidates the reasons that brought so many people here from so many different places. Its supposed to be a melting pot. Thats the whole idea. There are countries around the world that are largely homogenous when it comes to race. The US has really NEVER been that way and was never meant to be. Of course its more different now than it ever has been, but thats all the more reason that trying to dismantle the US into several homogenous parts is pointless as well as counter-productive.
Now, I'm not arguing that abiding by history is reason enough to do something. That is obviously not valid. However, the obsession with homogeny is (I think) a lost cause in the US. I argue that much of our success is credited to different peoples working TOGETHER anyways. When we come together, progress is achieved. It is when we fight each other that things drag on, don't get done, etc. Yet, you seem to prefer this?
I don't think fear of people over-mixing should justify segregation. Nor should the idea that bad qualities come from certain peoples or the fact that some patterns prevail more heavily in some groups than others. Those, so far, have been your major points for segregation. And I know you requested that we treat mixed peoples as a separate category, but hopefully that does not mean that we cannot examine them-- they are certainly not considered general failures in society. They may inherit any combination of traits, but still tend to be successful and productive members of society-- by no means a deterrent from mixing.
The reason I keep going back the the US is because I assume you mean segregation in the US (if not, I really would need to hear the specifics of that plan). That would necessarily limit America's options (where to live, work, learn, travel, etc.) for EVERY American. It would define "being American" differently depending on which group you were in, which jobs were available to you, etc etc. It would establish barriers, build walls. Despite how you feel a 150 year old war SHOULD have ended, I maintain that we live in a UNITED nation. One country. This isn't the EU or a coalition of nations, it is ONE nation. And under that idea alone I believe that all Americans should be afforded the same legal rights, abide by the same regulations, enjoy the same privileges, and have the same liberties. It violates rights (legal, that is), privileges AND liberties to tell people where they can or cannot live, work, learn or visit. Your proposed segregation would change the country for everyone, and for the worst. Families could be torn apart, people could lose their jobs, be expelled from school, forcibly relocated, the list goes on. This IS detrimental. A country should not harass and abuse its citizens. Not only would segregation negatively impact the individual, the family and the community, but also the country! It would be a huge step backwards, a very sorry sink of resources and a huge slap in the face to years of fighting for rights that some have not always had. Some of this may not mean anything to you because it would not necessarily affect you. However, I aim to look at the country as a whole and consider all citizens, not just those who are a certain color.

About equality: you said "... talking about "equality" like it could possibly be achieved...", then later "Striving for equality is a waste of resources."
I may have misunderstood your chain of logic, but my stance that equality SHOULD be strove for even if it IS impossible in its perfect form still stands. So, if your reason was not its impossibility but rather it's wastefulness, I apologize, my bad.
But as I tried to demonstrate, there are many things that are not possible in their perfect forms. Yet, many are still valuable. Its interesting you say equality wastes resources, because I say that inequality wastes them. Maybe both create waste, but which produces the more VALUABLE result? I say equality. It is a founding principle of our country and the US is quite strong, with growing strength coinciding with growing equality. Perhaps coincidence, but perhaps not.

Ok, thats all I am going to say on that because I would like to give you a chance to move onto the federal vs state vs people (btw, please define "people" when it comes to legal matters, judicial matters, etc, as I know what you mean but I am a little unclear about how that would work in practice).. I'll let you start because it was your idea.
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

"more a question of how MANY laws/regs you'd see as appropriate." - Ok... WHO (or what level) gets to decide how many laws/regs are appropriate... same thing.

"I cannot promise that I will strictly adhere to LD" - I wouldn't expect you to, I was just pointing out the irony of going to the extreme on the opposite right away. I believe that in normal debates, it's good to mix the two. If you can win on one front, but your opponent wins on the other, I think both people have lost.

"The idea that EVERYONE will interbreed and pure lineages will be lost is no more likely or rational than human annihilation." - Equality (intermingling completely) is the goal of desegregation (even if it won't be accomplished). It would be ill to say "some should intermingle and some shouldn't"... as you then have to define who should and who shouldn't based on genetic (or otherwise empirical) qualities. Therefore, the goal must be for complete intermingling. Contrarily, the goal of segregation certainly isn't annihilation.

"It is generally agreed (historically) that sharing ideas is beneficial to people as a whole." - Please give a source for this, because I've never seen any study, philosophical or empirical, to suggest this... let alone prove this. Sure, there's the common adage "we're better when we work together/two heads are better than one"... but I wouldn't say that means that it is "historically" generally agreed by anyone who has any type of merit to make such a claim.

Why can't we change the constitution to establish segregation?
"For starters, it would violate the ideas our nation was founded on." - Except... our nation was founded with slavery being legal, yet alone segregation? so.. the ideas that you're talking about simply never existed, in their minds anyway... they believed in states rights. We can say that it goes against what our (some of us) ideas are founded on, but certainly not against the ideas of our founding fathers.

"Its supposed to be a melting pot. That's the whole idea." - Is it? Really? Sounds like liberal propaganda to me.

"There are countries around the world that are largely homogeneous when it comes to race. The US has really NEVER been that way and was never meant to be." - In 1790, the TOTAL population of the United States was 3,893,635. There were 59,150 non-white free peoples and 694,280 slaves. That's a 1.5% population of non-white free peoples and 17.8% of slaves. In 1800, we had a total 5,305,982 people. There were 104,294 non-white free peoples and 893,605 slaves. that's a 1.9% population of non-white free peoples and 16.8% population of slaves http://en.wikipedia.org.... Compare that to modern Japan, that is considered EXTREMELY closed... they have a 1.5% population of non-Japanese http://en.wikipedia.org.... So, I'm not sure what this melting pot that founding fathers wanted? Furthermore, the breakdown of European ethnicity are here http://en.wikipedia.org... with England accounting for 67% of the population of white in America, Scot/Irish accounting for 14% and Germans accounting for 9%. That's 90% of the white population in America in 1790 from Great Britain or Germany. Not exactly a melting pot (considering all the Founding Fathers were from the UK http://wiki.answers.com..., with five that were not expressly British being James Smith, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, James Wilson and John Witherspoon all having British sounding names.)

That's alot just to say... we were not founded as a melting pot.

"Yet, you seem to prefer this?" - I agree fighting each other hinders progress... that's why we should be separate. We wouldn't be fighting each other if we were separated. We could all join together in our own cause and be confident in the direction we are going.

"Despite how you feel a 150 year old war SHOULD have ended" - It's not just that I think the War should have ended differently.. the War should have never been fought. This could have been done by the North quelling southern concerns dealing with "Bleeding Kansas" or simply allowing them to secede. Coercing States by force is not something we were founded on! (Join or Die was death by the British, not each other)

"This isn't the EU or a coalition of nations" - Correct, it is the "union" of states... are those terms so different? True, the constitution does declare sovereignty (as opposed to the EU, which doesn't), states are still protected by the rights reserved to them by the Constitution. As repeated many times before, the tenth amendment proclaims "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" While adding the 14th amendment has changed that for slavery, I believe that the 10th Amendment asserts that States have the right to decide race relations. Sure, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been defended by the Supreme Court...but I do not believe the power to pass such an act was "delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

"all Americans should be afforded the same legal rights, abide by the same regulations, enjoy the same privileges, and have the same liberties." - I could not agree with you more.

"It violates rights (legal, that is), privileges AND liberties to tell people where they can or cannot live, work, learn or visit." - That is not true, at least not any Right granted by the constitution.

"families could be torn apart, people could lose their jobs, be expelled from school, forcibly relocated" - that's kinda the point, isn't it?

"A country should not harass and abuse its citizens." - and yet.. it happens... continually

"However, I aim to look at the country as a whole and consider all citizens, not just those who are a certain color." - As do I... it affects both sides, as do your suggested policies. You must see that. Your policies don't just concern those of a certain color... they affect everyone.

"Its interesting you say equality wastes resources, because I say that inequality wastes them." - Give for example, you have a group of long distance runners... if you were to have a race of several miles, would it be better for all if those who finished first went back and helped the others? Or better to only count those who finished first and exclude the others? Which would give you the best average times? If you had to pick teams, should you do it a random, or only have the best? Granted, we live in an economic world, where the best aren't always the richest... but when it comes to genes, I think this argument rings true. You don't get the best genes by having the best genes mate with lesser genes. You should only want the best genes to be reproduced, and in that way advance the species. Now, I realize I'm arguing more for eugenics here, but I think in the way I described Dog Breeding, it is best when you take each form to its extent, instead of muddling and averaging.

"please define 'people' when it comes to legal matters" - Mean that the constitution should state (or just assumed kinda like it is) that the government shall make no law or judicial ruling or anything of the like based on race.. at all... maybe so far to say that no language regarding races can be used in any official documents.

I think it should be up to the States. The great part of being United is there no restriction on where to go. The more diversity of the states, the more options we have as citizens. If we want to be bigots, there should be a place where we can go to be bigots, with other bigots. We've talked before, I want a place that I can go, but it doesn't exist. Not on this idea, but in general... I want diversity in America!!! I want us to be different!!! You are the one that wants to push the same onto everyone! Consider that in your response
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
Thanks for the input iamnotwhoiam, I agree it was haphazard (I actually thought we had a 5th round! I forgot it was only 4).

And, I agree that I could come off as a half-hearted racist (as was to be my stance in the debate), the debate started as supposed to be me justifying Racism and my opponent invalidating it... but we got away from that quite a bit. You can't really argue PRO racism and not sound like a racist (or to try to prove that being a racist isn't a bad thing... like the Avenue Q video I posted)

Dorie and I have argued many times on here, and typically this is how our debates end...

Ultimately, as I started but didn't finish in the debate... I think we all know many of the differences that are generalizations of the races. It would be to ignore the obvious to argue against that. The difference is in our believed justification for these differences. Myself, in terms of present day America, I don't really care what the justifications are for it. I would prefer to make my assessments on how things are, and how things should be in the future, regardless of how they got there from the past. Certainly, this is self-serving, but ultimately, the winners write the history books. For that reason, I can maintain racism as justified. Of course, this doesn't attack those who have already transcended, but it is a generalization of the realization of modern-day America. And to be on the side that's doing the pushing is the most effective way to ensure a more prosperous tomorrow.

If I had a 5th round, it would have went something like that (plus added arguments lauding my opponents response)
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Con left herself open to losing the debate by unnecessarily accepting a classification of race. In modern biology, race has no taxonomic significance.

Pro - "Logic doesn't prove either side. You have to use studies and base things off your own experience"

First statement is correct in this case. "You have to use studies" is correct. If we want to get at the truth, this argument relies on evidence. Relying on your own experience is wrong. Anecdotal evidence is a single data point, and that is not much use for anything.

Pro did cite some studies on intelligence, but didn't make any argument based on them.

Pro's source on mixed breeds doesn't seem reliable to me. On wikipedia the opposite argument is made, which is what I would expect to be the case from diversity in the population. Con takes on Pro's argument, but fails to source her argument, which is a pity.

I thought both sets of arguments lacked structure. Pro seemed rather a half-hearted racist to me. Con inserted too much opinion. Not enough evidence or argument on either side.
Posted by Dorie 4 years ago
Dorie
So rather than general racism and segregation, would you like to make this about intelligence??
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
Oh, I should note too.

Defining "integration" - I was just reading up on some stuff and apparently "integration" just means social integration. I think, from here on out we should specify. Integration can continue to mean social integraiton, when we are talking about producing children of mixed heritage, we should call it "intermingling"

In argument (C), I should have been using "intermingling" instead of "integration"
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
http://debate.org...

I realize that Con won the debate here, but as you can see by the votes, it was very close.
This was the type of debate I wanted to have.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
DorieOne_Winged_RookTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments