The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

We are all Living beings,; STOP CLASSIFYING!!

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,099 times Debate No: 14749
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Dominance of others all started out with humans classifying themselves from animals, thus thinking we are dominant. Since classifying ourselves from animals, we just started to classify within our own species. We classify each other in many ways - race, social class, religion, sex, intelligence, etc. This causes many arguments and wars in society, only making more classifications in the world. Classification is brought up in many things - Socialism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feminism, Debate, etc. We are just as equal as all living objects. Yes, we do have a higher intelligence, but that does NOT mean we should abuse it. We should treat everything equally, otherwise we will continue this cycle of dominant abuse towards others, causing more classifications, more arguments over who/what is better than who/what, leading to violence, unending wars, dictators and higher dominant theories.


I would like to thank my opponent for issuing this challenge. I would like to identify the three primary arguments that my opponent makes.

A) Classifications lead to segregation.
B) Segregation leads to prejudice and discrimination.
C) Discrimination is inherently negative and morally reprehensible.

Ergo) We should not use Classifications so to avoid the morally reprehensible result of discrimination.

The way I see it, this is primarily an ethical debate. So I shall argue from an ethical perspective. I would, however, like to respond to the three contentions that Con has put forward.

A) Classification need not lead to segregation. Con has asserted this without any real reasoning. He has not shown that this is a necessary fact. He is relying on a form of "slippery slope" fallacy that argues that if we take one step in a progression, we must indeed take all the steps in the progression. In fact, there are many systems of classification that do not lead to segregation.

B) Segregation leads to prejudice and discrimination. This again is an unproven attestation. In fact, Segregation is not always a statement of prejudice or discrimination. For example, when I walk into an Electronics store I see several different brands of computers. However, those brands are often set right next to each other on a shelf. There is no segregation between the two. In fact, often times setting them next to each other is a way of showing their similarity, not their differences. People divide things all the time without causing prejudice. you are segregated as the con in this argument, while I am segregated as the pro. However, people do not necessarily have to have a predisposition to a con or pro in the argument. Just because something may happen, or does happen, does not mean that it must happen.

C) Discrimination and prejudice is inherently morally reprehensible. The simple fact is this, most forms of prejudice and discrimination are indeed morally reprehensible. However, not all are. When I go to a doctor, I'm going to be prejudice and discriminator against people who have lower education. They are segregated by those who possess medical degrees, and those who do not. We classify them as those who have medical degrees and those who do not. This is a perfect example of beneficial segregation and ethically positive discrimination and prejudice.

Now, on to the ethical argument. All of this hinges on Kant's Categorical Imperative. Ethically speaking, this imperative states that unless something is universally possible and desirable for the person considering the action, it is unethical. For example, if you are deciding to lie... you must consider if that would be universally possible for everyone to lie, and would it be universally desirable. Since in this case, you would not wish for everyone to lie, it is unethical for you to do so.

You argue that we should not classify or discriminate against any kind of animal. However, if you were to universally apply this... when you get the flu you should desire for your body to not kill the attacking virus. When you get pneumonia, you should not take antibiotics to kill the bacteria. If you get attacked by a wild dog, you should not be discriminatory or classificatory in your response to that dog. I think that logically and ethically we must concede hat some classifications of living beings are not only morally acceptable, but are also morally positive and required in order to survive as human beings.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


egypta forfeited this round.


My opponent has conceeded the previous round. Please vote pro when the time comes.
Debate Round No. 2


egypta forfeited this round.


My opponent has done nothing to defend themself from my rebuttals to their argument, nor have they done anything to address my argument.

I think that it is clear how people should vote in this debate. Thank you for taking time to read my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
I also want to know why exactly you chose Con considering your arguments seem like they're Pro. Also, what is being debated? Is this an anti-racism debate, or all animals are equal? Once you clarify, I might be interested in accepting.

Sorry, Robikan, I know this is a rip-off of your comment.
Posted by Robikan 7 years ago

I would be interested in accepting this debate, but I think it needs revising. First, what *exactly* do you want to debate (that classifying is detrimental? That all animals are equal? Something else?)? And, did you choose "con" because you are against classifying, or because you are against the position you gave example of?
Posted by maninorange 7 years ago
egypta, are you a vegetarian?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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