The Instigator
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
scrappykoala
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

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: 8/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,714 times Debate No: 4947
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (10)

 

Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

The above is not the actual resolution I am debating, it is a metaphor that sets the terms of this challenge.. My opponent shall write the resolution, any resolution they please. I then choose which position on it I will argue (So I may or may not be the actual "Pro" in this debate). So, I advise you to only accept this debate if A. You are a traditional debate wonk who is willing to argue any position, or B. you are quite sure the resolution is one on which I'll actually disagree with you on (my profile should be complete enough that it won't be hard to tell for most debates). There is a hidden third possibility I would also advise you to take the challenge under, but I won't be telling you what that third possibility is, just to mess with your head :D. Feel free to disregard the stated or implied advice, so long as you comply with the terms of the challenge, if you think you know some other good way to go about it :D Other than that, go wild.
scrappykoala

Con

Ok my argument that you can choose from either side is simple.

Is diversity a good thing for society?
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Very well, I am Con then.

Diversity, as a mere description of degree of difference between people, rather than a description of the people themselves or what constitutes that difference, is value-neutral, not a "Good thing." Certain manifestations of diversity may have value- for example, the introduction of a man who can produce skyscrapers among men whose productive capacity is limited to hovels. Other manifestations of diversity, however, are strictly bad, for example the introduction of a murderer among a group of non-murderers. And still yet others are neutral, say the introduction of a blonde man among brown-haired. Because the possibilities for good, bad, and neutral manifestations of diversity all exist, it is not true that diversity qua diversity is something "good." Indeed, even among the more neutral manifestations, many "diversities of taste" lean toward the reduction of economies of scale, making it harder for each to fulfill their varying tastes.

Also, society as such is not an entity, and thus things cannot be "good for" or "bad for" it precisely, only for its constituent members, the individuals.
scrappykoala

Con

Diversity as it means today is about different groups of people. Even legally we have preferences based on groups. So debating other types of diversity is not what the common term is now used for. As for the diversity of man I think its a good blah blah blah.
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
Diversity as it means today is about different groups of people."

This, it happens, alters NOTHING. My definition of diversity simply talked about differences between people, it did not mention whether they differences were individualized or between groups. My point about skyscrapers and hovels, or it's essence anyway, applies whether we are talking about Frank Lloyd Wright versus Marcus Agrippa, or the American Builder's Association versus the Thatcher's Guild of some ancient village.

Not to mention, your definition lacks.. definition. It is WHAT about different groups of people?

"Even legally we have preferences based on groups."

Please explain how the fact that there are presently legal preferences based on groups has bearing on whether or not diversity is a good thing.

the rest of your "blah blah blah" is not worth addressing :D
scrappykoala

Con

You asked me to explaine why having legal preferences has any baring on whether diversity is a good thing or not. Unfortuanately my side of the debate is to proove that diversity is a good thing.

I appoligize for the "blah blah blah" the problem with proving diversity is a good thing is that there are no facts to point to. For example if you try and show that the economy is improved by more diversity then someone can point to China which is the fastest rising economy on the planet and not really diverse etc.

Back to legal preferences I would have to say actually laws that are designed to enforce multiculturalism and its institutions only serve to prove that multiculturalism is a bad idea that requires a police state to just try and struggle on. If multiculturalism was a great idea it would happen naturally and not require force and the punishment of the majority.

However if we look on a global level rather then a societal level I and I'm sure every sound person can see the beauty of diversity. The best way to maintain that diversity is to keep and maintain seperate societies that insure each subspeices or breed of human can maintain their uniqueness.
Debate Round No. 3
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
Back to legal preferences I would have to say actually laws that are designed to enforce multiculturalism and its institutions only serve to prove that multiculturalism is a bad idea that requires a police state to just try and struggle on."

So you concede.

". If multiculturalism was a great idea it would happen naturally and not require force and the punishment of the majority."

So you concede.

"
However if we look on a global level rather then a societal level I and I'm sure every sound person can see the beauty of diversity"

So you take back your concessions and toss out a fallacy of the argument from intimidation.

"The best way to maintain that diversity is to keep and maintain seperate societies that insure each subspeices or breed of human can maintain their uniqueness."

Whose land are you going to steal to do this? And don't you know that some types of human (for example the burglar type) could not possibly maintain a separate society, because there would be nothing for them to loot? (If you are not speaking of defining the separate groups in terms of their types of actions, but in terms of their race or some such, I need merely state that the theory that race is a meaningful determinant of the value of human beings in any sense has no evidence behind it and plenty against, and as such racial diversity can have no value, because race as such is incapable of holding value. If you are not speaking of either actions or race, I propose that you tell us just what you are speaking of.
scrappykoala

Con

Ok back up a minute who said anything about stealing land or kicking people out or whatever? Also giving value to race is a pretty scarry road to go down.

So I concede.

You win all arguments.

I bow to your wisdom.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted PRO.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Government would get corrupt."

Government has free will. It may or may not be corrupt, depending on who is running it. And the government is already corrupt, so, a government that may or may not be corrupt (and remember this is RAGNAR LAND, I RUN IT, I DECIDE WHETHER TO CORRUPT IT, SO GEE MAYBE I WOULDN'T WANT TO) is superior to a government that is known to be corrupt.

"For example, they might hire people to mess with non-citizens, just to encourage people to pay the user fee."

This is RAGNAR LAND/ New America. I wouldn't do that, and I am THEY.

If a government under the model I described did that, it would need to be overthrown just like the present system.
Posted by Who 9 years ago
Who
Government would get corrupt. For example, they might hire people to mess with non-citizens, just to encourage people to pay the user fee.

Kind of the way many anti-virus/adware removal companies make viruses/adware.
Posted by mjoveny 9 years ago
mjoveny
lol.. scrappycrappy was hoping you would choose the pro side.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"After all, if I could freely fire away with a machine gun at people who don't pay this user fee while freely within the presence of the local Ragnar land police department,"

I'm pretty sure the Ragnar-land police department does not want you firing off machine guns in its presence. Because you made the mistake of doing so, those people kind of automatically get a free sample. The user-fee exclusive police protection really applies more to whether your phone is connected to 911... If I were giving advice to those who wanted to take advantage of the noncitizen (since citizenship is a purchasable commodity, he who does not pay is not a citizen, though there aren't deportations), I'd advise them to find a back alley somewhere.

"Or do you think that this unwelcoming possibility would ENCOURAGE people to pay the fee?"

Very much so. And if the possibility isn't strong enough, which I doubt, than the services the government is offering aren't worth paying for. Again, the government shall have nothing to do with the creation of these problems. It's something you pay for if you are already worried about those problems and want them solved. Sort of like how people call the exterminator for lower forms of pests. The fact that you refused to pay the exterminator does not mean the pest is the exterminator's fault.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Through paying this user fee, one would have what is normally deemed "public benefits" in the US, such as Police protection, library access, and freedom of speech maybe?"
Freedom of speech is not on the list, that occurs by default wherever no one censors it. And I don't think censorship tops the list of what common criminals do, it usually only happens when the government causes it to. But yes, police protection, library access, contract enforcement, fire departments, the ability to sue for various damages in court, and such.

"
But just one question: People wouldn't have to pay a user fee in order to own property, would they"
In order to own it, no. In order to have the police come get someone off your property for you... obviously yes :D.

"What benefits would one have without submitting to the user fee?"
None, from the government, at least not intentionally, though they might get a few side effects of there being a government, which wouldn't be very useful without police protection :D. The government would leave you alone, entirely, unless YOU were engaging in some sort of crime against those who do pay their fees :D.

"Logical-Master
Logical-Mast
er
So far though, the only real problem I have with this utopia is that the individuals who don't pay this user fee could easily be treated as sub humans."

Whereas today, those who don't pay taxes are treated as sub humans. The difference is that today, the government is the one treating people that way (sticking them in cages), whereas in New America, it's not participating, just not saving you. You are objecting... with a problem that already exists, in worse condition, anyway, under the present system. That's not much of an objection. :P
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
So far though, the only real problem I have with this utopia is that the individuals who don't pay this user fee could easily be treated as sub humans. After all, if I could freely fire away with a machine gun at people who don't pay this user fee while freely within the presence of the local Ragnar land police department, I can't see how that would bode well. Or do you think that this unwelcoming possibility would ENCOURAGE people to pay the fee?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
So essentially, Ragnar Land/New America is like current America, except rather than it being deemed illegal not to pay taxes, it would be quite legal in that one would have the option of paying a user fee (no doubt like an Amazon Plus membership. The normal Amazon membership is free, but you don't get many many benefits unless you submit a plus membership, which requires a monthly fee).

Through paying this user fee, one would have what is normally deemed "public benefits" in the US, such as Police protection, library access, and freedom of speech maybe?

But just one question: People wouldn't have to pay a user fee in order to own property, would they (as I believe you had insinuated such elsewhere). For that matter, just what in general would this user fee be applied to? What benefits would one have without submitting to the user fee?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Government can function without taxes in New America (USA Jr. and Ragnar Land are both bad marketing, for different reasons.) It's called a user fee.

And no, you cannot murder your brother there. Unless he's dumb enough not to pay the user fee for police protection, in which case you'll probably get away with it :P.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Ragnar Land! In the future would be called USAJR, Where I can murder my brother... And the government could function with no taxes....
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Who 9 years ago
Who
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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 gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Ragnar_RahlscrappykoalaTied
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