EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Racism

< Return to subforum
Page: 12345Most Recent
Crow
By Crow | Jun 9 2016 10:52 AM
Krazy: That's not what I did. Words can have more than one meaning.

And you have yet to validate another meaning by showing that your interpretation is being used by other individuals.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Krazy
By Krazy | Jun 9 2016 12:10 PM
Crow: And you have yet to validate another meaning by showing that your interpretation is being used by other individuals.
Or you could look it up in the dictionary. I'm sure you heard of the phrase "human race".
Crow
By Crow | Jun 9 2016 12:38 PM
Krazy: I already said it was a credible usage of the term race. It isn't mutually exclusive to the other definition though.

You attacked the other usage, so you should defend the exclusivity of your own.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 9 2016 1:48 PM
Krazy: Humans descending from one couple doesn't disprove that humans are divided into races. Race is a classification we give. Even evolutionists believe we all came from a common ancestor(but instead of from a man and woman, they think we all came from a cell). We classify dogs into breeds, so classifying humans into different races is not disproved by a common ancestor.
Krazy
By Krazy | Jun 9 2016 2:15 PM
Crow: You attacked the other usage, so you should defend the exclusivity of your own.
I object to the term because it gives the impression that different people groups have different original ancestors, which is scientifically false.
Krazy
By Krazy | Jun 9 2016 2:32 PM
Bi0Hazard: Humans descending from one couple doesn't disprove that humans are divided into races
Yes it does. The so called "racial differences" that people perceive, such as skin color and eye shape, account for only about %0.012 of human genetical discrepancy. It's almost no difference.

Race is a classification we give
Correct. There is the human race, the canine race, the feline race, etc.

Even evolutionists believe we all came from a common ancestor(but instead of from a man and woman, they think we all came from a cell).
Yeah nobody has ever observed that. It's not science. But it is science that the perceived "racial" characteristics are only %0.012 different in the genome.

We classify dogs into breeds, so classifying humans into different races is not disproved by a common ancestor
There are instances of human twins being different skin colors. Would you consider those siblings different "races", even though they're twins? And give me an example of that in dogs where a mother gave birth to two different breeds; and we're twins.
Krazy
By Krazy | Jun 9 2016 2:39 PM
Crow: In fact that's what evolution teaches. They say that the negroid race is the lowest race (closer to the apes) while the Caucasian race is the most intelligent and more evolved race. It's stupid.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 9 2016 2:41 PM
Krazy: I never got that impression. I don't think many people at all get that impression either.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 9 2016 2:44 PM
Krazy: Evolution is off topic, but since you brought it up...

As a base philosophy, it does not make that claim. Caucasians never evolved more, and the primary evolution theorists never made that claim.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 9 2016 2:54 PM
Krazy: Race is a social construct, biology can't disprove race as socially constructed. You classify humans into one race, however, they can be classified into separate races. Race is really a matter of origin. You can divide them according to their origins, or according to all humans common ancestry, which would make one human race.
Krazy
By Krazy | Jun 9 2016 3:08 PM
Crow: I never got that impression. I don't think many people at all get that impression either.
Huh. I don't know. I think a lot of people do.

As a base philosophy, it does not make that claim
Well, that's what was taught in textbooks in public schools about evolution.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 9 2016 4:31 PM
Krazy: Public schools lie to kids all the time. If you go to school down south, they will paint evolutionary theory with all kinds of nonsense that isn't believed by most evolutionary theorists. If you go to school up north, you will get a huge bias against creationism and other religious beliefs.

I have witnessed both.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 10 2016 4:10 PM
I posted this in society, but it seems to be just as scientific as it is political.
The scientific case for racism is an ideology known as scientific racism.
More information on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Racism is also considered to be right-wing.
JoMomma
By JoMomma | Jul 28 2016 10:45 AM
What about mixed people, and the fact that many Americans are an admixture?
Crow
By Crow | Jul 28 2016 10:52 AM
JoMomma: In relation to what?
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
JoMomma
By JoMomma | Jul 28 2016 11:07 AM
Crow: In regards to the classification of race. To which race does one who is mixed belong? To me the fact that we are able to mix, disproves the validity of race.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 28 2016 11:25 AM
JoMomma: That's kind of an empty argument.

Dogs come under different breeds (race), and the mixed breeds we call mutts.

Race is a term used for easy classification among individuals. You cannot actually disprove the existence of a social construct. It is philosophically impossible.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
JoMomma
By JoMomma | Jul 28 2016 11:39 AM
Crow: It's not an argument, It's a fact. The fact that we are able to mix, disproves the validity of race.

In the domain of social constructionist thought, a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society. https://www.google.com/search?q=social+construct&rlz=1C1PRFC_enUS676US676&oq=social+construct&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So just because the notion that race exists is a social construct, you claim that the concept of race is valid?

Why do we need to be "easily" classified to begin with? I thought America values the individual.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 28 2016 12:41 PM
JoMomma: The fact that we are able to mix, disproves the validity of race.


There is no rule that races cannot mix, and I don't see how a mixed race disproves the concept.

So just because the notion that race exists is a social construct, you claim that the concept of race is valid?

Yes.

It is a valid social construct. Constructs are not based on natural law.

Why do we need to be "easily" classified to begin with? I thought America values the individual.

Ask scientists. They defined the classification on human races.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 28 2016 12:43 PM
Here is an equivalency of the argument.

Gender doesn't exist because there are hermaphrodites.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Page: 12345Most Recent