CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:39
Arguments:27
Total Votes:40
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Debates about generalizations (27)

Debate Creator

andsoccer16(1780) pic



Debates about generalizations

Debates that are intended to demean or insult a particular group of people have become more and more common on this site as of recently (in my own opinion). I created this debate so that hopefully we can have a discussion about the pros and cons of debates involving generalizations, and whether they should continue to be created on this site.

Add New Argument
2 points

Debates

If you can call them that.

that are intended to demean

It's often the people who contribute to the debate that demean people.

or insult a particular group

Something that you liberal atheists know a lot about.

more common on this site as of recently

I assume that you are referring to my anti-liberal quotations.

in my own opinion

Your opinion is worthless.

I created this debate

You did!?! I thought you didn't know how to create debates!

so that hopefully

You are relying on faith here. Faith that the people on this site can do what you want of them.

we can have a discussion

The people on here having a real discussion? HA!

about the pros and cons of debates involving generalizations,

Are you talking about anti-fallibilism arguments (of which you often insult me), or anti-liberal debates (of which most conservatives are responsible for), or an anti-religious debate (of which most of you atheists are responsible for)? Surely an anti-conservative debate can't be demeaning!

and whether they should continue to be created on this site.

Whether or not they should, they shall continue to be made.

3 points

It's often the people who contribute to the debate that demean people.

While this is often the case, it seems that it's the creator of these debates that tend to want to demean because they choose to look at a very large group of people and use a single word to completely define them, and then use exagerated stereotypes to encompass them all. To me, this seems unfair.

Something that you liberal atheists know a lot about.

You just did it again. I haven't once insulted a particular group, but you decide to label and accuse me of these things. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

I assume that you are referring to my anti-liberal quotations.

Partly, but there are a lot of other debates that have been created that stereotype and generalize unfairly. I also don't want you to misunderstand me here: I'm not against these debates because I am being attacked, but because I am against generalizations in general. On this very site I have defended conservatives and religious people who were being generalized because I know that it is wrong to attack an entire group of something that maybe only the fringe of that group is guilty of.

Are you talking about anti-fallibilism arguments (of which you often insult me), or anti-liberal debates (of which most conservatives are responsible for), or an anti-religious debate (of which most of you atheists are responsible for)? Surely an anti-conservative debate can't be demeaning!

Once again, I am not arguing against these debates because it is liberals being attacked, and if you really want I can show evidence that I have spoken up against debates that unfairly demeaned conservatives. That isn't what this debate is about.

Whether or not they should, they shall continue to be made.

I'm sure they will, that's why I worded my statement this way.

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite
3 points

Thats what I call a rebuttal.

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
1 point

While this is often the case, it seems that it's the creator of these debates that tend to want to demean because they choose to look at a very large group of people and use a single word to completely define them, and then use exagerated stereotypes to encompass them all. To me, this seems unfair.

Firstly, you misspelled 'exaggerated'.

Most people have an agenda, and the way in which they make their debate exemplifies this. Joe did a wonderful job illustrating this point in his CreateDebate tutorial.

You just did it again. I haven't once insulted a particular group, but you decide to label and accuse me of these things. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

A simple glance throughout a political debate ought to show you that nearly all the liberal arguments are up-voted and the conservative arguments are down-voted. You will note that I wrote '...you liberal atheists...', I was generalizing ye. Please note that 'ye' is the archaic plural of 'you'.

Hypocrisy, or comicality?

Partly, but there are a lot of other debates that have been created that stereotype and generalize unfairly.

Stereotypes are rampant in our society.

Besides, a good rebuttal goes a long way in proving a stereotype wrong, if only in that one instance.

I also don't want you to misunderstand me here:

Don't worry about that, I will.

I'm not against these debates because I am being attacked

Well that would just be childish...oh, wait - you are a child.

Okay, perhaps I'm being unfair. But that's what debating is - getting the upper-hand at all costs - at least on this site.

but because I am against generalizations in general.

Saying that you are against generalizations doesn't mean much to those that are not against generalizations.

On this very site I have defended conservatives and religious people who were being generalized

That must have been before my time.

because I know that it is wrong to attack an entire group of something

If you really know that then you are one of the only ones. This isn't much of a generalization - for the most part, it's the truth.

that maybe only the fringe of that group is guilty of.

...the sins of the father...

I am not arguing against these debates because it is liberals being attacked

Surely you weren't. That last sentence was just a bit of humor.

I'm sure they will, that's why I worded my statement this way.

I prefer the word "oughtn't". They oughtn't be made.

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite
cwmdulais(188) Disputed
2 points

wow, i had some respect for you terminator before this,

"or insult a particular group

Something that you liberal atheists know a lot about."

didnt you make a debate titled "is liberalism a disease" so don't be such a blatant hypocrite

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

Read line #8.

The liberal atheists on here down-vote just about every religious or conservative argument. That's what I meant.

My latest debates are meant to get back at them.

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite
1 point

lol cold.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

Are you saying that I'm cold hearted for having debunked everything that AndSoccer16 wrote?

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

I'm glad someone has finally shed some light on this topic because now I can no longer be considered:

1. A greedy bastard just because I am against high taxes.

2. A racist just because I am against illegal immigration.

3. Scientifically challenged just because I believe in God.

4. A sexist pig just because I am against abortions.

5. A homophobe just because I am against gay marriage.

My understanding is that the intent of this new rule is to minimize generalizations. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb generalization jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible. ;)

I welcome this new rule because it's kinda like reverse discrimination or reverse political correctness. Reverse because for once the rules favor a conservative view at the expense of a liberal view ;)

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

Joe, I promise you can keep telling your dumb jokes. I would never take that away from you. ;)

I know that you are joking the majority of the time, and therefore you are not the type of person I have a problem with.

Also, it's not a rule or restriction (I have neither the authority, nor the power to enforece either), just an observation.

As far as who it would help, it should help everyone: conservative, liberal, libertarian, atheist, christian, and muslim, because we won't be judged by our lables, but by our arguments.

You will also note that (with one exception) I have never been guilty of any of your numbers.

(Also, shouldn't you welcome people who try and call you racist, because you can throw that one back in their faces?)

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

Here is a proper argument:

The question here should be: Why do we generalize?

Why do we generalize?

1.) Do we generalize because it's fun?

2.) Do we generalize to make it easier to speak about a group?

I rarely hear positive generalizations, usually only negative ones - which leads me to #3.

3.) Do we generalize because it condones our dislikes of other groups?

I'll give four examples of #3:

1 - The Irish are Catholics. I dislike Catholics, thus I dislike the Irish.

2 - The blacks are thieves. I don't like people who pose a risk to my business, thus I dislike blacks.

3 - I don't like people who drive slowly. Old people drive slowly, thus I dislike old people.

4 - Women are too emotional. I dislike such a show of emotions, thus I dislike women.

So here we have it; I believe that the purpose of generalizations are because they condone our racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

Eugenics is the quest for perfection. I believe eugenics to be an emphasis of those generalizations - get rid of blind people (even though they can be a benefit to society). Some may hep society, but others will drag the society down. Get rid of old people: they pose too much a risk to society. Or rather, at the very least, don't let them drive !

Generalizations rarely, if ever, apply to all members of the society being generalized. While it may be true that most elderly drivers drive slowly, I know for a fact that some drive much faster than the speed limit. John McCain's mother, in her 90s, got arrested for speeding about a year ago. That one fact right there proves that not all of the elderly drive slowly, thus making the entire generalization void.

The percentage of black people who get arrested may be higher than white people, but there are many who never commit a crime. Now, we must ask ourselves, why do so many commit those crimes? Most likely generalizations are responsible - generalizations which allow racism.

As I recall it was a female doctor who came up with 'Cello Scrotum'. She lied, claiming that playing the cello too much can irritate the scrotum. Now because of one female doctor's indiscretion, she is giving an excuse - not a proper excuse, but still an excuse - for me to be against female doctors. Is that generalization valid? Yes and no. 'Yes' in that there are a number of bad female doctors (though not all female doctors are inherently bad); 'no' in that there are still atrocious male doctors.

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

People also generalize to express anger:

I feel strong about x. You disagree with me and thus you are a heartless y.

All emotion, no logic. I wish they still required logic to be taught in school...

Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite