Debates about generalizations

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.

14 years ago

andsoccer16 (1785) Disputed

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.

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.

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

DaWolfman (3324)

3 points

Thats what I call a rebuttal.

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

TERMINATOR (6781) Disputed

1 point

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.

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

andsoccer16 (1785) Disputed

2 points

Wow...at this point you're just being contradictory and not even trying to make any points. You start by correcting a spelling mistake, and end with a statement about how I should change my wording because your personal preference.

The arguments that actually dealt with the content of my arguments are poorly thought out and clearly only make sense to a person that is so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he doesn't even consider that his opponent may have a legitimate point.

The statement that I think is most revealing is:

"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."

That's not what debating should be about at all. Often this is what political discourse becomes, where politicians or pundits attempt to attack the other side regardless of whether the arguments are sound, or whether they even believe the arguments that they are presenting. This type of intellectual dishonesty is reprehensible, and should not have any place in a real debate. Debating should be done as a way to explore opposing ideas and hopefully learn something, if one has an open mind. When you make arguments you know to be fallacious, debate becomes about as meaningless as two monkeys throwing shit at each other. No one gains anything from the discourse, and the two may as well have stayed in their closed minded bubbles. I can truthfully say that other debaters on this site have changed my mind and perspective about various issues, because they made arguments that were rationally compelling.

You on the other hand just act arrogant and throw around insults to "try and get the upper hand." I have to ask you: why do you even participate in this site? Are you trying to impress someone on an anonymous Internet site? Is your ego so damaged that you need this forum to stroke it? Is this why you are so bothered by the (meaningless) downvotes?

So let me ask you a non-rhetorical question: what is the point? "Winning?" (whatever that means)

If you want to have a legitimate discussion about generalizations I would be more than happy to discuss why I am against them (that is why I created this debate). My main reason is that we often "confuse the thing in its worst iteration, with the thing itself." I love this quotation because it shows what so often happens when a group of people deamonize another group. While there may be specific individuals in the latter that hold traits similar to those assumed by the former, it is rarely the case that everyone, or even the majority act in this way.

So there you have it. Debate me if you want; however, if your next argument is similar to your first two don't expect a response. I've said all that I've needed to say.

13 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

DaWolfman (3324)

2 points

Tip of my fedora ( me being Rorschach, I don't wear any old hat ) to you, I was going to actually dispute his argument but figured you would. However to get to the original question you brought up that I have yet to answer...

African Americans are thieves.

Something wrong with that statement?

It is missing the word few or some, something to many people forget to add. Being stereotypical is a bad outlook on life to have, and it is a shame that so many people lack basic empathy.

13 years ago Side: Bravo

TERMINATOR (6781) Disputed

1 point

Wow

Sure is, isn't it.

at this point you're just being contradictory

A man of contradictions.

and not even trying to make any points.

I was trying.

You start by correcting a spelling mistake

Spelling is important!

and end with a statement about how I should change my wording because your personal preference.

I was trying to be accurate. I felt that "oughtn't" was a better word than "shouldn't". You are still quite young, you probably aren't too well acquainted with that word.

The arguments that actually dealt with the content of my arguments are poorly thought out

I've explained that before. My thoughts are extraordinarily disorderly. Only I understand them.

and clearly only make sense to a person

Actually, they only make sense to me.

that is so convinced of his intellectual superiority

Have I ever said I was intellectually superior? I've said that of others, but not of myself. Indeed, I've even informed others that I'm an egotist.

The statement that I think is most revealing is:

I was trying to illustrate how sad a sight this site has become (sorry for all that cracks, but I'm on a roll...)

That's not what debating should be about at all.

Unfortunately, that's what this site is all about.

Often this is what political discourse becomes

That's the problem with political debates.

where politicians or pundits attempt to attack the other side regardless of whether the arguments are sound

Haven't I already shown you that people will make an argument seem unsound, even when it is sound?

or whether they even believe the arguments that they are presenting.

That's where Devil's Advocate comes in. I made a debate about that the other day.

This type of intellectual dishonesty is reprehensible, and should not have any place in a real debate.

Why not? Please explain.

Debating should be done as a way to explore opposing ideas and hopefully learn something

Debating is, to most people, a way of insulting others and promoting their own beliefs as the only accurate one.

if one has an open mind.

Few do. I sure do hope that you are one of the few, but your lack of empathy for fallibilism is starting to convince me otherwise.

When you make arguments you know to be fallacious

Fallacies, especially appeals to the emotions, do well to convince others of your point. Few people on this site would actually understand a rational argument.

debate becomes about as meaningless as two monkeys throwing shit at each other.

There are debates less meaningful, especially on this site.

No one gains anything from the discourse

That there is a generalization. I find them most intriguing, and at times can come to empathize with other opinions. How ever, I am not entirely sure which debates/arguments you are talking about.

and the two

It's not always two.

may as well have stayed in their closed minded bubbles.

Nobody wants to stay to themselves - they want to convince others.

I can truthfully say that other debaters on this site have changed my mind

As can I.

and perspective about various issues

Which? Such discourse I find interesting...

because they made arguments that were rationally compelling.

Just what is rationally compelling?

You on the other hand just act arrogant

Oh but I am arrogant. However, I had hoped that it was not so evident in my writings. I must work on that. As I have said before, I use this site in my never ending quest to understand humanity.

and throw around insults

As I told Ama_Deviant, I think that most of what I write as jokes are misinterpreted. I rarely, if ever, mean to insult people.

"try and get the upper hand."

I just try to write good arguments (that is, I think in the ones to which you are referring). Good arguments are the ones that'll get people thinking.

I have to ask you

You want to ask me. (Remember, that's a joke, not an insult.)

why do you even participate in this site?

To understand the human race. To learn to interact with humans in a suitable manner. Think of me (if you know Star Trek) as Data - always trying to perceive the human race, trying to understand them for what they are.

Are you trying to impress someone on an anonymous Internet site?

If I were trying to do that I think I'd give out a bit more information that just say 'No comment', or 'That's none of your business' when asked a personal question.

Is your ego so damaged that you need this forum to stroke it?

It's not about me, it's about understanding you. Please, could you give me an example of where you perceived this attitude from me. (If you want somebody who gets perceived as arrogant, talk to wcforcier.)

Is this why you are so bothered by the (meaningless) downvotes?

I am not bothered by downvotes. I dislike them because they lower the location of my argument. However, I also dislike how all the liberal ones get upvotes and the conservative ones get downvotes.

So let me ask you a non-rhetorical question:

And, of course, I shall take it as such.

what is the point?

There is no point.

Winning

Is it not yet quite evident that I rarely 'win'?

whatever that means

I don't even know what that means! (This was meant as an act of sarcasm. I 'don't even...' even illustrates my perceived arrogance.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion

I should like to; but I will, as I always do, fill it these puns. If you knew how to 'read between the lines' you'd see that what I write almost always has a hidden meaning within the context of the argument.

about generalizations I would be more than happy to discuss why I am against them

Sure. Isn't this what we are having?

that is why I created this debate

Obviously! (another act of sarcasm used to demonstrate my perceived arrogance. It is a joke - not meant to be taken as a serious act of arrogance.)

My main reason is that we often

You are generalizing right there.

"confuse the thing in its worst iteration, with the thing itself."

Perhaps it's human nature?

I love this quotation

It's okay, but I've read better.

because it shows what so often happens when a group of people deamonize another group.

I say again, is it not human nature?

While there may be specific individuals in the latter that hold traits similar to those assumed by the former, it is rarely the case that everyone, or even the majority act in this way.

That's why generalizations are wrong, and a fallacy.

So there you have it.

I think that I have it.

Debate me if you want;

I am.

however, if your next argument is similar to your first two

In what way? What is it about my writing style that you dislike? Please tell!

don't expect a response.

I never do.

I've said all that I've needed to say.

But there is still more that I'd like you to say. I am interested in hearing more, especially about what you dislike about me.

13 years ago Side: Bravo

DaWolfman (3324) Disputed

2 points

My opinion of your latest rebuttal.

A very childish response to a very well thought out one.

4.)Spelling is irrelevant when it is barely noticeable. Especially when it is in the form of debate, I could understand if it was blatantly horrendous but missing one G in exaggerate?

5.)You were trying to be facetious, I hope at least.

1.)-42.)You are breaking down all of his statements into short incomplete thoughts. So you can dispute them in a way that doesn't make you actual point easy to see ( if there is one ).

10.)Whether or not that is what the majority of this site is about, still doesn't change what debating is supposed to be about.

That is as far down your list of nonsensical ninnies as I plan on traveling.

13 years ago Side: Drakan The Ancient Gates

andsoccer16 (1785) Disputed

1 point

The only thing(s) I am going to say:

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

You can stop condescending to me, I promise I'm a big boy.

You need to learn the difference between metaphysics and science.

13 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

1 point

You'll note that just about everything that I wrote in the preceding arguments emphasized your points - perhaps even effectively.

Consider, by writing it out in my satirical (whether or not the satire was well done is open to debate) way I am showing the readers their own flaws, but in a humorous context. Perhaps, just maybe that will have effect.

I consider you an asset to this site. While it is true that most of the liberals on here (and, as far as I know, just about all of the liberals are atheist) upvote liberal, atheist-minded arguments and downvote everything else, if you are one of the few (or, perhaps the only?) one who has ever defended the opposing side, then I salute you.

Again the condescension is satirical - you are a good debater, a bit close-minded, but good. However, others don't see it that way. I've heard (er, read) others complain about the quantity of teenagers here, and I have always wondered what you have gone through to prove your worth.

Again, where have I demonstrated arrogance? On multiple occasions I have lauded others, and there was a time when I upvoted vigorously. This is where I get to a personal note here: I am a fallibilist. I am not going to upvote all the pro-science arguments (which, if I am not mistaken, are the only ones in which you participate) because I do not believe completely in the veracity of science.

Think about that for a moment. How many 'scientific hoaxes' have there been? Piltdown man, for one. Cello scrotum was another, yet less prominent one (I believe it was primarily in Britain which may account for your lack of knowledge regarding it). The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 was said to have made the sun appear green for years - that is another error, seeing as how the sun appeared green in South Africa six months before the eruption!

The answer to people who claimed to have seen rocks fall from the sky went something like this:

"There are no rocks in the sky; thus, rocks cannot fall from the sky". We now know about meteorites, and that they are the true cause of such falls.

After having learned so much about these mistakes, how can I trust science 100%? Who knows how many more hoaxes have yet to be found out?

As I have said to others, science changes all the time. In one hundred years, what we now consider to be scientific fact may be laughed at in the same manner in which we laugh at the 'turtles all the way down' theory.

13 years ago 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

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

1 point

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.

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

Kinda (1649)

1 point

lol cold.....

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

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

1 point

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

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

joecavalry (40130)

1 point

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 ;)

14 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

andsoccer16 (1785)

1 point

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?)

13 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

1 point

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.

13 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite

tallblondguy (64)

1 point

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...

13 years ago Side: Stop being a thick headed hypocrite