CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
11
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:33
Arguments:36
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (21)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (10)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(36296) pic



The Party of Inclusion is not for everyone.

You shouldn't claim to be an "inclusive" person when what you are really doing is including one group at the expense of another group; especially when there are alternative solutions that do take into consideration the issue of the group being impacted.

 

True.

Side Score: 22
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 11

Issue:

Free Speech.

Group being included:

Protesters.

Group being impacted:

People who go to hear the speech.

Alternative solution:

Hard jail time and steep fines for people disrupting the speech.

Side: True.
1 point

Normally people are arrested. This one is weird.

Side: True.

Yes. But the punishment does not seem to be extreme enough to deter people from shutting down an assembly. I am referring to the Berkley incident (see link above). ;)

Side: True.
joecavalry(36296) Clarified
1 point

Amendment to the Alternative solution:

The Free Speech should take place in a neutral zone (where a neutral zone is defined as a place where there is normally few people with opposing views).

Side: True.
joecavalry(36296) Clarified
1 point

A neutral zone is a place where if protesters do show up and try to disrupt the proceedings, there's a good chance they are going to get their asses handed to them ;)

Side: True.

Issue:

Gay marriage.

Group being included:

LGBT (I apologize if I forgot your letter).

Group being impacted (whether real or imagined):

Religious right.

Alternative Solution:

Force the government to replace the usage of the term "marriage" with the term "Civil Union."

Side: True.
Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

The religious right is not affected at all.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

The problem is with the conflicting definitions imposed on the word "marriage."

The problem can be fixed by separating the conflicting definitions and coming up with a new term/word.

Trying to force the conflicting definitions onto one word will cause friction and animosity.

Alternatively, the religious right can come up with an alternate word. However, it is much easier for the government to change. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Issue:

Abortion.

Group being included:

Women.

Group being impacted:

Men.

Alternative Solutions (there are 2):

1. Give women the right to an abortion BUT take away the right to force the father to pay child support for 18 years for a pregnancy he would rather see terminated.

2. Give women the right to force the father to pay child support for 18 years for a pregnancy he would rather see terminated AND also the right to abort UNLESS the father wants the child.

Side: True.
joecavalry(36296) Clarified
1 point

In both options above, if the decision to abort is made, the father should pay half.

Side: True.
1 point

We don't address any of the issues with abortion in America.

Side: True.

I've always argued for the solution #2.

That an abortion should be done (in case of no medical emergency) only if there are no voluntary caretakers for the baby.

Side: True.
joecavalry(36296) Clarified
0 points

Autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

If a woman wants to force a man to pay for 18 years of child support she should first prove that she is either not an autonomous woman or that her decision is not independent. Otherwise, she should finance her choice.

Side: True.
1 point

"A relation between two classes that exists when all members of the first are also members of the second."

Does not exist in the world nor never has it.

Side: True.
1 point

You are saying that there is no way to include everyone. And I would have to agree in the classical sense. However, there are solutions for some problems that minimize the friction and animosity between the groups involved. The Democrats do not seem to care much for those types of solutions. ;)

Side: True.

It's true, and in reality, if there are white refugees, the non white countries tax them for being white and dump them in camps.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-refugees-no-one-wants/

Side: True.
2 points

You can include me out of the inclusion party.

I went to an invitation only inclusion party and was excluded, never again.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Those fuckers ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Actually no party can be for absolutely everyone. So at face value your statement is true.

Yet it is also true that the Democrats aspire to include more groups outside of the typical whites than the Republicans do, so in contrast their claim of Inclusion would still be true.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Yes, they are so inclusive that they lost the election, the house and the senate ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

They are so inclusive they beat up anyone who does not agree with them ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

They are so inclusive they destroy arbitrary property ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

"Democrats aspire to include more groups outside of the typical whites than Republicans do"

What ethnicity were the Democrats running for POTUS in your party ?

Side: True.
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

Democrats put their faith in others and not the votes of typical whites and where is Hillary now ? Probably still taking a nap !

Side: True.
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

Whites (including Hispanics who identify as White) constitute the majority, with a total of about 246,660,710, or 77.35% of the population as of 2014. Non-Hispanic Whites totaled about 197,870,516, or 62.06% of the U.S. population.

Did Hillary miss the facts ?

Side: True.