Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Amarel

Reward Points:3613
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

We are legally required to respond but answers to questions of race are based on self-identification, so they can’t exactly call it false.

1 point

The refusal to answer the question isn’t out of fear for providing less than accurate information. It is with the intent to provide less than accurate information.

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

No, it wouldn't.

Temporal evidence absolutely would be necessary, though as you point out not sufficient, to establish causation. If a massive movement to check other were followed by a significant increase in the “other” statistical designation, people would have to look closer. On closer observation, they may find the increase in “other” correlates with a roughly equal decline in various race designation. Regardless, if there were a movement to check “other” followed by an increase in people checking “other”, it would have to be considered a possible or likely explanation.

You're more optimistic about people's inclination to reason than I am.

Likely. I may be more optimistic than you in general.

Which still doesn't amount to anything if it's not enough people to cause substantive change. Minute changes don't seem worth the resource investment required to mount a successful campaign to me, for that reason.

I don’t think a huge percentage is required to cause disruption. Admittedly, I won’t be funding a campaign. The success of such an endeavor would rely on social viral phenomenon.

How are they meant to get from a lack of faith in a data pool corrupted by subversion to a lack of faith in what they've been told about classes in general?

Given the idea catches on, any data tossed around to support some racial narrative will begin to be met with skepticism. That skepticism undermines the narrative itself.

It seems more likely they'd just be angry at the people who subverted the data than question what they've been told about classes.

No doubt. However many people are angry about it, there will appear to be even more when watching evening news.

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

You DO know that the tax cut Trump gave to the rich was BORROWED money, don't you?

Government revenue has increased following the tax cuts.

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

Just because I say that I can kick your ass on the internet does not mean that I can't kick your ass

There’s 0 risk of finding out. There’s no cheaper talk than that which comes with no risk of ever having to back it up.

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

I e already looked at percentages. I’ll leave it to you to do the same if you’re curious.

Alcohol is no more a gateway to harder drugs than marijuana.

Amarel(3613) Clarified
-1 points

He plays the “in real life” game. It’s a trap if you fall into the “in real life” counter to online posturing.

If a guy online says “I’ll beat your ass”, we all know it’s bullshit keyboard warriorism. But if you counter with “no, ill beat your ass first”, you’re playing the internet-tough guy game.

Let them be what they are without becoming them.

-1 points

No friends. But hey, At least you have a hostile. .

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

That would only establish correlation

Temporal occurrence would be evidence of causation.

I don't think the data's reliability would factor too heavily into how it's generally received anyways

If there were a known effort to disrupt data, and evidence that disruption is occurring, it would be noted.

There are already numerous reasons to doubt data collection like this

True, but people don’t know that. There’s nothing like a hashtag viral phenomenon to let the average Twitter consumer know.

I suppose it might undermine confidence in the results for some people

That’s some more than none.

I don't see how this would undermine peoples' faith in social identity classes, which seems to be the objective

It wouldn’t undermine their faith in classes. It would undermine their faith in what they are told about classes.

But it would impact federal funding, which actually does impact local activities which receive federal funding based on demographic reporting (not to mention broader programming and organizations). That seems like a cost to me with no tangible gain.

There are plenty of local causes who do much with local money. Federal money is the carrot the politicians beat us with. When that carrot beats a racial drum, no one actually wins. The gain of getting rid of racial demographic stats is admittedly long term, as are the benefits.

So I don't mark 'other' out of a broader sense of justice or resistance; it's just more accurate and self-respecting on my view.

If I actually saw this movement begin, I wouldn’t care if you marked “other” because you’re a racist, so long as “other” is marked. The means are just, as are the ends. (We don’t have to go into the vicissitudes of Justice, that’s another debate).

Amarel(3613) Clarified
1 point

Keeping with my analogy. Being against social identities is like being against bodies of water, when all we need be concerned with is floods. Or rather, a flood at home.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: What should be the government’s role in mental health?
Winning Position: Guns. Fun with Numbers. What do the numbers tell you?
Winning Position: Identity politics forever!
Winning Position: Anti DSA
Winning Position: What is Freedom?

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Education: College Grad

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here