CreateDebate



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


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Daljit87

Reward Points:64
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.
95%
Arguments:31
Debates:6
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I wish I were more knowledgeable on this topic. It is a subject I intend to research in the near future. There are so many brands of communism (Marxism, Trotskyism, Stalinism etc.) and they differ so greatly, that I think it is difficult to catergorise the term 'communism' as either good or bad.

At this moment I will tentatively agree with the opening statement. From the little I know right now, I believe the intentions of Marxism and Trotskyism were intrinsically good (Stalinism...not so much).

However, one only needs to read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell to see how easily the philosophy of the 'Old Major' (Marx) is corrupted.

To quote Marxist scholar Hal Draper: "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike."

1 point

And it is my contention that he is in no way relevant to a discussion concerning sub-Saharan Africans.

I don't understand why you are getting so hung up on this? It's a little irritating and distracting. Let's see if we can get some clarity:

I never claimed he had any relevance to this debate. I was pointing out that the vast majority of sub 10 second sprinters are Sub-Saharan Africans and only one is a White European. Johnson is the only sprinter to have achieved that feat who doesn't fall into either of those demographics. I was merely dropping his name for the sake of completion. You then made the error of thinking he was somehow key to my argument and have decided to keep running with it.

With this I have no contention. However, I question the relevance. It is in my estimation more primitive for an organism's physiology to favour celerity rather than mental acuity, which is the point that you supposedly refuted.

I assumed (but couldn't be sure) that your statement was a slur on the intelligence of African people. I decided to play Devil's advocate and claim that, physically, they were genetically superior to white westerners. As there is no evidence to suggest that intelligence is passed on via genetics, but there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that physical traits are.

I was merely refuting the statement: I consider most sub-Saharan black people to be of inferior genetic inheritance to modern Westerners.

Which makes no distinction between mental acuity and physical prowess. Muscle and tendon structure is evidence that Sub-Saharan males have a genetic advantage over white Europeans at certain physical tasks.

It is my hypothesis

Your hypothesis is harebrained hogwash. It is is a baseless theory formed purely in your imagination to try and justify your bigotry. It has no scientific or historical merit and I will not give it validity by recognising it as necessary for reasonable debate.

No direct evidence, correct. However, there is also no evidence to suggest that all the races or societies of man are intrinsically equal in intelligence, and I cannot see why this should be adopted as the default stance on the matter.

The burden of proof lies with the individual asserting the claim. We have no reason to believe that any race or society is intrinsically more intelligent. That is why equal intelligence is the default stance. If you believe otherwise the onus is on you to prove it, which you've already admitted you can't.

There is nothing pseudo-scientific about the suggestion that desired traits can be intensified by directed breeding. That is a phænomenon directly observable in horses and cattle. It is my belief that the association with Nazi Germany was the primary reason for its dismissal. There is no scientific basis for your claim.

Of course certain traits can be intensified via selective breeding, however there is no reason to believe that intelligence is one of them. These traits are usually physical (size, speed) or behavioural (aggression, placidity). All evidence available suggests that intelligence is predominantly a matter of nurture not nature.

1 point

When did I describe Patricky Johnson as a Sub-Saharan African? I described him as mixed race Australian of Irish and indigenous Australian heritage. 76 men have run sub 10 seconds, 74 of them were of Sub-Saharan African descent. Johnson and Lemaitre are the exceptions.

Muscle and tendon structure differentiates between ethnicities. West-African individuals have more fast-twitch muscle fibres and slightly longer tendons. This makes walking (or running) more economical and is advantageous in many sports such as athletics, basketball or boxing.

Northern and Eastern Europeans have more slow-twitch muscle fibres and shorter tendons, which could explain why most elite power-lifters and strongman competitors are from those regions.

I will admit that I was being purposefully inflammatory when I suggested Sub-Saharan Africans had superior genetics. It was a somewhat childish attempt by me to rile you and draw out what you meant by I consider most sub-Saharan black people to be of inferior genetic inheritance to modern Westerners.

As I suspected you were implying intelectually. For which, as you have admitted yourself, there is absolutely no evidence. Eugenics, with which your belief is closely linked, was dismissed as pseudo-science well over half a century ago.

Anyway, I apologise for trying to be antagonistic, I am normally better that that.

2 points

This. That shameful statement could only be spewed forth from the mouth of a bigot with a superiority complex. Despite the fact it is ignorant and abhorrent, any evidence we do have would actually suggest that, physically and athletically, Sub-Saharan Africans have superior genetics to white Westerners.

Only 1 White European ever has run 100m in under 10 secs (Lemaitre). 72 men of West-African descent have run sub 10 seconds. 2 Southern-Africans (Fredericks and Makusha) and Patricky Johnson (a mixed race Australian of Irish and Indigenous Australian descent) make up the list.

The black and mixed race population of the UK is around 3-3.5%, yet in the last England football squad 43% of the players (10) were black or mixed-race.

We see similar stories in the NFL and particularly the NBA.

Physical and athletic traits are passed on genetically and the fact that individuals of African heritage are so disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of sporting achievement suggests a superior genetic lineage.

1 point

Just quickly want to add to this that the meaning of certain words has also been changed in its translation from Ancient Hebrew into modern English.

For example 'Hell' in the King James bible is translated from 3 different Hebrew words with 3 different meanings: Sheol (grave), tartaroo (pit) and Gehenna (place of burning). It is important to note that Gehenna was an actual place/thing, it was a funeral pyre just outside of Jerusalem where criminals and peasants were cremated. To be burned at/on Gehenna was a great insult.

Notice how none of them mean 'eternal fiery pit of damnation', the meaning of the 3 different words has been melded together into something it is not.

1 point

I was of the understanding the earliest gospel was written around 80 A.D. The source you provide has the earliest at 60 A.D. Certainly not in Christ's lifetime or any of his disciples as life-expectancy was much shorter back then. So these stories had already been shaped and changed by word of mouth before they ever met paper. Ever played a game of chinese whispers? It's not unreasonable to think these stories will have undergone a similar metamorphosis.

As for modifications to the bible, see the Gospel of Eve which was not only removed from the New Testament canon but also destroyed due to its sexual content.

Then you have the startling parallels between the mythology of Jesus Christ and that of several pagan demi-gods such as Mithra and Dionysus. Whilst I wouldn't call this a 'modification' to the New Testament it certainly brings into question its authenticity as a historical document.

Supporting Evidence: A Comparison between Jesus and Mithra (www.near-death.com)
1 point

Perhaps I was too narrow in my definition of slave, however, as you said yourself, slaves (in any era) who lived a luxurious or even comfortable life were in the minority. Most experienced hardship and suffering for little to no reward.

I was probably reacting with a little too much emotion when I first posted, I guess the point I was trying to make is that I do not think it is possible to make a solid argument for slavery being 'generally a good idea'. Any economic benefits and occasional anomolies, like the example you gave, will never outweigh the suffering of many thousands of individuals denied their basic right to freedom.

1 point

I can't even get my head around why this question needs a debate?

Would you like to be torn away from your family, forced into manual labour, with no financial compensation, and treated like an inferior citizen for NO reason?

If you answered no to that question (and I'm 99.999999% sure you did)...well there's your answer.

2 points

'We didn't start the fire' by Billy Joel. Bit cheesy but epically awesome at the same time!

2 points

Interesting and original concept for a song, the lyrics could have been executed with a little more elegance in places, but not so much that it detracts from their impact.

I'll support this statement based on the version of God presented in the old testament. I find him a somewhat heinous character who is crippled by pride and wrath, if that God actually existed it would not be for the better in my opinion. He is anything but loving and merciful.

Displaying 6 most recent debates.

Tied Positions: William Dunbar vs. Browning Longfellow Wordsworth Dylan
Winning Position: MMA
Tied Positions: Tiktaalik vs. Internet

About Me


Biographical Information
Name: Dale 
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom
Postal Code: 00000
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad

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