CreateDebate Creates: Popular Misconceptions (Serious vs Silly)
Describe a popular misconception. Pick a category. Please keep this thread for new ideas and voting. Create a child debate for arguing or commenting on specific entries.
Serious
Side Score: 17
|
 |
Silly
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Prochoice people allegedly supporting murder is a big assumption. Side: Serious
Is that really a serious assumption though. When the idea that I, as a pro choicer, would support the choice of murder was thrown at me in the past it's always been tossed as a radical idea, never seriously, and just to get me thinking of what my position is called and what it stands for. Side: Silly
1
point
2
points
2
points
I'll agree with that. And I'll also throw out there 'It is up to theists to "prove" god.' The way I see it, matters of faith are matters of faith- a theist should not be expected to provide evidence for his or her belief- actual evidence would seem to preclude the use of the terms 'faith' and 'belief.' That said, it should be understood that legislation cannot be based on the religious beliefs of a portion of the population, and that writings in ancient texts do not constitute 'evidence' that we should pass certain types of laws. Rather, said laws should be shown to be beneficial to the populace in real terms. 'God said no' is insufficient- they need to prove that the legislation causes a net benefit AND can reasonably be legislated within the framework that has already been laid out in the nations constitution or equivalent. The gay marriage debate is case in point here; the US government does not have the authority to discriminate based on sexual orientation in any way, and favoring heterosexual couples with tax breaks and other legal rights that are not accessible to homosexual couples is a clear violation of the 14th amendment. Civil Unions offered as alternatives to Marriage, even if they encompasse all of the same rights, is also a no-go; this would clearly fall under the concept of 'separate but equal' which was ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education. Certainly, 'race' was the question at the time- but can any argument be made that marriage for heterosexuals vs civil unions for LGBT is anything other than 'Separate but Equal?' Side: Serious
2
points
The perception that some women seem to have, that the vast majority of men are liars/cheaters/users, etc, while possibly not incorrect, is exaggerated due to perception, with a little help from negativity and confirmation biases. Approaching it mathematically, lets consider two men for the sake of discussion. Our first man, 'Rob,' is genuinely a good guy, and while far from perfect, has generally good intentions when it comes to his dealings with women. Our second man, 'Joe,' is a consummate player who runs game, lying as needed, manipulating all the way, to score as many women as possible. Over the course of one year, Rob is involved with one woman- his girlfriend, fiancee, wife, however you want to imagine it. Over the course of the same year, Joe juggles multiple women, with no particular effort made to 'keep' any of them- because he doesn't respect women or see them as anything more than a tool to satisfy his own desires; between that and his game, as well as his experience in the matter, he has such confidence in his ability to score women that new ones can replace the old ones as quickly as they drop off. Let's say he comes close to breaking one heart per week- 49 times over the course of the year. This figure is admittedly high, but certainly not unheard of. The reality: These are two men. 50% of this sample is good, 50% of this sample is horrible. The perception: 1 woman had a good experience with Rob, and 49 women have a bad experience with Joe. 2% of the population have good experiences, while the remaining 98% have bad experiences. See how the actions of the bad outshine those of the good? Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the divide between 'good' men and 'bad' men in the real world is 50-50. I have no way of knowing what the actual ratio is- just that the stereotypical 'player' goes through a lot more women than anyone you would call a 'good' guy- this hopelessly skews the perception of men in general. The same is true of mens perceptions regarding women, for that matter. Side: Serious
|
4
points
1
point
4
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
While I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case in this particular scenario, stereotypes are fundamentally unreliable for a number of reasons. 1) While this is not as true today as it was in the past, we still have a general tendency to have more interactions, friendships, relationships and the like with our own ethnic/cultural groups than we do with others; as such, stereotypes can be formed and spread based on observations of a limited sample of the demographic in question that may not be representative of the demographic as a whole. 2) Stereotypes tend to persist long after they either cease to be true or are disproven. A stereotype that may have been valid when it was originally formed may persist, but no longer be applicable to the majority (or even a significant minority) of the demographic anymore. 3) Persisting stereotypes further reinforce and exacerbate the issue I noted in point 1, and by extension point 2 as well; and as these problems increase, this further exacerbates this very point. This would appear to be a vicious cycle of sorts- while I'm generally not much for faith in humanity, I believe it is a credit to our species that prejudices seem to be on the wane despite this- there is a sizeable portion of humanity that is able to see this for the fallacy it is. One thing that stereotypes are almost never based on is objective observation of an actual representative sample of the demographic. That fact alone is enough to discredit them in my opinion. Side: Serious
|
