CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does diversity weaken communities?
We are all constantly told about the wonders of diversity and multiculturalism by our politicians and preachers and teachers. What is your personal view from objectively viewing society? Are you witnessing the virtues of a diverse community or are you seeing conflict and agitation arise as a result of diversity? I am having a difficult time identifying the benefits of diversity but I easily spot the many problems it creates.
I grew up about 10 miles north of Mexico. 98% of the population was Mexican-American. I had good friends, but I tended not to connect with most people just cuz of cultural differences. You'd be surprised how many idioms and little references don't translate at all. Take a rich white person and stick them in a black ghetto and they're probably only going to understand like 60% of what's going on.
I would say that diversity is good for individuals. It can give you new perspectives. You can better understand humanity by seeing similarities and differences between cultures.
But people are by nature averse to outsiders. They like to hang around people similar to themselves. Diversity just tends to lead to smaller, voluntarily segregated communities. Go to any diverse area and you'll see Asians mostly hanging out with Asians, blacks with blacks, etc.
That said, it's unfair to discriminate against people based on nothing more than their race. Community harmony is no excuse for bigotry.
Those aren't good examples. Neither of the communities that you spoke about were diverse. One had 98% Mexican-Americans, and the other was 1 white person in a community of blacks.
I wasn't trying to say those communities were diverse. Those example were meant to point out the communication problems that arise between people from different cultures.
Go to any college campus to see the voluntarily segregated communities I described.
Logically, a community is strengthened by like minded persons and weakened by those on the fringe. This is why Totalitarian states would go so far to stomp out neigh-sayers.
If you're talking solely about racial diversity, then more context would be needed.
specialization is what allows for a community to function; diversity of skills, jobs, etc are essential to a community.
Totalitarian states tend to fall apart for a reason, the inability to express various philosophies which various groups in the state tend to hold creates resentment against the state, it also allows for faults of one philosophy to not be countered by others.
Having different jobs in a community is not equivalent to ideological diversity. Different professions are necessary for society, but ideological diversity is not. Any diversity in ideology is directly antagonistic to state values. Differences in profession are not opposed to each other in that way, so it's not a factor.
Totalitarian states tend to collapse for economic reasons, not ideological reasons. The greatest strength of totalitarian states is their ideological unity.
Ideological diversity is breed by environmental diversity, different jobs are and lead to different environmental states which lead to different ideas. Different ideas lead to different ways of doing jobs and different jobs, etc; this cycle adds to the ability of the community to produce, specialize and improve efficiency.
Differences in ideology is only antagonistic to "state values" if those values are counter to ideological diversity.
Totalitarian states tend to have a ideological justification to their economic decisions which isn't allowed to be challenged by other ideologies, thus any faults in their ideology and the resultant faults in their economic decisions go unchallenged, ultimately resulting in collapse.
Not necessarily. Persons of different professions can have the same political ideology. Not all supporters of Hitler were Nazis.
Differences in ideology is only antagonistic to "state values" if those values are counter to ideological diversity.
This is a contradiction. You're saying that the only ideologies not against the state's ideology are those diverse from it. Different professions don't have to be opposed to each other, but diverse ideologies must be. A nation cannot be consistent if it is both capitalistic and communistic.
The flaw with an economic action isn't in whether it's challenged or not, it's based on the context of the economy. A good idea is a good idea regardless of if it is challenged or not.
Different people in different professions may have the same political ideology, however you will find different distributions of political ideology in different types of professions.
Two different ideologies don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, many communists support a period of regulated capitalism. My original statement was that a state's values only oppose another ideology if the state's values are ones that only consider a narrow band of ideas plausible. For example if a state has a value of monogamy, then it would consider any non-monogamy as counter to it but if a state values relationships in general then it would not. A different meaning than how you interpreted the original statement.
How do you know if its a good idea unless it is challenged/tested?
Which is why totalitarian states will so heavily indoctrinate in order to keep everyone on the same page.
If a communist is putting forth a capitalistic stance, then he is being antagonistic to communism. Being a polygamist in a state that values relationships is not being diverse from that value, so it's not relevant to this debate.
Interesting that you added "/tested" to this question. You did it so you could sneak in "challenged", which is not necessary for proving if an idea could work, with "tested" since that is the method for proving an idea could work. A good idea unchallenged is still a good idea.
If a communist is putting forth a "capitalistic stance" he may very well be consistent with the writings of Marx, in the communist manifesto Marx mentioned how the communists and the democrats of his age should be aligned under certain circumstances.
Being polygamist, monogamist, serial-monogamist, polyandrous, etc in a state that values relationships is the state not having values antagonistic to a range of diversity. Thus state values are not necessarily antagonistic to diversity, and in this case that means diversity is not necessarily antagonistic to a state's values. meaning the state is not causing much inner strife or civil unrest which would make a community weaker. Thus diversity does not necessarily weaken communities in that regard.
I added /tested because tested and challenged are synonyms and I wanted to make the meaning Clear. If a idea goes unchallenged, it goes untested.
Karl Marx =/= communism. Just because Marx mentions something about aligning communism and capitalism doesn't make then complimentary. But even if it did, this would only serve to show the strength of ideology when diversity is cast aside.
If the state values relationships then any relationship, regardless of if it is mono or poly, does not diverge from the state value. They diverse from each other, absolutely, but it means as little as having different professions if the state doesn't care. Besides, not specifying which type of relationships are approved of doesn't strengthen the state, it just doesn't weaken it.
"Tested" and "challenged" are not synonymous. Especially not the way you meant it. This is an expost facto argument as if you really felt they meant the same, you would have only listed one of them.
If one's ideology is challenged by another person's ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, since it hasn't been tested. If it is tested and fails, only then can you be sure it fails.
Marx and Engels wrote the book. A communist society can not have a capitalist economy, however the ideas of communism and capitalism do not have to be mutually opposed to each other. Communism is a stateless classless society, capitalism is a economic system consisting of capital expansion among other things. capitalism is considered a transitory stage to communism, in that it creates the necessary conditions for communism. All communist may not want capitalism, however many non-Leninists recognize the necessity of capitalism and will support it in various ways because they are communists.
your third sentence is missing a negation. If a idea(s) can be complimentary with a diverse range of other ideas, the idea(s) is more likly to be included within various sets of ideology which may compete, no matter the winner the idea wins. By ideology not casting aside diversity, it increases its strength for it may then be included within many other ideologies.
yep, so diverse values do not necessarily weaken a state.
Tested and challenged are synonymous, however I had a hunch you wouldn't think so. If a ideology is tested/challenged, it doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong(nor right, just that it was tested); however if a ideology is ether challenged/tested by either a empirical test or another ideology and passes, it is accepted as permissible by those tests/challenges.
The more diverse a community is, the more "genes" it has that may be adaptable to changing conditions; improving the likelihood that the community will survive. Without diversity, what are typically coined as evolutionary processes would result in most things being dead.
Capitalism and communism are compatible in theory, but incompatible in practice? That doesn't follow at all. Either your theory is wrong, or reality is wrong.
So now you're saying an ideology that allows diversity within its own ideology is strong? Sure, I agree, but that's hardly proof of the strength of diversity since nothing is actually diverging from the state's values. That would be like saying a state that values monogamous relationships, but doesn't specify at which age persons should marry, is strengthened because it is diverse within it's own value.
"Testing" (challenged by another ideology) an ideology =/= testing an ideology on the market. That's really all that needs to be said about this. Testing an ideology against another ideology is only theoretical, it's not nearly as reliable of a means as actually testing an ideology on the market.
Personally, I believe that a nation free of any state is stronger than any state-nation. Having said that, the states most consistent have historically been much more powerful. Germany was very totalitarian and it took on the world. The states with the most inner conflict have always been the ones with the most diversity, like racial tension. Could you imagine how weak a state would be if the public was split between valuing democracy and monarchism? It would collapse in no time.
There are different stages in communist theory dealing with different stages in reality. The stage of a classless stateless society will not have a capitalist economy, however the stages before that may find communists working against, within, or even for various forms of capitalism.
So you agree then that when diversity is accepted it makes the community or state strong. It seems weakness comes more so when people try to squash diversity, rather then accept it.
Testing an idea against various theoretical models allows for better empirical tests. It allows you to know the important points of conflict to test for. When a theory is considered perfect and not tested against other theories then what points of the theory to test are not as clear. If a theory considered as perfect and is unchallenged by other ideas is to be tested empirically then those tests are going to be of a lesser quality, potentially not even testing for what could be a major flaw.
Germany was strong, however wouldn't they of been stronger if they would of recruited more of the people they persecuted into their army or military complex somehow? For example they could of had the atomic bomb if Einstein wasn't threatened by them.
The Romans allowed local laws to stay in place when they conquered a people, not much changed but the army of the area. The USA has been the only superpower for awhile.
To be honest I wasn't debating this point because I felt strongly for it or anything, either could be argued so I picked a side mostly just for practice. Though, since I'm going to be stupid busy for the next little while I've got to cut back on some of my ongoing debates.
Soooo I propose this; both diversity and conformity can strengthen a group depending on the context of the situation. Agreed?
It looks like this argument is being favored by folks that think in terms of their personal programming, I simply wish to speak in present terms. I do not offer dreams of what could be. I simply ask people to become aware of the way racial and cultural differences are NOW. If there is ever to be any solution, it will occur in the NOW and not at some far off, imagined point in the future. I predict that white people will become a minority in the near future. You can claim that you are fine with that, but I bet you won't like the results in the long run. I dare any white liberal to walk a few blocks in any predominantly black city.
Done it, a friend of mine lived in a predominately black neighbor hood, my ex's sister's boyfriend was black, as is her current. I Also drive through little Mexico and sit around a bunch of Indians 5 days a week and my lab partner is from hong kong. 4 nights a week I work in a diverse group as well,well there I regularly talk to a black man and a women of Indonesian heritage. One owns a business well the other has her MBA, and I'm more or less a "red".
If I walk through a predominately black neighborhood and find I don't like it, it doesn't have to do with the pigmentation of the inhabitants.
Fact of the matter is, Diversity makes us stronger NOW. The different cultures and backgrounds from the various groups and people Mention above have had a profound impact. For example at work we're not all asking for the same days off because we all want to go to the geek convention because were not all geeks, resulting in most of the workers not being upset that they were unable to attend and thus not under-performing; resulting in a stronger work community.
diversity doesnt necesarily weaken communities, but it seems that capitalism does. in fact, thats one of the first things they taught me in sociology class.
Diversity is not the cause of conflict. People or groups who do not accept or tolerate diversity can cause conflict between demograpghics. This is akin to stating that skin color is the cause of racism; the prejudice arose after the introduction of a difference, but it need not necessarily be that way. Diversity can certainly exist in the absence of conflict.
Communities composed of multiple ethnicities and cultures are perfectly capable of operating peacefully if no one is contrary to that goal. A diverse well of knowledge, backgrounds, and skills is better than a limited one. I am having trouble actually envisioning a situation in which diversity itself (not just the conflict that results from it) would be handicap. Maybe you can give an example.
Despite what people say in order to be perceived as politically correct, most people do no react well to diversity. People are naturally attracted to the company of those like themselves. If this is untrue then why do people separate themselves racially and culturally at every given opportunity (for instance, school lunchrooms)? Diversity IS the cause of conflict if the natural human reaction to it is a negative one, and I think it obviously is. Expecting people to embrace those that are different from themselves is expecting them to go against human nature. You say that diversity can exist in the absence of conflict, but can you name a diverse community or nation that does not have conflict between it's differing races or cultures? I would like to see an example of a harmonious, multicultural society.
Despite what people say in order to be perceived as politically correct, most people do no react well to diversity. People are naturally attracted to the company of those like themselves. If this is untrue then why do people separate themselves racially and culturally at every given opportunity (for instance, school lunchrooms)?
I am not trying to contest that people often react poorly to diversity. I am contesting that people simply must react poorly to diversity. I believe that a refusal to accept or understand other demographics is the product of environment rather than genetics; it is learned rather than innate.
And in regard to the comment about people being attracted to those most like themselves, this is true but subjective. We are all humans and our differences are vastly overshadowed by our similarities.
Diversity IS the cause of conflict if the natural human reaction to it is a negative one, and I think it obviously is. Expecting people to embrace those that are different from themselves is expecting them to go against human nature.
As I stated, I believe an adverse reaction to diversity is learned after birth. However, I recognize that evidence may be contradictory on this issue. So, even if it is instinctual, humans are not slaves to their instincts; if we recognize that a behavior is counterproductive or harmful to others, we have the intelligence and self-control to identify and amend bad behavior, especially if we are taught to do so from a young age.
You say that diversity can exist in the absence of conflict, but can you name a diverse community or nation that does not have conflict between it's differing races or cultures? I would like to see an example of a harmonious, multicultural society.
I never claimed that intolerance towards diversity is an uncommon thing. Just because it is common does not mean it is inherent.
I posited that diversity will strengthen a community as long as no one in the community is contrary to the goal of coexistence. The larger a community is, the more likely it is that that community includes individuals who are hostile towards other demographics. Thus, a community large enough to be known to both of us is unlikely to meet these requirements. However, I think it is becoming increasingly unlikely that you will be able to locate a completely homogeneous community or nation and the strength, success, and peacableness of all these diverse populations varies immensely.
I have been a part of many groups that were both diverse and harmonious. Most notably, I currently live in an apartment complex with a substantial Indian population, and I lived and intended elementary school in a neighborhood split evenly pretty between Islamic and Christian families. Less notably, I often work on group projects in college with people from different demographics. I realize that anecdotal evidence is not a strong support for an argument, but I do think that many of my experiences are reasonably common and I would hazard a guess that you have been a part of a functional group, at least once, composed of diverse demographics.
If reaction to diversity is learned after birth, then why so much racial tension? We have been steadily bombarded most of our lives with positive images of racial harmony from the news media, from Hollywood, from magazines from the advertisement and music industries. You would think we would all be one big happy melting pot by now, yet we still self-segregate.
Yes, I have had positive experiences working within a diverse group. I get along well with others and can appreciate variety, but that is simply my personal experience. I am concerned with the overall effects diversity has on society and I am referring to people in general groups. As groups, we are not getting along at all. I may have a Mexican friend but that does not mean that I think the presence of Mexican immigrants in my community somehow strengthens it.
If reaction to diversity is learned after birth, then why so much racial tension? We have been steadily bombarded most of our lives with positive images of racial harmony from the news media, from Hollywood, from magazines from the advertisement and music industries. You would think we would all be one big happy melting pot by now, yet we still self-segregate.
From which source do you think children take stronger queues: media, or the adults that are a part of their daily lives and explicitly or implicitly transmit their own feelings about other races?
I also disagree with your argument that racial harmony is a ubiquitous message from 'the media'. It may be a frequent part of school assemblies and things of that nature, but stereotypes and negative portrayals of other races are rampant in movies and television, either humorously or seriously.
If a negative reaction to diversity is not learned after birth, but rather innate, then why do people exhibit hugely varying levels of tolerance for other groups? Why do some people embrace and advocate it, others react apathetically, and still others oppose it with violence?
Yes, I have had positive experiences working within a diverse group. I get along well with others and can appreciate variety, but that is simply my personal experience. I am concerned with the overall effects diversity has on society and I am referring to people in general groups. As groups, we are not getting along at all. I may have a Mexican friend but that does not mean that I think the presence of Mexican immigrants in my community somehow strengthens it.
Why do you think their presence weakens your community? You still have not dispelled the argument that hostility towards diversity, not diversity itself, is the root of conflict.
why do people separate themselves racially and culturally at every given opportunity (for instance, school lunchrooms)?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could it be that we are afraid of what will happen? If you have always grown up around a group of people and one day meet up with another group, you will judge the new group by stereotypes that you've always heard.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could it be that we are afraid of what will happen? If you have always grown up around a group of people and one day meet up with another group, you will judge the new group by stereotypes that you've always heard.
If a person has nothing but negative or frightening stereotypes by which to judge a group, then yes, they might very well be afraid or hostile upon meeting a member of that group. That is now prejudice is passed on.
A person who grows up in a diverse setting will have previous exposure (both positive and negative) to more groups. Even if they do not apply what they learned from their varied experiences to unfamiliar groups, such an upbringing would result in more tolerance for other groups.
If you really think about it the words "diverse" and "community" have a sort of oxymoronic relationship. One speaks to differences, and the other to commonalities.
The lead question is just plain old illogical. It amounts to asking: "wouldn't we be better off if we were all exactly the same?"
But to answer anyway...
In some ways diversity works against community, in some ways community is strengthened by diversity.
I think it's real good if people sit there and ponder "Where should I draw the boundaries of community?" Sure many people are still so narrow minded that ethnicity plays an over-sized part in how they define community but I think (hope) they're becoming a smaller and smaller minority.
Diversity makes the community stronger. Homogeneous groups are boring and same old. It is always interesting to know about new people & culture. More news ideas, new way of thinking and doing things. Lot of learning opportunity. It makes the human being mature, flexible and comfortable with anybody in any situations.