Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Best Informative Content

  • - should iDebate ex-users debate on DebateIsland?

    If it shut down then it's pretty much obsolete. and createdebate are pretty bad. 
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    Yes, in the original post I made the distinction of social interactions, then someone brought up the need for compensation in this case, of which I stated briefly that it would be getting compensation from the wrong people as wealth can't be passed down, for 200 years (I should mention that this was an estimate, you are taking it too literally). At which point you didn't challenge the social aspect of my post, you decided to go after the economic aspects. Which has more to do with law, than philosophy, so you can't use philosophical criteria to debate for something philosophy has no control over. It's like trying to use a pickaxe to pick apples, it doesn't work philosophical debate structures aren't meant for economic problems.
    You'll note that the person who talked about compensation isn't me.

    The same point is in your other posts, either explicitly or implicitly, even when not referencing compensation. Take the OP for instance where you state "On the contrary, if it did affect you in a significant way, locate the exact perpetrator, not the son, the grandson, the neighbour, etc, but the exact person that hurt you and benefited from your pain." The clear implication is that descendent do not benefit from the wealth of their ancestors because it is phrased as only the person who did the hurting having benefited. I merely quoted the particular line I did (which included nothing at all about the economic aspects) because it made the underlying crux of your argument clear (not just an implication, outright statement) and because it was your most recent post.

    You'll also note that the specific point you brought up "Ok then, but I looked around, and you are wrong most people with slave owning ancestry don't have money or wealth from back then. (Which isn't my point to prove, by the way, people should never have to debate or prove a negative.)" is not one where we are talking about how jurors should decide on a verdict in some hypothetical trial. it is our framework for debate in a dialectic between the two of us. It is philosophical.
    Ok come on dude, you've got to be kidding me, certain words have certain weights, connotations, double meanings, jests, and gestures. I mean "Why not?" Has a challenging and disagreeable tone to it, especially when applying it to the context of an argument. Plus, you confirm this by showing disagreement in later stages of our argument, so show evidence. So you made a claim, a political statement of disagreement with that gesture or phrase. 
    It also means exactly what those words mean.

    I can't speak to being disagreeable, but it was very much challenging. However it was challenging you to back up your argument. It at no point and in no way made an argument for the reverse.

    While it is by all means possible to present a counter argument to someone's point of view and have a back and forth over which is right, it is also equally possible to keep an open mind and merely press the other person to back up their point, which is what I have done. I am not going to defend claims I have never made and that are only relevant because you thought the implied tone of two words I said carried some hidden implications. If you refuse to accept my outright statement of what I meant, then there's really no good faith basis for continuing the conversation.

    Data, statistics, experiments, they don't mean anything without interpretation. Statistics are essentially trial and error.

    For example - If I survey 10 people and they all tell me their favorite color is red, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that all people like red until I come across that one person that likes green or blue. In that same way, I looked at three people with slave owning ancestry, and reasonably concluded: " These people had rich slave owning ancestry, but despite that, they still lived a middle-class life, with no portion of that money to speak of." (They were also shocked that their ancestors had owned slaves, to get an inheritance, I'm pretty sure you need to know where it comes from.) 3 out of 3 don't have slave money, that's 100 %. Therefore as far as my statistics go 100% of the people surveyed didn't receive slave money inheritance, the point was proven. You need to provide a 4th person that did, just one, and I'll concede the point.  (Provided it's solid, of course)
    I'm going to approach this in two ways:

    The quick and easy way: Would you bet your life savings that after asking three people what their favourite colour is and hearing "red", the fourth would also be "red"? No, of course not because the point is not proven. There is still the very very very obvious possibility that those three samples are not representative.

    The longer way talking about the basis of why you are wrong: Putting aside the lack of any effective sampling method, using statistics like that is rubbish.

    There can be a lot of reasons why statistical samples can be inaccurate, but even if you do have an absolutely perfect methodology you still have to look out for random sample error. This is the variability introduced by the fact that you are only studying a small subset of a larger population and you have no way of knowing if your sample is representative. This is why surveys and polls have margins of error and levels of confidence. Why do you think that rather than just interviewing 3 people, polls for thinks like elections will interview hundreds of people at a minimum and often thousands? This is because the smaller your sample, the less it tells you.

    To give you an example, if you flip a coin 10 times and it lands heads 7 times and tails 3 times, is it an unbalanced coin that is significantly more likely to be heads than tails or is it just the random chance meaning than you don't happen to get a perfectly equal split. There's now way to be very sure after ten flips. What you have to do is flip it hundreds of times or even thousands. Each flip gives you a more representative sample. If you flip it 10,000 times and it is heads 7,000 times then it's almost certainly unbalanced.

    I was actually a manager in a market research company for a few years. Although I know the maths to calculate the margin of error and confidence interval, it's the 21st century and we'd just use calculators if we needed to. My favourite online margin of error calculator is this one if you'd like a play. What you'll note if you plug in the figures is that 3 surveys tells us literally nothing. At a sample size of 3, the margin of error with a complete confidence level is larger than the entire breadth of possibilities. Usually the level most organisations would go for (which is still not certain but allows for a relatively good degree of confidence) is a 5% MOE with a 95% confidence level. That requires 386 samples at the population size we're looking at and even that isn't certainty, just likelihood.

    Trying to make claims about a large group of people based on 3 samples is simply nonsensical that is unsupported by the mathematics behind how statistical sampling works and common sense.

    Don't you think you are misconstruing the argument just a little bit? Context matters here I said that in the case of slavery, that wealth can't be passed down. And even then, I'm pretty sure that unless you are the royal family or the (Illuminati) Rothchilds (I'm kidding), then you are not getting a 200 hundred-year-old check

    Well let's give it context then.

    First of all you state wealth cannot be passed down over 200 years.

    Then you state slave based wealth probably can't be passed down over 200 years.

    Then you state slave based wealth probably can't be passed down over 200 years with the exception of wealth controlled by business.

    Now it's apparently slave based wealth probably can't be passed down over 200 years with the exception of wealth controlled by business and really rich individuals.

    I've already walked you back quite a far way from your original position. Also if you think you have to be the royal family or the Rothchilds to have wealth from prior to the abolition of slavery then I think that's kind of absurd. Take for example this list of century farms, century farms being those that "had been in the same family for 100 years or more". You'll note that even though this is a list from missouri, which hasn't even been a state for 200 years, some of the farms are over 200 years old and plenty more were acquired before 1865 (when slavery was legally abolished, even though you've conceded it went on longer in practice with indentured servitude, etc).
  • NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot


    If you think any of my criticisms are unfair, please explain why using reasoning and/or evidence. Otherwise, the issue that you are continually making wild unsupported claims without evidence to back them up is one that you have to deal with not me and until you do your argument lacks merit. Is it my fault if you make the same fundamental error constantly and so the same rebuttal replies in each case?

    You'll please also note that where your argument did stray into something specific I could respond to (Your misuse of the appeal to authority logical fallacy, your use of "evidence" which is just unsupported opinion from a third source and doesn't contain any merit in terms of evidentiary value, who the burden of proof lies with, etc) I made a specific argument explaining my reasoning. Your argument here would therefore be an example of a strawman argument because you are misrepresenting my argument.
  • Disney: Too Big to Be Bought?

    Disney: Too Big to Be Bought?

    Don't expect Disney to be bought out, but continued rumors could help support its stock.

    Ben Levisohn
    July 24, 2017 12:04 p.m. ET

    I will debate that Disney is not a good acquisition target. It's too big and has great sustainable culture of innovation that would be at risk if bought. 
  • Zuckerberg vs Musk on concerns about artificial intelligence - who is right?

  • 'Morning Joe' staffers losing their patience with Joe and Mika

    Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski’s staff is losing its patience with the couple’s globe-trotting, raging romance.

    That makes show more difficult and expensive to produce and impacts team morale.  Will their romance eventually make the show fall apart of just the opposite, makes the show more interesting?

  • Cannabis

    @Erfisflat Did I mention the kid who was placed in rehab, subjected to daily drug searches and expelled from school because of a maple leaf? 
  • The earth is flat

    @Coveny Wait, are you admitting to using fallacies? Atleast you're honest this time. By the way I almost forgot about your "rebuttal" to my argument. Did you even look at the article I sent you?
    I admit to ad hominem attacks, but not logical fallacies. If I didn't respond to it, then I likely didn't look at it.
  • The earth is flat

    @Erfisflat I see someone has done a google search of logical fallacies. You might want to look up hypocrisy while you are searching. See when you claim foul because I did an ad hominem attack, and then you do an ad hominem attack, it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do" which makes you a hypocritic. 

    Oh and you missed one.
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?


    "But after a while, when slavery was abolished sure the slave owners probably had money lying around, but if you can't innovate the market, strategize, etc you would lose that money very quickly. And if someone were to rely on using people through slavery, then they probably aren't innovative."

    Firstly, there was no massive need to innovate. The antebellum conditions still left black people ripe for exploitation. There was no "40 acres and a mule" granted to slaves so most as freemen reverted to wage labour, working on the same kind of farms they did as slaves for low pay. While better, it was only better by a matter of degrees and was still a continuation of race-based exploitation. That's of course when basic 'voluntary' (however much it can be considered voluntary when someone is coerced by a lack of other opportunity and a need for money to live) was even an option as there was still a systematic post-slavery abuse of black people, with legal restrictions like the Black Codes specifically designed to criminalise black people or trap them in debt and force them into indentured servitude or penal labour which was little different from slavery.

    Secondly, you don't need to innovate or strategise to maintain wealth. This is especially true today when a child of someone especially wealthy can receive a large inheritance, give it to a financial manager who will invest it in a diversified portfolio and be expected to see their wealth grow without putting in even the slightest modicum of effort. Despite the lack of complicated financial instruments it also held true back then. Anyone who was using slavery for a commercial basis would at the very least be expected to have wealth invested in land and the means of production regardless of the wealth invested in slaves which they lost. Even if they didn't want to get involved in profiting from the land themselves, they could still retain their wealth tied up in their investments while accruing a profit by leasing it out - for instance agricultural land going to tenant farmers - giving them an income from rent-seeking from the work of others.

    Thirdly, I think the idea of viewing racial imbalance as something encapsulated in the slavery period of the USA absurd. You can't look at a single point in time, you have to look at the continuum of discrimination that exists between now and 150 years ago.

    Lastly, slavery did not happen in a vacuum inhabited solely by southern plantations. Banks offered loans to slave holders, accepted slaves as debt and collateral and traded commodities like cotton that were created by slaves. Insurance companies let owners take out policies on the life of their slaves. Traders would travel across the globe to sell slaves, transporting them in horrific conditions. Railway companies who used slaves to build railway lines continued to profit from their efforts and work long after freedom had been granted. Even purveyors of basic goods - from spoons to clothes to manacles - profited from selling to slave-owners.

    There were businesses generally regarded as very innovative who made profits off of slavery - some of them even survive today whether individually or merged into larger corporations. While the profits from slavery will since then have been reinvested and grown in other enterprises, it is still wealth that was founded in slavery and earned by enslaved black people who did not benefit from it.

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch