frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

So essentially, is it socially acceptable for people to hold a grudge for historical events, like slavery. And if so, to what extent? How long can someone hold a grudge against someone else or even a group of people before it is considered to distasteful or socially inappropriate?

Here are my two cents on the issue -
Does it affect you or any significant loved one? If not, then perhaps it is distasteful to hold a grudge for a historical event. 
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. 

Post your argument down below.
joecavalrynorthsouthkoreaVaulk

Comments

  • No, many people have been taught to learn from the past. If a direct person or people etc. is involved with the event which has been targeted towards yourself and others, then holding a grudge is fine. An example of an event which is completely fine for holding grudge against for is the Holocaust.
    agsrErfisflat
  • agsragsr 498 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    That is a good debate @SnakesOfferingApples.
    good question: should all African Americans hold a grudge against white people for slavery? Should all jews hold a grudge against Germans for holocaust? Should all Native Americans hold a grudge agaist Americans?  For each of these examples there is some level of compensation put in place towards the victim group.  It is more of a negotiated agreement than a grudge
    joecavalrynorthsouthkorea
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @kmelkevolution17

    Did I specifically say that it is bad to retain lessons from the past?  No, we can learn from the Holocaust for example that propaganda is bad because it can lead to the death of millions. My problem with what you said is that a person can hold a general grudge. Are people not a product of their own actions? Should I a Greco-Turkish person be held responsible for England's enslavement of African people?

    Here is an example of what I am against - In my debate class, we were debating affirmative action, and I said "Solving supposed discrimination by giving out special privileges is discrimination. Anyone can make it in America today." So I kept driving down this point and my opponent, (who is a great guy, by the way, I just don't agree with him) said this "But you are white, white people enslaved African people, you are in a position of power because of slavery" And some people nodded in agreement! They were essentially trying to devalue my opinion.

    Why should something that happened two hundred years, affect social interactions today in a way where I am not treated as an individual?
    If you HAVE BEEN HURT by SOMEONE then HOLD A GRUDGE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, not the collective.  
    Which is what I am for.
    aarong
  • edited July 22
    @agsr

    Essentially - What I am arguing for is individuality. To illustrate what I'm fighting against is this scenario -

    John Doe (completely random name) was a 17th-century slave owner, he happened to be the only one in his neighbourhood that owned slaves.

    Fast forward to 2017 and you meet Carl Doe a middle-class American who is constantly reminded about his ancestry, should he be shunned and accused of benefiting from the pain of African Americans?
    (Of course not, Carl Joe is an individual, and there is no way that wealth could have been passed on through the span of 200 years, should he pay the descendants of his ancestor's slaves. Debatable, but I still think that since Carl Doe didn't use or benefit from slavery, he shouldn't have to pay for it.)

    Now let's look at this scenario, the tax collectors, IRS, etc, stop by Carl's neighbour's and say: John Doe was your neighbour and was also white, therefore, pay for reparations" This is guilt by association, I or anybody shouldn't have to bear the punishment and shame for something that we didn't do.

    Anyway, thanks for your feedback, I came up with this debate topic because people were making general assumptions because of my skin colour.

  • there is no way that wealth could have been passed on through the span of 200 years
    Why not?
  • agsragsr 498 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @SnakesOfferingApples, good example.  But essentially that is what hapenning today In your example of tax collector. While there is no specific tax collected, there is a subsidy associated with affirmative action that in a way punishes all white people and benefits  african Americans.  Similarly, native americans get benefits subsidized by all others, effectively having a similar "native american" tax.
    the wealth can be transferred to a group of population over time and has been with such artificial taxation.
    Your original question is it fair to have this type of taxation levied on childten of those who committed crimes, especially so many generations later?  In some ways yes, because in case of native americans we took their land and we can think of paying for it over time.  In many ways though to your point it is unfair.
    ChangeMyViewSnakesOfferingApples
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 241 Pts
    @SnakesOfferingApples Since minorities receive more assistance from social benefits programs, we could already be considered to pay a tax such as what you described.
    ChangeMyViewaarongSnakesOfferingApples
  • The minoritids are eating tax dollars payer by majorities in America.
    agsr
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @AlwaysCorrect

    The wealth cannot last for 200 years because the vessel in which that wealth was attained, slavery, is no longer there to help grow, maintain or pass on the wealth. In the times of slavery, if you bought a slave, sure it cost you, but the benefit and surplus you would gain would make money really easy to make. (Which is very sick - No human should be used for personal gain.) 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.

    An example of this is Ben Affleck, he had three slave owning grandfathers, and you might say "Ben Affleck is a celebrity", but the two things don't correlate. Extending that his parents weren't living in luxury either, his mom was a teacher and his dad was a carpenter. So at best Ben Affleck was a middle-class citizen in his early life.
  • @agsr
    I agree with most of your points, but the thing that I have to say about cases of colonialism, it was rampant - It was the definition of politics. The world (or at least most of it) had established that the rule of the land was "Conquer or be conquered." If we didn't conquer the Natives another advanced nation would have, like China, or they would have destroyed themselves through tribal warfare. It sucks, and the fact that everyone was doing it doesn't justify it, but people often forget that war was and is still politics. 

    If we were to track down, shame, and make everyone who ever colonised or conquered a country pay a tax eventually most of the world would be paying other countries for reparations, while also getting reparations from being colonised by a stronger country.

    (Plus we would need to bend over backwards just to calculate the amount that we would owe. But I don't think that historical occurrences matter to most of these people, I just think that most people like seeing a few free dollars coming their way.)


    agsr
  • @SnakesOfferingApples

    "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.
    agsr
  • edited July 24
    @AlwaysCorrect ;

    "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.

    MY RESPONSE

    Indentured servitude is no different from slavery (as you yourself made the distinction), sure you can argue that there is one minor difference, but historians and professors all agree that indentured servitude was just "sugar-coated slavery" as I call it. So it can be encompassed in the "Era Of Slavery" so after slavery ended (it was including indentured servitude)"

    Knowing this - 

     If you don't have the benefit of cheap labor then you absolutely have to innovate, whether you are a bank, plantation, etc. We've been over this in our other argument, excluding slavery capitalism makes it so that people who innovate and work honestly are rewarded and in contrast people who don't aren't rewarded. As it is evident like we discussed before, that most people who are rich today have earned it through innovation, the big bad lazy wealthy inheritor is a minority. In a capitalistic society, you need to maintain the wealth you are given whether it be the factories you inherit or a million dollars.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4 ;

    "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."

    MY RESPONSE

    That's true, but how do we quantify a value when it comes to discrimination? Not only that but some people would argue that we are paying the price for discrimination through affirmative action, but still, I think that is unfair, why do people who were not affected by slavery get social benefits, where as people that never used slavery suffer the constant ridicule of it?


    "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."

    MY RESPONSE

    Someone would need to prove that a certain company that benefited from slavery is alive and well, once you do that, you can tax that company, but I'm not arguing that there wasn't a network of business around the slaves, because there was, it wasn't just the plantation owner. I'm arguing that slave money can't be passed over a span 150 - 200 years, especially to individuals. Sure a corporation (which is made to innovate by the way) might have surviving wealth, and in that case, they may be taxed. I use might in the sentence because a lot can happen in the span of two centuries, I don't know for sure that those companies survived because of slavery or because of other factors such as inventing, (remember, the Industrial Revolution was occurring during that time as well.) 

    But either way, this debate is about the social repercussions of slavery, such as in the case of Ben Affleck. There is something seriously disgusting about passing on the guilt of the father to the not even the son, but the great, great, great, grandson. When he learned about this he was so ashamed that he hid it from the general public, not only that when the news did come out, there were some people who criticized Affleck as HE had committed the act. (Speaking of Ben Affleck you didn't counter the fact that his family has no slave money, which proves my point that wealth can't be carried on through inheritance.)



  • Indentured servitude is no different from slavery (as you yourself made the distinction), sure you can argue that there is one minor difference, but historians and professors all agree that indentured servitude was just "sugar-coated slavery" as I call it. So it can be encompassed in the "Era Of Slavery" so after slavery ended (it was including indentured servitude)"

    Knowing this - 

     If you don't have the benefit of cheap labor then you absolutely have to innovate, whether you are a bank, plantation, etc. We've been over this in our other argument, excluding slavery capitalism makes it so that people who innovate and work honestly are rewarded and in contrast people who don't aren't rewarded. As it is evident like we discussed before, that most people who are rich today have earned it through innovation, the big bad lazy wealthy inheritor is a minority. In a capitalistic society, you need to maintain the wealth you are given whether it be the factories you inherit or a million dollars.
    Firstly, you're ignoring the majority of my argument. You accept the continuation of discrimination for those affected by indentured servitude, but don't respond to either the socio-economic imbalance of the freed black people leaving them ripe for continued exploitation through low paid wage labour or from penal labour.

    The former is especially telling because it directly answers your point of "If you don't have the benefit of cheap labor..." because they still did have cheap labour!

    Also the rest of your post seems to be based on economic ideology rather than fact. You're going to need to back that up.
    That's true, but how do we quantify a value when it comes to discrimination? Not only that but some people would argue that we are paying the price for discrimination through affirmative action, but still, I think that is unfair, why do people who were not affected by slavery get social benefits, where as people that never used slavery suffer the constant ridicule of it?
    Why would we need to quantify a value?

    Also I'm assuming you mean "why do people who were not affected by slavery get social benefits" My response to that is, why not they? If you're referencing affirmative action, that's based on existing inequalities. There's no reasons Latinos, for instance, shouldn't benefit from affirmative action even though they wouldn't have been expected to be negatively effected by slavery. They face and have faced economic discrimination and affirmative action helps address that.

    Also I'm not sure who is suffering the "constant ridicule of slavery". I'm certainly not and I'm not sure how it ties in to the point.
    Someone would need to prove that a certain company that benefited from slavery is alive and well, once you do that, you can tax that company, but I'm not arguing that there wasn't a network of business around the slaves, because there was, it wasn't just the plantation owner. I'm arguing that slave money can't be passed over a span 150 - 200 years, especially to individuals. Sure a corporation (which is made to innovate by the way) might have surviving wealth, and in that case, they may be taxed. I use might in the sentence because a lot can happen in the span of two centuries, I don't know for sure that those companies survived because of slavery or because of other factors such as inventing, (remember, the Industrial Revolution was occurring during that time as well.) 

    But either way, this debate is about the social repercussions of slavery, such as in the case of Ben Affleck. There is something seriously disgusting about passing on the guilt of the father to the not even the son, but the great, great, great, grandson. When he learned about this he was so ashamed that he hid it from the general public, not only that when the news did come out, there were some people who criticized Affleck as HE had committed the act. (Speaking of Ben Affleck you didn't counter the fact that his family has no slave money, which proves my point that wealth can't be carried on through inheritance.)

    You seem to be thinking of companies as distinct from people. A company is owned by people. A tax on a company is a tax on the shareholders and owners. How can you maintain that is fair to do in relation to a company, but not an individual?

    Also, I didn't counter the Ben Affleck point because I thought it irrelevant. Why do you think it proves your point that wealth cannot be carried on through inheritance?
  • edited July 25
    @AlwaysCorrect

    "Firstly, you're ignoring the majority of my argument. You accept the continuation of discrimination for those affected by indentured servitude, but don't respond to either the socio-economic imbalance of the freed black people leaving them ripe for continued exploitation through low paid wage labour or from penal labour." 

    The former is especially telling because it directly answers your point of "If you don't have the benefit of cheap labor..." because they still did have cheap labour!

    Also the rest of your post seems to be based on economic ideology rather than fact. You're going to need to back that up"

    MY RESPONSE

    I am saying that indentured servitude was just underground slavery, according to sources indentured servitude ended in 1917, therefore slavery occurred in America from 1650 to 1917, you can't use indentured servitude as an example of exploitation for gain by using cheap labor AFTER slavery because indentured servitude is slavery. 

    So as the vessel of slavery or indentured servitude was not available after slavery which many historians debate is after 1917, people would need to innovate to maintain their wealth when they can't exploit other human beings.

    (Yes, African American people faced exploitation back in the day because they were not properly paid when they should have been. However, this case can't be about "better late than never", because most people today have not been impacted by slavery or historical discrimination. Except for cases of social ransom, in which people are called out as racist or are blackmailed because of their ancestry.)

    "Why would we need to quantify a value?"

    MY RESPONSE

    Because then it's no better than blackmail, and social ransom, it becomes a matter of "Keep paying us until we are satisfied" but if we had a value America could pay it's due and finally move on.



    "Also I'm assuming you mean "why do people who were not affected by slavery get social benefits" My response to that is, why not they? If you're referencing affirmative action, that's based on existing inequalities. There's no reasons Latinos, for instance, shouldn't benefit from affirmative action even though they wouldn't have been expected to be negatively effected by slavery. They face and have faced economic discrimination and affirmative action helps address that."

    MY RESPONSE

    Because they don't need the help!?! I'm physically disabled, should my future great, great, grandson be able to use the handicap parking for something that was impacting me?

    Also, existing discrimination? Sure there may be individuals who are racist, but it's nothing to warrant affirmative action, institutional racism is a thing of the past, there would need to be multiple people in multiple levels in an institution  If we want to give away privileges to account for small instances of racism, can I get a dime for every time someone assumes I have white privilege and calls me a cracker? The point is that everyone experiences small instances of racism, so affirmative action isn't warranted.

    "Also I'm not sure who is suffering the "constant ridicule of slavery". I'm certainly not and I'm not sure how it ties in to the point."

    MY RESPONSE

    Google "White Privilege" "Gazi Kodzo", "The Uhuru Movement", "White Privilege II", etc. (Also Ben Affleck hides slave owning ancestry :) )
    The point is, don't try and pretend that this problem doesn't exist because it does and it's rampant even in places of intellectualism, (in my debate classroom I criticized affirmative action and got the response of "Yeah but you're white".) 

    Also this: https://www.google.com/search?q=white+people+are+a+plague&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP4pHE8aPVAhWn5YMKHfTgC5AQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=826#imgrc=yZZDgBhdZ8_0hM:

    "You seem to be thinking of companies as distinct from people. A company is owned by people. A tax on a company is a tax on the shareholders and owners. How can you maintain that is fair to do in relation to a company, but not an individual?"

    That's because they are, an individuals decision depends on them and them alone, but in a company or institution, there would need to be a constant reaffirmation of an action among individuals for it to occur within it. You represent yourself, that is why it's not okay to tax someone like Ben Affleck for slavery. But in a company, it is a team effort to build and maintain a business, so companies that are represented by their costumers, workers, and owners.

    So it's okay to tax institutions, but not individuals. Because the two are completely different.

    "Also, I didn't counter the Ben Affleck point because I thought it irrelevant. Why do you think it proves your point that wealth cannot be carried on through inheritance?"

    MY RESPONSE
    Because Ben Affleck had no slavery money to help him in his completely middle-class life when he was growing up, and slavery certainly didn't help him in his career. What you asked me is like asking "Why do you think a warzone causes PTSD?" After which I point out all the veterans with PTSD, and you respond by asking "Why does that prove anything"

    I showed you a direct correlation.

    Ben Affleck had rich slave-owning relatives in the past, but despite that had no extreme source of wealth to speak of like his ancestors. Therefore slavery money can't be maintained.
  • @SnakesOfferingApples

    I'm phone posting so will respond in depth later, but you claim isn't that wealth sometimes isn't passed on - in which case one example is 'sometimes' and therefore proves the point - your argument is that it CANNOT be passed on. Therefore showing that one person didn't receive wealth isn't enough, you need to show that no-one did. For that a single anecdotal example doesn't suffice.

    To expand on your example, I think it's fair to say that battlefield conditions cause PTD in at least some soldiers. Does this mean battlefield conditions cause PTSD in ALL soldiers? No, and it's the latter absolutist type of claim that you're making.
  • edited July 26
    @AlwaysCorrect

    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.)

    For example, 
    I shouldn't have to prove that I didn't steal from you. You have to prove that I did.

    In the same way, I shouldn't have to prove that people with slave owning ancestry, today don't have that access to that wealth, you have to prove why they do have it.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 187 Pts
    edited July 26
    @SnakesOfferingApples

    That isn't how the burden of proof works.

    The person who makes the claim (you) needs to back it up, in the same way that if someone accused you of stealing they would need to back up their claim (Although the legalistic burden of proof is a bit different from the philosophical one).

    Whether a claim is a negative is just a matter of phrasing. "there is no way that wealth could have been passed on through the span of 200 years" could also be phrased as "All modern wealth that exists today will have been generated within the last 199 years". The exact phrasing of a claim as "did" or "did not" does not free you from the obligations of the burden of proof because you are still making a definitive statement either way. You make a claim, you need to back it up.
  • @AlwaysCorrect

    But this isn't a philosophical debate, it's a socioeconomic one, making it legalistic. I can't tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was nobody in the U.S that has inherited money from slavery in the present day. However, looking at cases such as Ben Affleck's I can conclude that people do not have access to slavery wealth today. In philosophy, I can use logic to make conclusions. For example, If God created evil then he is not benevolent.

    But in the case of data, someone shows data to support one claim, and then the opposing party must debunk that data with other relevant data. 
    Not only that but constitutionally, people are given the rights of innocent until proven guilty. This is relevant because you are making the accusation that the people in the modern day are using slavery money because of inheritance, thus it is ok to tax them. You are making the accusation that the people of today are profiting of off slavery. Where is the proof of that?

    In fact, there is proof of the contrary, Ben Affleck and much more, (I found people who wrote articles about it, and they weren't rich, noteworthy, or famous, just regular run of the mill middle-class people.) (In today's social justice world by the way, if there was an American who currently inherited profits from slavery, people wouldn't hear the end of it. And it would be all over the news, so if something like that did occur the evidence wouldn't be hard to find.)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-norman-dewolf/ben-affleck-slave-owners_b_7200510.html
    http://www.npr.org/2014/01/15/262431646/a-woman-comes-to-terms-with-her-familys-slave-owning-past
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/6/3/981553/-

    Here are just three examples of people who wrote about their slave owning ancestry, normal people, not wealthy, privileged (In American terms, because all Americans are privileged when compared to different countries.), just regular middle-class people.

    Finally, the burden of proof gets passed on, I made a claim (which had no weight in the legalistic sense we are talking about), I provided the proof, and now it's your turn to provide proof of the contrary. (Especially since you made an accusation that people from the present day have inherited slave money.)


  • @SnakesOfferingApples

    Still phone posting, been a busy couple of days.

    The nature of the issue is very much philosophical, not legal. The situation as you've presented it in the OP is not about whether people have any kind of legal claim in a court of law, but their thoughts and feelings and whether they hold a grudge. In that arena the person who makes the claim needs to back it up as is standard in a debate.

    You'll also note this argument does not stem from me making my own definitive claim to the contrary, but rather asking you to back up yours. Eg I did not say "You are wrong, wealth can be passed on over 200 years" I asked "why not" in relation to your claim. I do not need to support claims that I have never made, for obvious reasons. Now I have made claims while challenging those points and if you dispute those then I'm of course obligated to back them up, but I think you've generally accepted them as valid and then tried to incorporate them into your point of view. I'll go over the last few posts tonight when I'm in front of a computer, but feel free to flag any of my points you feel need evidencing as you disagree with their premise.

    In regards to your data, the issue is it doesn't prove your point. Even if your individual anecdotes were correct (haven't looked at them yet because no point in doing so if there's underlying issues in your logic) do they show your premise is correct? Is "wealth cannot be passed down over 200 years" the only explanation for them even if they are valid? No, because "wealth is always passed down" Vs "wealth is never passed down" is a false dichotomy. It ignores other options like "sometimes wealth is passed down, sometimes it isn't". That's an option which also explains your data but would refute your claim. You have not proven your point because your conclusion is still just a possibility.

    Your point is wealth can never be passed down across 200 years. Hence you need to prove wealth can never be passed down over 200 years, not just that it didn't happen to be passed down in a few individual instances.
  • @AlwaysCorrect

    First and foremost, I hope I am not interfering with anything. 

    With that being said, let's get down to what you said. 

    "The nature of the issue is very much philosophical, not legal. The situation as you've presented it in the OP is not about whether people have any kind of legal claim in a court of law, but their thoughts and feelings and whether they hold a grudge. In that arena the person who makes the claim needs to back it up as is standard in a debate."

    MY RESPONSE

    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 also note this argument does not stem from me making my own definitive claim to the contrary, but rather asking you to back up yours. Eg I did not say "You are wrong, wealth can be passed on over 200 years" I asked "why not" in relation to your claim. I do not need to support claims that I have never made, for obvious reasons. Now I have made claims while challenging those points and if you dispute those then I'm of course obligated to back them up, but I think you've generally accepted them as valid and then tried to incorporate them into your point of view. I'll go over the last few posts tonight when I'm in front of a computer, but feel free to flag any of my points you feel need evidencing as you disagree with their premise.

    MY RESPONSE

    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. 


    "In regards to your data, the issue is it doesn't prove your point. Even if your individual anecdotes were correct (haven't looked at them yet because no point in doing so if there's underlying issues in your logic) do they show your premise is correct? Is "wealth cannot be passed down over 200 years" the only explanation for them even if they are valid? No, because "wealth is always passed down" Vs "wealth is never passed down" is a false dichotomy. It ignores other options like "sometimes wealth is passed down, sometimes it isn't". That's an option which also explains your data but would refute your claim. You have not proven your point because your conclusion is still just a possibility."

    MY RESPONSE

    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)


    "Your point is wealth can never be passed down across 200 years. Hence you need to prove wealth can never be passed down over 200 years, not just that it didn't happen to be passed down in a few individual instances."

    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


    Erfisflat
  • 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).
    northsouthkorea
  • Events for the past have to be remembered and hold a lesson in the past, present, and future so those events don't occur again.
  • @AlwaysCorrect


    QUOTE


    "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."

    MY RESPONSE

    1 - Philosophy will never govern the economy, therefore the debate is legalistic, I briefly brought up economics, and you decided to intervene and challenge THAT, NOT the social aspects of my original post. You challenged the idea of extended inheritance, inheritance deals with money, money is economic, and law deals with the economy. I don't know what part of this isn't making sense to you.


    QUOTE

    "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."

    MY RESPONSE

    2 - Ok so you concede the point that is a way to provide a counter argument, in which case following the "question", you did bring up a counterargument, otherwise if you were a neutral party I would have responded to your question and you would have been content. I can't put words in your mouth that's true, but that's not what I am doing, I am simply pointing out that because we are having this argument you are not a neutral party and "Why not?" was a statement in opposition because of this fact.


    QUOTE

    "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."

    MY RESPONSE
    It's not nonsensical, it's a legitimate logical conclusion, although it was a mistake for calling it statistics, it is a logical conclusion called inductive reasoning. 

    https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

    An example from the article - An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies." 

    Essentially the same thing I did here, now it's your turn to provide proof of the contrary.


    QUOTE


    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).

    MY RESPONSE

    Obviously, some things have nuances, and reasoning behind them so I am going to respond to your "context" one by one.

    "First of all you state wealth cannot be passed down over 200 years."  Incorrect, the first time I mention it in the context of slave wealth

    "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."

    I gave you an example such as Ben Affleck and told you, that because of this knowledge it is reasonable to assume that slave wealth can't be maintained for such a long period of time. That's the stance I've maintained throughout this debate. (Completely different from how you phrase it.)

    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. 

    Businesses are maintained by innovation and investment, you can't say for sure that the wealth gained was gained by slaves or through post-slavery innovation and investment. Therefore, in the context of the debate, you can't hold these companies responsible until you correlate their wealth to slavery in a substantial manner.

    Now as for the queen and the nobles historically they've stolen, manipulated, and benefited from everyone regardless of race, economic status, etc. So in the context of the debate, you can't really correlate the slavery statement with the nobles and royalty, because they historically have stolen from everyone.


    QUOTE

    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).

     MY RESPONSE

    No, I haven't changed my position, I am simply looking at every scenario and telling you why it doesn't hold up in the context of the debate, (that's not being flighty, it's being objective and transparent.)

    AND...

    Extending what I said about the businesses to the farms, do you really think that without any investments the farm could be usable after a century or two? Can you tell me for certain that the farm was worth anything before renovations and investments that made it suitable to use? It matters because if the house is a relic and you invest in it, you really aren't inheriting any sort of benefit, it's like buying something, you pay your due, and get what you desire.  

  • @northsouthkorea

    I'm not arguing that we shouldn't learn anything from the past, what I'm arguing for is this for example, that someone in the present shouldn't be held socially responsible for something that happened in the past, and furthermore, that they don't owe anyone in the present anything for a historical event. 

    (Generally speaking, I could go more in depth, but if you need anything answered feel free to ask me)
  •  As to the first issue, I don't think a member of a certain community is a subjective actor in the historical issues.

      If it involves you personally like slavery, it is only natural that you have grudge toward someone for it. But such cases still remain personal issues, something that needs to be solved in the court.

      And as mentioned above, if you or your families or your very close friends have no personal experiences in the past, it might seem vague with what moral qualification you criticize such acts. 

     But you take recourse to the concept of social justice, probably there's room for you to criticize the society at large.

     

       

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch