frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should Covid-19 Vaccines be Mandated?

245



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Come on the entire point of the anti-vaxx movement today is promote racism and white supermacy.


    People use the motte and bailey fallacy to hide their true beliefs. Also known as dog whistling. Instead of saying, "I am a white nationalist" people say I am anti-mandate! Yet, the effect is the same. The result is BIPOC dying of viruses. Just like the attempt at the Warshaw Ghetto.

    Racists want to have it both ways. To be racist and not be called out on it, dog whistling. I am calling them out. Anti-vaxxers also known as anti-mandate are white supremacist racists no different than the KKK.
  • @Dreamer
    Yet you are anti-mandate?
    Yes, people should have a choice.
    I don't know the correct questions to ask on how to scratch an anti-mandate activist to determine if they are an anti-vaxxer.
    I can assure you that I do in fact support vaccines. Now can you please respond to my argument regarding mandates and their infringement on a person's privacy?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Jeez, you really have constructed quite a castle here to make your ideology work. Whatever someone who you dislike says, they always must be lying, and the true nature of their beliefs is obvious to no one else but you. Very convenient.

    You are the only one promoting the "racial consciousness" here which makes you the only effective racist in this thread. It does not matter what someone's "true views" are: what matters practically is what people actually say and do, and those who you call "no different than the KKK" act in far less racist ways than you do. How does that make you feel?

    You are so focused on race that, in your view, virtually everyone else is in some manner a racist. Yet it is just you, buddy.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Have you read the book Critical Race Theory?


    The book Critical Race Theory delves into explicitly racist laws versus implicitly racist laws and company rules. Historically, many explicitly racist law/rules have been replaced by implicitly racist policies that have exactly the same result by exactly the same state or company. I am looking at the consequences.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    It is quite telling that "White Fragility" and "Critical Race Theory" is the kind of books you read routinely: the topic of race is at the center of your perception of the society and everything else is almost an afterthought.

    Yes, there have been such laws. It does not mean that every time someone says or does something that happens to disadvantage people of certain races compared to other races, they are engaging in racism. If I happen to prefer my Asian girlfriend to white ladies, that does not make me racist, even though the consequences for women of different races are different.

    Of course, that is not how your ideology sees it. "The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?” - from your dear DiAngelo's website. There is always racism in place, according to these disgusting people, and if it is not possible to logically pinpoint it, then it is time to make something up, engage in the mind-reading fallacy and so on.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Race dynamics are just one part of the puzzle of anti-vaxxers and why we need vaccinate mandates.


    Religious exemptions for vaccines are an example of an implicitly racist law and therefore institutional racism.  A major goal of the anti-racist movement is to improve the law and dismantle racist laws. We should not ignore the white privilege element and that white nationalists are merging with the anti-vaxx movement.

    Historically, pathogens have been weaponized to target minoritized populations.  About half the American Indian population was wiped out by the 1918 influenza.

    " In some cases, entire Native communities were wiped out."



  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How are vaccines an infringement on a person's privacy?


    Hmmmm, how are vaccines an infringement on a person's privacy?

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Religious exemptions for vaccines are an example of an implicitly racist law and therefore institutional racism.  A major goal of the anti-racist movement is to improve the law and dismantle racist laws. We should not ignore the white privilege element and that white nationalists are merging with the anti-vaxx movement.

    Historically, pathogens have been weaponized to target minoritized populations.  About half the American Indian population was wiped out by the 1918 influenza.

    " In some cases, entire Native communities were wiped out."




    First, you are absolutely wrong: religious exemptions for vaccines are an example of a pro-religion law, not an "implicitly racist law", and have nothing to do with the "white privilege" as they apply to people of all races equally. 

    Second, this does not at all address the content of the comment you are responding to: I have acknowledged that implicitly racist laws have existed, and my point was that not everything that affects people of different races disproportionally is racist. The disgusting people you have referenced do not think this way, and you blindly swallow their racist nonsense.

    You are the racist here, sir. As Thomas Sowell (who is black in case you care about such things) put it:
    Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists."
    People like you, that is. When 99% of the population is well past the historical stage of caring about someone's race, the minority of obnoxious racists calling themselves "anti-racists" just will not let the topic go and keep reminding everyone of their race and its alleged importance.
    Dreamer
  • @Dreamer
    Hmmmm, how are vaccines an infringement on a person's privacy?
    Because you're forcing fluid into someone's body without their consent. You are thus violating their privacy.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, interesting, but vaccinate mandates don't force fluid into someone's body without consent since smallpox.


    The last time I remember a vaccine being forced into someone arm was the smallpox vaccine. In this case yes, some people were handcuffed and vaccinated against their will, and it probably saved their lives. The stakes were a lot higher then.

     Vaccine mandates sometimes known as passports let people into airplanes, schools, employment, and museums. Often covid-19 testing every 3 day or so is required instead of a vaccine. Some workplaces have mask or vaccine policies. Nobody in the USA for example is being tied down and vaccinated. Does this change your position?
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    Argument Topic: Religious exemptions for vaccines oddly has nothing to with religion.


    No major religious denomination like Catholicism, Islam, or Hinduism has rejected vaccines. This only has to do with one's personal interpretation of religion. In other words people are using religion as an excuse to act immorally. In this case immorality via inaction. View Rebecca Watson's video I posted in this thread previously.
  • @Dreamer
    Nobody in the USA for example is being tied down and vaccinated. Does this change your position?
    And the United States doesn't have vaccine mandates, which is good. This doesn't change my position, I have no problem with individual businesses or organizations instituting such policies. But the government has NO right to have influence in these affairs.
  • @Dreamer
    Nobody in the USA for example is being tied down and vaccinated. Does this change your position?
    And the United States doesn't have vaccine mandates, which is good. This doesn't change my position, I have no problem with individual businesses or organizations instituting such policies. But the government has NO right to have influence in these affairs.

    What about in the interest of national security?



  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, so if the local post office required vaccination for their employees this would not be okay because this is the goverment?


    Yet, if a private institution like FedEx required vaccination that would be okay with you? I am trying to summarize your position, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Depends upon the severity of the pandemic.


     For the Ebola virus, smallpox, or the in the case of genetically modified virus terrorist attack that would be in the interest of national security. For the flu having someone tied down to be vaccinated would be going too far.

    I still think we need some sort of carrot and stick for each vaccine. With a bigger carrot and stick the more dire the situation.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    No major religious denomination like Catholicism, Islam, or Hinduism has rejected vaccines. This only has to do with one's personal interpretation of religion. In other words people are using religion as an excuse to act immorally. In this case immorality via inaction. View Rebecca Watson's video I posted in this thread previously.
    What does this have to do with anything in the comment you responded to? You "disagreed" with it, then proceeded to talk about something completely unrelated. And what does it mean for a denomination to reject something? People and organizations reject things, not denominations.

    "Immorality via inaction" is a ridiculous concept.


    ZeusAres42 said:

    What about in the interest of national security?
    I will respond to it with the words of Jayce Joyce:

    "You die for your country... I say: Let my country die for me".

    Screw "the interest of national security". Screw any "national interest". Nations are worthless and only humans within them are worth anything.
    ZeusAres42
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  

    Hi MayCaesar

    I mean there is no formal stance in Catholicism rejecting vaccines. Vatican doesn't ban Catholics from getting vaccines or anything like that.

    Somebody can cause a lot of harm via inaction. A highly contagious deadly virus means a passive person who doesn't mask nor vaccinate can easily cause harm. If a person is about to get injured and you could easily prevent that harm, you are morally obligated to intervene.




  • @Dreamer
    Yet, if a private institution like FedEx required vaccination that would be okay with you?
    Yes.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Somebody can cause a lot of harm via inaction. A highly contagious deadly virus means a passive person who doesn't mask nor vaccinate can easily cause harm. If a person is about to get injured and you could easily prevent that harm, you are morally obligated to intervene.
    Causing harm to someone is not necessarily immoral. If I demonstrate that the Earth is not flat, then a particularly impressionable flat-Earther may have a heart-attack; an easy way to prevent this would have been to not demonstrate that the Earth is flat - however, living in this way, constantly walking on eggshells and worrying about harming someone accidentally, is pretty miserable. And expecting others to do so is morally despicable in my eyes.

    Why do we not turn the tables around? When you know that being near someone may be harmful to you, stay away. There are people who I do not interact with because I do not believe that interacting with them is a net positive for me. Problem solved! The "immorality of inaction" concept, on the other hand, would have me walk wherever I please and have everyone else move out of my way, lest be immoral.

    If I walk into a bus and want to take the seat by the window and you are occupying that seat, I do not get to say, "Hey, I am really tired and need to take the seat. Please get up if you do not want to be an immoral scumbag". That is, I can say that, but that would make me an immoral scumbag. The expectation that everyone around you should facilitate your needs and get out of their way to make you as safe as possible is quite preposterous.
    Dreamer
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There is precedence with negligence laws.


    Inaction, negligence, or neglect are considered immoral. If a person chooses not to provide basic needs for a dependent they can get in a lot of trouble.

    As for the flat Earther, individuals can be overly sensitive. I don't believe the level of harm if any of disproving a conspiracy theory reaches anywhere near the level of failure to get covid-19 shots.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmmm, what about public schools?


    Following the same logic, I assume that public schools, vaccinate mandates you would be against, but private owned vaccine mandates would be okay?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    "We need race conscious behavior not colorblind."

    Wrong. If race is solely just a physical characteristic of someone we should care no more about than we do eye color, nose size, or any other characteristic we could give two craps about.

    You seem be under the belief that is an action or object generates any level of inequity amongst members of different races than makes the action racist.
    Very misguided.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    Dreamer said:

    Inaction, negligence, or neglect are considered immoral. If a person chooses not to provide basic needs for a dependent they can get in a lot of trouble.

    As for the flat Earther, individuals can be overly sensitive. I don't believe the level of harm if any of disproving a conspiracy theory reaches anywhere near the level of failure to get covid-19 shots.
    Considered by whom, you? Who is the authority on what is moral or not and why? Sadly, you did not address any of my arguments and just repeated your own.

    So if someone is "overly sensitive" (again, as defined by whom, you?), then getting harmed by someone else's words is on them. Why do you not just as well say that if someone's organism is overly sensitive, then getting harmed by someone else's virus is on them?

    See, my friend, your positions on most subjects are rainforests of inconsistencies, where you arbitrarily apply different standards to different people, actions and situations, in whichever way supports your ideology. You even stated that a white person hating black people would be racist, but a black person hating white people would not. Is your ideology grounded in anything immutable at all, or is any argument good as long as it supports its conclusions?
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Multiculturalism is better than colorblind ideology.


    "Colorblind Ideology Is a Form of Racism

    A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences."



    Multiculturalism is better than colorblind ideology.



  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A scientific consensus or majority of experts are the moral authority in a given field.


    As for not responding to everything you say, I don't want the conversation to become too bulky and confusing. I have trouble processing and responding to long arguments. :)

    "Considered by whom, you? Who is the authority on what is moral or not and why?" MayCaesar

    Morals like math and science and are built upon over generations. Just as humans slowly find and remove logically fallacies out of the hard sciences, same for morals as our knowledge base increases. Often, society rely upon experts in the given field.

     A layperson for example might not known about long covid-19. Or that post-infection immunity is weak and 1/3 of the time results in no anti-body titers being produced. By relying upon the scientific consensus and the majority of experts in the field we can gain a much better understanding and information to base our morals and actions on.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Dreamer

    Naturally. That is why your opinions are so simplistic and mutually contradictory and why you routinely make blunders when making your case.

    Really? Morality is like math and science in this respect? How do you then explain the fact that predominantly accepted morals differ so drastically between different societies, yet science is the same? In Saudi Arabia it is considered moral to treat women as slaves, while in Japan it is considered unacceptable. Are there similar disagreements between the Japanese and the Saudi on whether f(x) = x^2 is a function continuous at x = 2?

    Buddy, science is not a democracy: you do not get to vote for what is true and what is false. You can vote all you want for f(x) = x^2 not being continuous at x = 2, yet it will be true regardless. If you rely on the "majority of experts" period (and you have not even suggested a metric which would determine who is an expert and who is not), then you are just letting others think for you: you yourself do not think, thus your opinion is completely worthless. Agreed?
  • @Dreamer
    Following the same logic, I assume that public schools, vaccinate mandates you would be against, but private owned vaccine mandates would be okay?
    Yes.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Id appreciate an argument rather than solely an opinionated article post.

    This one also has glaring issues and incorrect assumptions. Just look at the keypoints.

    "Colorblind ideology aims to treat individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race."
    Mostly.  But it actually attempts to ignore race as an important characteristic that should be used to treat someone one way or another.
    I.e.  i dont treat anyone differently based on the size of their ears.

    "Colorblindness also denies the negative racial experiences of people of color, rejects their heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives."

    No it doesnt.  We can acknowledge that there are racist peespectives and history of racism while remaining colorblind in the treatment of individuals.  

    "An alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences"

    Colorblindness and multiculturalism are not mutually exclusive.  I can acknowledge/celebrate art, food, ideas, that have come from certain cultural backgrounds.
    Although i myself dont usually take pride or guilt from the actions of others.
    This would be a tie to ancestory.

    To highlight that these things are related to skin color, would be an acknowledgement that skin color does indeed play a rope in differences, superiorities ect in the human psyche.

    Now to a statement she made
    "As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don't want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't talk about."

    First off no part of pride in my identity relates to my "whiteness".  Many would consider that white supremacist.

    Second, colorblindness doesnt only apply to interactions people of color therefore so why would there any implication of shame?

    Third no one is saying we cant talk about culture.  What i want is any interaction, judgement, or decision made by any human factor in the race of an individual.  If you do otherwise that is racist.


  • Hmm, I actually thought colorblind racism was an oxymoron. ;)



  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Can you clarify your last paragraph?


    "Third no one is saying we cant talk about culture.  What i want is any interaction, judgement, or decision made by any human factor in the race of an individual.  If you do otherwise that is racist."

    I am unsure what you meant by these statements.

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Morals are absolute and objective.


    I may be liberal, but I am also an atheist and believe in absolute objective morals. As opposed to some of the more ridiculous liberal arguments involving multi-cultural-ism and postmodernism. That often lead to the regressive left backing up totalitarian regimes in the name of culture, sigh.

    The problem with morals is ignorance and biases. Given enough good information almost all the time morality is very very simple. There is the incorrect and the correct solution. With no gray areas. Thus, the need for experts within a given field.

    Let's take the example of pumping gasoline at the gas station. The average person is not in any position to determine what level of pollutants are tolerable and what are not. Nor do they know if the gas station is honest and not overcharging for the fuel. Yet, a panel of experts can determine what is an acceptable level of pollution and standards for measurements of fuel pumped and charged for. Therefore, through math and science morals can be determined.
     
       Patriarchy and slavery are inefficient and immoral institutions on any country on Earth. Expertise depends on the subject, but generally speaking 1,000 hours of experience makes a person an expert in their given field.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: What about minors in public schools?


    Thank you for answering my questions. Happy St. Patrick's Day. How about minors in public schools, should they have a choice in vaccinate mandates?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Clarity

    What i want is race to not factor into any interaction, judgement, or decision made by people.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, but what about if skin pigment affects the test results?


    With pulse oximeters measurements skin pigment matters, should we then ignore the race factor in this situation?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    If that is true than yes because in that instance the color is an objective factor.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I don't want to put words in your mouth.


    Are you saying that we should ignore the fact that Black people die more often from covid-19 due to inaccurate pulse oximeters readings?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Its a little pressumptious to think that there are a lot of increase deaths due to an incorrect oximeter reading.
    Additionally just because there is a negative effect doesnt mean racism is involved.  Its not as though oximeter manufacturers are attempting to get incorrect results.  With that known, id assume there is research being done to correct it.

    Color blindness doesnt mean were supposed to ignore skin color when it is an objective biological factor such as certan medical treatments or known biological differences.
    Nor does it mean we have to ignore history or existing racism when it occurs.

    It means it should be ignored in socialogical/psychiological treatment of an individual.
    For example, searching for diversity solely based on skin color is racist.  In fact its basically the definition, youre highlighting race and assuming that gives someone different attributes.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I am unsure how much of an effect pulse oximeters inequity has on health.


    " It’s clearly an important one, and the magnitude of the disparity is unclear;" Gorski

  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Dreamer
    How about minors in public schools, should they have a choice in vaccinate mandates?
    They should in my opinion, although as a government institution, it is up to them whether or not they wish to enforce vaccine mandates on their own premises. Of course, they are held accountable by their legislature if they undertake such actions...
    The government shouldn't force all schools, including private ones to make vaccine mandates.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Dreamer

    Even if it does, that does not show intentional racism, just that their is a potential factor that is causing an increase in error on O2 readings in dark skinned patients. If the issue was solely dark skin wed see incorrect results for across the board, but according to you it is 12%.
    If the solution was basic it would be solved.

    As i said before in medical scenarios it is important to look at all potential factors.  Just like people with certain blood types made me more or less susceptible to disease.
    This doesnt mean im going to highlight a persons bloodtype to achieve diversity in that area, nor will i treat someone with a different bloodtype any differently unless for instance they need a blood transfusion.

    Your article also stated:
    "One thing is for sure. Whatever the solution is to each disparity, if we react to discussions of these disparities as though we are being personally attacked for being racist, it will only slow the process of researching the causes and solutions to them."
    DreamerZeusAres42
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Children are dying of covid-19.


    The idea that minors should have a choice about whether to accept life saving vaccines is excess freedom. School children who haven't had time to develop critical thinking and are blasted by misinformation from the disinformation dozen.
  • Seriously, no one got the joke about Colorblind racism being an oxymoron? Noobs.
    MineSubCraftStarved



  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Dreamer
    The idea that minors should have a choice about whether to accept life-saving vaccines is excess freedom. School children who haven't had time to develop critical thinking and are blasted by misinformation from the disinformation dozen.
    You're right, schoolchildren are not developed enough to choose between taking the vaccine. Parents and private institutions that the children are a part of have such a responsibility over whether or not the child should get vaccinated. Never the government, whose authority is without consent.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    Dreamer said:

    I may be liberal, but I am also an atheist and believe in absolute objective morals. As opposed to some of the more ridiculous liberal arguments involving multi-cultural-ism and postmodernism. That often lead to the regressive left backing up totalitarian regimes in the name of culture, sigh.

    The problem with morals is ignorance and biases. Given enough good information almost all the time morality is very very simple. There is the incorrect and the correct solution. With no gray areas. Thus, the need for experts within a given field.

    Let's take the example of pumping gasoline at the gas station. The average person is not in any position to determine what level of pollutants are tolerable and what are not. Nor do they know if the gas station is honest and not overcharging for the fuel. Yet, a panel of experts can determine what is an acceptable level of pollution and standards for measurements of fuel pumped and charged for. Therefore, through math and science morals can be determined.
     
       Patriarchy and slavery are inefficient and immoral institutions on any country on Earth. Expertise depends on the subject, but generally speaking 1,000 hours of experience makes a person an expert in their given field.
    You are quite wrong here. Science is concerned with what is true and what is not, while morals are about what is good and what is bad, the latter being inherently subjective judgements. Whether X level of pollutants is harmful to human organism or not is a scientific question that has an objective answer; whether having premarital sex is okay or not is a moral question that only has a subjective answer. There are no "experts on morals", nor can there be.

    Your definition of an expert is missing: "Who is an expert? 1,000 hours of experience makes a person an expert." You simply explained what one needs to do to become an expert (quite a claim, by the way: in many fields 1,000 hours is nothing, and many professions take over a decade of hard studying to even get started in), but never said what an expert is.
    You also do not seem to recognize that experts can mislead people on purpose, or that an expert in a broad field may know very little about the enclosed narrow subfields. It is not very clear, for instance, what a "climate expert" is, but it is reasonable to expect that most "climate experts" would not know much about human-induced climate change in particular.

    Well, patriarchy and slavery have outcompeted the alternatives in Saudi Arabia. How do you explain that, boss? And what about 200 years ago when, according to the ideologues you listen to, patriarchy and slavery were commonplace everywhere on Earth? How come such inefficient and immoral institutions were universal for the vast majority of human history? Do explain this through math and science to me, please.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: My sense of humor is limited. I usually don't get jokes.


    Can anyone explain the joke?
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I agree, that there is no broad experts on morals. That philosophy and religion have failed us.


    I agree that they are no experts on morals. If you read Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion everyone is pretty good at morals. The problem is we lack the knowledge, dunning-Kruger effect and various other biases get in the way. Religion is just one huge example of confirmation bias.

    If anything I've found debating people it is scientific facts that people find subjective when they should not. Data lead us to conclusions. False data, misinformation leads to faulty conclusions. Information leads to correct. With the Internet we have lots of data, but little information.

    We need experts to tell us what the scientific facts are. This is the weakest point of science and that's why Big Tobacco, Big Fossil Fuel, and more use disinformation to attack the science, scientists, and policies.

    With the 1,000 hours of experience claim, I did say it depends upon the subject. Second, 1,000 hours of experience doesn't include studying. Take the example of a doctor. Only the time in the field after graduating from medical school would count.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, but the Kraken Omicron subvariant is killing people people and herd immunity.


    The more people that vaccinated the greater protection, herd immunity. This is because vaccinated people are less infectious. A cluster of parents and private institutions often come to the wrong conclusion and outbreaks occur.

     This increases the chances of people catching the XBB 1.5 is higher even if they are vaccinated due to the outbreak. If the parents consistently came to the correct conclusion, we wouldn't need this discussion.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    I agree that they are no experts on morals. If you read Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion everyone is pretty good at morals. The problem is we lack the knowledge, dunning-Kruger effect and various other biases get in the way. Religion is just one huge example of confirmation bias.

    If anything I've found debating people it is scientific facts that people find subjective when they should not. Data lead us to conclusions. False data, misinformation leads to faulty conclusions. Information leads to correct. With the Internet we have lots of data, but little information.

    We need experts to tell us what the scientific facts are. This is the weakest point of science and that's why Big Tobacco, Big Fossil Fuel, and more use disinformation to attack the science, scientists, and policies.

    With the 1,000 hours of experience claim, I did say it depends upon the subject. Second, 1,000 hours of experience doesn't include studying. Take the example of a doctor. Only the time in the field after graduating from medical school would count.
    We have thousands of years of recorded philosophy of morals, so knowledge is hardly lacking. What seems to be lacking is people's willingness to think for themselves, leading them to blindly adopted moral systems others have come up with. You are explicitly championing this approach: relying on authorities and not thinking independently, for you do not believe that you are capable of doing so effectively.

    In this respect you appear to contradict yourself. You say that you need experts to tell you what the facts are - but if that is the case, then you have no ability to verify whether what they present are actually facts, nor can you verify whether they are actually experts. The 1,000 hours criterion is not applicable since, in the alleged absence of your ability to figure out the facts, you cannot know how many of these hours were spent doing meaningful work in the field. In other words, your reasoning is circular: "This is true because this expert says so, and he is an expert because he knows what the truth is". Realize that religious people employ the exact same approach: they listen to religious authorities drawing their authority from the ancient book, and the book is authoritative because they say it is. Your approach is religious, not scientific.

    In science (or anywhere where you care about the truth) you have to verify everything. Now, you do not have to recreate all the experiments that have led to the current understanding of hundreds of scientific fields - but you do have to examine the reasoning behind any claims you hear for consistency and logical coherence. Relying on "experts" blindly leads you to the kind of blunders the "5 million a year dead from climate change" one was, while examining the logic behind the claim would instantly tell you that it is hogwash without you having to know a lot about the field.

    Suppose you go to a dentist tomorrow. You do not know much about the dentistry, but the dentist surely does. Now, the dentist tells you: "I think that these 11 teeth need fillings". You have not had any visible issues with your teeth and do not have any obvious decay. Will you just say, "Sure, jete is your $2,500, doc"? Or will you ask for justification of such an outrageous recommendation first? In all dentistries I have been to the doctor always explained in detail what problems I have, how he diagnosed them and what treatment options are available. I can analyze all this without being a dental expert, because the reasoning can be followed.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There is a certain level of trust needed to determine who an expert is. That's why fake experts are so insidious.


    I recommend Tom Nicholas' Death of Expertise to help determine who is an expert and who is not.


    As for the Dentist example there are safeguards for example the insurance company. The insurance company sure is not going to pay for fraud. I would simply trust the dentist. Furthermore, if I really had doubts I would simply ask a 2nd dentist.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    I still have not heard the definition of "expert" you are using, so determining who is an expert and who is not appears to me completely pointless.

    Ah, "if I really had doubts"? Now we are getting somewhere! Now, at what point do you start having doubts that the expert says the truth when the assumption is that you are not qualified to make such a determination? Or, perhaps, the experts are not nearly as authoritative as you suggested earlier and their words must still be critically analyzed?

    Lastly, if you really would let a dentist fix 11 of your teeth in the described situation, then... good luck in life, brother.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch