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.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you saying it's my fault that you don't read the posts you reply to? What is actually wrong with you, Maxx? I was having a conversation with @Dee about someone else and you just decided to butt in because you're not intelligent enough to read the things you respond to. You're currently arguing with three or four different people who are all saying the exact same thing about you.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
do you intend to debate or just continue to insult?
No , it's seems as if you are trying to deflect by claiming this
racism is hardwired and the human race is but one race
So you keep saying without a shred of proof for your babblings , what you clearly stated was that humans and animals are born racist which is nothing but your ill informed opinion , babies are born with two innate fears.... 1 falling...... 2 loud noises.
Racism is learned behaviour
. Now, in the first which is my OP i have clearly and logically shown as to why.
Strange that when I mentioned 23 times now racism is learned behaviour and is a fairly recent concept historically.
All you're doing is lumping in racism with fear of strangers as in of different tribes or societies in ancient times and claiming they were exercising racism ........
Do a bit of basic research instead of making a fool of yourself , here is a very basic explanation of what your cannot grasp .......
Bet you still say "but no one has answered" ......
Racism is a relatively modern concept, arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade,[1][5] of which it was a major driving force.[6] It was also a major force behind racial segregation in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and of apartheid in South Africa; 19th and 20th-century racism in Western culture is particularly well documented and constitutes a reference point in studies and discourses about racism.[7]Racism has played a role in genocides such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, as well as colonial projects including the European colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the population transfer in the Soviet Union including deportations of indigenous minorities.[8] Indigenous peopleshave been—and are—often subject to racist attitudes.
WIKI
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 22  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not debate links, Maxx. You can use a link to SUPPORT your argument, but not AS your argument. If you think that what the link says is valid, then read it, summarise it, and present it as your own argument. I will not read links for a good reason. One debating opponent drove me mad "debating" with links and he never bothered to present an argument at all. Being young and foolish, I accommodated him in good faith and I would read his links and point out the fallacies in them. He would just say "I didn't agree with that bit anyway" and then drown me with more links. One time, he found a link with a sarcastic heading which did not support his argument at all, it supported mine. But he submitted it anyway because he did not realise that the writer was being sarcastic. He had not even read the link he was using as an argument. That was when I decided to never accept a link as an argument.
In any case, the idea that science does not accept race is complete (Japanese word) bursheedo. "Species" and "sub species" are scientific terms and one definition of "race" equates precisely with "sub species. If you can find a politically partisan pseudo scientist who claims different, then post him up and I will read what they say. In addition, as I have explained umpteenth times before, anthropologists are scientists ad they most definitely do recognise the concept of race because identifying the races of long buried skeletons is part of their job. If you say different, then please explain to me how anthropologists use the term "race" every day in their work?
And claiming that races are just a 'social construct" is the lamest excuse for an argument ever invented. If race is 'social construct" which somehow invalidates a named concept, then so is "reptile" "species", "sub species" "breeds", "fish", "birds", "marsupial", "Mammal", "ape", "red dwarf star", "main sequence star" "planet" , and every other damned thing which the human mind classifies into categories.
Your silly position would work very well on a person who is not as well read and clued up as I am Maxx, but it won't work on me.
And another thing. This whole "social construct" thing was dreamed up by the old time socialists who once claimed that "class" was a social construct. But you won't hear or read the neo Marxists saying that today, because the socialite socialists and Gucci greenies of today are the most class conscious snobs around.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're attacking me because you misread one of my comments, directed at someone else, in a two way conversation you were not part of. It is nothing short of unbelievable that you are trying to blame me for your own error. What is your malfunction, Maxx?
The only reason you addressed me is because you failed to read my post properly, so your questions are irrelevant. You're trying to deflect away from your own error without taking responsibility for it, which is intellectually dishonest. Why on Earth would I answer your questions when you don't even read the answers?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
continue the childish insults. Is that the limit of your debate skills, or are you going to return to the subject at hand? @Nomenclature
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not interested in this particular debate, Maxx. I've already given my views. Your belief that I'm obligated to bark to your whistle is misguided and blaming others for your own mistakes is not much of an incentive for me to get involved in arguing with you.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
you would not accept my summary if you refuse to read the link.
I would accept a summary as your argument and I would critique it as your argument. I can not ask the author of a link questions, or reason with the author, but I can ask you questions and reason with you.
Maxx quote As well I already explained part of it. biologically we are all the same race.
And biologically, Clydesdale horses and Thoroughbred horses are all the same species. These two "breeds" are sub species of the species Equus ferus caballus. But they are different breeds with different physical characteristics and different temperaments. What applies to this species of mammals applies exactly to human mammals. DNA works exactly the same way for humans as it does for horses. Unless you and your pseudo science link can explain differently?
Maxx quote. Diverging into so called sub races is but a culture hierarchy label .
No, the terms "species" and "sub species" are very scientific terms. "Race" can have two definitions, one of which equates to "species", and the other equates to "sub species" in everyday English language speech.
Maxx quote skin color is just melanin and there is little dna difference at all with-in the human race.
That is malarky and you know it. Regardless of skin colour, a Scandinavian is identifiably different in physical appearance to a Zulu. I will bet that you read that somewhere in one of your "scientific" papers and you just accepted it without thinking about it?
Maxx quote and there is little dna difference at all with-in the human race.
There is little DNA difference between a Clydesdale and a Thoroughbred, but that "little difference" obviously makes big difference. Was that silly statement from another "scientific" link?
Maxx quote I posted the link for time saving, as well as the evidence it shows. It is a very simple process for you to read it for it explains it better than i can summarize it. I do no have time to analyze it for you. If you wish to understand as to why we are all one race then I suggest you take time to read it.
And when I find something which I can easily disprove, how do I question the link, Maxx? I can question you, and I can question your logic, but I can not question a link. In any case, I have read all of these supposed "scientific explanations" that race does not exist before, and none of them has ever impressed me. As a matter of fact, I even get angry and frustrated at what they write because I know that they are making assertions that are just not true. They are written for uninformed people like you who want to believe them, and who do not even want to question them. By making you read and summarise these supposed "scientific" explanations, I can put you on the spot and make you realise that what has been conditioned into your receptive head is just socialist "progressive" (actually "regressive") propaganda.
Maxx quote I know it goes against your beliefs, however scientific and biological evidence is right there.
It sure is. "Sub species" equates exactly to the non specific definition of "race." If you claim otherwise, then please explain?
Maxx wrote Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct.
So is every category of, stars, volcanoes, planets, soil, rocks, trees, grasses, clouds, snow, wood, metals, and electromagnetic radiation. They may be "human constructs" or 'social constructs" but they put a name to concepts which are real.
Maxx wrote species are different than race.
Congratulations, Maxx, you finally almost got something right on this topic. Species is different to sub species. But sub species equates exactly to what human who speak the English language use in everyday speech as "race."
Maxx wrote. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole.
C'mon Maxx, you know that isn't true. Did you just read that in some "scientific" essay without your critical analysis circuit switched on? Human races are identifiably different to each other, which is why they were recognized as "races" in the first place. The same way as humans recognized different sub species of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and sheep, regardless of the colour of their fur.
Maxx wrote One thing you have not explained is what differences "different" races in humans actually have.
They are as identifiably different to each other as the different sub species of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and sheep are. So that is just physical characteristics alone. Then comes physical abilities. Dark skinned people evolved to have an advantage in hot climates, while whites and Asians are more evolved to cope with cold climates. Whites and Asians are prone to skin cancer, Africans to rickets if they live in a cold climate without vitamin D supplements. African descended people are generally better runners, but are poor swimmers. White people are better swimmers than either Asians or African blacks. Black people do not even try to compete at Olympic lever swimming events, even though they usually dominate running events. With IQ. seventy years of IQ testing revealed that there is a 15 point "bell curve" difference in IQ between US whites and US African descended people, So cognitive metricians, who are scientists, recognise "race" too. Next comes temperament, and all I can say is that it is screamingly obvious that African descended people (and some other ethnicities) have genetic predisposition to violent behaviour which is far greater than for other races. Which is why they are so predisposed to serious criminal behaviour.
Maxx wrote Now just take time for the link.
No Maxx. I can question and reason with you, but I can not do that to a link. Your claim that it will "save time" is a fallacy. This debate will go on and on, until you read the link yourself, type the arguments in the link that you agree with, and then we can thrash them out. I have a funny feeling that some of your premises you listed above were already from your" scientific" links. If so, you can see for yourself just how easy it is for me to dismiss with logic the premises in these pseudo science "links."
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am saying that human beings identify and categories everything based upon observable similarities or differences. Human beings recognized long ago that people on planet earth more or less conformed to four recognized skin tones which they called "races."
Maxx wrote If so, my opposite gender is either of a different race or species.
Maxx, what you are writing is so silly that even Dee would not dare submit it as a serious premise. You sure are getting desperate to come out with a doozy like that.
Maxx wrote Physical appearances do not change a race.
Not only does physical appearance usually define a race, the people of a particular race define themselves that way. If you called a Māori "an Asian" they would object. Native Americans hate being called "Indians."
Maxx wrote This is why I asked you to read the link. It explains fully as to why. there is no reason not to read it.
There is no reason for you not to summarise it and present it as your own argument if you agree with it. But I cannot reason with, or question a link. The reason why you want me to read it, and argue against it, is to take the pressure off you. Fat chance.
Maxx wrote sub races are just a label humans made up.
"Sub races", never heard that one before. Who dreamed that one up, Hitler? What we are talking about is species and sub species, and you know it.
Maxx read the damn link. what do you want, something from a cheap tabloid?
Read it yourself. Summarize it and present it as your own argument. Then I can pick it apart and show you how silly you were to believe in such silly pseudo science.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
Cop out, Maxx. I expected better of you. Whatever you are, I don't classify you as a troll like I do with Dee, Barnadot, Nommie, Piloteer, or John Smith. So why you will not debate in good faith on this topic is a mystery to me? Standing on your dignity and acting amazed is just a substitute for a reasoned argument, which you are unable to formulate anyway.
If your "science" is so impressive, Maxx, then summarise your link and submit it as your own argument. After all, if it is so profound, you should not have any trouble formulating your own reasoned argument out of such devastating "scientific" resource material. This is a debate site ma-a-a-a-a-te. Not a link exchange site.
How about I just tell you to read "A Mind to Crime", "The Criminal History of Mankind", "The Hunting Hypothesis", "Guns. Germs, and Steel", "The Bell Curve", 'Introduction To Psychology ", "Abnormal Psychology", "Consumer Behaviour", "Social Psychology", "Understanding Psychology," "The Status Seekers" and "The War Against Children"? Then you might be able to figure out who is telling you the truth and who is telling you complete bursheedo. Then you won't be intimidated by somebody claiming that their ideology is "science" and can formulate your own arguments and even cross connect lines of thought, like I can do.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish this way. Do you really think that a single person on this website who is not you takes this nonsense seriously?
You cannot even understand what assertion you are making. In some comments you are saying that race is a purely social construct and has no biological meaning, in others you say that humans are all one race, implying that race does have biological meaning. Which one is it?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Unfortunately for poor maxx, this is not a scientific paper, but a forum post on a famous physics forum website. The website is great, and I actually used to frequent those forums to discuss some astrophysical questions. What is not great is that maxx confuses forum posts with scientific papers... We are now talking about elementary school level blunders. It is no longer about the ability to read scientific papers, but about the ability to even understand what is and what is not a scientific paper.
Poor maxx... He is cursed. Every time he says something, his reputation plunders. There really is no way out of this other than eternal silence... My condolences.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's difficult to believe you actually wrote this, given that 80 percent of your posts are gifs and/or jpegs which serve no purpose other than to act as an immature form of mockery. It was only a matter of days ago that I had to correct you about something which has been public knowledge since 1915. You're quite simply one of the densest people I have ever encountered on the internet. At least Maxx attempts to debate, which is more than you do.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well said Zuesares42. I wish more "debaters" would realise it. You are one of the smartest people I have ever encountered on the internet.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop lying please. You tried mocking me under the pretense that you were only following Newton's theory of gravity, and I had to patiently explain to you that Newton's theory of gravity was debunked in 1915 by Albert Einstein. You are a dope and, since you are a dope, the entire collective content of your posts consists of nothing more than infantile mockery and silly gifs.
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet I've clearly stated (24 times now ) racism is learned behaviour your contention remains babies are born racist which is an utterly absurd claim and worse still you actually believe animals are born racist , this is all in your head even the paper you linked totally rubbished your claims but as usual you didn't read your own links and totally ignored the fact they disagreed with your nonsense
It's the very same as the time you spent 6 months saying homosexuality was 'unnatural' but couldn't explain why
Why is a person racist?
Well done that's how racism works, you're saying 'bull ' so you're admitting you're a racist and you were born this way so cannot help it
. At one point in history, the basic causes as to why began and still exist.
Yes
no.
Now answer
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well done Maxx .....
I just read your post to Bogan , once again you beat your own arguments as you stated .........
I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well.
Then you say ......
Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct. species are different than race. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole
So you admit racisim is learned behaviour well done .....yet again you beat your own argument
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
I can not "dissect', question, or reason with your "scientific facts" if you will not post them up in a reasoned argument. Just chanting the mantra of "we are all one race, the human race" add infinitum is a tactic more worthy of a wild eyed ideological zealot than a person who pretends that he can think and reason. It is exactly like saying "there is only one God, end of discussion." It is something which has been culturally conditioned into your head at an early stage and it has become an ingrained internal barrier to your critical analysis circuit which your mind refuses to pass.
Since you refuse to co-operate and submit a reasoned argument based upon this so called "scientific" essay, how about I try another tack which might get you thinking straight?
There exists in western societies, the same dysfunctional groups of people with common ancestry who are a serious social problem. It does not matter if they inhabit the USA, France, Britain, South Africa, or even Australia, the vast majority of them have intergenerational welfare dependency and very high rates of serious criminal behaviour. if all races are equal, then there can be only two racist theories which account for that. The first racist theory is, that it is all the white guys fault. White people have "unconscious racism", they "discriminate" against poor black people. and "oppress" them. The second racist theory, is that the dysfunctional races have low intelligence coupled with a genetic predisposition to extreme violence at a rate much higher than in other races.
Which of the two racist theories do you support, and why?
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also Bogan:-
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bogend is a knuckle dragging retard on a par with Mad Maxx
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Okay ma-a-a-a-te. When you start deliberately lying and making up comments from me and then submitting them as a quote from me, you have just crossed the Rubicon. . You are lower than a snake's duodenum and even your dog does not like you. You are worse than a troll. Consider yourself permanently banned from ever "debating" with me again.
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh, I'm lying am I? Let's try this again then, Bogan. There is no such thing as race. It's a made up label. Your racist beliefs are rooted in something which is not even scientifically real:-
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label
The irony of this claim is that I do not have a dog, so you're lying. Here's another link to a credible source:-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well what do you reckon then if you get an Eskimo and then you put him in Africa or you get a Zulu and you put him in the North Pole. Because when you analize it in the end what is going to happen is that there not going to be a product of there environment that there being put in because all of the other Eskimo s are going to be racist against the Zulu and all the Zulu s are going to be racist against the Eskimo. So that that is what the point is all about because the Zulu doesn’t know how to dress properly and die of frost bite and the Eskimo won’t be able to find ice so he will dies. So then the point that I’m pointing out is that the Zulu can only be aprduct of Africa and the Eskimo can only be a product of the North Pole. In the end a coconut that came from Africa can only be a product of Africa and it can’t be a product of the North Pole if you put one there.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
How do you suppose Eskimos adapted to their own environment in the first place?
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
I will repeat it for the... challenged once again: the problem is not with papers, but with you making false claims about their content. The science is in the papers, indeed; too bad that you do not know how to read such papers, or even how to tell what is a paper and what is not.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
. we are all one race.
I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well.
Then you say ......
Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct. species are different than race. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole
still have not accepted your beating from yesterday where you totally contradicted yourself so now you post up a new topic and pretend everyone is arguing against it
As well I am willing to bet if i went to one of my post, oh let's say garlic and posted a link from joe blow of the national tabloid, saying garlic has no value at all; then you guys would jump all over it simply because it goes with your beliefs and against mine; yet when I post a top quality link it is dissected, and torn apart, It is said to be full of lies, false and all made up. what a bunch of hypocrites.But your link has nothing to do with what this debate is about , it's you pretending everyone is making claims regards race /races that only Bogend has made ......you don't nor ever have taken your beatings well
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
Argument topic insane Maxx yet yet another complete meltdown over taking another thrashing in debate ......yeee haaaaaaaa
"my associates"..........Bwhahahahahahahaha .....sorry Maxx convicted pedos are not allowed enter my country
will find you and you will no longer be able to use that mouth of yours.
laces unassisted ......bwhahahahahahaha .......good luck with that
I'd make mincemeat of you and your buddies , you yanks are a laugh you have never one a war and yet you all see yourselves as natural born killers , go back to your sand pit and play with the other retards
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
The country is in a state of high alert as we speak
I have tried to be amiable on this site but you think the only way to debate is to toss out names and ridicule others.
Thats simply not true, you totally contradicted yourself on the racism debate and instead of admitting it you issue death threats , seriously?
apparently aarong would rather lose his license than get tid of the garbage and turn this back into a debate site. when your phone or laptop turns to junk, that will make me all smiles.
Tell you what post up one topic and I bet you will fire of the first insult but you won't as you know I'm right
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
So have I
if you would simply curb your mouth and debate, it would be different
Kettle / pot
. Many of my posts are designed to be on the extreme side and there are lots of times
Thats fine , I judge by your arguments
No , you cannot but you like dishing it out
yet what you are doing is out of the question.
Wait , do you want a list of the insults you fire at me and others?
If you want to debate something, ok, but you simply read what I wrote and dismiss it out of hand and then laspe into insults.
Which I never do , you're actually talking about what you do
. I claimed racism is hardwired and you said it was a learned behavior. fine. yet i asked you many times to give the basic reasons and the root causes of racism, as to why we discriminate, and you will not do so.
But you deny it's learned behaviour , which it is , that's a fact. See the way I tell you it's learned behaviour yet you totally ignore and keep asking the same question as it's not the answer you want , your last response was " bull" ......and then you keep asking the same question again and again
Also you totally contradict yourself by saying we are born racist then contradict yourself by saying it's a social construct but you refuse ( as usual) to address any contradictions to your thesis
You may state that one does not like the skin color, or their ethnicity, or religion, yet those are just surface reasons.
Well when you stop firing of insult after insult and behaving like a spoiled child having a tantrum I will treat you that way.
You are arguing with 7 different people on racism and accusing and insulting everyone of the very behavior you're indulging in , you just issued me with death threats for disagreeing with you and you expect to be treated like an adult ....seriously?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 25%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree with your first premise, but your second premise is false.
"Taxonomy" is the naming of species and sub species. It was invented by the great Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus who originally invented the idea of naming species with two Latin names, the first being the genus name, and the second being the species name. Since the number of known species exploded in his own time, and the concept of "sub species" was realised, it was decided by naturalists at the time to include a third Latin name to identify sub species. The universally recognized species of Brown Bears thus became Ursus arctos. Sub species of brown bears like Kodiak bears were given the third Latin name of Ursus arctos middendorffi, while Grizzly bears received the scientific name of Ursus arctos horribilis, due to the fact that they were very dangerous and mean sons of bit-ches.
Naturalists in the 19th century recognized that the human term "race" equated exactly to the concept of sub species, and they began the process of naming races of people with sub species catagorisations.
Since "Homo" was the genus name of humans, and "sapiens" the species name, races of human beings were named according to their sub species with a third Latin name. The discovery of a race of humans in Tasmania for example, led to Linnaeus naming them "Homo sapien tasmanianus". Other races of humans were similarly named as sub species, and these include Homo sapien arabicus, homo sapien Iranicus, homos sapien americus, homo sapien australasicus, and homo sapian patagonius.
But by the 1980's the infiltration of neo Marxist thought within academia with their associated political correctness raised it's ugly head, which resulted in the "taxonomic wars". This "war" equated exactly with the "history wars" now raging in many western countries between traditional historians and the new breed of neo Marxist historians with their "black armband" view of western history. The neo Marxist naturalists began to object to the idea that human races (or sub species) existed when (like gender) observable reality said that they did. "Modern" naturalists without scientific consensus renamed the whole human race as 'Homos sapien sapien" to exclude the reality that human sub species (or races) existed, and they could then pretend that this new "reality" is recognized by science.
Your premise that science does not recognise races, my dear Maxx, equates exactly to the new neo-Marxist line that "modern" science does not recognise that there are two sexes. If you want to keep sprouting the bizarre commie line, Maxx, then go right ahead. I prefer to maintain that biological reality and traditional thinking about human races as sub species trumps wooly headed Marxist ideology.
Do you also agree with the stu-pid commie bastar-ds that "science" recognises 187 genders, too?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Homo-sapiens is a species, not a race. The difference between species is much more profound than between races, and Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals differ from each other much more significantly than Africans and Asians.
Buddy, do you ever do any homework at all? You keep making a blunder after a blunder, and then have the audacity to not only ignore/reject criticism, but also double down on the latest blunder. You know, there is a medical condition that used to be called a word starting with "i" and that is now an insult: people having it are unable to incorporate new information into their picture of the world. Basically, they hold on to the set of beliefs about the world that they have, and when new information comes up that contradicts those beliefs, they brush it away and maintain the beliefs. You might want to verify with a professional that you are not a victim of that condition. I do not remember you ever correcting yourself upon learning that you were objectively wrong about something, not even after multiple repetitions of the correction.
Lastly, your threats towards Dee were the lowest of the lows I have seen of this website. Seriously, threatening someone with violence anonymously on a debate website? Do you have any social skills at all? Or do you come here and talk all this rubbish exactly because in real life no one wants to interact with you?
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Lol. Oh May, your hypocrisy is the stuff of absolute legend.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maxx wrote true, there are other races that diverged or rather races that homo sapiens diverged from, races that are not homo sapiens. we diverged from them, not them us. however homo sapiens have yet to diverge into another race.
Okay, so far, so good.
Maxx wrote If so, do you not think science would have recognized it and given that race a separate name?
I find it incredible that after I submitted to you a 461 word explanation of the entire history of Taxonomy (naming human and animal species, genus's and families) you still can not get it?
Okay, let's try once more and this time, try to concentrate. There are two definitions of the English language word "Race". The first is general, as in "the human race", which is grammatically and scientifically correct when used to denote the human species. The second definition of "race" relates to the fact that the human species is divided by sub species, and in that usage it is used, scientifically and grammatically, to refer to human sub species. Got it now? If not, please re read what I have written until it sinks in. Or, please ask pertinent and polite questions and I will endeavour to enlighten you on how in the English language, one word can have multiple meanings depending on context.
Maxx wrote You can you produce something more than skin color, physical features, adaptations to the environment; for that doesnt change a race.
It does not change a species name, but changes in physical appearance, coupled with differences of physical abilities, and differences in intelligence and temperament, most definitely indicate that a species has developed sub species. Okay, let's give an example that you can relate to. Brown Bears are a species. The species name is Ursos actos. That species in Alaska lives on the coast and it eats both meat and fish. It is dangerous but it is not known for attacking without provocation.
Grizzly Bears are a sub species of the Brown bear species. They live in the mountains where food is a lot less plentiful, they do not eat fish, and they are extremely aggressive and territorial when it comes to defending their territory. And they are ferking dangerous. They will attack without provocation any human or animal in their territory. They are different in appearance to ordinary brown bears because they are usually smaller, and the tips of their fur has a lighter shade of brown compared to their undercoats. Their scientific name is Ursos actos horriblis. The "horriblis" suffix denotes their sub species designation and the fact that they are horrible sons of bi-tches.
Kodiak bears are a sub species of brown bears and their scientific name is ursos actos middendorffi. They are different in appearance to both brown bears and grizzly bears because they tend to be smaller than brown bears, and while they resemble brown bears, there are some differences in appearance And they are smart. They are so smart that people driving through Kodiak bear territory must keep their doors locked because Kodiak bears have figured out how to open car doors.
Maxx wrote If there was another race today that has diverged into another race, science would have done classified it; instead all they have done is to divide the one human race into various ethnic stereotypes and geological backgrounds.
You must not have even bothered to read my last post to you because I explained all this to you previously, in detail. This time, pay attention. I hate explaining things to people over, and over, and over again. It makes me wonder "is he dumb or is he devious?" The jury is still out on you.
The human species is Homo sapiens, named by the great Linnaeus himself. Linnaeus also recognised that within the human species there were sub species which he also named. Following so far?
Australian aborigines are a sub species of the human species, also called a "race", according to the second definition of the word "race." The sub species name is homo sapien australasicus. Arabs are a race according to the second definition of the word "race", or a sub species, named by naturalists as homo sapien arababicus. Tasmanians were recognised as another sub species, or "race" as Homo sapien tasmanianu.
Maxx wrote I perhaps may agree with you if science suddenly stated that among us there are now homo-africanus or homo-eskimo-ercetus but no, we are just homo sapiens.
Linnaeus and other naturalists who invented taxonomy and who realised that the human species, homo sapiens, consisted of many human sub species, named those known sub species. These sub species are commonly referred to as "races" in the English language, according to the second definition of that dual defined word. I can give you the sub species names for Arabs, Patagonians, Tasmanian aboriginals, Australian aboriginals, and native Americans. But wiki does not list the taxonomic name for Eskimos, although I am sure that such a taxonomic name exists. As for Africans, it would have been obvious to Linnaeus and his peers that even black Africans consist of identifiably different races,(or sub species) and he and his peers would have probably invented a Latin suffix to identify each African sub species of humans.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 19%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra