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: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, people should have a choice.
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Because you're forcing fluid into someone's body without their consent. You are thus violating their privacy.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What about in the interest of national security?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Immorality via inaction" is a ridiculous concept.
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Clarity
What i want is race to not factor into any interaction, judgement, or decision made by people.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If that is true than yes because in that instance the color is an objective factor.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra