Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

Now that's more like it! You still have flawed arguments, but I think that was a fitting response. And I want to switch it over to no longer debating anything about the topic of actual racial differences and that effect on us personally TO how government should handle the issue. Not so much race relations, but how government legislates and enforces any law regarding to race. We can continue to respond to one another on the topic of racial disparity, but I'd rather focus on the legislative side. "I don't really see much of a debate there"? Does that mean you believe it should be handled by the Federal Government? Because I don't... I don't think government should make any legislation regarding race at all, and at WORST it should be reserved for the States. (Things like hate crimes, affirmative action, desegregation...etc) LD - LD is Lincoln-Douglas Debate... they were debates between then-US Senate Republican candidate for Illinois Abraham Lincoln and Illinois US Senator Stephan Douglas. (A simple Google search would have done it). The style of Debate means that it is based, not off of experimental evidence or implication of affected policy - but based on ethics, values, logic and philosophy. Policy style - Policy debate is debate that is heavily focused on the implications of the proposed policy. It is also a debate format that uses more anecdotal and experimental evidence. Philosophy is not used as much as practicality and implementation. In competitive debate, it is often done that you take the opponents proposal and point out how it will lead to nuclear holocaust (as that is clearly the worst possible outcome). We haven't set the standard for what type of debate we're doing, but I have never given much credit to the type of policy debate that is won by declaring annihilation. "To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance." -Jonathan Schell Yea, that's the argument used... but I don't give it credit... because we can never know what will cause extinction, nor do we have experimental grounds for it (since it's never happened, besides the dinosaurs). And if that is the case, we shouldn't do what they did... we need to get off this Rock.... and wasting time improving Race relations or helping those who lag behind is not helping us do that. "Just because I didn't bring it up doesn't mean I don't know" - you used in your arguments that "If you take the skin color out of the equation and focus only on the characteristic and physical differences that remain, it is likely that that gap between any two people has nothing to do with race."... this is quite misleading... because it must have SOMETHING to do with race "However, even if you were to take these differences and disregard the array of possible reasons for them, I see no reason to segregate based on these numbers." - And that's where I gave up the argument... because I realized that is going to be true for ANYTHING I say. "Yet mixed breeds are no more likely to inherit only bad qualities than they are to inherit only good qualities." - I gave a source for mine... where's yours? "due to the genes being too similar to combine successfully." I'm not arguing for in-breeding.... which is how this generally happens (and even then.. when the genes do combine successfully, they are a magnificent presentation of their breed...http://www.dogbreedinfo.com...) So, while you do have mishaps... you also get the best "just look at dogs-- they mix all the time, which only INCREASES variety." Only because we do keep purebreds too, if we didn't.. then there would be no purebreds left and all we would have left is mutts, and as they all bred together, we'd only have one brand of mutt left.... no.. its BECAUSE we limit their breeding that there is variety. "by 'actively against'...what DID you mean?" - The same way we're 'actively against' communism.. or we're 'actively against' Iran... are we at war with them? no.. I might even take it as far as saying how Israel treats the West Bank (not Gaza, because up until recently, that was a war)... which is a toughie for you, huh! Call it war and you're admitting Israel's war against them.. call it not war and you concede my point that you can be actively against and not fighting or war. Either way... I was talking in the sense that we are 'actively against' Columbia, or Cuba, or at the very minimum the way America is 'actively against' China, Russia, France (hehe... French) Also, again, how is that productive? - This one is gonna take more words than I can fit here. Q3) Of course not all qualities are good. But problems emerge in ALL groups of people. Ideally, as many as possible of these bad traits are bred OUT of the population, but realistically that will never happen. "As for binary genetics... not quite." - No.. I got it... red flower and red flower makes pink flower... wait.. no.. red gene makes flowers redder, white gene makes flowers whiter... binary.... maybe I didn't use the word correctly? I thought I continued to explain with height. I didn't know the word, but it's either one way or the other... from one of the parents genetic code, when you add the other parents, those genes line up... and each gene line-up is either AA (full dominant), Aa (still dominant) or aa (full recessive). So, if you want to keep all the dominant genes, if you keep adding the recessive genes, the dominant genes will get wiped out, zero. "dissipates feelings of superiority or inferiority between groups" - we care about peoples feelings now? either way.. feeling superior or inferior isn't justified, we're different, not inferior or superior... so if people feel that way... sounds like their problem "allows for pooling of different skills" - please expand on this further "sharing of ideas" - this was a separate debate that we never did, to my dismay... we need to do it sometime... sounds like I would be partial to argue that the sharing of ideas is a negative thing, no? "the context of the US" - We changed the constitution to end slavery, why can't we change it to establish segregation? "One last thing-- about equality" -.. "equality/I spoke their word/as if a wedding vow...but I was so much older then/I'm younger than that now" This was the one part of your debate that you got a little off track.. I never said that "equality" shouldn't be strove for because it can't be accomplished... I simply didn't say that.. in fact, I just read over my argument and I'm not even sure where it could be construed that I was implying that. - so, another Straw man... I did say that "equality" could not be achieved, but so do you... because it can't... that is not... in any way, my reasoning for not striving for it. Striving for equality is a waste of resources. I don't really have enough room to make any good arguments... you can response to this, or go on to the federal/state/people who takes care of it thing