You can take a savage out of South America but you can"t take the savage out of a South American

Introduction and Misc. Observations I thank Brian_Eggleston for instigating this debate, and I am excited to debate such a prominent, long-lasting member of this site, especially as the topic is a change from typical topics. The resolution of this debate is “You can take a save out of South America but you can’t take the savage out of a South American”. Thus, Pro will be arguing exactly as the resolution states. Given that the BOP lies on Pro, all I have to do is to negate his arguments for the resolution. I do not necessarily have to give arguments against the resolution, although it would significantly bolster my case if I did so. With that in mind, let’s move on. The world “savage” is one that is central to the debate. Given that Pro has not provided a definition, I shall do so. Savage (adj.): Cruel and vicious; aggressively hostile [1] Pro’s Case Pro’s case for the proposition can be summarised by the following points (if I straw-man, I apologise; I am merely attempting to put the case into points).1) (Example): Suarez’s actions against Chellini were “savage”2) This is “unsurprising” given that South America is home to acts such as human sacrifice for long periods of time.3) With that in mind, it is thus absurd that people of these “savage” cultures can be “civilised” through acculturation.4) Despite this, South Americans can be useful assets to English Football (as an example), and thus they should be allowed to go to England, provided necessary precautions eg. “wearing muzzles like dogs do.” As a response to Pro’s case, I will provide several criticisms; all focussing on the idea that South Americans are not “savage”. 1) Firstly, his usage of Suarez as an example to show that South Americans are “savage” is invalid, for it commits the hasty generalization fallacy. The website Logicallyfallacious.org defines a hasty generalization as “drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.” [2] As an example, I could argue for instance, that all feminists are d!ickheads, due to the fact that my neighbour, who happened to be an outspoken feminist, often used condescending language and raged at people when they happened to disagree with her views. Yet, this is obviously invalid. However, this is what Pro has done, by using Suarez as an example of South Americans. As another example, I could argue that Zanetti’s admirable actions on and off the pitch makes it so that South Americans are people of integrity and noble-mindedness. However, obviously, this is not necessarily always the case. Thus, Pro’s usage of Suarez as an example cannot be used as a typical example of South Americans. Furthermore, it is simply possible that Suarez’s actions were due to succumbing under intense pressure, and thus does not represent him fairly. After all, the World Cup is an event that is watched worldwide, and Suarez was participating in an intense match that would decide whether Uruguay or Italy would progress through to the Round of 16, while being marked by one of the most skilled defenders today. Hence, it is absurd to use Suarez’s actions as a general example. 2) Pro also argues that South America is home to acts such as human sacrifice and is still full of hunter gatherers as another example of the “savageness” of South America. However, when one appeals to cultural relativism, this is irrelevant. Cultural relativism is defined as the view that “...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes." [3] Cultural relativism can be justified simply through observation that different cultures have different moral codes of conduct. James Rachels expains this through using an example: "1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. 2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively fight nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. “ [4] Thus, from the point of Western civilization, there is no objective standard to judge the actions and moral codes of people from other cultures. All there is our opinion, and what we judge to be correct. 3) Point number three, the argument that it is not possible to “civilise” these cultures from allowing them to experience Western culture is dependent on points 1 and 2 to be correct. I have already provided a critique of these points. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] The Elements of Moral Philosophy 4th Edition (Rachels)