The Vast Majority of Sociology is Useless.

Burden of ProofI have no reservation. My opponent did a good job helping me define the resolution and I agreed to the conditions beforehand.Rebuttals Sociological Use of “Quality life” and of Donald Trump’s PresidencyAs an anti-sociological advocate, I’ve taken a hard look at Con’s stats. The first quiz that he brings up is the questionnaire made by the “Morning Consult”(1). As my previous case states, my contentions are not refuting the aim of the research; it’s the methodology at which a handful of social scientists pride themselves in. They’re not exactly what we call as “objective” especially under scientific standards. My opponent fails to consider that a unscientific social study may nullify any and all validity, therefore making it completely irrelevant. If the methodology fails, the results fail. If everything fails, then of course the existence of such discipline is no doubt worth questioning.For example, I specifically said that Steve Bruce’s work involve either a “yes” or a “no”. He combines a handful of “yes” answers and concluded that such indications are seen. I said such a result was flawed, because the aims of his thesis are to establish a complex indication of people’s religiosity. I am not attacking Steve Bruce’s intentions; I am attacking at how social surveys are conducted, considering how these are ridiculously flawed. The Morning Consult questionnaire is no different. A handful of drug answers combine in addition to the infamous question of asking “If Donald Trump were elected President of the United States in November how likely are you to consider moving to another country, such as Canada?” The problem comes with the answers themselves. The answers are either “Most Likely” or “Total Unlikely” with “No Opinion” as a third alternative. The aim of the social study is to prove that people desire to move out of the center of action. It fails to consider financial opportunities, cultural differences and more importantly, the opportunities that would accompany such a risky venture. My opponent alleviates this concern by arguing the use of the better life index. This is as useful as claiming that Bhutan is the center of all happiness (2). Americans wishing to migrate elsewhere might just consider migrating to Bhutan. After all, one’s migration route is ultimately defined by just one indication of life. My opponent fails to consider the context behind such actions and his simplistic case fails to accurately assess the reality of such actions.Second, a slight tweak to the answers, such as changing them to an absolute "yes" and "no" will overhaul the whole result. The answer “Most likely” involves the possibility of us changing our opinion in the near future while an absolute "yes" or a "no" requires the integrity to actually follow-up with one’s own original intention, be it moving or staying. Further, the bias in that study is apparent. It has actual leading answers, such as highlighting the word “Canada”. I’m pretty sure that if you change it to Saudi Arabia or Iran, almost 90% would oppose. This doesn’t come close to being valid as the variable tweaking the answers itself has an ideological motive. It preys on the uninformed by reminding participants of the usual “All Canadians are kind”. “Oh! Can’t wait to meet Canadians! You’re all so Kind!” *Jumps joyfully*. This is ridiculous. It is foolish enough to provide eloquent one liner questions, but it is even more foolish to deceive en masse by adding in leading answers that detract from objective assessments. Sociological use of “Relations”My opponent claims that globalized multi-national corporations contribute to a life of luxury but fails to consider that the multi-national corporations themselves abuse third world countries. Countries like Vietnam were victims of NIKE’s infamous mistreatment of workers (3). Ragnar claims that sociology is of use to understand differences. That’s not exactly true. The majority of sociological studies themselves detract from doing just that. They are more concerned with social structures at play than they are at concern with people’s problems. Here is a demonstration.We look back towards Steve Bruce and how his work relates further to the whole founding framework of Sociology. I will explain Durkheim’s work of organic solidarity in addition to his thesis. Bear in mind that this is not a new argument. I’m aware of that rule and cases outlining Durkheim, Weber and Bruce were already stated in the first argument round. I’m merely restating this argument because I left how it links to each other in the first argumentative round. In order to explain it further, I’ll have to use Bruce’s diagram of the same source and of the same argument (4). https://www.amazon.com...)" />“God may send showers of revival rain, and the social scientist has to remain agnostic about that possibility…almost all agrarian societies were pervaded by religious sentiments, that most modern societies are not, and our task is to understand that change.” ~Steve Bruce (4)The chronological link beginning from Monotheism, all reach relativism, the final product which Bruce calls as the “rationalization of consciousness” (4). This includes Durkheim’s work of organic solidarity and how social institutions rely on each other for social cohesion along with Weber’s belief that Calvinism helped the development of capitalism. The heavy lean towards understanding social structures has surpassed the need to understand how Swedish chocolates bring happiness. Ragnar’s alternative is a dead end. For him to contest my point, he has to refute the bulk of sociological studies, which itself is grounded in understanding social structures at play. I've already argued that deciphering social structures is a useless venture as the variables cloud the data into a milieu of social bias.Sociological use of “Advertising”I’m pretty sure technological giants would love to get their consumer’s feedback. Con’s source of “advertising” is a list of potential jobs for sociology majors, especially those in the gender department. His statement of defending the sociological use in research lacks any coherent rebuttal to the anti-sociological arguments that I have presented. Let me restate it again, the article Con that linked in his advertising case is just a vague description for college enthusiasts, it is not a source defending the use of sociological research (5). That has nothing to do with the methodology at play. As I stated earlier in previous round, grants and funding mean absolutely nothing. Tychonian Science was seen as utter useless study by the end of 19th Century despite it receiving funding from the Kings of Europe. The same case applies to sociology.Defence: The Paradigm of the Secularization Thesis Con's rebuttal to my case is just opting for the alternative. When I argued the case for social desirability bias, Con argues the alternative claiming that people prefer less community-mandated faith such as attending a church. He agrees that social desirability is there but disagrees because the actual indication is present, due to people having more inclination to be outwardly religious. I didn't disagree on the participants’ level of honesty in answering these questions just as Rodney and Stark probably wouldn't considering how they were the first to refute Bruce's paradigm. What I did argue was that social desirability often clouds the results. If an indication of religiosity is needed, then results should accurately provide such indication. If dishonesty is conceded by the creator of the study itself, it is hardly useful. Further, as I was saying, variables such as social desirability will cloud the result and this includes the “yes” and “no” simplistic responses. Participants’ response matters little; the methodology at play is what’s crucially important. Defence: Extraneous Variables of Social StudiesAccumulating all sorts of extraneous variables detract from the original aim of the study. Often so, social studies have a predisposed bias of attempting to prove their theories as right. The falsification principle often falls short due to the revered passion of social theorists in pushing the ideas that they believe in. What Con argues is irrelevant, the fact that the experimenter lacks total control over variables speaks of it's validity. The fact that the experimenter has to wait for a milieu of social cues provides proof of it's uselessness. Con attempts to provide a hypothetical scenario by measuring ELO, but those are rarely injected into the main sociological discussions. None of the chronological secularization thesis order made by Steve Bruce provided a link to “Elo from Debate.org”.Defence: Inherent Founding Father Biasness and The Queue of Legitimate ConcernsCon attempts of appeal to the internet's toxic anti-religious dissidents is overlooking the overall picture. I specifically argued that the aim's relevance depends on the methodologies at which the study conducts itself on. No where did I concede that point, I argued that the failures of social studies should highlight on it's methodologies, not on the actual play of anti-religious atheists. If the study is invalid, the level of seriousness shouldn't go into play. This is a scientific discipline, not a youtube comment section. It should be treated as one and not to be treated as a Reddit subsection.Con also attempts to argue that Steve Bruce's efforts of being a cancer researcher matters little in the long run. I disagree, resources are limited and to believe that we have an overabundance is just ignoring the issue. Further, he argues that founding father bias is irrelevant but fails to consider that the discipline relies heavily on sociological framework.The majority of this discipline is useless. Students must avoid at all cost.Sources(1)http://tinyurl.com...(2)http://tinyurl.com...(3)http://tinyurl.com...(4)Secularization: In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory, Pg 24-53, Steve Bruce(5)http://tinyurl.com...