It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do you correlate western society to a caste system?
Does the face that we reside in a capitalist state contradict your position?
Can poor people become rich and rich people become poor?
Do you believe that meritocracy exists in western society?
1. Do you not agree that the problems I have outlined, (placement at birth, unequal education opportunities, the changing job market and discrimination) do indeed have an effect on the ability of an individual to achieve success?
2. How do you explain the vast disparity in the distribution of available income as I have outlined, if indeed we live in a meritocracy?
we have double standards for employment when it comes to gender and race so that all populations are being fairly represented
What is your level of education?
If you do not believe that our system is based on the best person for the job, then how do you explain such an emphasis on education?
When I asked if you feel we live in a caste system, you said it was “much more harsh”. By this, are you saying that we do live in a form of the caste systems that may be a little looser?
I believe you are quoting individualized cases where prejudice is a factor and the best person does not get the job. This does not equate to a systemic problem. As with any continuum, both sides will always be true. Can you provide a systemic issue that asserts that we do not live in a state of meritocracy?
1. How do you justify programs such as Affirmative Action if you believe we live in a current state of meritocracy?
I will concede that fifty, sixty, or seventy years ago this may have been the case
Affirmative Action is a program that the government uses to help its citizens rise out of the economic status they were born into. Do you agree?
Are you currently in the same economic status that you were born into?
When presented with various social explanations for our current status, you brush aside each. I’ll ask you here directly to please present a pre-existing social, economical, and political system that we currently best represent.
Economic freedom is freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. Economic freedom is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative. In the present the concept, as it is most used, is usually associated with a free market system. Indices of economic freedom try to measure economic freedom, and empirical studies based on some these rankings have found it to be correlated with economic growth and poverty reduction. 1
Now take for example someone like my opponent who was born into an economic state in which programs are offered that lend a hand every step of the way. With nothing but a strong willpower and some motivation, they can work their way up the ladder and achieve any type of success they wish.
So as we have seen here, no matter how many economic states and types of socioeconomic status my opponent can present will change the fact that our debate topic is always proven correct. In countries such as ours, where opportunities are provided to us, we achieve financial success because our economic status encourages it. In many other countries around the world though, the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich because the economic status does not allow change.
Once again we are presented with financial statistics and lists of economic freedoms that hold little or no bearing on our discussion.
NYK presented a couple irrelevant points, one of which is this.
and something must be done about it.
1. He never followed up on this
2. He provided proof for his opponent's position by intimating that one can fall below one's parent's economic position.
3. In round 3 NYK is forced into arguing against his opponent's position and out of his element. He asks a bunch of questions, but a debate is about proof and we're not here to prove it for him.
4. He gives 'facts' and figures but does not support them with citations.
5. He makes assertions but saying so doesn't make it true:
As we reach this portion of the debate, I find it prudent that we take a step back and examine where we are and how we have reached this point. So far we have been presented with several irrelevant social systems and led to believe they have any relevance to the topic at hand. We have been told through first hand accounts that the topic we are debating is naïve and baseless; but given nothing more than those accounts.
He makes one good point here:
[Opponent's quote: I will concede that fifty, sixty, or seventy years ago this may have been the case]
So you see, my opponent agrees that our debate topic was completely true at this particular point in history. Taking another look at our debate topic, you can see that we are not given the task of proving this point to be true today, but simply at all.
But the point was brought up by his opponent. He's grasping.
1. Chissler picked up that his opponent has been forced to argue on his terms and NYK forgot to provide support for his own position.
While this does poke a small hole in the meritocracy argument, my opponent has only shot himself in the foot by playing into my hand. While affirmative action may slightly refute meritocracy, it certainly reinforces the notion that society is offered a hand up from time to time to help them rise from the lower class to the upper class.
2. Here, he makes big points with this clever analysis, giving him a lot of leverage for the efficacy of his position.
It seems that with the presentation of the various terms thus far in this debate, it has drastically guided the manner in which this discussion has traveled. When I referred to the caste system, my opponent spent a full reply on refuting the caste system. When I quoted meritocracy and feudalism, my opponent has spent his whole reply trying to refute those concepts. So let's keep an eye out to see if the next term I present is going to continue to shape our discussion.
3. He picks up that he is guiding and defining the debate and his opponent is playing catch up.
More big points here:
We are not discussing western civilization, I am talking about the world. I am discussing the human race as one. My opponent has given up on the western world and has turned his attention to Africa. Let's have a look at a quote from my opponent.
After five posts his position seems to be that he is right and I am wrong. Why? Because he said so.
View this as a court of law. What has my opponent provided other than conjecture and confusion? He has failed to provide anything in the form of citations or links. Conjecture and confusion.
5. And again.
To me, Chissler has guided and defined the debate, has provided citations and facts, and made his points in a convincing fashion.
NYK has failed to provide facts and figures or citations, has played catch up and has fallen into at least two traps (as shown above).
He makes declarations but saying so doesn't prove they are true. Chissler picks up on this and capitalized on it.
The criteria are these:
We are looking for the following:
- How well a Fighter presents rhetoric and supporting source for his/her side of the topic.
-How well a Fighter refutes the rhetoric and supporting source of his/her opponent (post by post and over all)
-How well a Fighter controls the flow of the debate.
-Final 'proving' of the debate topic. This condition is less stringent, though important, than the others as the focus is on how the Fighters interact.
NYK - 1 point for his point that in the past, 50 years ago his position is true, there was a caste system and it was difficult to rise above or fall below. He does not support, control or offer convincing final proof.
He fails to follow up on his argument, and gives several irrelevant statements. He seems to be searching for an angle. So one negative point.
Chissler - Five points as listed above. He has a better structured debate and adheres to proper debate format. He refutes his opponent convincingly at every turn and guides the debate. Finally he has a good summation, providing several citations. No negative points for him.
By dead reckoning I score the debate
NYK - 1 point for and one point against for a total of 0 points.
Chissler - 5 points. None against. I might even give him one bonus point for cleverly reversing his opponent's point on Affirmative Action, while clearly admitting it poked a hole in his argument at first.
nyk537 v chissler
Another great debate, with both fighters presenting wonderfully lucid well thought out arguments for their respective positions. (for the sake of this I will refer to both fighters as "he" my apologies for any gender confusion)
nyk537 made a strong opening with a very good first post, but didn't follow it up, instead allowing chissler to set the terms,and as we have seen before, reacting to his opponent rather than being proactive with his own position.
Some very good points were made but there was a failure to capitalize on the positions attacked, specifically with regards to meritocracy, which I feel could have been refuted more fully.
This was not entirely nyk537's fault as chissler again set the tone and direction of the debate and consistently refused to let his opponent off the hook and allow nyk537 to frame his own arguments with any clarity of purpose.
Instead, nyk537 was drawn into playing his opponents game and concentrated on refuting his opponents position rather than strenghtening his own.
Had nyk537 thought in global terms at an earlier point, he could have made chissler much more uncomfortable, but alas that wasn't the case.
Another thrilling fight goes to chissler by a relatively comfortable margin.
Round 3: nyk537 v chissler: Generational Economic Class?
Judgment; NYK wins. Oh so barely. You may want to read this one. It was a really rough debate to judge.
Opening statements. Excellent job, both fighters came out fighting. Chissler did slightly better, but just, in his taking control of the debate.
Chissler wins this round.
Although NYK has a wonderful oratory, he lost a couple of good opportunities in this round to take the wind out of Chisslers sails. He could have pointed out the we do not technically have a capitalist society, and he could have pointed out that by Chisslers own admission, he had already nearly finished his high school education before losing his father. He does try to point out that primary schools differ in their quality because of differential taxes being paid in differing areas, but he isnt taking full advantage of this argument by saying that had Chissler not had the primary education he did he may not have even entered college and thus turned the tide.
Chissler starts out by undermining his own argument by saying that Harvard grads are much more apt to succeed than State U. grads. However, Chissler has succeeded in so far taking advantage of the admission of capitalism and the lack of refuting Chisslers personal experience by NYK.
Chissler gets this one.
NYK picked up on Chisslers error in bringing in Harvard and successfully refutes the point.He finally begins to tear down Chisslers assertion that we are in a meritocracy in a more substantial way. He succeed in bringing down the meritocracy, but unfortunately, he is on the defensive, and Chissler is chipping away at his nerve, he ends the post with out conviction.
Chissler immediately picks up on this and is almost mocking NYK for it. He has no choice but to admit affirmative action is a strong argument against meritocracy, and half heartly tries to convince that it someone indicates that as a hand up..it...what? He makes no good point there. He is essentially admitting that there is a systemic recognition that the lower classes need help up and out. Losing the meritocracy argument, which was the bulk of his argument to date, is not of no consequence as Chissler suggests, and he goes on a bit of a rant about how if you cant make it it is your own fault. Not the wisest strategy.
This round goes to NYK.
I was really doubtful when NYK began this round, his phrasing was weak, but, he found his stride. The fact that he and Chissler were in different countries gave him an idea and he ran with it. Chisslers mocking him for being a follower may have worked against him. Although NYK is discussing socio-economic status, as Chissler was hoping, this is a big derailment for Chisslers "only lazy people dont succeed" argument. NYK gives Chissler more concession than he should have though, by sort of abandoning the argument that in the West ones circumstances at birth mirrors ones level of success in life.
Chissler picks up on this, and wisely runs with it, but unfortunately, his argument that the fact that some African nations are doing well is not compelling evidence that this is holding true for its citizens.
This round to NYK.
NYK makes a weak attempt to back out of the concession he made to Chissler on the West being a place you can exceed your status at birth. He gave slightly too much in the last round and did too little to reclaim it in this one. His points are valid, but that concession cost him a lot.
Chissler also attempts to regain a point he conceded. Meritocracy and also brings up points that he raised that did little for the debate. Capitalism and feudalism. He then criticizes NYK for not staying with a topic throughout the debate, but he himself lost his topic, meritocracy, so it does him no good. He states he has shown us that the mobility of the nations he has brought in as success stories equals the mobility of its citizens, but he did not show us that. He tries to shift the judging to who has maintained their position, and he wants it to be him, but they both lost their positions and I am now relying on the final point of contention that was raised by NYK. Chissler attempts to say that the economic status and economic state (as relates to a country) cannot be the same, but, his own arguments for government programs have already hurt that position.
NYK takes the round, by the barest of margins.
Chissler by far has the superior style. No question. He was masterful, took control, and did as he said, guided the debate for the first half. NYK has a good mind, but he does need to take Chisslers advice and tighten up and be more decisive. However, NYK did have the flexibility to grab a better argument when it came along. He would have won more decisively had he not put his own foot in his mouth by conceding the West to Chissler. He did not need to, that battle was not over.
Chissler's cockiness cost him this debate. Both by inspiring NYK, and by allowing him to think that his style alone could win it. These guys were tied at the closing. Had he spent his last post demonstrating that African citizens were benefiting as much as their countries were he would have won. Instead, he spent the post (and portions of several of them) tooting his own horn. I need to see substance to go with the style and that one point of NYKs he left insufficiently addressed cost him.