How to Debate: Learn & Get Better + Sample Debates

Have you ever watched a debate? I mean a really good debate? One where both participants were skilled and who had years and years of practice? Watching people argue on TV or the internet is a given, but watching skilled debaters do their thing is like watching Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel. Every time I bear witness to those who are handed a viewpoint other than their own and walk away as victor, I am simply in awe. I become jealous of good debaters and that’s why I’ve made it my job to learn as much as there is to learn about the sport.

You may be intimidated by the art of debating, but you really shouldn’t be. Although good debaters appear to be of greater confidence, of higher intelligence, and better public speakers than the average person, debating is a skill anyone can learn. It’s all about appreciating how the structure and format works and becoming handy with a few techniques. Of course, it’ll take lots of preparation and practice to become a skilled debater, but once you learn how to do it well, the skills you’ve earned will become invaluable in so many different aspects of life. Learning how to and practicing debate is an excellent way to build confidence, speak well in public, and argue efficiently and effectively. You’ll also become convincing in your arguments and will learn that controversial issues oftentimes have two or more sides.

In this thread, I’ll explain what debating actually is, give you some examples of good debating topics, teach you basic debating skills, explain the content required of every debate, and discuss the roles of the debaters. I’ll do my best at packing this thread full of good information, so please feel free to bookmark it and ask questions down below. I love helping out where I can.

What is Debating?

A debate is an argument that makes sense. Although it may become heated, it’s generally not emotional. Well, the arguments don’t rely on emotion to convince the audience. Emotion is transparent while supported and well thought out opinions are much more solid. In general, debates consist of two sides that are given issues to discuss. Each side may consist of one or more people. The topics each side is handed may or may not be in alignment with their own views. This is the beauty of the debate. The person or people arguing might not agree with their argument, but may eventually come to understand and appreciate the validity of it. And unlike arguments that you and I have had with family and friends, arguments during debates are timed. Each participant may only argue for a specified time before allowing the other side to respond. Debate topics are oftentimes assigned, so any argument offered has the potential to be quite the challenge for those involved.

Debates are highly structured and oftentimes cover issues that are divisive and inflammatory. One side is usually “pro” and the other “con.” Debates offer many benefits to not only their participants, but their audiences as well. Some of these benefits may include:

– Having to allow the other party to speak thoroughly without interruption.
– Giving you insight into views that don’t align with your current beliefs.
– Encouraging you to think rationally and to formulate coherent and strategic responses.
– Enhancing your public speaking skills.
– Opening your mind to the fact that you may be on the wrong side of things.
– Learning how to research a position and formulate a persuasive argument.

Structure of a Debate

Although debates can take many different forms, there is a general debate structure that I’ll outline below.

Resolution/Motion – This is when the debate topic is chosen and assigned to the debate participants. While debates may oftentimes allow the debaters to chose their own topics, it’s common for those topics to be chosen by the committee beforehand and given to the participants. Topics usually revolve around contentious or controversial issues, such as current events or other longstanding arguments that permeate society. Debates can also address a statement with a true/false dichotomy. The Affirmative team or individual would support the true/false statement, while the Negative team or individual would oppose it.

Team Setup – In general, there are two debate teams that consist of three individuals each. Alternately, there can be two teams of one individual speaker each.

Positions – As stated above, positions (affirmative/negative) may be assigned or debate participants may choose their own position.

Preparation – Oftentimes, if a debate is high profile, its participants will go in knowing their own position and will be debating a natural opponent who truly does have a contrary position. Obviously, these are debates where each participant knows his own position rather well and can counter almost any argument with ease (think Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan, Sam Harris vs. Jordan Peterson). With more scholastic debates, topics and positions are assigned and the teams are given one hour to prepare their arguments.

Allotted Time – During the debate, each debate participant/speaker is given an allotted time in which to make his or her argument.

Alternating Speakers – During the debate, each speaker from each team will alternate with one another. In most cases, the Affirmative team will begin with their first argument, followed by the first speaker from the Negative team and so on.

Judging – Once all speakers have completed their arguments in their allotted times, the debate will have concluded and it will be judged by the judges.

Audience – Quite often, there will be an audience watching any given debate, but that audience plays no roles in the debate itself.

Roles of Affirmative & Negative Debate Speakers

There are some customary roles for the speakers involved in debates. I’ll list the common responsibilities below. Each of the speakers in the debate are required to perform the following functions.

First Affirmative Speaker – This very important speaker is responsible for placing the entire debate into context. He or she must explain how his or her team views the issue at hand and why or why not they agree or disagree with it. If there are definitions that require explanation, then this is the time for that. The entire team’s case will be outlined and the division of responsibilities will be offered to the audience. Finally, this speaker will provide a few arguments that coincide with their position.

First Negative Speaker – It’s likely that this speaker will reframe the debate in their favor. Also, if there are any definitions this team disagrees with, they’ll be clarified here. Definitions can be tricky things (definitions will be covered later). If one or more need to be altered, then they must be immediately and effectively. There must be good reason for this though and those reasons must be conveyed to the judges. The new definition must be given. An argument will be provided as to why the new definition is more appropriate than the previous one. And finally, with the new definition in hand, the First Affirmative speaker’s argument must be countered in this new context. Also, like the first speaker, this speaker will outline what each speaker on their team will provide. A rebuttal to the first speaker’s arguments will be given and then a few arguments against the motion will be provided as well.

Second Affirmative Speaker – This speaker clarifies and resolves any definitional discrepancies, rebuts the First Negative speaker’s arguments, and offers their own arguments. Generally two to three arguments are given in favor of their position on the motion.

Second Negative Speaker – Again, this speaker will focus on their view of definitions, will rebut the arguments offered by the Affirmative team as of yet, and then will provide additional arguments in their favor.

Third Affirmative Speaker – This critical speaker wraps up their team’s case. They’ll focus on specific arguments given up to this point by the Negative team. They’ll also offer a summary of the Affirmative team’s position and arguments and will highlight the key discrepancies between the two teams.

Third Negative Speaker – Same of this speaker.

During a speaker’s speech, it’s sometimes customary to allow the opposing team to make a point or ask a question. This is referred to as Points of Information. To do this, a speaker from the opposing team will stand and say, “point of information” or “on that point.” It’s up to the speaker to allow the opposing teammate to continue or not. If they are allowed to continue, they may do so for 15 seconds. Anywhere in this 15 seconds, the speaker can shut down the opposing point of information, which will force the opposing team to stop talking.

Debate Definitions

Debate positions and arguments may be misconstrued if viewers aren’t clear on what a term or phrase means. It’s important to clarify exactly what you’re referring to when you speak during a debate. Just be careful to avoid “over-defining” terms because that can end up being confusing and worse than not defining anything. When you define too much, you waste time and lose your audience’s focus. When deciding on what to define, think of how effective your argument will be without the definition. If you don’t think your argument will have it’s intended impact because of confusion over a word or two, then be sure to define those words. If you think everyone already knows what those word are referring to, them leave those definitions out. For example, if the motion is something like, “video games makes people more violent,” most people will probably understand what video games and violent mean. Or will they? Which video games? All of them. Even those for three year old? And what does violet mean? Playfully slapping someone? Throwing them off a cliff? It’s best to clarify if necessary.

There are different factors that may determine definitions in debates. They are:

Context – When stating definitions in a debate, be sure to stick to the context of the motion. If we use the motion “cell phones shouldn’t be allowed in school” as the motion, then we need to think of the current issues that surround this controversy. Are mobile phones bad in all cases at any school anywhere? Or are we talking only about having them in classrooms? You’ll need to think about what exactly is going on that would inspire someone to make this a motion in the first place.

Spirit of the Motion – People don’t just make up debate motions for no reason. They find certain topics interesting usually because of current events of other compelling reasons. When defining terms or phrases, think about what the spirit of the motion is. What’s the audience going to find helpful? What are the judges looking for? When choosing your definitions, be sure to do so in a way that makes for a good and spirited debate. If you water down the issue with unhelpful definitions, you run the risk of having the opposing team challenge them and then you’ll run into technical time wasting. That’s not going to make anyone happy. For instance, if the debate motion is “technology makes us more lonely.” the term technology is ambiguous. Typewriters? Microwaves? Or the internet?

When attempting to define technology, think about what’s going on in the world. Have people been complaining about microwaves making them more lonely? Probably not. It’s most likely the internet that’s the culprit. And if you can’t come to a sensible conclusion, go with whatever will make for the most exciting debate. If both the context and the spirit of the motion agree that it’s the internet, then go with that. Make that your definition. If it’s a split decision, then go with either one. The value in this is having the opposing team agree with your definition so you don’t waste valuable time.

Also, when providing your definition, explain why you chose what you chose. That can give it context, which will help others understand your way of thinking.

Debate Argument Structure

There are any number of ways you can divide up and spread out your debate arguments. If you’re debating in a three person team, you can assign each speaker a different topic or a group of related topics. If the arguments have to do with economic and political, health and well-being, and automotive and race track related topics, then you can split those topics up between your group members. Or you can obviously split things up however you’d like. Whatever you or your group chooses, you should definitely argue your most effective points first. So if those points fall under the health and well-being groups, then your first speaker should handle them. After that, assign the topics to speaker in order of importance. Most important to least important.

As for the argument itself, there is a tried and true structure you should employ. It goes like this:

Claim – Make your argument clearly. Keep it simple and state the reason you hold your position. “Feeding wild horses is bad because…”

Evidence – Use supporting data and facts to back up your claim. Your evidence should be clear and concise. “Wild horses have become 917% fatter since tourists began feeding them…”

Impact – Why does the evidence you just shared matter? This is where you wow the audience. Support your claim by stating the significance of what you’ve stated so far. “A 917% fatter horse means that, on average, wild horses will weight 17 tons each. Do you know what kind of damage a 34,000 pound horse can do…?”

The Rebuttal

It’s easy to make a claim during an argument and it’s relatively simple to show some impact, but when it gets to providing evidence for the claim and evidence from which the impact to be derived, trouble can arise. Oftentimes, evidence isn’t totally concrete and doesn’t cover all of the claim, opening the door for counter evidence to completely wipe away what was already established. Yes, it’s true that more evidence can oppose the opposing evidence, but too much of this gets messy and it’s not an effective strategy to pursue. The most effective route to take is to provide solid evidence for your claim that can’t readily be disputed. Overall, claims are generally made with care and evidence is fairly good, but sometimes the claim is on shaky ground to begin with. What you want to do is look for a flaw in the claim itself.

I’ve made a list of common flaws you can keep an eye out for. Remember, these are more common than you think and once you become proficient at picking up on these, you will become a much better debater overall. And once you find a flaw in a claim, you’ll have the ability to build a solid rebuttal against it.

Morally Flawed – “If we put the elderly ‘to sleep’ when they turn 75, the nation will save billions of dollars every year on health care costs.” While this may be a true statement, it’s morally flawed. Who in their right mind puts otherwise healthy people to sleep?

Correlation Rather Than Causation – “Because the sales of ice cream and sun screen rise and fall together during certain times of the year, there is a direct relationship between the two products.” This is a false claim. The relationship of these products is likely to be with the summertime, not with one another. During a debate, if a speaker makes a relationship claim such as this, look for some reasoning and explanation behind it. If none is given, you may have found your flaw.

Failure to Deliver Promises – This is a very common flaw during a debate. One speaker may assert, “My teammate will make a case for such and such…” and then the teammate will never deliver on that assertion. Keep your ears open for this type of thing. One speaker may also promise to follow up on an earlier point, but never will. Because there’s a lot going on during debates, speakers can find themselves losing track of their claims and supporting evidence.

Compare Conclusion to Reality – “If we only defund all police around the country, we’ll finally have peace a racial justice.” This is a simplistic view on a complex topic. When comparing your opponent’s conclusion to reality, ask yourself what would really happen if that conclusion was enacted. If all hell would break loose, then that goes to show that your opponent hasn’t thought their case through.

Contradiction – “People shouldn’t have to work for a living. We’ll just tax the rich to get the money we need.” This is a contradiction. If people don’t have to work, how will the rich be rich? They won’t be working, remember? Contradictions during debates can also take place apart from one another. For example, a speaker may have made the statement, “I think all fishing should be made illegal” and later says, “We should provide tuna sandwiches to all citizens of our nation,” they would be engaging in what we call a logical contradiction. When pointed out, contradictions erode the opposing team’s credibility.

Assertion – “Most of last week’s protests have been peaceful” is an assertion. When a statement like this is made, it’s easy to point out that evidence for it couldn’t possibly exist so quickly, therefore it can’t be used as a claim. A good defense for an assertion is to point out that there hasn’t been sufficient time to fully examine all aspects of whatever it is being asserted, therefore the assertion is likely invalid.

False Dichotomy – When a speaker doesn’t have a full understanding of the motion or if their case is weak, they’ll likely try to frame the entire debate into one where only two sides exist. For example, if a speaker states, “White people should support minorities and if they don’t, they’re racist,” they are engaging in a false dichotomy. There are obviously more sides to this story, but the speaker is attempting to limit the arguments to what they either have an argument for or what they’re comfortable with.

Straw Man Fallacy – “My opponent has made the claim that songs other than Christmas songs should be also included in public school Winter Concerts. I say that these types of people will never be happy until Christmas is entirely wiped from the earth!” This is a straw man argument. These types of arguments arise usually when one person makes a claim and then quickly and exaggeratedly rebuts it. Either that, or they say things like this because they were hoping that their opposition would have made the initial claim. Whatever the case, this person’s rebuttal is extreme and must be taken to task. When you face this type of statement, be sure to identify the straw man and ask your opposition to substantiate their distorted claim. Then ask them to explain how their assertion is anywhere near your initial claim. This will put them on the defense and will force them to defend their view.

When it comes to making strong rebuttals, it’s critical to have a good understanding of the debate as a whole and to have identified the key arguments. Don’t expect to make a few weak rebuttals and walk away a winner. You need to be able to see the types of flaws described above and to apply counters to them appropriately.

When listening to your opponent’s case, be sure to ask yourself if it’s flawed in any way. Listen carefully to how your opposition has approached the motion. Also, take notice of your opponent’s strategy and how they’ve set goals for themselves. Have they achieved their goals? If any general assumptions have been made during the debate, be sure to ask yourself if these make sense and if they’re all that should be discussed. Is the premise accurate? Attempt to refute any premise offered by the other side. And finally, take notice of your opponent’s primary argument and use evidence to shut it down. Don’t concern yourself with minor arguments. Focus on the important ones that will sway the audience. If you can discredit that, then you will have made your point. The rest will trickle down. If the judges or audience can’t trust the primary claim, they’ll likely not trust and ancillary ones.

Content & Case

If you think about what you say while debating and the arguments you use to make your own claims and rebut your opponent’s, you’re thinking about debate content. This is the material that’s actually verbalized. In respect to the specifics of the debate, such as its length, how many people will be involved, and how it will be structured, that’s up to the judges and those who have set up the debate in the first place.

The Entire Case – When you first stand to launch the debate, you’ll want to state your overall case in your introduction. Explain your primary arguments and where you’ll be heading during the debate. Do this early and quickly, for you’ll want to get down to the explaining of your position. You’ll want to begin your arguments. Also, during the introduction, if you’re on a team, introduce the other members and how they’ll approach the motion. When everyone has concluded, give a brief summary as to what happened and why.

Parts of the Case – This is where organization becomes important. After you explain how your argument will unfold, you’ll need to build the parts of your case. A common method for doing this is to either divide your own case into two to four parts, or if you’re working with a group, assign each person an argument or two. As explained above in the argument structure section, you’ll need to use logic, examples, stats, and quotes to support any claim you make. Proof of a claim is what drives that claim home. It’s that proof that also gives impetus to the evidence’s impact. When thinking of proof, think of how you can strategically use it with the most impact. Proof is also about appearance. If you think of high drama court cases you see on TV, you’ll have seen strategic proof in action.

When arguing a point and offering evidence, remember that you’ll need to support everything you say. You’ll also need to offer reasoning, so only argue points you can show evidence for. And again, always front load your arguments, meaning, situate the most important ones early on in the debate.

Example Case Outline:

“The media in today’s world can have much more of a political brainwashing effect than the government can ever hope for. I say this for three reasons. First, the large majority of people base their political views on what they see and hear in the media. Second, the media has long set the agenda for political debate. And third, the media can either make or break an individual candidate. Only the extraordinarily strong can weather the storm of a media onslaught if they so desire to wage that battle. Because of this, media commentators have become the defacto source of political information, rather than the politicians themselves. “

Although the points given in the above outline are arguable, it does offer a good overview of what’s to come. Also, because none of the arguments above were too detailed, a wide range of issues can be discussed, leading to a lively and entertaining debate. When debating, you don’t want to button things up so tightly that no one can argue anything. What you want to do is keep your points solid enough to go back and forth with your opponents in an effort to flesh out any details the participants deem important.

Scoring a Debate

I can remember debating back in middle school. I think I was in 7th grade and all I wanted was to get the experience behind me. I didn’t particularly care if I won or lost. What was most important was that I spent as little time speaking in front of my entire class as possible. I didn’t enjoy public speaking, so I didn’t try very hard during the debate. The problem I faced was a lack of confidence. Today, I know not trying was a mistake. I should have tried to win. And to win, I would have had to focus on what I’ll discuss below. But first, let me tell you that one of the most important personality traits to show the judges is self confidence. Even if you’re unsteady with your arguments, your confidence will shine through.

Judges observe different criteria while watching debates. I’ll list them below.

Content & Subject Matter – This is what’s actually stated during the debate. If you were to type your words out on paper and hand it to the judges, this is what they’d see. It consists of what the speakers say, what their arguments are, what their evidence is, and how relevant their arguments are in relation to the entire debate.

Style & Manner of Presentation – This aspect is completely subjective. The judges will look at how you speak, what language you decide to use, and your tone of voice. Some debates have been won and lost based on style alone. This is where you get to show off your flair and wow the audience with your style. Don’t underestimate the importance of this.

Strategy & Method of Approach – When going into a debate, you need a strategy. You need to anticipate your opponent’s arguments and style and you need to counter them. A good strategy is critical for winning a debate. You need to structure what you say so it makes sense and you need to be very clear during rebuttal.

Basic Debating Skills

While a debate is going on, judges have a lot to look at. I’ll list some of these things below. Be sure to study them and practice them to become proficient with them.

– What you say needs to relate to the topic at hand. Don’t go down an irrelevant road.
– When you either lay out an argument or rebut one, be sure to always rely on evidence as opposed to your own personal opinion or hunch. You’ll need to back up everything you say.
– Never let the judges or your opponents know your own personal opinion on a motion. During the debate, your opinion is irrelevant. If you let your feelings creep in, the audience will see that and your opinions can quickly and easily morph into passion and aggression. That’s not a good thing.
– While debating, pretend that you’re part of the audience. What type of conversation would persuade you? Stimulate you? Bore you? Always be mindful of how you’re interpreted while you’re speaking.
– Follow the three pillars of rhetoric while speaking; ethos (ethical appeal), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical appeal). Don’t focus too much on any one of these, but all equally.
– Notes are fine, but don’t read directly from them. Only refer to them when necessary. That will show preparedness. Also, keep your notes organized by using only headings. Be sure to keep separate notes for rebuttals on a completely different piece of paper.
– Compare what you’re proposing via argument with the real world. If your arguments were enacted, would the world be better for it? Do the same with your opponent’s arguments and explain why you’re position is better than theirs.
– Don’t joke if you’re not a naturally entertaining person. The risk of falling flat is too great.
– Always stay level headed in your thinking. There’s a 50/50 chance that you may get a position that you don’t agree with. If you live a life of looking at both sides of the story, you’ll train yourself to be a good debater. Think about arguments and counter-arguments often.

Use Your Voice

– When speaking, enunciate, speak clearly, and speak concisely.
– Determine a good pace. Remember that your speaking will be timed. Be sure to either trim what you have to say to fit in the allotted time or speak fast enough to fit it in. Just don’t speak so fast that it comes off offensive or misunderstood.
– When speaking, pretend that the entire audience is sitting in the farthest reaches of the room. Speak to them. Project your voice.
– Show your talent for becoming quiet when called for, louder when called for, and dramatically pausing when called for.
– Show flexibility with your tone. Emphasize important words for effect.

Show Your Confidence

– Remember, practice builds confidence. Appearing confident can be derived as much from what you don’t do as what you do. If you practice avoiding certain traits and gestures, your appearance of being confident will grow exponentially.
– Stay relaxed. Breathe. Keep your pose and posture in a relaxed form. Remember, you want to be there. You’re eager to tell the audience what you have to say.
– Don’t use filler words at all. This will require practice and focus. Um, uh, so, well, er, ah, like, okay, right, and you know. None of these are good and you’d rather pause to think rather than appear amateur by using these words. And never begin a sentence with the word “so.”
– Know your material well enough to present it to anyone. Even your most argumentative aunt. Again, practice. Frequent debating will provide you this practice.
– Use your hands for emphatic gestures, but avoid appearing nervous by using nervous gestures (biting or chewing fingernails, playing with hair, wringing hands, tapping feet, wiggling, avoiding eye contact, nervous laughter, rumming fingers, playing with objects).
– Always, always, always maintain eye contact with the audience.

Choose Your Language

– Don’t show off the big words you know. Speak clearly with common language so you’re understood.
– Always refer to the opposite team and “my opponent.”
– Avoid words such as never or always or words that may lock you into a position you didn’t intend to be locked into.
– Avoid stating that your opponent is wrong or any other type of position that’s firm and unwavering. Give them the benefit of the doubt by claiming that they’re mistaken or unaware.

Avoid Like the Plague

– Don’t make things up, such as evidence to support your argument or to rebut your opponent’s.
– Don’t publicly counter a judge’s decision or critique. There’s always time for that later on in private.
– Don’t comment on a speaker him or herself. Comment on his or her argument. This type of thing is transparent and neither the audience nor judges will appreciate you attacking a speaker personally.
– Keep your aggression to yourself. Never show any type of aggression toward another speaker, your opponent, the judges, or the audience.
– Remember that if you interrupt another debater, you may appear to have a weak argument. A confident debater is one who remains silent when not up as speaker.
– Don’t blatantly disagree with statements or facts you know to be true.

Should Animals be Used for Experiments & Testing?

Affirmative Position

I’ll be taking the affirmative position for this debate. This isn’t to say that I actually agree with animal testing or that I don’t agree with it. This is the position I chose to take for the sake of getting the conversation started. If you would like to offer your own position, whether you be for this motion or against it, please join in down below.

My position for the sake of argument is that, yes, we should be using animals for experimentation and testing. Live animals have been used in this regard for thousands of years and have proven to be an invaluable resource in regards to finding cures for disease and for developing vaccines. There truly is no substitute. In this debate, I’ll be arguing the many reasons live animals should be used in experiments and for testing purposes. I’ll explain how they’re beneficial for discovering cures for disease, how they’ve benefited both humans and other animals when it comes to testing the safety of vaccines, how there really is no realistic alternative to a living being for testing, how animals are strikingly similar to humans, which makes them ideal subjects for experimentation, how animals are more suitable for experimentation purposes than humans are due to ethical concerns, how mistreatment of animals is avoided due to very strict government regulation, how animals are actually more suitable for experimentation because of their shorter lives, how the treatment of animals is of the utmost concern for the scientist because of how experiments are carried out, and some other smaller reasons it’s beneficial to use animals in this way.

I’ll make all of my arguments in this post and I hope to see additional arguments both for and against down below.

Want Cures & Treatments? Test on Animals

Did you know that the testing on animals over the past one hundred years has led to almost every single medical advancement to date? Yes, it’s true. Don’t my word for it. Take the California Biomedical Research Association’s. They’re the ones who made this claim. By conducting research on animals, we’ve been able to develop treatments for the most devastating of diseases, from various types of cancers, to brain injuries, leukemia, tuberculosis, autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis, skin disorders, and more. Medical testing on live animals has also led to breakthroughs in treatment and recovery devices such as the pacemaker, artificial heart valves, and different types of anesthesia.

Testing Vaccines on Animals Saves More Lives Than Not

Let’s take current events into account for a moment. Have you ever heard of Covid 19? I’m sure you have. It’s the coronavirus that’s been racing around the world killing people. As you most likely already know, scientists have been racing to find a vaccine that will help treat this terrible disease. While they’re making good headway, one of the primary aspects of creating this vaccine is making sure any vaccine that is created doesn’t actually make the virus worse in some people. That’s where live animal testing comes into play. By making genetic modifications to mice, scientists are able to test both the efficacy and danger of any treatment. According to both professors and lab workers from around the world, testing for dangers in vaccine production is an absolute necessity. Basically, by testing vaccines in animals, you can see if any candidates make matters worse or better. Without this type of activity for almost all vaccine production for many different types of disease, countless lives may have been lost due to avoidable error.

There is No Substitute

Sometimes for some diseases, testing needs to be done to determine the effects of a treatment on the entire body, not just closely related cells. It’s for this reason testing on live animals needs to be conducted. If a scientist is attempting to develop a treatment for a toenail fungus, there’s no way to know if the ultimate medication will have a negative effect on the patient’s liver without testing that on an animal.

Animals are Similar to Humans in Many Ways

The entire reason animals were chosen for testing and experimentation in the first place is because of the fact that they’re closely related to human beings. Take chimpanzees for example. Their DNA is 99% similar to ours. And mice? 98%. Because of mammals being so similar to humans in many ways, there are just too many opportunities for experimentation to pass up.

Ethics Gets in the Way

There’s this thing out there called the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki that says that any human trials should be first preceded by testing on animals. Whether it testing for toxicity, negative effects, or long term detriment, according to the powers that be, it would be unethical to allow humans to take certain medications without first seeing how animals react to it.

Animals are Saved Just as Much as Humans Are

This isn’t a one sided debate. It’s not all about humans testing on animals for purely human benefit. By testing and experimenting on animals, countless animal lives have been saved as well. Every time you bring your dog or cat to the vet, they’re likely given shots and inoculations to treat distemper, parvo, feline leukemia, and more. And beyond that, think about how many endangered species have been saved from extinction. Different types of ferret, birds, and other animals have been brought back from the brink by life and species saving medicines.

Experimentation is Regulated Against Mistreatment

The animal testing field is heavily regulated by not only local municipalities and states, but by the federal government as well. The Animal Welfare Act has been in place since 1966 which dictates various standards for animals that are used for experimentation. Cage size, feeding schedules, room climate, etc…are all covered under this act. And it’s not just up to the companies involved to police themselves. Regular inspection is performed by veterinarians.

Negative Position

Well, I guess I’ll take the negative view of this question, which shouldn’t be very difficult since I really am against animal testing. I’ll do my best to keep my emotions out of what I write, but you may notice them creep in here or there. I know this is a difficult issue that most people think they’re against. When it comes down to a real discussion (or debate) though, most of us come to realize that, while awful to think about, animal testing is sometimes the lesser of a few different evils. I am against it mostly though and I’ll explain why down below.

In my rebuttal, I’ll make a few different arguments. I’ll explain how animal testing is inhumane, how researchers can now test many medicines on humans, how alternatives exist, how animals make poor test subjects, how animal testing isn’t really an end all that can claim perfect safety, how test results can sometimes be misleading, how hardly any animals are actually protected by regulation, how animal testing results and human testing results rarely match up, how the public is demanding products that haven’t been tested on animals, how the Animal Welfare Act hasn’t protected some animals from abuse, and we as humans are certainly able to make medical advancement without the help of animal test subjects and experiments.

As stated above, if anyone has anything else to add, please do so below. I know I won’t get to everything.

Animal Experimentation is Cruel

Period. Imagine yourself living in a cage. Then imagine yourself being operated on and used in experiments. This is the life of an animal that’s used for research. There’s nothing good in it for them. These animals are sacrificial lambs. It’s been found that these very animals have been force-fed, deprived of proper nutrition, and have been injured and burned, just to see how well they’d heal under certain circumstances. They’ve also had bones broken and have had limbs removed all in the name of science. Hundreds of thousands of animals have been involved in pain experiments year over year.

Use Human Test Subjects for Vaccines

People have been volunteering to help out with vaccine research for decades. Use them. They’re able to agree to the research, which animals are not. If animals had voices, I can almost guarantee that each and every one of them would not give their consent to be used the way they are. When humans are used during the experimentation process, the results are more accurate and predictive and no animals are needlessly injured or killed. And just to show you that we can do it, keep a close eye on companies that are currently racing to create a coronavirus vaccine today. Some of them are skipping the animal trials altogether and are jumping straight to the human trials. With the technology now used for vaccine creation, this is totally possible.

Alternatives Exist – Use Them

In many cases, animals aren’t even needed for research anymore. Researchers can now use various types of human cells and tissues that have been grown in the lab. By testing on these grown samples, they would eliminate the need for animals. Don’t take my word for it. Take the EPA’s. They say that animal testing will be reduced 30% by 2025 and completely by 2035.

Animals Don’t Even Make Good Research Subjects

While there are claims out there that say animals are very closely related to humans, they really aren’t. While their DNA may be closely related, when it comes to the goal of the test that’s being conducted, the differences between animals and humans are stark. They’re just too different. The research done on animals isn’t as productive as one might think. Animal anatomy, metabolism, and cellular structure make their study for human specific conditions far fetched and sometimes useless.

Just Because it’s Safe for Animals Doesn’t Mean it’s Safe for Us

If you read on a label of a prescription that the drug was tested on rats, so therefore it’s been deemed safe for you, would you take it? What if that was all the testing that had been done? Of course you wouldn’t take it. We aren’t rats and rats aren’t us. Sure, testing on animals might be a very first step when trying to determine if a treatment is safe, it certainly isn’t the determining factor. Human testing is always needed, so why not just begin there? Again, humans volunteer for this kind of thing every day. Create laws that shield companies from liability and have at it. Plus, history is replete with examples of botched drug tests that have created great harm to human beings. Remember Vioxx? That one was safe for mice, but caused more than 27,000 heart attacks in humans.

Some Drugs May be Good for Humans

Along the same lines as directly above, just because a drug has little or no beneficial effect on animals doesn’t mean it won’t help humans. Imagine how many potential life saving drugs have been sent to the trash because they didn’t have the intended effects in animal studies. Just one small cholesterol lowering drug has the potential to save millions of lives and make billions in profit for drug companies. Can you imagine that medicine not being used because it didn’t lower the cholesterol in a mouse? What a waste. Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples of this type of thing. Aspirin, intravenous vitamin C, tacrolimus, to name a few.

95% of Animals Aren’t Protected

They like to brag about how well they treat the animals because of regulation. Really? Ask them which animals make up the great majority of testing. I’ll tell you which ones. Rats, mice, fish, and birds. Those alone make up 95% of all test subjects. Ask if those animals are protected under the Animal Welfare Act and watch them squirm. They are not covered.

Testing on Animals Isn’t a Good Indicator of Results

Have you ever wondered how many drugs, vaccines, treatments, and medicines that have passed the animal testing phase actually make it to market? I’ll tell you how many actually make it to the human testing phase. Only 6%. Yes, that’s right. Now, there’s an indication of how closely animals and humans are related. Not very. Lots of treatments pass animal experimentation. They don’t pass human experimentation though and the treatment gets thrown on a shelf someplace.

People Don’t Want Cruelty Related Products

You’ve probably noticed the huge uptick of cruelty-free products that are hitting the shelves in stores and online. These types of things are being created because there’s a big market for them. Did you know that a good third of all women only purchase products that are cruelty free? It’s true. Countries are banning many types of products that have been tested on animals as are entire continents. Even California is getting on the bandwagon. You can’t sell makeup that’s been tested on animals there.

In Many Cases, Animal Testing is a Waste

Testing on animals has become so prevalent that it’s not even done correctly most of the time. There are major flaws all over the place. As a matter of fact, over 40% of studies had incorrectly stated goals and a plethora of others didn’t use proper research methods, invalidating any results they offered. This is a waste of resources, not to mention animal life and well being.

There’s Too Much Animal Abuse

I’m sure you’ve heard the stories of animals being abused in labs. You’ve heard them because they’re true. It exists. Where’s the Animal Welfare Act when you need it? Oh yeah, covering that 5% of test subjects. And it doesn’t even do that well.

Medical Advancement is Possible Without Animal Testing

There are huge medical and product advancements being made without the aid of animal research. All that needs to be done is to have the same amount of money that goes into animal experimentation go into human experimentation. Once an alternative is committed to, it can flourish.

Should Descendants of Slaves Receive Reparations?

Negative Position

I find this an extremely interesting topic that I’m happy to participate in debating. I’ll be debating the negative position in regards to whether or not the descendants of slaves in the United States should receive reparations. I will not say whether or not I agree that they should or shouldn’t, but I’ll do my best at defending the position I chose to defend.

In this debate, I’ll argue three primary points: That not one person alive today bears the responsibility that those slave owners of the past bear, that reparations would never be enough to some and the idea of putting a price on such a thing could be insulting, and that paying reparations is simply too expensive for a nation that’s in such debt and that it would be nearly impossible to accurately determine who would be eligible to received payment.

Dead Slave Owners are Responsible, Not Us

I’ve got a friend whose father immigrated to the United States from Italy about 70 years ago. He is an extremely hard worker as are his children. The entire family, although born in the U.S. (except for the father) originated in Italy. If you think about it, they’re true Italians. The father came from Italy and all the children are second generation immigrants. Let me ask you something: Is this family responsible for paying reparations to the ancestors of slaves? How about the Cuban refugees? Or recent Muslim immigrants to the U.S.? How about the Canadian family that moved to Maine in 2016? How about the entire Millennial generation? Should all of these people be responsible for paying reparations for something they had nothing to do with? If not, then who is responsible? Did everyone at the time of slavery participate in that slavery? What if a poor family that had nothing to do with slave ownership lived adjacent to a slave owning plantation back in the 1700s? Would the descendants of that poor family be responsible for paying reparations? And since any reparations would come from the U.S. government and all current and future citizens pay into that government, wouldn’t the descendants of slaves be paying themselves?

The entire idea of reparations revolves around the notion of collective guilt. And when considering collective guilt, there needs to be a certain amount of logic attributed to it. If collective guilt is valid in one circumstance, then it really should be valid in all others. As you can guess, if this were the case, order would quickly devolve into chaos. Here’s a statement for you: Every single current citizen of the United States today, when considered as a whole, is collectively responsible for the slavery of the past. That’s either a true or false statement, depending on your personality type or how you look at it. If you read that statement and say, “Yeah right! Says who?” you can stop reading right now. You don’t subscribe to the idea of collective guilt. But if you say, “That makes perfect sense!” then you most likely also think that that every Muslim around the world, when considered as a whole, is collectively responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers and that every single gun owner in the United States, when considered as a whole, is collectively responsible for inner city gun crime. Just like every Catholic is responsible for the sexual abuse committed by priests and every coffee drinker is responsible for the deforestation of South America. You get the picture. It’s a rabbit hole not many are willing to go down because they’ll quickly find themselves guilty for things they had never considered.

Paying Reparations Would Make All Descendants of Slavery Victims, Whether They Like it or Not

Here’s a question: Would $100 to each descendant of slavery be enough to settle the score? No? How about $1,000? No? $1,000,000? No? Would one billion dollars each ease the pain that the horrors of slavery inflicted? Is there a way to put a price on such things? I’m sure that if $1,000 were being passed out to each, some people would gladly take it. Others would hold out and no amount of money could undo the damage, according to them. And what about those who are too proud to take the money? What about those who thank their lucky stars every day that they live in a country such as the United States? Those who feel any amount of pain their ancestors went through was a gift to them today for living a better life than they could have imagined.

There are those who claim that by offering reparations, the country would be divided like never before and would remain divided well into the future. They claim that there would never be agreement as to what amount is good and just and those who think they haven’t received enough would never drop the issue. Can the issue ever really be dropped by those who never want to drop it? Any amount of damages given to any descendant of a slave would be viewed as insufficient. By virtue of that statement, every descendant would quickly and effortlessly transform into a victim, whether they like it or not. And considering the fact that anyone who is compensated today has never been an actual slave, they’ve just been doubly victimized. And really, the whole notion of “us” offering “you” reparations smells funny. Who are we? Your current oppressors? Are we really that powerful? Do we need to pay you off? I thought we were equal. That’s how I always viewed us, anyway.

It’s Too Difficult & We’re Broke

I’m not really sure who’s making the offer to pay anyone anything. The last time I checked, the United States’ budget deficit is larger than the entire actual budget. Also, the national debt is just short of $30 trillion dollars. Who is it exactly whose planning on doling out all this cash? The idea of reparations is so abstract that I can’t even wrap my head around it. Some folks have though and they’ve come up with a number. That number is today’s equivalent of the “40 acres and a mule” figure that was used back in 1865 by General William T. Sherman. It’s $80,000 per descendant. Multiply that number by all estimated descendants and you end up with $2.6 trillion. That’s about half the entire U.S. budget for 2019. And just as a reminder, the budget has grown in 2020, while the deficit has grown absurdly. My point is, we don’t have any money. This is like asking someone who’s got a dozen maxed out credit cards and an enormous mortgage to pay your college tuition. It’s not doable. By the way, this $2.6 trillion is a very conservative estimate. Others have calculated numbers upwards of $16 trillion, which is almost as much as our entire national debt. In 2019 that is. It’s much higher now.

Another question is, who do the taxpayers of the United States pay reparations to? Do all of the descendants who are doing rather well receive payments? Oprah Winfrey? Shaquille O’Neal? Michael Jordan? Billionaire Bob Johnson? Also, does the color of someone’s skin automatically make someone eligible to receive a payment? How about if someone is an African immigrant to the U.S.? What about the son of a Kenyan and a white woman who resides locally? That would be our former president, by the way. We’ve got millions of descendants of African Americans who are in no way tied to the slavery of the past. How do we accurately parse through all of these lineages? It’s actually an impossible task.

My final point will be this: If we do decide to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves in the United States, why would we stop there? Why not go further and pay reparations to Native Americans? And then ask Europe to pay reparations to Greeks who may be descendants of slaves in Ancient Rome. You get the picture.

Affirmative Position

I’ll take the affirmative position for this one. There are actually good arguments for both sides of this debate and I’m not sure which side I fall on, but I don’t think making my arguments will be very difficult. I’ve thought about this topic often in my life and it’s a good one to discuss.

In this post, I’ll make three argument in favor of reparations for the descendants of slaves in the U.S. First, I’ll argue that the mere fact that slavery existed in the United States has led to vast differences in wealth, even for those alive today. Second, I’ll make the claim that by stemming from slaves in this country, a great disparity in health has occurred. Both slaves were much more unhealthy than non-slaves and even today, American blacks have less in the way of health care opportunity. Finally, I’ll state that the U.S. government has offered reparations to other groups in the past and they should do it again.

People Made a Lot of Money Off of Slaves – That Money Needs to Get Paid Back

Imagine for a moment that your parents worked entire lifetimes to create a certain amount of wealth. They bought and paid for a house, cars, a boat, some property, and a healthy savings account. Now imagine that upon their deaths, the government came in and took everything they had worked their entire lives for. After the government stole that wealth, there was nothing to hand down to you. There’s one example for you. The labor your parents had expended during their entire lives was translated into assets and savings. By law (and by natural right), those things are allowed to be passed to heirs. If something or someone gets in the way of that, an injustice is occurring.

Here’s another example. During World War II, many Jews that were facing persecution in Germany deposited savings in Swiss bank accounts. Many of these Jews were killed during the Holocaust. What should be done with these deposited funds? Just hand them over to the banks to keep? How about the Swiss government? Or, how about the descendants of those Jews who were killed? It only seems right that the families of these individuals would have a right to the savings. The original owners of that money had worked for it or obtained it in some other way. By keeping the funds, your essentially stealing someone’s labor. That’s called slavery.

As a final example, I’ll give you this: Pretend that you work each week to earn a paycheck. At the end of the week, you get paid. One week, right after your boss pays you, he reaches out and takes the money right back. The next week, your boss pays you, but this time, a representative of the U.S. government is waiting to steal your paycheck. This type of thing happens every single week and you never end up with any earnings. Again, that’s called slavery. Working for no compensation is called slavery. If this happened to you, you’d have a right to that money, no matter how long it took to get it. And if you died one day, your heirs would have a right to it. It’s that simple.

Those are just a few examples of how injustice occurs. People steal from one another and it isn’t right. When this occurs, the injustice needs to be made right and that’s that. People can try to talk their way out of it and claim that any repayment is too difficult, but that’s just a distraction. At the very least, try.

Back in 1836, half of the entire United States economic activity was derived from cotton or cotton related products. At that time, there were around one million slaves in the country who were owned by others. The value put on these slaves was $3 billion dollars. That’s dollars back then, not now.

Slaves weren’t paid for their work and only managed to accumulate a fraction of their worth. At the time, although making up 13% of the U.S. population, African Americans held only 2.6% of overall wealth. After slavery was abolished in this country, reparations were attempted. General William T. Sherman gave each free slave 40 acres and a mule so the newly freed individuals could build lives for themselves. That sounds good, but after Republican President Abraham Lincoln’s death, the new president, Democrat Andrew Johnson, rescinded the order, giving that land to whites. My point is, if reparations were made at the time, but taken back, do the right thing today and give them again. There’s a wealth gap in this country and it stems from the days of slavery.

Many African Americans Today Can’t Get Proper Health Care and That’s the Fault of Slavery

There’s a disparity of health today and it dates all the way back to the days of slavery. What began back then has continued generation by generation and continues to this very day. Did you know that Europeans brought disease to Africa that killed Africans? Did you know that many Africans didn’t make it during the trip from Africa to the U.S.? Many people caught terrible diseases and either died or became debilitated. Even after they made it to the west, many Africans died or caught disease. And even after they were freed, many of them didn’t have access to proper healthcare for the times.

The problem persists today. African Americans are consistently under represented in the health care system. They also suffer from more ailments due to poor working conditions because of the lack of opportunity. They’re underinsured or have no health insurance at all and many don’t even have doctors they can call their own. And because of all this, many African Americans suffer from many preventable conditions, such as high blood pressure, asthma, stroke, diabetes, etc…

Basically, my point is that because of the injustice back in the time of slavery, blacks in this country suffer today. The plight has transcended generations and persists today. It needs to be made right.

This Wouldn’t Be the First Time the United States Paid Reparations

I’m sure a lot of people don’t know this, but our government has already paid reparations to various groups. For instance, it paid the victims of Japanese internment camps $20,000 each. Even the victims of the Tuskagee Study were given reparations. Those 399 black men were awarded $10 million overall and a lifetime of health care, courtesy of the U.S. government. Even back in 1862, slave owners were compensated to give up and free their slaves. It seems like everyone was getting money for something.

People who were sterilized against their will in North Carolina were given money. The same thing happened in Virginia. In Florida, victims of the 1923 riots were awarded compensation. The same is true for those affected by police brutality in Chicago. The list goes on and on. The Germans paid the victims of the Nazis, South Africa paid the victims of apartheid. Universities around the U.S. have also offered reparations to the descendants of slaves. There really are too many examples to list here. The overall point is, reparations isn’t a new idea. It’s been in action for decades and sometimes, it’s just the right thing to do. The only challenge is deciding who is responsible for those reparations.

Should Controversial Historical Statues be Removed?

Affirmative Position

This is a hot debate right now. As it stands, there’s a group of people out there who believe that what they regard as offensive historical Confederate statues should be removed from public sight and disposed of. There is another group of people who believe that these statues should stay, regardless of their perceived offensiveness. In today’s post, we’ll tackle both of these viewpoints. And to kick things off, I’ll take the affirmative view. I’ll argue that these statues should be removed and that they should never have been erected in the first place. I’ll also tell you why.

The Statues Represent a Lie – A Revisionist’s History

Not many people know this, but the history we learn today isn’t exactly accurate. For example, let’s take the succession from the union by 11 states back in 1861. Today’s history books tell us that these states succeeded due to their plight against the over industrialization of America. We learn that these states argued against a changing culture and were attempting to maintain their rural lifestyles. This, of course, came only after the south lost the Civil War. Before the war, their plight was quite another story. Back then, these very same states argued that slaves were an absolute necessity to agriculture and the global economy. That only blacks can work in the hot sun of the south and to rid the south of slavery would be akin to ruining the ways of life for millions of people.

After the war was lost, the south went on what we might regard as a public relations tour. They erected statues across the lands in an effort to revise history in their favor. Many southerners concluded that blacks in America needed to be enslaved for their own good and by ridding the lands of slavery, a great disservice was done to all. Laws were enacted (Jim Crow) to keep blacks and whites segregated and statues were created and placed in strategic locations to honor the fallen heroes – those who tried with all their might to keep the order. So instead of admitting they were wrong in their argument that slavery was needed for economic success before the war, they argued after the war that what they were doing was right for different reasons and that those who fought the good fight should be immortalized.

These weren’t the only revisionist statues to be placed around the nation. Others, such as those that replicated the likeness of Christopher Columbus as well as slave owning presidents were placed in other strategic locations, and not only in the south. Many believe that these presidents perpetrated grave injustices on human beings and that Christopher Columbus was a colonizer who engaged in genocide. By erecting these types of statues, true history is being erased and replaced by one that glorifies this type of person. It’s a revisionist history that should be rejected and their statues should come down.

The Statues are Merely the Reminder of Racism We Don’t Need

Multiple Harvard professors have agreed that the fact that we as American’s celebrate our torrid history with slavery is evidence of our hesitance to overcome it. Some people believe that the United States of America is racist to its core and that we as Americans are holding onto our white supremacist views by not allowing these symbols of racism to come down. And by not removing the statues, which are racist symbols, we’re not allowing time to heal our wounds. We’re merely propagating our long held beliefs in silence.

Many black southerners question why the statues were created and put up at all. After all, the south lost the Civil War and since when did a region celebrate the losers of a war? The conclusion must be that white supremacy exists and these statues are a blatant attempt at perpetuating a certain type of mindset – one that says that whites are still the winners, no matter what. And on top of the psychological effects of having southern blacks look at these statues every day, there’s a clear historical effect as well. One that states that whites are supreme and that’s central to the culture of the south. With a statement like that, it becomes clear that racism in the south is alive and well and the statues are there to prove it.

Some believe that monuments should only be erected to celebrate our highest ideals, not our worst sins. They should represent what we aspire to, not our hateful acts of the past. Monuments that celebrate a dark past should be taken down and never shown again.

The biggest slap in the face is actually financial. Every year, it costs millions of dollars to maintain these racist symbols. This money comes from the taxpayer, which black Americans are. So really, black Americans are paying for their own statues that celebrate something they’re against.

There Are Many More Diverse Figures Who Would Make Better Statues

Did you know that we’ve got approximately 5,100 statues of people in the United States? Did you know that fewer than 500 of them are of women and blacks? That’s crazy to think about and one needs to wonder why that’s the case.

Certain groups are under represented via statues. That’s a fact. The reason why should be the primary concern. What does a statue signify? If it signifies only dominance, success, growth, and prosperity, then sure, keep them all as white men. But if statues are meant to signify diversity and inclusion, then we need to rethink why so many groups are underrepresented.

There have been many petitions to remove statues across the south that represent the likeness of slavery sympathizers and to replace them with various personalities, from Dolly Parton to Johnny Cash to Muhammed Ali and Wendell Berry. Basically, many minority Americans are fed up with statues in their areas that glorify the white man and they’d like to replace them with something that aligns more with their own beliefs, values, and traditions.

Negative Position

This is an excellent debate to have and since I am not in agreement with taking down statues of any type, I think I’ll jump in here to take the negative view. To me, removing controversial statues, especially the ones in the news recently, is absurd. This should be hard. Someone hold my beer.

History is History – Don’t Censor or Whitewash it

The statues in question were put up for a reason. If we assume that those who erected them were of a level of intelligence and were rational beings, who are we to question their judgement? Years and years later, we assume that we can stroll along and censor the speech of those who have already passed? Are we better than them in some way? Are we more virtuous? Do we know something today that they didn’t know back then?

Even Donald Trump said that the campaign of removing southern statues and statues of Columbus is a cruel form of censorship. That it violates everything that we hold dear as Americans. I tend to agree with our president. When he stated that it was the will of a small group of individuals to erase part of our country’s history with the intent of replacing it with their own oppressive regime, I agreed. I hope Trump fights this battle and I hope he wins.

As it pertains to speech, we as Americans don’t whitewash what was once said. It was said and we must own up to that. We don’t pull the rug over our past to pretend that it never happened. We live in an imperfect nation, but a nation that continuously improves. That’s what we are and who we are. We also have something called the First Amendment. This amendment protects speech. Erecting statues is a form of free speech and just because a small minority of people disagree with the message a statue sends doesn’t give them the right to take it down. Especially the way they’re being taken down. The reason free speech exists is to protect unpopular opinions. If something that was said wasn’t unpopular, it wouldn’t need protecting. Why don’t we go ahead and burn all the books we disagree with as well. Let’s just have a big agreeable society.

Another thing – just because someone disagrees with the message a statue is allegedly stating, they don’t automatically have the right to vandalize and remove what they don’t approve of. Our nation is constantly changing and evolving. If someone doesn’t agree with something, there’s a process for rectifying it. But first, perhaps that person should educate themselves on what the statue actually is and what it means.

Many people believe the lie that the Civil War was fought only over slavery. It wasn’t. While the existence of slavery played its part, it wasn’t the only reason that thousands of young men fought and lost their lives. To reduce every soldier’s life to that of protecting southern slavery is a disgrace. It’s a limited view and it’s naive. Many of the statues we see today hold deep meaning for many southern families. Don’t presume to know or understand what people went through, just because you read something or watched some video on the internet. Ask someone and perhaps they’ll educate you.

If ruining things people didn’t like or agree with was the norm, the Christians of yesteryear in Rome would have torn down various pagan statues and tumbled the Colosseum.

As stated above, the Civil War was about more than slavery. After the war was over, yes, slavery was abolished, but the federal government also asserted it’s power over the states. Systemic racism continued. Lives changed and by putting up different statues, the people of the time were expressing themselves. Who are we to whitewash that history? Do the words of the past mean nothing? Do we just turn away and pretend things that happened didn’t happen? What occurred may be inconvenient, but it still took place. We should be using these statues to teach the kids of today about the successes and failures of society back then. Educate the kids, don’t shield them from it.

Where Does it End?

Have you noticed that people out there are getting more and more extreme every day? Let’s say we remove a stature of a general who fought for the south in the Civil War. That may be fine. But what if someone tomorrow decided that we should also take action against this general’s old neighbor. Or wife. Of relatives. Or old grade school teacher. You think that sounds funny? Have you heard some of the suggestions out there? There are people taking down statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ulysses S. Grant. If this is okay today, who will decide what’s okay tomorrow? Again, it’s not like taking these statues is put to committee. Criminals are going out under the cover of darkness, vandalizing, and destroying property. To many Americans, it’s already been too much. The average American is sick and tired of the antics of a tiny minority. Most Americans don’t agree with a bit of what’s going on.

Some may say that George Washington was an evil man for owning slaves. Was he evil? It seems as though he managed to free an entire nation from the tyranny of the British. He also said no to those who encouraged him to become king of our nation. And finally, upon his death, he free his slaves. That doesn’t sound like an evil man to me. So why are people trying to destroy his statues again?

Others who have been vilified were good men as well. Both Thomas Jefferson and Ulysses S. Grant were good men as well. They may have been slave owners, but their good deeds outweigh their perceived bad. The fact of the matter is that many of these internet warriors of today have no idea what they’re talking about. How would they? Many of them don’t own a thing and many of them have never worked a day in their lives. So it’s these people we want to be taking instruction from? Why? What skin have they put in the game? What do they have to offer besides their big mouths?

When a statue is erected, it’s erected because of the goodness an individual or group offered society. Everyone has a dark past in one way or another. There isn’t one person on earth who is totally and completely virtuous. If we were to go by the standard this internet crew is attempting to impose, there will never be another statue put up in America – ever. No one would be able to live up to that standard. Except those who dress in black, tie a rope around a statue’s neck, and pull it down with an old broken down Honda Civic. Yes, we should all be taking lessons on virtue from these people. Twenty year old criminals.

It’s a slippery slope my friends. The way I see it, if we’re going to remove the statues of everyone who we may disagree with, we should also visit their graves, tear them from the ground, and dump their bodies in the river. Let them float away. We should also find every historic battlefield and build condos on them. Let’s go all the way. Hey, why not?

Historic Statues Don’t Cause Racism – Ideas Do

Did you know that I once had a friend who wasn’t racist at all, right up until the point he saw a statue of a Confederate general? After that, total racist. His transformation was incredible. Yeah, that happened to…nobody. Ever. What are people so scared of? Do they think their children are going to turn into racists after they see some statues? That may only happen if they aren’t educated about our nation’s past. If we keep things in the dark, the adults of tomorrow may make poor decisions, simply based on being ignorant. But if we show the country’s children the various statues and tell them what they mean and why they were built, then we may just have a few educated people on our hands. And that’s not such a bad thing. Do you know what makes a racist? Racist parents make racist children. Bad experiences make people racist. Dark souls make people racist. Statues don’t.

I’ve always thought that next to every controversial statue should be a plaque that gives a lot of information about the individual who is being immortalized. Tell the viewers a bit of information. Educate them. That’s not such a bad idea, which is evidenced by many scholars agreeing with it. But don’t only express the bad of the person, also express the accomplishments and how the person helped society as whole. Let the person looking at the statue and reading the plaque make up their own mind.

Should Packing the U.S. Supreme Court be Considered?

Affirmative Position

There are quite a few sides to this issue and many legitimate arguments. And I’d say this is the perfect time to debate the topic, since we’re in the midst of an election in the United States. With the recent debates between Joe Biden and Donald Trump as well as Kamala Harris and Mike Pence, Supreme Court packing is at the forefront of everyone’s minds. And on top of this wonderful timing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also recently passed away, leaving a seat on the court open. The question many people are asking is, should President Donald Trump nominate someone to fill Ginsburg’s seat? Some say he should, as he has every right to. In their eyes, the Democrats would jump at the chance and have actually argued to do the same thing just a few years ago. Others say he shouldn’t. That he should leave the seat to be filled by the sitting president after the election has taken place. They claim that the people should decide who the next nominee is, not the sitting president. Which is strange, because by this logic, the people have already decided. They did four years ago when they elected a Republican senate and a Republican president. Should those people be forgotten? The rule is, the sitting president should nominate someone to fill a court position. A sitting president can do this at any time during his or her term. I’m actually not sure what the debate is about because this is what’s intended to happen. What I’m seeing is a huge effort to muddy the waters, but that’s just my opinion.

The Democrats have threatened to “pack the court” with up to 15 members if the Republicans go ahead with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the court. I wonder if they would make the same threat if a Democrat president was in power at the time. I mean, right is right, right? Or would they simply change their argument to fit their needs. Anyway, there actually are valid arguments for packing the court with more members. Perhaps nine is too few? Maybe 15 is too many? Let’s get into it. Should packing the court be considered? I’ll be taking the affirmative view in this debate down below.

The Court Needs Balance, Which Isn’t With Only Nine Justices

I suppose the real question is, should any one party get lucky enough to nominate more than their fair share of Supreme Court justices at any given time? Isn’t the court supposed to appear somewhat balanced and not lean in any one ideological way? Is nine justices too few to keep the court somewhat balanced? Would 15 justices put an end to allowing any number of justices to die or retire during a president’s term? With more justices, it does appear to take away the “getting lucky” factor, as President Donald Trump has undoubtedly gotten.

As it stands, the Republican party has appointed 15 of the last 19 justices to the bench. Right now, three justices lean liberal and five lean conservative. If Trump and the Republican senate get their way with appointing Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the bench, it’ll be three to six and to some, that’s simply not a good justice system. Really, the Supreme Court is about interpreting the U.S. Constitution fairly and impartially. but as we’ve all witnessed through the years, ideological perspectives do have a way of creeping in. We’re only human, so the next best thing behind taking a robotic view of court cases is to have a more diversified bench.

When I argue in any debate I’m participating in, I try to look at the other side as best I can. If the shoe were on the other foot and Republicans were in the minority, would they be arguing the same exact position the Democrats are arguing right now? I think they would be. Actually, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’d be doing everything in their power to stop any nomination with the intention of waiting until after the impending election. It is politics, after all. They’d have their political organizers out there on the streets and on the television espousing the virtues of waiting for the next president “to allow the people to decide.” They’re all the same. They just have different names. But most of them (the politicians) are most comfortable with balance and I think the majority of citizens in the United States agree.

But really, I wonder if the Democrats would be arguing for court packing at all if the Republicans agreed to avoid nomination for a few months. If that were the case, it would be true, the Democrats aren’t looking for power, but merely balance in the courts. If the Republicans refuse, however, it shows that they are, in fact, looking for power over balance and to me, that’s never a good thing. When that occurs…when one party seeks power like that, there’s always the risk of radicalization and no matter what side you’re on, you most likely wouldn’t want to live in that type of environment. It’s my personal opinion that most people in this country just want to go about their daily business without having to concern themselves with politics at every turn. It’s only the small minority that’s in it for the fight full time.

So, what would happen to court cases if Republicans had their way and nominated another conservative to the court? Well, we can all fairly accurately predict the outcome of a few. Let’s take issues such as voting rights and abortion. We all know that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned and that voter identification would be required to vote around the nation. Those laws would disenfranchise a good portion of our nation’s citizens.

If we think about it, aren’t Republicans attempting to pack the court in their favor right now? Just by the stroke of luck, Donald Trump has had the opportunity to nominate three justices in one presidential term. There are only nine on the bench and conservatives already have the majority. Is the threat by the Democrats justified in this type of environment? I think so. They’re basically doing the same thing. Threatening to make the court more balanced in their favor. If the word “balance” can even be used here.

When the Supreme Court leans either liberally or conservatively, it can affect the outcome of court cases for a generation of more. This court has an enormous amount of power and balance is truly the utmost goal. Having it lean in any one direction can produce disastrous consequences.

The real goal for both the Republicans and Democrats right now shouldn’t be to find a new justice who will agree with their party’s ideologies, but to find one who is fair, balanced, and who can interpret the constitution accurately and the way it was meant to be interpreted. They should be working together in a bipartisan way to real that goal.

There Are No Laws Against Having More Than Nine Justices – History is On Our Side

Here’s a question – does the U.S. Constitution dictate how many justices there are to be on the Supreme Court? The answer is, no, it doesn’t. There’s absolutely no reason to avoid attempting to either increase or reduce the number of justices to meet the needs of the day at hand. It’s Congress who decides how many justices are to be on the court and in 1789, it decided there would be six. In the years following, the number of justices has been reduced to five and increased to ten. It wasn’t until 1869 when Congress changed the law to limit the number of justices to nine. It’s been that way ever since. Nothing has changed.

The number of Supreme Court justices that the court is supposed to have is actually quite arbitrary and has been changed quite a bit over time. If Congress feels that it’s leaning in one direction or the other too much, it can change it. Those in Congress have many times in the past in order to deal with various imbalances and they should consider doing that again now.

Negative Position

I’d be happy to take on the negative position for this debate because I actually agree with it. I think the Democrats are simply crying and whining and if the situations were reversed, they wouldn’t be looking for balance at all. They’d be looking for domination at all costs. When was the last time you saw a Democrat advocate for a more conservative justice on the Supreme Court? Never. That’s when. This whole thing is a “give me a break” moment and just another ploy to threaten and to slow down a constitutional process that the current administration and Senate has every right to engage in. I have never witnessed such a bunch of babies in my life. And really, this goes for the Republicans as well. What they pulled with Merrick Garland and President Obama was abhorrent. At least give the man a vote. President Obama had every right to fill the seat within his term as President and for the Republican Senate to hold that process up was disgusting. What should have happened was for the Democrat President to work with the Republican Senate to choose a nominee they were both happy with. That’s what we do as civilized folk. We don’t nominate ideologues to the Supreme Court just to get the outcomes we desire. We nominate justices whom we think will uphold the Constitution. I’m pretty sure Congress and the President can figure out how to get that done.

Anyway, I’ll offer a more articulate argument below. Enjoy!

The Supreme Court is Already Balanced – Why Add Such a Dangerous Precedent?

First off, I’d like to say that the recent nominations by President Donald Trump haven’t been paying off as conservatives thought they would. In my view, Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh haven’t been giving the conservatives the outcomes they have desired. What does this show? It shows that justices today are less ideological and more constitutional than people have expected. Either that, or the justices that Republicans nominate are actually what they say they are – which is good. These justices interpret the Constitution accurately and fairly and the way it was meant to be. If Neil and Brett rules against the Republican party, then so be it. They’re just doing the jobs they were hired to do.

Also, if we look back in time, the Supreme Court has largely been a balanced one. Beginning in 1912, back when Democrats and Republicans cemented their respective platforms, there have been a total of 52 Supreme Court justices appointed. Out of them, 28 have been appointed by Republican Presidents and 24 by Democrat Presidents. That’s not bad and I don’t think that’s anything to be screaming about today, especially because in a few years, the situations might be reversed. Democrats have a tendency to change the rules when they’re losing, which has come back to bite them on multiple occasions.

Let’s look at a bit of reality here. What we as citizens are used to seeing is big stories on the news about very high profile cases. Many of these types of cases have come down to 5-4 rulings, which has given us a sense of ideology on the court. By only showing the populace the high profile decisions, the media is leaving out many of the most difficult and challenging legal issues that are buried in the goings ons of every day. But while these other cases aren’t as popular, they garner broad agreement among the justices. This puts the ideological argument to rest because most justices agree most of the time, either one way or another. And when they disagree, they disagree because of their opinion on the way laws are meant to be interpreted, not because of their alleged ideological leanings.

Furthermore, when we talk about “conservative” or “liberal,” those words apply only to every day politics, not judicial philosophy. So really, calling a justice a conservative one or a liberal one isn’t called for, since those words aren’t understood by the courts as we the general population perceive them.

Here are two very interesting quotes by now Presidential nominee:

“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day.”

“We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

So even the leader of the Democrat party doesn’t want to pack the courts. We must ask ourselves, who does then? Is it the far left? If so, we normal people really should just tune them out.

There are countless quotes by both liberals and conservatives out there who know how badly the court packing idea can end up. Yes, one team might get the outcome they want today, but what about tomorrow? What happens when the opposing team has the opportunity to pack the court themselves? This is the kind of thing we should all take note of. What seems good today probably won’t seem good tomorrow. So don’t fall for the trap of instant gratification.

Overall, the Supreme Court had shown to be a fiercely independent institution. Congress isn’t. Congress and the Presidency can’t be trusted to remain independent because they’re no meant to be. They have political leanings, as they should. They’re combative because that’s the way they’re supposed to be. Keep politics out of the courts and don’t attempt to stack it in your favor, no matter which way you lean.

History Really Likes Nine Justices on the Supreme Court

The United States is nothing if not set by precedent. We like what we’re used to because whatever the issue is, it’s already been dealt with by very intelligent people and it’s stood the test of time. Here’s an interesting fact to illustrate my point. Why is it that we keep nominating people who have law degrees and who have been judges previously? The United States Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that that must be the case. We the people can nominate a plumber if we want. Well, I’ll tell you why we nominate judges. Because they know how to judge. They have experience and a record we can base them on. We know they’re not crazy. We tend to like that in this country.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Ulysses S. Grant? Yes, he was president of the U.S. way back in 1868. That’s when the Supreme Court was designated to have nine justices. It’s been like that and fine ever since. So let me get this straight – the Supreme Court has had a wonderfully operating court with nine justices since 1868, yet today in 2020 a bunch of spoiled Millennials want to change it because they don’t “like” it? Give me a break. This is as expected, I guess. So typical. Because these criers don’t like the direction of our wonderful country, they want to change the rules and over 150 years of precedent? Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

My final point – for the past four years I’ve been listening to liberals whine about how divided this country is. It seems that this is the only thing they care about. Let’s say the Democrats have a sweep in this November’s election. Let’s say they then pack the court based strictly on party lines. What will that do about the divisive issue? I can tell you what. It will make it worse. Do you think the Democrats will care about divisiveness after they get what they want? I can guarantee they won’t, which goes to show how genuine they are with their feelings. I’m calling BS when I see it. The Democrats simply want power and nothing else. I highly doubt having a high court that half the country views as illegitimate would be a good thing.

Is Cancel Culture a Good Thing?

Negative Position

There are so many stupid names for things out there, but I think this may take the cake. I always wonder who makes these things up. “Cancel Culture.” Yes, that’s what we’re dealing with today. It’s basically when a group takes notice of a person’s or organization’s stance or opinion on a particular topic and attempts to “cancel” them if it’s something the group disagrees with. What’s cancelling? Well, that’s when the group at hand attempts to discourage support for the individual or organization themselves or their work. There’s another phrase for cancel culture as well. It’s “Callout Culture.” This is when those on the internet disagree with something or someone and they “call them out” for it. For example, let’s say a prominent actor voices his support for Donald Trump and says he plans to vote for him in the next election (you know, like 60 million other Americans did). A group of paid Twitter personalities and zombie accounts would find this objectionable and then go off to learn details of this actor’s life and try to bankrupt him by threatening prospective employers and the like. Yes, this is the world we live in. This is what social media and the internet has led us to.

The question is, is cancel culture a good thing for individuals and society at large? I’ll be taking the negative view for this issue in today’s debate and I welcome any counter views.

Cancel Culture Equals Online Bullying – The Violence and Threats Can Actually Become Worse Than the Original Alleged Offense

It’s all fine until it happens to you. I actually had the unfortunate experience of being targeted by an online lynch mob over a misunderstanding. I own and operate a food blog and apparently, a restaurant with the same name as my blog did something that the mob disapproved of. Well, the mob didn’t like it, looked the name of the restaurant up, found me, and began posting horrible things on my Facebook page. They also emailed me threatening messages. And I didn’t even have anything to do with it. I actually had no idea what was happening until I did a little research. That’s when I decided to fight back and tell these people off to put them in their places.

Comedians have to put up with this sort of nonsense all the time. These folks have been telling jokes about different types of people since the dawn of time. I suppose it wasn’t only until recently that a certain type of person began becoming offended. It seems that the type of person who gets offended by everything can’t even walk down the road without having imaginary insults hurled at them. Everything bothers them. They have no ability to laugh at themselves, like the rest of us do on a daily basis. Again, they’re offended by everything and nothing at the same time. Thin skinned, if you ask me. So anyway, it’s no secret that comedians have been targeted by the mob. Many have lost their jobs and aren’t asked anymore to do acts at any clubs. They’ve lost their livelihoods because of some jokes the powers that be have decided are no longer allowed. Freedom of speech? Not anymore. Sure, it’s not illegal to say something these days, but you might just lose your source of income.

So, what is it exactly that offends people? What is it that you can’t say? No one knows. It hasn’t been determined yet. Does that sound dangerous? You bet it does. If I say that a rock is blue today, things might be fine. If I say it tomorrow though, some person on Twitter might hunt me down because of some perceived oppression and attempt to ruin my life. Do you think you’re safe? I wouldn’t count on it. If this is the type of culture that’s permitted for some today, it just may be permitted for all tomorrow. So you better be careful of what you write online and protest for because those views, while seemingly popular may come back to bite you when they’re not.

The worst part of the whole thing is that the mob rarely takes context into account when they choose to do their online bullying. Who is it that said the statement? What are they up against? What is their life like? Who cares. Let’s rip em’ to shreds. Let’s make it so they can’t support their family anymore. Do they have an illness? Are they handicapped? Do they have mental problems? Who cares. Let’s take them down. Act now and ask questions later. The whole thing sort of reminds me of the prison industrial complex. Let’s get em’ in jail as opposed to finding out the complexities of their lives. Let’s lock em’ up instead of finding out their motivations, understanding them, and offering education and rehabilitation. What a terrible scene.

Do you think these attacks on so called offenders help at all? No, they don’t. Oftentimes, once someone is attacked like this, they recoil into their little holes, never to be seen or heard from again. This is the very thing the mobs used to do in town square. They’d find witches and perceived criminals and burn them at the stake and hang them. Real nice. Most of the townsfolk had no idea who was being incriminated. They simply loved the feeling of being in power as the judge, jury, and executioner. Once a person has been targeted due to something they said or believed, much of their self worth dissipates. They lose their self-confidence. They may even stand up to fight, doubling down on their position and not learning anything from the situation.

There’s this thing out there called mob mentality, where there’s sort of a feedback loop. One person thinks one thing, they express that thought to someone else, and the same thing continues to happen until everyone has heard about it. Then, since everyone is in the know, they begin feeding the same types of thoughts back to each other until a feeding frenzy occurs. This is what happens online when someone or a group is targeted because of a perceived wrongdoing. The frenzy actually gets to heights where death threats occur and someone’s life has been torn apart. Whatever the alleged crime, the punishment is oftentimes much worse.

This entire situation isn’t sustainable. It’s been said that individuals take on antisocial behaviors when they’re hidden behind screens. They can’t tell true right from true wrong. They’re more likely to target someone when they can’t see the consequences of that targeting up close, which can be destructive. They become the very cyber-bullying type of character so many of them proclaim to abhor. They can’t connect their behavior to social norms, morals, ethics, proper punishments, sanctions, or much of anything else when they’re so geographically distant from their target and when they’re behind a screen. And this isn’t even mentioning all of the PTSD that occurs when someone is cyber-bullied or engages in cyber-bullying. Yes, it’s true. Both parties suffer from this type of activity.

Call Out Culture Doesn’t Even Work

If you engage in call out culture and think you made a change, you’re dead wrong. All you did was cast a stone in a certain direction and sit back in your own glory. You might think that President Obama enjoyed calling people out. As it turns out, not so much. Take a look at this. Here’s what he once said: “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out… That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.” I totally agree with him. It’s not to difficult to sit on your perch and judge others for their views and beliefs. But really, if you don’t want to hear theirs, they certainly don’t want to hear yours either. So why do you offer them?

Even Black Lives Matter is against this sort of lazy pseudo activism. They claim that calling people out and badgering them online is akin to a waste of time. They say that if you’re looking for real change, you’re going to have to put a lot of boring hours into it. It’s not about feel good and feel powerful one-offs on the internet. It’s actually about hard work in the real world.

Lots of left leaning organizations have “called out” those you call out others. Call out culture has been described as simple blaming and shaming. There’s a debate going on in regards to whether or not call out culture even accomplishes anything worthwhile, other than giving the person who’s doing the calling out a short term release of feel-good power tripping. Lot’s of left leaning individuals have concluded that cancel culture doesn’t achieve the goals they’re after. They don’t see the change they desire. Personally, I think it’s a weak tactic built upon a weak foundation. If you want change that you don’t have to coerce people into accepting. simply offer a better alternative. The public isn’t stupid. If they see something that’s allegedly evil, and if they’re not evil themselves, they’ll go with a different choice. They don’t need all the virtue signalling that goes on out there to educate them about good and bad. But no, those who call out others don’t have anything better to offer. All they’ve got is a big soap box called the internet.

Could it be that cancel culture is actually having the opposite effect that those who call out others desire? Look at Louis CK. He was cancelled and when he decided to come back, he sold out all of his shows. The same thing happened with R. Kelly, Kevin Hart, and Micheal Jackson. Either cancelling someone and putting them in the news makes them more popular than ever or the public actually doesn’t care about cancel culture’s interpretation of virtue. All the more reason to stop the signalling we’re all getting so tired of. We don’t need more big sisters out there telling us what do to, where to shop, who to listen to, and who to like. Thanks but no thanks.

Cancel Culture is a Slippery Slope That Leads to Intolerance

Have you ever noticed that those who preach tolerance are some of the most intolerant people on the planet? “We need tolerance! Let’s have that conversation! Get out there and vote! Let’s love one another! Black lives matter!”

Really? Do the people who exclaim these sorts of things truly mean what they say? Let’s see. Are they tolerant of Trump supporters? No. Do they want to have that conversation with Republicans? No. Do they want right wingers to vote? No. Do they love Donald Trump? No. Do black lives matter if those blacks are conservatives? No. I’ve never heard of so many meaningless platitudes in my life. Everything these types of people say goes in one ear and out the other with the general public. We regular people can only listen to them for so long. Really? Tolerance is what they want? How tolerant are they for trying to destroy someone’s family, career, and reputation over a belief or sentence or two? Goya once supported one of Donald Trumps initiatives that would have made the lives of Latin Americans better. How did the left react? Well, of course they boycotted Goya and attempted to destroy the company. That effort backfired on them and made Goya even more popular than it ever was.

Answer me this: what kind of tolerance is built upon destroying the lives of others for having differing opinions than yourself or your group? I thought the world was built upon our differences. I thought those differing opinions were what made us better as a people. If I had to think of one word that described the utter destruction of a person or group that thought differently than another, that word would be totalitarianism. And really, this type of thing has no place in our society, so perhaps we should begin calling out and cancelling those who do just that.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all take an initiative from the left’s playbook and actually follow through on it? Think about the word inclusivity for a moment. What does that mean? It means that just because someone looks differently, thinks differently, or acts differently, they should still be included in whatever you or others are doing. Perhaps instead of cancelling people, we should be embracing and listening to them. If their ideas are truly as horrid as they’re made out to be, people will be disinterested in them. There needs to be more of a trust in the intelligence of the average Joe. We don’t need random people out there shoving “proper” ideas down our throats. Dictators and supreme rulers have tried that very tactic in the past and it’s never seemed to work very well.

We should all have the liberty to speak and think whatever we want without the fear of retribution. If we have people calling us out and ruining our lives over thought and speech today, what’s in store for us tomorrow?

Affirmative Position

Whether I agree with this position or not, I’d be happy to take the affirmative view on the issue of whether or not cancel culture is a good thing. There are pros and cons to every issue and this issue is surely top of mind for many people, especially in today’s world. It seems as though we’re more connected than ever, which is definitely having ramifications throughout society. I’m actually not sure if all this connectedness is such a good thing. From what I’ve seen, giving humans the ability to voice their opinions so easily has had some detrimental effects. What I can’t figure out is whether we simply need to grow into this new capability or whether we really are just a bunch of jerks. Time will tell.

Nevertheless, here goes.

Sometimes People Need to be Called Out – Now There’s a Method for the Disenfranchised

Let’s face it, various things have been going on for countless years and nothing has been done about it. Let’s talk about harassment in the workplace for one. Pretty much forever have both women and men taken advantage of their same sex as well as the opposite sex subordinates. In Hollywood, sexual favors have been traded for parts on TV shows and in movies. Many of these alleged abuses remained open secrets among those who were and still are connected in that part of the country and the MeToo movement squashed some of that type of behavior. While it’s been said that those who were on the receiving end of the sexual advances were rewarded by getting the part, it’s also been said that there was outright abuse where the only beneficiary was the perpetrator. Can anyone really say that call out culture hasn’t at least shined a light on some of these types of activities? I think not. Call out culture has utterly transformed Hollywood for the better. Perhaps the courts as well as the various human resource department will now take these types of situations seriously. If they don’t, the victims now have someplace to turn to call their perpetrators out. It’s called the internet and social media.

If you think about it, there were far too many coverups before victims were granted the ability to share their stories online. The rich and the powerful have been getting away with bad behavior for centuries and longer. They had the clout to have others turn a blind eye and many police jurisdictions simply didn’t pay any attention to accusers. What happened instead? Well, we as a society elevated the accused to even more powerful positions in politics, business, and media. Accusers have been branded as liars and crazies. They’ve been deemed as disposable. Are these people disposable anymore? Not a chance. These people now have voices and those voices are heard. The rich and the powerful are running scared, as they should be. Think Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. They’re both in jail for their many alleged abuses. Their victims were heard and proper steps have been taken to hand down justice. Can you imagine if these two men’s crimes had never been heard? Can you imagine what would be taking place right now if no one had ever “called them out?” They may still be up to their own games and living perfectly good lives.

Did you know that since the MeToo movement began, there have been 201 powerful men who have lost their careers or positions in their organizations? Seven of these men have been convicted of crimes and five others have been charged. Many men have simply been called out and have stepped back out of the limelight for some time. Much of this activity was a direct result of being called out on social media.

The problem isn’t necessarily that victims of these types of abuses don’t have a voice at all. It’s that they aren’t nearly as powerful as the accused. When a powerful person has traditionally been accused of an abuse or a crime, they have the wherewithal to pay top notch lawyers to manipulate the legal system. There have even been payoffs, or settlements, to make the problems go away. These are all too common. Today though, instead of these activities being tried in the legal courts, they’re tried in the court of public opinion, which is apparently just as effective.

But beyond sexual abuse, call out and cancel culture has also been used to seek and attain justice for other issues. Think about the Black Lives Matter movement. No one can say that innocent black men haven’t been killed by various police officers, whether it be by mistake or for other reasons. The Black Lives Matter movement is now global and it’s forcing an almost nationwide retraining of police officers to better handle inner city and racial tensions.

While cancel culture has certainly been abused, it’s also an effective means to have voices heard that may otherwise never have been.

Regular People Finally Have a Voice

Like it or not, the average Joe now has a voice. He can speak up to point the finger at inequality when he sees it. There was once a time when only those who were powerful enough to garner media attention were able to get their words out. Now, all you need is a Facebook or Twitter account.

Boycotts Have Gone Global

Let’s say that you feel you’ve been wronged by some sort of an organization. Perhaps a retailer or an insurance company. Years ago, all you’d be able to do is call upon your state’s consumer protection agency to help or to simply boycott the organization by yourself and not patronize them any longer. Today, you can put the issue out to the public and let them decide what to do. If the offense was egregious enough, some sort of consensus will occur and perhaps a boycott will form. If the offense had to do with some sort of social justice, a frenzy will likely follow. The business or organization will be deprived of attention, currency, and livelihood. The organization will be held accountable. For many, that feels very good after centuries of facing power structures such as the ones that have existed for so long.

For many, the best and most effective form of protest is to refuse participation. Can you imagine if the public became so tired of listening to politicians lie? Or if they became exhausted from living in a swing state and receiving dozens of political mailers in their mailboxes every day? What if a powerful social justice group targeted an innocent man for an alleged social justice infraction? Instead of these individuals being forced to deal with these things alone, now they can go to social media to air their grievances. They can “call out” the political structure and refuse to donate and to vote. They can tell others about all those political mailers and take photos of them to distribute online. They can let everyone know that the very same politicians who claim to be environmentalists have cut down the equivalent of forests of trees to send their messages to the voters. And finally, for those individuals and businesses who have been wrongly targeted by social justice groups who claim to doing good, but are actually bent on ruining lives, those whose lives have been ruined can now vent their frustration on social media to shine light upon those powerful groups. What a wonderful thing.

The best action to take when a large and powerful organization wrongs an innocent person is to tell as many people as you can about it. Boycott the organization. This type of thing has been going on since the 1950s in the United States of America and should continue. The best part of the online calling out and boycotting movement is that it cuts both ways. Those who lean right on the political spectrum can now call out those on the left and vice-versa. Boycotting, cancelling, and calling out isn’t a one way street. We’re so used to the left calling out pretty much everyone. With the advent of this type of public discourse, the right now has an amplified voice as well. Everyone will see how it feels to have their activities brought to light. Now that’s a great thing.

Another wonderful development of cancel culture is that both brands and consumers have amplified voices. What we’ve seen over the past few years is the calling out of brands and businesses by consumers who may have been in the wrong. Sometimes, an individual may feel as though they’ve been wronged by a company, but they really weren’t. Perhaps they misinterpreted something. And because of this misinterpretation, an online boycott was created by calling out the brand. We’ll, if it can be determined that it was in fact the consumer who was mistaken, the brand now has the power to “call out” the individual on social media. The brand can shine some light on the individual’s actions. Perhaps the individual is employed by the grievance industry and goes around making trouble all day. If something like this is discovered by the brand, it can be discussed on social media. Names can be named like never before. In the past, restaurants have been “called out” for the simple reason of having a person or persons dine there that a political party may not like. The restaurants have been called out for serving them and they’ve been boycotted as a consequence. Today, with technology being the way it is, the restaurants can finally fight back. Small mom and pop shops. Mid-sized and Main Street businesses that were harmed by these frivolous boycotts can now turn to the internet to call out the individuals who initiated the frivolous boycott. The best part about all this is that the truth will eventually reveal itself. Boycotts and counter boycotts are dangerous things and it’s sometimes best to bring all of the facts out into the open.

On top of all this, large companies and brands are taking advantage of cancel culture to boycott one another. We’ve all heard of how over 800 big companies have boycotted Facebook and have stopped their advertising because of Facebook’s stance on not censoring free speech. This certainly was detrimental to Facebook’s bottom line. The thing is, advertising on a platform as large as Facebook’s is certainly valuable to countless brands around the world. Facebook now has the opportunity to boycott these brands back. Facebook can call attention to how these big companies that initially boycotted them were doing something akin to engaging in a form of blackmail. If Facebook didn’t agree with the speech policies of these companies, the companies would try to put Facebook out of business. In today’s world, the best thing for Facebook to do is to engage in cancel culture and to shine a light on this situation. And perhaps Facebook can cancel the advertising accounts of these large brands. Perhaps the consumer would like to know that Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Ford don’t value and cherish free speech as so many millions of Americans do. Now that’s cancel culture at its best!

What is Debating?

Structure of a Debate

Roles of Affirmative & Negative Debate Speakers

Debate Definitions

Debate Argument Structure

The Rebuttal

Content & Case

Scoring a Debate

Basic Debating Skills

Popular Debate Topics (Motions)

Great Debate Motions

Should Animals be Used for Experiments & Testing?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Should Descendants of Slaves Receive Reparations?

Negative Position

Affirmative Position

Should Controversial Historical Statues be Removed?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Should Packing the U.S. Supreme Court be Considered?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Is Cancel Culture a Good Thing?

Negative Position

Affirmative Position

What is Debating?

Structure of a Debate

Roles of Affirmative & Negative Debate Speakers

Debate Definitions

Debate Argument Structure

The Rebuttal

Content & Case

Scoring a Debate

Basic Debating Skills

Popular Debate Topics (Motions)​

Great Debate Motions

Should Animals be Used for Experiments & Testing?​

Affirmative Position​

Negative Position​

Should Descendants of Slaves Receive Reparations?​

Negative Position​

Affirmative Position​

Should Controversial Historical Statues be Removed?​

Affirmative Position​

Negative Position​

Should Packing the U.S. Supreme Court be Considered?​

Affirmative Position​

Negative Position​

Is Cancel Culture a Good Thing?​

Negative Position​

Affirmative Position​

Related posts:

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Popular Debate Topics (Motions)

Should Animals be Used for Experiments & Testing?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Should Descendants of Slaves Receive Reparations?

Negative Position

Affirmative Position

Should Controversial Historical Statues be Removed?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Should Packing the U.S. Supreme Court be Considered?

Affirmative Position

Negative Position

Is Cancel Culture a Good Thing?

Negative Position

Affirmative Position