The following blog is an opinion in relation to the debate in the
class and does not necessarily reflect my personal view on the the topic
discussed. Also, if I've offended everyone, don't take it personally.
I merely offended the role you played, not you as a person:
I thought Team 1 (my team) won! Primarily because I thought we had a
strong case despite having the burden of proof, I suppose. Team 2
seemed to have circumvented their logic/argument repeatedly despite us
having rebuttled their argument like the topic of "expections to the
rules" or "neo-nazis." Both teams could have easily invalidated both
their own and their opponent's argument just like we did when they
presented their statistics. They indirectly stereotyped everyone while
defending that sterotype still existed. Our argument was that despite
the stereotype, we are aware of its false nature. Yes, you might be
called a "fortune cookie" if you're Linsanity, an "Oreo" if you're
black and you act 'white', or whatever. But I feel as if they're not
as serious as they used to be because they're just people's opinions.
That will never cease to exist and that would also lead to prejudice
which makes Team 2's argument strong. We learn by association, just as
we have the desire to belong - to associate ourselves with something.
It is a human condition. Now, it is up to us, as individuals, to
disassociate ourselves from it. As strong as Team 2's argument may be,
their closing statement seemed weak. If I remember correctly, they
said that we're accustomed to stereotypes "Blacks are ghetto; Asians
eat dogs. Be honest, [you've thought of that before]...." Their point
was to make that prejudice does matter, yet they just asked a personal
question, implying that they have thought of that. It asserts that
though they're aware that prejudice does matter, they have done
nothing as individuals to disassociate themselves from it. It almost
seems that they do believe those stereotypes are true. And if they
didn't, it would only strengthen our argument in that stereotypes have
a false nature, therefore it doesn't matter.
While it seemed that we were listing "exceptions to the rule," I think
that was a misunderstanding. Though we cannot name "all the white men
in congress," we can certainly name most of the presidents. All but
one was white. In that, we can also list why they were notable despite
all being white men. Our focus on Obama and other prominent minorities
was to show that they're proofs that times have changed. If they
didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the position they were in. They
weren't "exceptions" at all or at least, to my opinion. In stating
that they were "exceptions," Team 2 asserted that they merely got
those position because they were minorities. No. America, or rather, the
electoral college, didn't vote Obama as president because he's black
or half black. That's blasphemy. To vote a person based on his skin
color is ridiculous. He became president because of his platform. If
prejudice did matter, Clinton would have won. It would be reasonable
to think that in a society that hasn't changed, they'd choose the
Clinton, despite being a women, because she' at least white. Or maybe
sexism was held in higher regard than racism? Whichever, Clinton had
experience as First Lady.
I liked the debate much more than the previous one. First, because Mr.
Beddingfield wasn't in it. Being college-educated, it could be assumed
that he formulate an eloquent argument and be very explicit in his
argument in the time it takes us to even form a cohesive one and at
most. with any finesse. The smaller group paradigm assisted in the
focus and formation of arguments along with with an group-elected
leader, which we all lacked in the previous statement. Secondly, Mr.
Beddingfield didn't decide which position we were on so we had to
build an argument for both sides, which caused us to focus on both
sides on hand instead of just one and formulating a very strong open
on it. Very wise if you had us debate on "Why do you support Rick
Santorum?" I will also dislike it if you I were on the wrong side
because I hate him. I would have to switch my mentality to a
conservative one. Conservation is, in itself, a subjective term.
However, as much as I would like to 'bash' extreme conservatives, I
don't because that is prejudice. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to
their opinion. Also, the team with the burden of proof wouldn't be at
a disadvantage. Now the topic, "Does prejudice still matter in society
today or it doesn't?" seems very subjective depending on what scale
you elicit. I thought the large scale would be the most wise decision
for the obvious statements that have been made. Team 2 seemed to have
debated on the small scale - in relation to the individual as to a
society.
Thanks you've successfully brainwashed us into our roles like the Stanford prison experiment. Also, you should make us debate on a very obsolete topic like "Do you support Santorum?" Maybe we'll turn into asinine conservatives, too, since the opposing team wants to use "That's why we're having a debate today" as their defense. Ad nausem. Non sequitur. All in all, we're all entitled to our opinion and if that exists so will prejudice. A utopia is impossible unless it it were to become like 'The Giver.' The the existence of prejudice doesn't necessarily imply or connote that it still matters. Like the children dying in Africa, they're still existing, but it apparently doesn't matter to most people but all of a sudden Kony and the Invisible Children do. The overworked asians working for Apple. The poor treatment of animals in the food industry. It just seems that most people 'care' on a superficial level anyway.
Just imagine.... if I inputted my personal opinion, it'd be twice as
long. This is what happens when I have time.
No comments:
Post a Comment