Debate Now Part I of the Debate: What should "we" be worried about?

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by usmbguest5318, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. usmbguest5318

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Jan 1, 2017
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I've given up asking questions. l merely float on a tsunami of acceptance of anything life throws at me... and marvel stupidly.
    -- Terry Gilliam
    Discussion Structure:
    This thread is part one of a two-part discussion/debate.
    • In Part I -- affirmative arguments -- which is this thread, members are bid to identify what "we" should be worried about.
    • In part-two -- negative (counter) arguments -- which is a separate thread, members are bid to offer a counterargument/rebuttal to one member's post that is found in this thread. Pick any one post that appeals to you and present your counterargument to it. (Once this thread is created, I have to wait about 30 seconds to create the "Part II" thread; however, that shouldn't be a problem, because it'll take you that long to finish reading this post, to say nothing of writing your affirmative post.)
    What do I mean by the above? I mean that if, for example, a member asserted in Part I, "The thing we should be worried about in the U.S. is toe cheese," then if you want to offer a rebuttal to that post, your thesis statement must be the negative of the other member's thesis assertion, that is, it must be, "We should not in the U.S. be worried about toe cheese." Here are a couple more examples:
    • Part I -- Affirmative: Humanity should be worried that big experiments won't happen.
      Part II -- Negative: Humanity should not be worried that big experiments won't happen.
    • Part I -- Affirmative: American citizens should be worried about the Is-Ought Fallacy of science and morality.
      Part II -- Negative: American citizens should not be worried about the Is-Ought Fallacy of science and morality.

    Things to notice:
    • The title question does not ask what "we" should be most worried about. Thus you need only identify a thing that "we" should be worried about. If you want to qualify your affirmative thesis statement with a superlative like "the most," that's on you, but be aware that doing so runs the risk of making it far easier to rebut your affirmative thesis statement. Words matter; choose yours carefully.
    • In Part I, because is the the place for affirmative posts, you don't get to attack, refute, rebut or counter-argue anyone's post. You may chose any one post you want from Part I and refute it in Part II.
    • Definition of "we" for the purpose of Parts I and II -- You may construe "we" to mean either of the following, but only one of them (not both) and nothing other than the following:
      • Option 1 --> "We" means all of humanity.
      • Option 2 --> "We" means the citizenry of the U.S.
        • If you happen not to be a U.S. citizen and you prefer to, you may specify that "we" means the citizenry of own country instead of the the citizenry of the U.S.

    Thread Discussion Topic and Rules:
    This thread doesn't have a specific topic; however, the title's normative inquiry is what members must address in accordance each with the following guidelines (in other words, if you don't want to follow every guideline, don't post in the thread):
    1. Identify one thing, it can be anything -- a place, a person, a thing, an idea, a concept, a trend, etc. -- that you genuinely believe is what we, humanity as a whole, or we, the citizenry of U.S. as a whole, should be worried about.
      • Be sure to make clear which definition of "we" (see above) you intend for your remarks.
      • There are no restrictions on what you may identify as the thing about which to be worried, but keep in mind that this is not a humor thread.
      • The first sentence of your prose must begin as follows: "We should be worried about...."
        • Note that I said "your prose." A "flavor" quote, such as the one that begins this post, is not "your prose."
    2. Using neutral language, explain why you think the one thing you identified is what "we" should be worried about.
      • Each participant in Parts I and II will get two posts as follows:
        • You get to put forth your thoughts/argument in Part I. There are no rebuttals in Part I.
        • Your rebutter will get to rebut your Part I post in Part II.
        • You get to respond to that rebuttal in Part II.
        • Your rebutter will get to respond to your response.
      • Your explanatory prose can be as long or as short as you feel it needs to be, but make that decision carefully because...
    3. You get only one post in this thread and that post is your affirmative post.
      • "Clarification Exception" --> If you need to post to ask for a clarification of the rules, you can do that. That is the only exception to the rules. Do not abuse that exception by asking for clarification and posting any other kind of comment that is not strictly a rule clarification question.

        I'm going to trust that you folks can approach the thread with integrity; however, if I think you are abusing the "clarification exception," I will ask to have your post deleted.
      • "Forgetfulness exception" --> If you forgot to say something in your post, you can either
        1. edit your post, provided nobody's posted a rebuttal to it in Part II.
        2. Quote yourself, not somebody else, and provide an update.
        3. Deal with it in your response to a rebuttal to your post in Part II.
      • I get to post more than once in this thread, but only for the purpose of providing rule clarifications, and because my first post is this one which contains only the rules. (I have yet to figure out what one thing I want to identify as a thing we should be worried about.)
    Part I FAQ:
    • Can I simply state what I think we should worry about without explaining why?
      • No. If that's all you're willing to do, don't post.
    • Can I, in Part I, quote or refer to another member's post?
      • No. That's what Part II is for.
    • What if nobody rebuts my Part I post?
      • Well, they just don't. and you don't get to post in Part II.
    • If I don't post in Part I, can I still rebut another member's post in Part II?
      • No. If you haven't put your own ideas "out there" to be challenged, you don't get to challenge someone else's.
    • What if I think there are multiple things we should worry about?
      • Pick one, discuss it in this thread, and discuss the rest of them in some thread other than this one or Part II.

    Sample Part I Post (DO NOT RESPOND TO THE SAMPLE -- Among other things, I'm not going to defend it.):
    Below is a sample response to the title question. It is not my response and it is not one that you may rebut in Part II. It is provided only so members who may be confused can get a sense of what they are bid to do in Part I.

    We Should be Worried about Politics.
    Most of the smart people I know want nothing to do with politics. We avoid it like the plague. Is this because we feel that politics isn't where anything significant happens? Or because we're too taken up with what we're doing, be it Quantum Physics or Statistical Genomics or Generative Music? Or because we're too polite to get into arguments with people? Or because we just think that things will work out fine if we let them be -- that The Invisible Hand or The Technosphere will mysteriously sort them out?

    Whatever the reasons for our quiescence, politics is still being done -- just not by us. It's politics that gave us Iraq and Afghanistan and a few hundred thousand casualties. It's politics that's bleeding the poorer nations for the debts of their former dictators. It's politics that allows special interests to run the country. It's politics that helped the banks wreck the economy. It's politics that prohibits gay marriage and stem cell research but nurtures Gaza and Guantanamo.

    But we don't do politics. We expect other people to do it for us, and grumble when they get it wrong. We feel that our responsibility stops at the ballot box, if we even get that far. After that we're as laissez-faire as we can get away with.

    What we should worry about is that while we're laissez-ing, someone else is faire-ing.
    -- Brian Eno​

  2. Tijn Von Ingersleben

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Feb 5, 2018
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    We should be worried about antibiotic resistant bacteria.
  3. midcan5

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Jun 4, 2007
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Philly, PA
    "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." Xunzi

    Interesting thread question, deep, you should blog it too. I don't spend much time on here today as everyday is groundhog day it. Didn't even know there was this topic area. But it is important thoughtful people counter the nonsense of agitprop and dark money propaganda and offer an alternative to puzzle over. Free speech and thought are so important but they need a foundation.

    My topic: Education, good public education etc, well balanced and representative education not just home schooling, Koch brother education, or religious or ideological education. Of course there will be some educators who have an axe to grind, but if broad enough the student learns and decides. An education that focuses on history and philosophy, for one shows you how we got here and the others tries to explain the reasons.

    I am currently reading 'White Rage' and it is covers how education for blacks and even poor whites was used as a tool to keep control. An excellent read on America after the Civil war and a book like Howard Zinn's history [ | To inspire people to read, learn, and make history.] that will provoke controversy because it is way too honest. A third of Rage is footnotes for the skeptic reader.

    Illiteracy in America is a staggering figure, imagine if like the Southern literacy test for blacks all Americans were tested before they could vote? Imagine

    'Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s'
    Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

    "In 2013, the Nation’s Report Card showed that only 38% of high school seniors were proficient in reading. With scores like that, the U.S. isn’t likely to earn the “most literate country” award any time soon." Americans Don’t Read… and That’s Affecting Our Elections

    "And what is the origin of the statistic that claims 32 million adults in the U.S. are functionally illiterate? It’s based on the National Assessment of Adult Literacy—conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2003—in which a demographically representative population of 19,000 adults were interviewed. According to the findings of the survey, 14% (1 in 7) of adults fell into the category of “Below Basic” in “Prose Literacy,” meaning that they possess “no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills.” Those who fall into this category are deemed “functionally illiterate.”" 32 Million U.S. Adults are "Functionally Illiterate"... What Does That Even Mean?

    'What White Privilege Lessons Did to My High School'
    Student: What White Privilege Lessons Did to My High School

    "In a survey that was conducted from Aug. 23 to Sept. 2, 2016 — a month after Trump accepted his party’s nomination — Republicans’ positive assessment of colleges and universities fell to 43 percent, while negative assessments rose to 45 percent. By June of this year, 58 percent of Republicans had a negative view of higher education and 36 percent a positive view." Opinion | The Closing of the Republican Mind

    "BS is hypercommercialized college athletics and administrations sucking the teats of big money, often in the process exploiting and discarding rather than educating student athletes, and recurrently corrupting recruitment programs, tutoring services, and grading systems." Higher Education Is Drowning in BS

    "Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California’s general revenue fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. Today nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." Friedman/Mandelbaum in 'That Used To Be Us'

    "The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change." Carl Rogers

    "Democracies have great rational and imaginative powers. They also are prone to some serious flaws in reasoning, to parochialism, haste, sloppiness, selfishness, narrowness of the spirit. Education based mainly on profitability in the global market magnifies these deficiencies, producing a greedy obtuseness and a technically trained docility that threaten the very life of democracy itself, and that certainly impede the creation of a decent world culture." Martha Nussbaum

    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ding

    ding Confront reality

    Oct 25, 2016
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    What should "we" be worried about?

    Nothing. Everything takes care of itself.


    If there is something you can do about it? Why worry?

    If there is nothing you can do about it? Why worry?
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page