Week 2 - IC vs. Gelgarin

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. It closes Sunday at 6 PM CST:

Gelgarin will be affirming the topic.



Resolved: When in conflict, the preservation of minority cultural values ought to be valued above the preservation of a unified national culture.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

You know, I may potentially be debating Gelgarin twice this week depending on how the Debators League for wrestling voting goes.

FTS, who debates first? The person affirming?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yes, the person affirming should always go first.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

FTS, I think Gelgarin may be having log in issues. May I post first to get things going?

 

[FromTheSouth]

For sure. I guess I should add an addendum to the rules to say that Sunday belongs to the affirmative, and Monday at 6 PM CST the negative can start if need be.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I will be arguing that the preservation of a unified national culture is paramount to the preservation of minority cultural values.

I think that the best way to effectively illustrate this point is to take the United States of America as an example. While developed nations such as Canada and the UK do have ethnic diversity, in no other country is it truly as prevalent and widespread as the USA. There is a reason the US has been called "A nation of immigrants," "a melting pot of culture," and a "salad bowl of the world." I prefer salad bowl, because a melting pot suggests homogenization of the culture, where as a salad bowl suggests a mixing of culture but with each component maintaining its relative heterogeneity. You can still tell the lettuce apart from the tomato.

The term "minority" comes in numerous different forums in the United States. Racially, minorities include Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian or Pacific Islander, Indian, Native American, etc. Other minorities in culture include the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender sub-cultures.

Each of these cultures has their own set of defining cultural characteristics - food, music, dress, etc. But make no mistake about it, at the end of the day, they are Americans. If they are citizens of the USA, if they pay taxes to the USA, if they vote in the USA, if they own property in the USA, if they enjoy the liberties and freedoms the USA has to offer, then the culture of the USA becomes the overriding culture when the two are in conflict.

I underlined "when the two are in conflict" for two reasons. 1) the debate asked for this, and 2) conflict and stress change how people act and what the requirements are. Here, then are my reasons for the national culture to override the minority culture in conflict:

Example #1 - The laws of morality in the US should over ride minority cultural rules.

Now I am not referring to less civilized cultures such as those that practice genital mutilation on women to prevent them from being adulterous. That's a given, and a rather rare case. More so, a perfect example is Mormons and the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints with the practice of polygamy. Laws in the US are based off of a monogamous society for preservation of the family unit. In conflict, the over riding rules requiring a man to have just one wife, and vice versa, should supercede the cultural values that suggest polygamy is okay. Regardless of how you feel about the topic of polygamy, the monogamous cultural values of the country / state in which you habitate should over ride the cultural values of the Mormon church.

Those of you who have ever opened up a National Geographic Magazine may have seen how common it is for the females of many African nations to wear no top to cover their breasts. In that minority culture, it is not illegal to conceal the breasts. The idea that the same individuals should be allowed to emigrate to the US and expect the same levels of tolerance is not realistic. In this conflict, the culture of the United States is for female breasts to be covered in public, and should override the minority culture presented.

Example #2 - The host culture should always supercede the visiting culture.

If a native Korean who speaks only a Korean language comes to the US and expects everyone he encounters to speak to him in HIS native tounge, he's both naive and in for a surprise. Americans are often criticized by French-Canadians for venturing into Quebec and expecting native French speakers to speak and understand English. It's a conflict that always exists, and the fact is, the host should always take precedence. If you make the choice to visit a foreign country, the burden is on you to be prepared either with a bi-lingual guide or some understanding of the language. Otherwise, you should either be prepared for a challenge or just not go.

Reason #3 - Preservation of a National Culture promotes cultural morality and economic strength.

When there is one sovereign culture with which the masses can identify, it allows the government, business, and citizens to address it as such, which creates a stronger sense of pride and direction. Without 500 pockets of cultural groups all doing exactly what they please and having their own individual laws and practices, it's far easier for messages to be communicated and trends to be realized. Educational data from standardized scooling systems allow the government and boards of education to recognize deficiencies and act accordingly.

Furthermore, in times of turmoil, it's easier for a nation that is culturally together to address the challenges and move forward. The United States forged ahead following 9/11, and it did so because of the level of pride and resolve people had resulting from being a part of one unified culture, not because they saw what was happening to the host country and "felt bad." That is a positive result of national sovereignty.

I will gladly post further on this topic, but I await the response of my opponent.

 

[Gelgarin]

Sorry I’m late. I’d blame it on my chronic log in problems, but I was probably held off by “me not wanting to post” for an equally long length of time, so let’s skip over the shaky justifications and hasten down to business. Hopefully Irish and I can get one more round of posts in prior to the deadline.

When in conflict, the preservation of minority cultural values ought to be valued above the preservation of a unified national culture.​

Minority cultural values? Yep, will definitely have me some of those. Suppressing the cultural identity of an individual in order to artificially shape social values of a nation is impractical, immoral, illegal and dangerous to society as a whole. I intend to illustrate all of the aforementioned arguments in the proceeding piece.

The Moral Imperative​

This argument is extremely simple. Outside of the realms of absolute necessity, demanding that a person change the way that he or she thinks and feels is a hugely immoral exercise. National identity is something that we hear a great deal about in the UK, and whilst the arguments generally start out with a refusal to adopt the single European currency (don’t ask) they inevitably swing round to nationalising the Christian faith and getting rid of all the Arabs.

That is what a unified national culture means, it mean that minority groups are forced to change their identity to match that of the majority, lest they find themselves suppressed by the state and its inhabitants. The majority of minority groups in today’s society are set aside by race, religion or sexual preference; otherwise known as the three groups who desperately do not need to be further persecuted by the state.

Mr Canadian over here brings up the delightful example of the Mormons and polygamy. I’ll counter it with the far more culturally relevant example of gays in America. Homosexuals are openly persecuted in the United States in the name of protecting cultural values. Gay couples are prevented from marrying, adopting, and serving in certain lines of employment unless they completely forfeit their personal identity.
It’s really not much of a stretch to compare this oppression to that of African-Americans in the past, and the tremendously sad part of the whole situation is that nobody benefits. There is no advantage to suppressing the culture of the gay community other than making people like this feel happy.

Tell me Irish, is it really worth it?

Rights of the Individual: to be an Individual​

Irish would like to debate this within the context of the US. I’d imagine that seven seasons of The West Wing mean that I’ve got a better handle on US politics than he has on the UK, and I guess that since I'm such a tremendous sportsman I can get down with that.
That being said, if TV has taught me anything it is that a major part of US politics consists of angrily quoting the constitution at people until they give in.

Therefore, allow me to dust off my small paper American flag and get bellowing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it sounds very much to me like a key component of that amendment rendered the suppression of religion illegal in the United States. So… err… there I guess. Religion is probably the most relevant minority cultural value in today's society, and now Irish is not only arguing against moral decency, but he’s also going against something that someone wrote down a long time ago.

America is said to have been founded based on the idea of a place free from persecution, and to bring that persecution back in the name of preserving some ethereal concept of national identity would be the biggest step back in the nation’s history.

Pluralism Brings Peace​

I think the title is pretty snazzy, but to rephrase it with an air of pragmatism, do we really have much to gain from pissing off the Arabs again? There is another large cross section of society who already feel like the Western World is in conflict with them, and I’m not sure who benefits from us going out and proving the words of every radical Islamist to be correct.

Like with most cases of suppression of minority cultural values, we could go out emulate the French (you really want to do that Irish?) by banning Muslims from donning their traditional clothes or practicing their faith in public, but I don’t see who gains. All that will be accomplished is to magnify racial tension, and if global history tells us anything it is that racial tension inevitably manifests itself in violence.

Look at Catholics and Protestants in the UK and Ireland. There’s a long history there of one group trying to impose its values over the other, and a long history of violence because of it. This is particularly interesting given that they have the same fucking values.
Look and the divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East. Every time one group has tried to impose its values over society it has manifested itself in violence. One group imposing its own cultural values over the whole of society is only ever going to come about by wading through a river of blood… and I don’t want that.

The antidote? Social pluralism.

A wise man once said something about a melting pot. A less wise man managed to translate that into a six hour soliloquy comparing society to salad, but I digress.

The only way for a society, and for that matter a world, made up of so many cultures and creeds to keep from tearing itself apart is for people to recognise the value in accepting more than one idea. Countries like America and the UK work precisely because we have streets with Synagogue next to Church next to Mosque. It’s because we accept the rights of people to live and feel and to think and to love as they choose, and not according to some predefined list of ideals laid down by the state.

Racism only stared to die in the Western World when the rights and the culture of ethnic minorities were recognised to be equal to those of the “indigenous population”. The same pattern is true for homosexuals in Europe, in that it wasn’t until we recognised the values of that culture as equal to our own that Homophobia began to become demonised.

Accepting the values of others is the first step towards understanding them. The more we understand one another the more peaceful and productive society will become, and over time the values of a peaceful and productive society will blend together.

THAT is how you get a national identity.
You do NOT get it by composing some dangerous list of values held by the largest majority group and telling everyone else that they can go along with it or get out.

Good thing Irish agrees with me really.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Looks like we have ourselves a debate.

In his first point, my opponent brings up the situation of gays in America and perceived levels of persecution. He uses this example when trying to argue that it's morally wrong to demand an individual change the way he or she thinks and acts. Unfortunately, that's not at all what I was talking about, nor what the debate is about.

No where in America do laws specifically state that homosexuality is illegal. The crusade for gay marriage rights continues, yes, but actual homosexuality is a moral and religious debate more than a legal one. Two grown, gay men can hold hands on the street the same way a heterosexual couple can. They may receive some dirty looks or comments from the less educated passer-by, but the actual act of homo-affectionality is not illegal.

(*writers note - I utilize the term "homoaffectionality" because the term "homosexuality" often denotes that two men or two women cannot share "love," but rather only fulfill degenerate sexual desires. The term "homoaffectionality" is a relatively new sociological term which refers to a same-gender couple who share acts of affection based on mutual love and admiration, which is often a far more accurate account than "homosexuality" leads us to.)

In a bit of a futile attempt to drive his point about the gays home, he posts a picture of a picket from the ultra-conservative and largely condemmed Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka, Kansas. This small group of delusional, anti-gay crusaders are so far fetched and ultra-conservative, they've actually been condemmed by many other conservative and orthodox Baptist churches in the USA.

Here's the other point about the gays and homoaffectionals that I'd like to make - the great thing about the National culture is the fact that the national culture can be CHANGED. This is what we are seeing with some liberal states legalizing gay marriage rights. The homosexuals maintain their individual identities. When in conflict, the national culture takes precedence. In the mean time, the National Culture allows for changes in laws, policies, and views.

Look at abortion. Once illegal, abortion is actually a legal act in America because of Roe vs Wade. A national culture expects its subcultures to acclimate to its cultural norms, but that same national culture can change and evolve over time. My opponent makes it sound as though the national culture demands absolutely conformity in every possible way, and that's quite frankly just not true at all.

That being said, if TV has taught me anything it is that a major part of US politics consists of angrily quoting the constitution at people until they give in.

I have to say, this is a brilliant line. I smiled when I read it because it's based on truth.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it sounds very much to me like a key component of that amendment rendered the suppression of religion illegal in the United States. So… err… there I guess. Religion is probably the most relevant minority cultural value in today's society, and now Irish is not only arguing against moral decency, but he’s also going against something that someone wrote down a long time ago.

This would make sense, if not for one glaring error on your part. The United States does not have an established, national, cultural religion. In fact, the overriding culture of the United States is the promotion and preservation of religious freedom, whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

But if we return to my Mormons and polygamy example, the Mormon religion allows and advocates polygamous marriages for males, whereas the US law restricts that. Therefore, the Mormon citizens in the US cannot have multiple partners. That law doesn't say "you are not permitted to be a Mormon, to read Mormon text, to worship via Mormon rights." It merely states that the advocation of polygamy is in conflict with the national culture and laws, and as a result, the national culture overrides.

Like with most cases of suppression of minority cultural values, we could go out emulate the French (you really want to do that Irish?) by banning Muslims from donning their traditional clothes or practicing their faith in public, but I don’t see who gains.

If I want to emulate the French, I'll just catch a soccer ball during a huge qualifying match and proceed to innocently pass the ball to a teammate to head in to the goal. But nah, I'd rather win fair.

A wise man once said something about a melting pot. A less wise man managed to translate that into a six hour soliloquy comparing society to salad, but I digress.

My methaphor makes vastly more cultural sense than the Melting Pot argument. The mere fact that you call the originator of the melting pot theory "wise" is an advocation for homogenized society, the very thing you currently claim to be debating against.

So, chea!

The only way for a society, and for that matter a world, made up of so many cultures and creeds to keep from tearing itself apart is for people to recognise the value in accepting more than one idea. Countries like America and the UK work precisely because we have streets with Synagogue next to Church next to Mosque. It’s because we accept the rights of people to live and feel and to think and to love as they choose, and not according to some predefined list of ideals laid down by the state.

Sadly, my opponent is wasting a great set of cultural statements in a thread where he quite obviously failed to read the original debate question. And since he's not debating the question at hand, he's technically off-topic, and thus a verbose spammer.

But now I digress..

Resolved: When in conflict, the preservation of minority cultural values ought to be valued above the preservation of a unified national culture.

My assertion is that When in conflict the unified national culture of the host should over-ride that of the preservation of the minority culture. The culture of the US and the UK is to allow for religious freedom, so a synagouge next to a church is not a "conflict" of culture. Neither is homoaffectionality or homosexuality. Polygamy is a conflict. Public nudity is a conflict (except for a few beaches, though nobody recommends going to them anyway).

You can tout self-righteous pro-diversity rhetoric all you want, Gelgarin, but the fact remains that we are only debating conflict situations, and in said conflicts, the national culture must take precedence for the reasons I outlined in my opening post.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think IC did a good job of noting that the debate was about situations of conflict. There are no attempts to ban homosexuality, Mormonism, etc. Laws, however do prevent certain aspects of those cultures from being legal in order to maintain the social order.

Gelgarin did a great job of showing how a national identity was determined through the aspects of the cultures within.

I think that IC wins here narrowly by showing that the laws of the land are defined by the culture, and that the social order is threatened by allowing for more extreme practices. Basically, IC framed the debate in a way that Gelgarin was going to have to prove the virture of human sacrifice. One more post would have done Gelgarin a world of help.

IC 50
Gelgarin 49.

 

[gd]

Hmmm, extremely tough one here for me, but IC's point about culture being able to change really pushed him over the top here. Good work by both men though.

IC 49
Gelg 48

 

[Mr. TM]

Well let us just say that you two did great here, both of you are determining factors in creating strong debaters leagues, I saw it in the DL and now here in the CLDL. Good show you two.

IC, I think you really nailed it on the head in your second debate, and I can see you knew what you were talking about right after the shortened introduction (shortened in comparison to what you two can do, yet it was quite long compared to other debaters). I give you 45 points, which is good from me. Gelgarin, you had a bit of an advantage coming in, and you took it to a new level. I think you could have responded better in the later post, and unfortunately you didn't meet IC there. I give you 42.