Instigator / Pro
7
1449
rating
14
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#3143

Black people are not inferior to white people.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
12
Better sources
0
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
1
4

After 4 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

As pro, I think that Being black doesn't determine your intelligence or anything else EXCEPT what it does determine (not all the time) Is where you will most likely be born but I won't touch on this as it's not a debate on systemic racism. IF I call you a white supremacist it's not an ad hominin attack as the definition of white supremacy is thinking black people are inferior to white people. There are multiple definitions of inferior but the one im going to use is not as good as someone else con must probe that black people arent as good as white people--- https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/inferior_1

shit i completely forgot about this debate

-->
@drlebronski

Take longer if you want. I'm in no hurry and you have a week. It's up to you though

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

damn used my argument against me rn I'm doing some intense gaming I will provide my counter-argument tomorrow though it will be short

***

This debate has been reported. The debate topic, while potentially offensive, does not cross the line of constituting advocacy of terrorism, hate groups and/or violent extremism. Absent a desire from either party to delete said debate, it will remain. I urge users to remember that only CoC violations should be reported.

***

-->
@bmdrocks21

Yes, the problem is that they are trying to fundamentally change definitions. Racism, as they would like to define it, is no longer dependent upon an individual acting in a way that holds one race as superior. Rather, racism exists whenever racial disparities exist. And it is the system, rather than individuals, who is guilty as long as disparities exist.

And a guilty system must be deconstructed and replaced. They never want to tell you what their plan for replacement is though...

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

The term "white supremacist" is meaningless, really. The definition that I was familiar with was that it is the belief that Whites should dominate and rule over other races. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat similar to that.
"the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people."
So, not only must you believe that White people are superior, you must ALSO believe they SHOULD dominate society.

Similar to how nobody can agree on what "racism" means. Now you can't be "racist" to White people. Both terms that they are trying to change to fit a political narrative/now try to use to demonize conservative political opponents.

-->
@TheUnderdog

I think the definition that is intended would be closer to how Robin DiAngelo describes white supremacy:

"Race scholars use the term white supremacy to describe a socio-political economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white."

Put more simply, anything that promotes "white privilege" can be described as white supremacy. At least, according to some folks.

-->
@drlebronski

https://www.bing.com/search?q=white+supremest&cvid=82cbf92eb6974d54b959039d59e74a4c&aqs=edge..69i57j0l6.3291j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNAB1&PC=DCTS states the definition of a white supremist is:

"supporting the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people."

So it's possible for one to believe whites are smarter while not advocating for whites to dominate society. A person who believes this is not a white supremist.

-->
@drlebronski

Epstein was killed by our lizard government.

-->
@Bones

that's true ill clarify the definition

-->
@drlebronski

Look here's the issue. One of the definitions of inferior is "lower in rank, status, or quality" [1]. I can argue that black people "rank lower" in terms of wealth [2], which is true but not racist. You've going to want to make your resolution more bullet proof.

[1] https://www.lexico.com/definition/inferior
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm

Honestly, I was tempted under the "morally" heading... To be clear, I would never argue for such being an inherent state.

I suppose it is contradictory ill change to just inferior

-->
@drlebronski

The reason I'm asking for it to be removed is that, as you agreed, where someone is born plays a huge role in a person's moral influences. If that is eliminated from the discussion, there is no point in the discussion at all. But it's your debate so it's up to you. If you would like more clarity on my intention behind asking for it to be removed though, I am happy to provide that.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I think ill keep it as this has happened to me before where someone in the comments will say remove this section and then accept and argue with what used to be in the description not accusing you just being wary.

-->
@drlebronski

If you remove the following section from the description -- "EXCEPT what it does determine (not all the time) Is where you will most likely be born but I won't touch on this as it's not a debate on systemic racism" -- and increase the time for argument, I will accept the debate.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Indeed

-->
@drlebronski

"Systemic racism definition: Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues."

I assume you sincerely believe that systemic racism as you have previously defined does in fact exist throughout the entire society of the United States, correct?

dude u still mad? get it over with.

Now 'inferior' changed to 'morally inferior', making my disagreement seem more of an overreaction.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Thats a good point

Just watched Green book.

Or, as we put it here straightforwardly, still a nope.

-->
@drlebronski

Wouldn't you agree that where someone is born (including family and surrounding culture) strongly influences their moral character? It seems odd to try to exclude that factor in a debate about morals.

-->
@fauxlaw

Yeah It's definitely for the best if this dies unaccepted.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moral%20Inferiors

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moral%20Inferiors

thanks

-->
@drlebronski

"Black people are not morally inferior to white people". This way, it should be pretty kritik proof.

-->
@Bones

can you tell me how i should change the debates format so someone else doesnt

I could accept and could very easily nullify the resolution, but it is likely that voters will see my kritik as cheating.

This is a truism lol

How does Con avoid having nothing but kritiks? On the other hand, how does Pro avoid having nothing but kritiks, particularly Pro's exception, which is superlative kritik?
I look forward to this one dying unaccepted; best for all.

this got heated

Clarification: rationalmadman is not advocating for racism he made comments before when the debate name was different

-->
@RationalMadman
@drlebronski

Personally I'm not bothered by the topic.
'Lot of wiggle room for whoever accepts though, to win, 'I think.

Im not giving them a platform i would love to destroy whoever accepts.

I just want to debate a racist?

-->
@drlebronski

If you aren't advocating for racism, don't give racists a platform to do so.

i reworded it as it might sound that IM the one advocating for racism

indeed i did

-->
@drlebronski

You just changed this to 'not' and changed yourself to Pro.

-->
@drlebronski

How does one judge superiority or inferiority?

-->
@drlebronski

I've already one uped you in a troll debate, so I won't be taking this one, but I recommend you retitle the resolution to "Black people are not morally inferior to white people". The truth is, I am certain that there are at least some fields in which black people are inferior to white people.

wtf did i do?
im taking con meaning i dont agree with the statement

-->
@drlebronski

Fuck you and whoever takes Pro

-->
@RationalMadman
@Bones

bones, the link u sent me was just a debate on children being inferior.

rational madman
im just starting a debate about black people being inferior to white people my position is con unless there's a rule about talking about white supremacy

-->
@drlebronski

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2774-children-are-not-inferior

-->
@drlebronski

Obvious why

-->
@RationalMadman

why

Delete this debate