Instigator / Pro
3
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#3148

Are White People Natural-Born Racists, or Are They Taught To Be Racist?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

drlebronski
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1449
rating
14
debates
35.71%
won
Description

Let's get straight to the point. Are white people natural-born racists or are they taught to be racist? After years of documented evidence, the facts prove that white people worldwide are natural-born racists. From school to work to sports to entertainment, systemic racism is prevalent and is practiced on a daily basis. There doesn't seem to be much proof to what made this people so morally corrupt. Whites as a race is the most criminal-minded ethnic group on the planet and there history proves it. Of course, everyone likes power are would love to have some type of power, but these people have committed the most heinous crimes to get power. Out of all the "races" on the planet, whites tend to have this weird obsession with Black people. Where does this extreme hate come from?

Whites use their system of racism to gain/maintain power via media, business, law enforcement etc., but will never admit it. They have created false history which is taught in schools and have changed the images of the people in the Bible for indoctrination and propaganda purposes. Whites have built the majority of their "empires" from unearned benefits whether it's in America or Europe, and the facts prove it. I fully believe that these folk can't live peacefully. Total separation is the solution if it's possible now days.

My stance is that whites are genetically racist, which is 100% proven, but good luck trying to prove me wrong.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro blandly advocates in favor of ideals from Hitler, by claiming that races are on a hierarchy of quality and some are just born evil (hence the final solution).

Con immediately hamstrings this by pointing out that if it's a genetic trait present in all white people, as it does not exist in most white people, it therefore does not exist. He then builds a counter case that racism is learned, citing studies showing that if raised in mixed company, no preference for one group over another develops in white people.
Rather than actually defend that there is a genetic angle, pro basically pulls a Luke Skywalker for the rest of the debate asserting against all reason and evidence that it's not true and impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw2sex1mJNI

Conduct because pro boldly and blatantly lies about con's sources, claiming that the website research gate does not exist; when the link worked fine.

Sources of course for the overwhelming number and quality of sources (even with one link initially having been broken), which were used to show verifiable facts which had a massive impact on arguments.

Legibility:
Pro came ahead in this slightly for better formatting. However, without actual deterrents from con, the point remains tied.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I'll be doing things in reverse order today.
First, Conduct:
Pro was actually much more civil than I have seen him behave in the past. There were no outright insults or ad hominem attacks. Nothing egregious enough on either side to merit the point.
Spelling and Grammar: While there were multiple grammatical and formatting errors on both sides, they didn't detract from the arguments' coherency too much. Tied again.
Sources: While Pro references the Bible, they don't cite it, and as a fictional account at worst and anecdotal at best, it doesn't provide a great argument for inherent, congenital racism, especially since Pro argues that the specific examples that Con uses don't count for anything in terms of a general argument. Con on the other hand cites several widely read scientific journals in the fields of psychology and human behavior. Points to Con
Arguments: My main criticism of Pro's arguments, validity aside, is how often they will tangentially bring up something like slavery or "the Jewish people, which may be the most ridiculous form of cultural appropriation in history," without elaborating or explaining how they support the natural-born racism argument. I think if Pro was able to back up claims and stay on topic he would have a strong argument but as it stands it won't hold water. Points to Con.