Instigator / Pro
28
1517
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#4021
Skin color should be a spectrum, and not an identity
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
1
After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
Tnath
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
13
1499
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
We talk about how we ended slavery, and how we are a progressive country so why do we differentiate people based on skin color, if someone is a scientist or a sports player, or a news anchor they should be valued for who they are, without the idea that someone might be viewing them differently based on the color of their skin. Differentiating someone based on this not only hurts someone's self esteem but creates a bias for other people about them.
Round 1
Pro
#1
In the USA alone, over 10.9% of the population is biracial based on the latest census. This means that out of every person that is met, 1 in 5 does not identify with a particular race. This along with the current acceptance rates of Americans being at around 94% of the population. This is not to say that family history is important, but being a part of a spectrum does not negate this fact. If we think back to Martan Luther King Jr, a great leader of history in his famous speech "I have a dream" he spoke the line "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." When we separate people based on race, we are discrediting this idea. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, one of the leading astrophysicist spoke about the fact about when he has a news interview regarding astrological event, and the topic had nothing to do with him being black, this was an out of body experience for him. When we look at the Black Lives Matter movement, this is something that excludes people, maybe not all people but there from a multi-racial house where BLM feels that they are not, and were not being segregated. This is not true, within the white and the black community, these people have a history that has both. Their great-grandfather might have been a slave, there great grandmother might have been a scientist we will never know. We shouldn't be setting expectations based on a skin color. Rather we should be judging people based on who they are, and what they bring to society. Classrooms should not be teaching what black scientist did, but rather show within the curriculum people of all color and making it normal that anyone can be anything they want, no one should feel they are oppressing or expected to be someone based on the color of their skin. Whether it be dark, light or anywhere in-between people are individuals and any color difference should not be grouped together.
In short, I do not believe that we should be discarding what is done in the past, but we should accept that it was the past and these are different times. There are many great people out there, reason white, multiracial, Asian, Black; but to separate them out based on skin color degrades the accomplishments we have done and the place we currently are.
Con
#2
I somewhat agree that race should not be an important thing in the future. However, at present it would be useless to insist that we should not see colors. Because as a state, as a society, we do see colors. Pretending that race as an identity is not important is good for not having to solve the problems caused by systematic racism.
What systematic racism, you might ask.
In the US, blacks receive longer sentences for the same crime with the same criminal history. All minority groups except Asians earn less for the same job with the same education. This is obviously also related to education, but we see that minorities go to worse schools, due to the lack of funding in their neighborhoods, and even if they get to the level of higher education, they still have a lower chance of being accepted into a university, even if they have the same results , than their white counterparts. There is discrimination even in the mortgage market.
As individuals, we say in vain that we personally do not see races, but this does not stop a capitalist from paying less for our work, a university from not accepting us, a bank from not giving us a loan.
As for history education, or specifically the emphasis on minority history (or God forbid critical race theory), that's a different matter.
What happened to black people in the USA is unique (at least in U.S. history, compared to other minority groups ) in the sense that they were stripped of their identity when they were enslaved. In order to achieve liberation, it is clear that this identity must be regained for them. However, this is basically a difficult thing, since being black in the USA means that one can have many potential places of origin. The sure point of the identity of blacks in the USA is the experiences gained during their lifetime. Which are the ones I listed. Discrimination. So I would argue that black pride and a strong sense of identity must exist in order for these systemic problems to be resolved. And it's another thing that race itself shouldn't be particularly important in an ideal situation, because we're not in that ideal situation.
Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#3
You do bring some good points there, and they do need to be addressed. You are however missing the point I am trying to make. I am not looking to live in a colorblind society, but rather one that embraces and accepts the wide range of skin color. This would be similar to how we see hair, we do not define a person by their hair color but rather accept it as a reality.
In your argument you bring a few good points, and I would like to address them individually. The first issue with regards to sentencing is one that needs to be addressed. The study you bought is not even close to showing the bigger issue at play with a correlation of the black population in jail which is at a ratio of 4.8:1. I don't think this number is a good thing and the prison system has many more issues that need to be considered as well, but when bringing up issues of the prison system it should not be viewed as an issue of race but rather seen with regards to seeing skin color as a spectrum. This does not discredit the details, in fact I believe that this would further bring out the issue, as facts like the ones that while black youth have a ratio of 4.4:1 of going to prisons and American Indians have a ratio of 3.3:1 which also shows a disparity. These points I believe show that the justice system is not necessarily racist, but rather judges people based on their skin color. An issue that I believe sorely needs to be addressed.
With regards to the point you bring regarding education, I don't believe that money is necessarily the answer. In regards to the amount spent on spending the numbers are pretty much even with the exception of private schools. These schools do get their money from private sources, but I don't believe that there is much that can be done regarding this. The biggest issue within schools is rather a lack of foundation in understanding the importance of education. The source you bring with regards to discrimination amongst colleges is in reference to Harvard, an Ivy League school whose students are predominantly from wealthier families who might be using their leverage to get their family into the college. When taking into account the numbers within the general higher educational systems this is not the predominant reason why schools reject students who are black, rather the reason can be attributed to a lower SAT score, a number which is used to evaluate whether to accept a student into college. Based on the data gathered by the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics) this same information can be seen with the white population having a median score of 1112, while the Black population has a score of 934. This can also be seen with the American Indians with a median score of 927, the Asian population with a median 1239 and the Hispanic population with a score of 967. This fact further brings out the point that we should be evaluating based on a spectrum of skin color rather than a racial identity, as students without this separation separating them such as those of mixed race have a median SAT score of 1116 which is on par with the white population.
The third point you bring is in regards to pay and that people of the black community earn less for the same job. While you didn't cite a source, I do believe you are referring to the study done by SHRM (The Society for Human Research Management) which states that for the same job, people who are black earn $0.98 on the dollar when compared to the white population. This is something I think could be largely contributed to a lack of foundation with regards to education, as the Asian population earning $1.02 on the dollar which seems to correlate with the median SAT score pretty well. When considering the fact that the average Black American earns $0.87 on the dollar it is important to consider that within the college system the ratio of black to white who earn bachelor degrees is .73:1, a metric that plays a large factor in higher earnings.
In regards to the other points you make, I agree with you that banks are less likely to give loans, but this metric is not based on race, but rather is correlated to the amount of risk a bank is willing to take, and an area with lower income has a higher chance of the money not being paid back. With regards to loans, based on the study by the Federal Reserve Board in 2022 the number of declined home loans was in the most part not in fact based on race, but rather an issue with regards to a lower credit score, a metric used to evaluate the risk level a bank is willing to take with regards to a lender.
Taking this all into account, most of the issues that are being brought up are not an issue of race,but rather an issue of a poor foundation with regards to communities, specifically those which are predominantly Black. I do know that the source of these issues could be brought to the idea that there was "Red Zones" which created these communities and that the idea of red zones was a racist one, but the current issues that are now being brought could be found to be the same with regards to defining skin color as a spectrum rather than a race.
Sources:
Round 3
Pro
#5
Being as you forfeited this round, I can only assume you don't have a good argument against my points. I do realize that there are some cases that are definitely racist, but they are not to the same extent you are making it out to be. Another thing that should be recognized, is that putting skin color in a spectrum with regards to skin color would not avoid this area, in fact it will create a stigma around having a racist option. For this argument, I would like to list a few pros to making the change and clarify what it means to have skin color as a spectrum.
When I was a young kid, on the bus I asked the question "Why is he Black." It was a perfectly innocent question but I felt ashamed of it for years after when I was told about it. In truth, it is a question that should be answered without any shame, just like the question "why is the sky blue." Based on science, we know that skin color is genetic based on where someone's ancestors lived and the color moves in a gradient depending on how close those people lived from the equator. Being able to look at skin color as a spectrum brings understanding to people, especially children, that skin color is not something to be ashamed to ask about, but rather a natural thing that can be explained by natural means.
In terms of skin color, currently there are two different methods that I'm aware of that describe the spectrum. Von Luschan's chromatic scale (VLS) is one which divides skin color into 36 classifications, but was largely abandoned in favor of the Fitzpatrick scale developed in 1975 which divides skin color into 6 different classifications. These classifications were divided to describe the different ways skin reacts to UV light. Being as skin color plays an important role in the protection against skin cancer, people with darker the pigment is the less there is a risk of developing it. This is something that should be important to consider, as currently 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer over their lifetime. This is along with over 15,000 deaths and over three billions in medical costs a year. Being as this is the case, an added benefit of teaching about skin color will decrease the medicinal costs placed on the taxpayer as people will be better informed how to care for their body. This is along with decreasing a stigma around having different skin color, as the idea can be understood in a more scientific way
To conclude, while we might still have a racial issues that need to be addressed, classify people based on the spectrum of skin color will make us more aware color-aware of the fact that we are different, but that's not a bad thing as even though we are different the differences are not as big as we make them out to be. By doing this we can decrease the stigma around the idea and increase awareness when people might differentiate based on what in reality is just a biological change to adapt to our past environments.
Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scale
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/RadiationProtection/FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709783/#!po=28.6458
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:
From what I understood, the contender wants us to see color because we're already seeing color. Although con'
s arguments were long and detailed, they don't make any logical sense.
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:
Ff of sorts
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:
Forfeiture
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:
Both teams forfeited, however, Pro continued the debate longer than the neg. Forfeiting earlier in the round is enough of a difference for me to vote Pro.
Sure, plainly to increment my comment quantity, an affirmative tone is intended.
I am referring to the 34 skin colors within Von Luschan's chromatic scale. Fitzpatrick only classifies skin color based on 6 which are a derivative spectrum of those. This scale is the one more commonly used, and I believe would be more accepted by the educational system as it would be easier to understand.
Really?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/fitzpatrick-classification-scale-1069226
I heard only 2 dimensions were used, not six.
That is a valid question, the most commonly accepted option is the Fitzpatrick scale developed in 1975 which classifies skin color into 6 different color spectrums.
Great, my skin color is #1f1e33. Don't use general color terms like "white" or "red", use your phone and check the hex code instead!
(I made up that hex code, idk what it is)