Instigator / Pro
8
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Topic
#4101
White privilege is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
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
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Definitions:
White Privilege: inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice.
Problem: a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.
Both definitions come from Oxford Dictionary.
I (Pro) will be arguing that white privilege, is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
You (Con) will be arguing that white privilege is a problem that we have in the USA today.
Rules:
One forfeit is equivalent to a loss. This is not the official DART standards, but this is a personalized debate, so you must agree to this in order to debate.
If my opponent wishes for one forfeit without losing, then they must PM me to talk about it.
Round 1
Pro
#1
First off, I would like to thank Sir. Lancelot for accepting this debate.
So, what is white privilege? Oxford dictionary defines it as, and I quote, "inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice". So, in simplistic terms, white privilege is when white people have a racial advantage to black people. Now I will be arguing that this is not the case, and in fact white privilege is not a problem in America today. I will not be arguing that it doesn't exist. I will prove my claim with this single reason, then rebuttal to the responses of my opponent.
Reason 1: The Law
The law, and government in the USA hasn't always been racially just. Going back to even when America was founded (1776) our founding fathers tried to go out of there way, to keep slavery legal, by changing specific documents, so that it wouldn't change, or contradict Americas foundational believes. Over time though, this has changed drastically. In 1865, America had realized that slavery was immoral and wrong, and in doing so we abolished slavery. Just 5 years after Joseph Rainey, the first black man to get elected to congress, was put in a major position of power. but the white supremacy doesn't end there. Blacks were still oppressed even after slavery was abolished. Then, in between the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights movement happened. This gave black people all of the same rights as white people, and everyone was treated equally as human beings, with the same rights and consequences.
All in all, if white privaledge is white people have a racial advantage over black people, then why do some people think it is still a prominent problem in the USA? The fact of the matter is that it is not a problem. In 1964, congress passed a law that gave black people the same rights and advantages as everyone else.
"In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing."
Con
#2
Thank you, Pro, for creating this thread.
Preamble:
So I shall aim to prove the harms caused by White Privilege in this country. Now I want to make myself clear, I am not claiming white people are racist. Such an accusation would require me to think that the harms caused by white privilege are done with malicious intent. There is certainly malevolence at hand here, but currently, the role of White Privilege in this current generation is due to ignorance and indifference.
BOP
Because of the resolution title, the BOP is on me to demonstrate how White Privilege IS a problem in this country.
1. Police Brutality
Because of racist stereotypes of black people being illiterate thugs and drug dealers, police will act with less restraint against civilians of darker skin. Black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race than people of lighter skin color. They can also invoke the excuse that the civilian was actively resisting arrest and the enablers will allow the abusive officer to get away with his violence and misconduct because of his race.
2. Racial Sentencing
The author of the book The Lovely Bones had mistakenly identified an African American man, Anthony Broadwater, as her rapist. It would be decades of serving a wrongful sentence until he would be released. While Alice Sebold is not at fault here, the fact that the authorities failed to investigate this case critically demonstrates the disregard the law has for people of color.
Whereas a white man named Brock Turner who was proven to be guilty of the sexual assault charges filed against him, would only be given a 3 months' sentence. Drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decades longer than the sentence Brock received. It is this apparent lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system that gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony. His White Privilege.
Regarding the Death Penalty, Black and Latina people are more likely to be executed than their whiter counterparts.
Racial bias against defendants of color and in favor of white victims has a strong effect on who is capitally prosecuted, sentenced to death, and executed.
3. Stereotypes
White people are not subject to the same rumors and stereotypes that black people face on a daily basis. Serial killers like Nikolas Cruz, Elliot Rodger, and Payton Gendron were all white. Despite a lot of shootings being committed by white people, these incidences have not led to white people being profiled or even scrutinized against because of their race. But because of a few crimes committed by people of color, black people will be subject to centuries' old stereotypes and rumors about their predisposition to violence.
4. Systemic Racism vs Individual Racism
Many white people complain of black people being racist, so they made up a fictitious term called "reverse racism." Reverse racism is simply not a thing. The takeaway here is that racism is racism, period.
Black people can be racist, but it is unlikely to cause harm because the amount of racist black people oppressing white people are nonexistent. <---- This is why individual racism is not the main issue here.
White people being racist does harm for multiple reasons, all of which including discriminating against candidates because of their race, having them blackballed, and denying them insurance because of who their parents are. Historical experiences of being born into a low-income class will come to affect people of color in this generation as well, simply by the fact that they can't choose who their heritage.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you Con for your reply.
Rebuttals:
1. Police BrutalityBecause of racist stereotypes of black people being illiterate thugs and drug dealers, police will act with less restraint against civilians of darker skin. Black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race than people of lighter skin color. They can also invoke the excuse that the civilian was actively resisting arrest and the enablers will allow the abusive officer to get away with his violence and misconduct because of his race.
Con brings up police brutality as his first example for white privilege being a problem in the U.S. today. Con claims that black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race. This claim is more or less an assumption than an actual fact. Con provides no evidence or statistics for black people being profiled more than white people. Con provides a link to a video, of a cop being abusive to a teacher of color. I can provide the full video as well for more clarity.
Police officers have rules, by which they have to follow, to a tee. This includes the levels of force that an officer uses when detaining.
Now, I will not be defending everything this cop did in the video, because some things he did and said were cruel.
Police have levels of force, that includes Verbal, Visual, physical force, less lethal, and lethal. This officer uses verbal, and visual force at the beginning of the vehicle. It is only when officer is becoming impatient with the woman when he uses physical. The officer never enacts less lethal, or lethal. From what I saw in the video, this officer was doing, and saying some unusually cruel things.
But alas, this is just but one example of a cop being potentially racist, and doesn't account for Cons claim, that police brutality is a reason why white privilege is a problem today.
Lack of evidence gives me no choice but to move on to Con's next point.
2. Racial SentencingThe author of the book The Lovely Bones had mistakenly identified an African American man, Anthony Broadwater, as her rapist. It would be decades of serving a wrongful sentence until he would be released. While Alice Sebold is not at fault here, the fact that the authorities failed to investigate this case critically demonstrates the disregard the law has for people of color.
Con claims that the author of the book The Lovely Bones has mistakenly identified an African American man as her rapist. Even though Anthony Broadwater was wrongfully accused, this does not lead to the claim that Con is making. Alice Sebold is not at fault here, and nor is the authorities, because they were going based off of the only evidence that they had: the victim.
Using Con's source, it states: "Sebold identified Broadwater as her rapist on the witness stand. He maintained his innocence and was denied release five times because he refused to admit guilt. When he was released, the year Lucky was published, he was required to register as violent sex offender.
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."
This shows the only evidence they had to go off on was a witness/victim, and DNA. The DNA was only later deemed to be unreliable, meaning at the time, this evidence tied Broadwater to the crime. The authorities had no other choice but to look at the evidence at hand, and convict someone.
Con's claim for this evidence is that white supremacy is a problem today, because of racial sentencing, using this book as their evidence.
Whereas a white man named Brock Turner who was proven to be guilty of the sexual assault charges filed against him, would only be given a 3 months' sentence. Drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decades longer than the sentence Brock received. It is this apparent lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system that gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony. His White Privilege.
Again, this is one example for a white man being let out too early. If everything in the world could be proved with one example, then most things in the world could be justified. Con states that drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decade longer than the sentence Brock received yet provides no evidence. Con claims that the lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system, gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony, because of his white privilege. If this is the case, then why is the opposite also true? White people are wrongly convicted as well, and black people are also let out too early?
Cases like:
Jasmine Eskew
Russ Faria
Lydia Salce
Heidi Hascher
And the list goes on. Feel free to look up these people's stories for clarity.
Regarding the Death Penalty, Black and Latina people are more likely to be executed than their whiter counterparts.Racial bias against defendants of color and in favor of white victims has a strong effect on who is capitally prosecuted, sentenced to death, and executed.
Now Con brings up the death penalty, claiming that Black and Latina people is more likely to be executed than white people. This time, Con provides evidence, and this is true. Black and Latino people are more likely to be executed than white people, but why is that? It is because in this country, violent crime is more prominent in the black community and Latino community rather than the white community.
"Serious violent crime and aggravated assault against blacks (58% and 61%) and indigenous Americans (55% and 59%) was reported more often than against whites (51% and 54%) or Asians (50% and 51%)."
This point proves nothing more than the fact that the black community usually commits more violent crime, than white people.
Con tries to use one example of a white man being let out too early, and one example of a black man being wrongly convicted, as proof for white privilege, when in fact there is evidence on both sides. Again, because of lack of evidence, I am forced to move onto the next reason.
3. StereotypesWhite people are not subject to the same rumors and stereotypes that black people face on a daily basis.
I would love to know where Con got statistics for rumors.
Serial killers like Nikolas Cruz, Elliot Rodger, and Payton Gendron were all white.
Yes, and it is actually a stereotype for serial killers to be white, because the statistics show that to be true.
Despite a lot of shootings being committed by white people, these incidences have not led to white people being profiled or even scrutinized against because of their race. But because of a few crimes committed by people of color, black people will be subject to centuries' old stereotypes and rumors about their predisposition to violence.
I would not say a few. Again, the black community commits more violent crime than white people, which leads to these so-called stereotypes. These stereotypes don't apply to all black people though. It only applies to the black people in those communities. I don't see anyone scared of Barrack Obama pulling out a Glock.
Once again, Con only provides one example of a mass shooting by a white man, who is racist, yet does not address all of the other killings and shootings committed in black communities, so I will for him:
"The mass shootings have disproportionately occurred in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Nearly 50 percent of the shootings analyzed by The Trace took place in majority-Black census tracts, though less than 10 percent of census tracts nationally have majority Black populations. The pattern held in almost every city that has had more than five mass shootings in 2020. In Chicago, for example, 31 out of 36 shootings with four or more victims happened in majority-Black census tracts. In Detroit and Milwaukee, each of which saw five mass shootings, all of them occurred in majority-Black neighborhoods."
4. Systemic Racism vs Individual RacismMany white people complain of black people being racist, so they made up a fictitious term called "reverse racism." Reverse racism is simply not a thing. The takeaway here is that racism is racism, period.
I agree, although I don't personally hear white people call it "reverse racism" rather they just call it racism. The fact is that racism can come from anywhere. It can come from black people, white people, Asian people, Latino people, the list goes on. I am just a little confused on why this constitutes as a reason for white privilege being a problem in the U.S.
Black people can be racist, but it is unlikely to cause harm because the amount of racist black people oppressing white people are nonexistent. <---- This is why individual racism is not the main issue here.
It would cause the same amount of harm. Con's reasoning for this is because the system is racist against black people yet provides no evidence for this claim.
The system is not racist, because it does not give white people any advantage over black people. Therefore, it would cause the same amount of harm for a black person to be racist toward a white person, as it does vice versa. Again, I am confused on why this is a reason. It's seeming more like reason to why black people being racist is ok, rather than white privilege is a problem.
White people being racist does harm for multiple reasons, all of which including discriminating against candidates because of their race, having them blackballed, and denying them insurance because of who their parents are.
Then how did a black man become the president of the USA, by a large majority, if the system is racist?
Historical experiences of being born into a low-income class will come to affect people of color in this generation as well, simply by the fact that they can't choose who their heritage.
White people born in a low-income home would also affect white people as well. This point proves nothing.
Conclusion:
All in all, most of Con's arguments lacked evidence, and had a claim with one example backing it up. Con did not respond to my first post whatsoever. I think it is clear that white privilege is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
Con
#4
There appears to be some unnecessary aggression towards Pro in the comments' section. One of the comments made said that Pro is arguing that white privilege is "good," and that he has to argue either it is good or bad. This is a Strawman and a False Dilemma, and I would prefer voters not to assume this is Pro's position because there is nothing to indicate he thinks this way.
Rebuttals:
Con brings up police brutality as his first example for white privilege being a problem in the U.S. today. Con claims that black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race. This claim is more or less an assumption than an actual fact. Con provides no evidence or statistics for black people being profiled more than white people. Con provides a link to a video, of a cop being abusive to a teacher of color. I can provide the full video as well for more clarity.Police officers have rules, by which they have to follow, to a tee. This includes the levels of force that an officer uses when detaining.Now, I will not be defending everything this cop did in the video, because some things he did and said were cruel.Police have levels of force, that includes Verbal, Visual, physical force, less lethal, and lethal. This officer uses verbal, and visual force at the beginning of the vehicle. It is only when officer is becoming impatient with the woman when he uses physical. The officer never enacts less lethal, or lethal. From what I saw in the video, this officer was doing, and saying some unusually cruel things.But alas, this is just but one example of a cop being potentially racist, and doesn't account for Cons claim, that police brutality is a reason why white privilege is a problem today.Lack of evidence gives me no choice but to move on to Con's next point.
This is just one of many examples.
Heck, you can even look up the issue with George Floyd. This is probably the most conventional example of racism in the U.S. and a demonstration of the issues perpetuated by White Privilege.
You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white.
And then this guy gets profiled just for picking up trash. RAW: Bodycam video shows police confront man picking up trash outside building - YouTube
It's not a coincidence you can find many videos with this same theme in mind.
Con claims that the author of the book The Lovely Bones has mistakenly identified an African American man as her rapist. Even though Anthony Broadwater was wrongfully accused, this does not lead to the claim that Con is making. Alice Sebold is not at fault here, and nor is the authorities, because they were going based off of the only evidence that they had: the victim.Using Con's source, it states: "Sebold identified Broadwater as her rapist on the witness stand. He maintained his innocence and was denied release five times because he refused to admit guilt. When he was released, the year Lucky was published, he was required to register as violent sex offender.
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."This shows the only evidence they had to go off on was a witness/victim, and DNA. The DNA was only later deemed to be unreliable, meaning at the time, this evidence tied Broadwater to the crime. The authorities had no other choice but to look at the evidence at hand, and convict someone.Con's claim for this evidence is that white supremacy is a problem today, because of racial sentencing, using this book as their evidence.
No, no, no, no, no.
The book is irrelevant to the point I'm making and is only referenced so readers know who the author is. If I just gave the name of the author, I could infer that most people would not recognize it.
Also keep in mind that I'm not referring to white supremacy. White supremacy exists in a similar, but exclusive category.
This is Institutionalized Discrimination - Prejudicial practices and policies within institutions that result in the systematic denial of resources and opportunities to members of subordinate groups.
The role White Privilege plays is the apparent advantages Caucasian people have when actually found guilty of the crime. Their wealth can minimize the sentencing or get them a good defense team.
Now Con brings up the death penalty, claiming that Black and Latina people is more likely to be executed than white people. This time, Con provides evidence, and this is true. Black and Latino people are more likely to be executed than white people, but why is that? It is because in this country, violent crime is more prominent in the black community and Latino community rather than the white community."Serious violent crime and aggravated assault against blacks (58% and 61%) and indigenous Americans (55% and 59%) was reported more often than against whites (51% and 54%) or Asians (50% and 51%)."
You have to consider why though.
Socio-economic disadvantages have been affecting black and Latina communities the most for centuries and the sufficient lack of education or high-demand skill training leads them to pursue crime in order to survive. And some are born into the criminal life and punished for factors they were placed in beyond their control.
White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages.
Then how did a black man become the president of the USA, by a large majority, if the system is racist?
This is a specious question.
Considering there are a large amount of anti-Obama people who didn't vote, this is sufficient enough to tip the scale of balance back into the power of his supporters.
White people born in a low-income home would also affect white people as well. This point proves nothing.
Statistically, this is lower than the amount of black people born into low-income homes. The African American community has been dealing with this crisis for centuries while the majority of white people are privileged enough to be middle-class.
I look forward to Pro's response.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you Con for your argument.
As Con said, the situation in the comments were accusations, with no point to them whatsoever. I am not arguing that white privilege is good nor that it doesn't exist, I am simply arguing that it is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
Rebuttals:
Con brings up an example of a dollar store employee, calling the cops on a black man, who was trying to shop. After watching entirety of the video, it seems to be, that the dollar store employee was being irrational, threatened the man, and called the cops on him, but this does not prove that the man was being racist. It could have been a variety of reasons. When the cops show up, the cops simply ask for this man's identification, and or name. In cases like this if you are in the right, it is a smart decision to do what the cops say, and comply, otherwise it makes you look guilty for resisting. The cops did not touch the man and let him go on his way. The only reason the cops did not let the man file charges, was because the man would not provide any information, claiming he did not have to. Why is it right for the cops to help this man out, when he won't even provide information for them?
The owner of this property asked for this man to be restricted from coming into that store and removed. Though probably unfair, on the cashier's fault, the cops have a job to do, and this man was making it harder for them to complete that task. Unlike a lot of people claim, cops can't just do whatever they want, and in doing so, also can't just leave things to work themselves out. This could have been avoided, if the man just simply provided his information. This would do no harm to the man and would sort everything out. The only mean person in this situation is the cashier, and there is no evidence in this video, to tie that to racism or white privilege.
Con then provides another video, where a man who was picking up trash on his property, what wrongfully accused of trespassing. This was the cop's fault, and the cop made some bad and unjust decisions in the video, which included arming his taser, and drawing his weapon. If you watch the whole video though, the cops partner realizes that the cop made a bad decision, and let the man go. You have to realize that those other cops who were surrounding the man, did not know what was going on, and were not commanding officers, therefore just had to follow protocol. Again, there is no tie to racism here, this could have happened to anyone, this cop was just being unjust.
If con is using cops as a reason for white supremacy, then I would ask the question, why did the officers partner let the man go, and disagree with his own partner?
These videos show no sign of white supremacy, nor do they show any legitimate proof of racism.
You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white.And then this guy gets profiled just for picking up trash.It's not a coincidence you can find many videos with this same theme in mind.
Con claims that white people don't have to worry about cops attacking them, yet this happens to white people as well:
The last video is a video, of a guy who is plainly just standing on public property. This happens to both black, and white people alike. There are no racist intentions, just crappy people.
No, no, no, no, no.The book is irrelevant to the point I'm making and is only referenced so readers know who the author is. If I just gave the name of the author, I could infer that most people would not recognize it.Also keep in mind that I'm not referring to white supremacy. White supremacy exists in a similar, but exclusive category.This is Institutionalized Discrimination - Prejudicial practices and policies within institutions that result in the systematic denial of resources and opportunities to members of subordinate groups.The role White Privilege plays is the apparent advantages Caucasian people have when actually found guilty of the crime. Their wealth can minimize the sentencing or get them a good defense team.
Con states that he is not referring to white supremacy in this point, yet he is debating the topic of white supremacy. Then Con goes on to say that Caucasian people have apparent advantages. What advantages are these exactly? By law, white people don't have any advantages.
So Con is using a claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Con is using evidence for Institutionalized Discrimination, and not white supremacy.
You have to consider why though.Socio-economic disadvantages have been affecting black and Latina communities the most for centuries and the sufficient lack of education or high-demand skill training leads them to pursue crime in order to survive. And some are born into the criminal life and punished for factors they were placed in beyond their control.White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages.
Con brings up a good point, considering why there are black and Latino criminals than white criminals in the USA. Then con claims it is because of Socio-economic disadvantages, lack of education, and being born into criminal lifestyles. While this is all true, this does not prove white privilege in any way. The number of white people who commit crimes also have these disadvantages as well.
Con is claiming that white people don't have this problem, therefore assuming that white people don't have a lack of education, white people aren't born into criminal lifestyles, and white people don't have Socio-economic disadvantages, which is all untrue.
This is a specious question.Considering there are a large amount of anti-Obama people who didn't vote, this is sufficient enough to tip the scale of balance back into the power of his supporters.
But during a lo of elections, a lot of people don't vote. Con doesn't provide statistics of any non-voting from anti-Obama people.
The question that I am asking is if white supremacy is a problem in the U.S. and the system as con claims is biased to white people, then how did a black man become the president of the United States twice?
Statistically, this is lower than the amount of black people born into low-income homes. The African American community has been dealing with this crisis for centuries while the majority of white people are privileged enough to be middle-class.
Con states that statistically, more black people are born into lower income homes than white people yet provide no evidence for it. I will give Con the benefit of the doubt and provide this evidence for him, to give voters more clairty.
Con is not wrong. There are statistically more black people in poverty, than white people in poverty. Why is this though? Black people have the same advantages educationally than white people do, and in fact they have an advantage that white people don't.
"Previous research shows that black high school graduates are more likely than similar whites to attend college net of differences in socioeconomic family background and academic performance. That is, blacks evidence a net advantage in college-going."
To give you an example of this, let's say that a black person and a white person graduate high school at the same time with the same exact grades and standards. If a college has to choose between the two, that college is legally required to choose the black person over the white person.
So, if this is the case, then why is it that more black people are in poverty then white people?
Conclusion:
Con again makes a lot of claims like:
"You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white."
"White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages."
Without any evidence whatsoever to these claims.
Con still has yet to rebuttal to my first argument and did not rebuttal to a big chunk of my previous argument.
Con also brings up a topic that is not what we are debating and admits it.
Con
#6
As Con, there are 4 major contentions I have used to demonstrate how White Privilege is currently a problem.
Overview
- My first constructive argument of police brutality was refuted. Pro deconstructs it thoroughly by mentioning the restrictions officers have and pointing out my inadequate evidence.
- Pro half-way concedes on my second main argument. He provides some examples to counteract mine about the racial biases in sentencing, but then agrees with my point about how black and latina people are more likely to be sentenced than white people but attempts to counter by arguing the crime rate proportions of black/latina communities vs white.
- My third argument about stereotypes is only partially refuted by Pro. He acknowledges that black communities face more rumors of violence but says certain individuals are exempt. This doesn't actually disprove my claim about innocent black people more likely to be profiled which is why I simply can't give the point to Pro here.
- My fourth argument about how systemic racism affects people of color doesn't get refuted at all. Pro tries to undermine the significance by claiming it affects everyone equally, but this simply just isn't the case nor does this address the main argument.
It's important to know I am not talking about White Supremacy. I do make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious. This is why I cannot label it 'White Supremacy.' Because it doesn't fit the definition.
Furthermore, while I could have done a better job of supporting my case by supplying more evidence, I have still fulfilled the minimal requirement for the BOP. So the contentions I talked about shall remain for now.
Con brings up an example of a dollar store employee, calling the cops on a black man, who was trying to shop. After watching entirety of the video, it seems to be, that the dollar store employee was being irrational, threatened the man, and called the cops on him, but this does not prove that the man was being racist. It could have been a variety of reasons. When the cops show up, the cops simply ask for this man's identification, and or name. In cases like this if you are in the right, it is a smart decision to do what the cops say, and comply, otherwise it makes you look guilty for resisting. The cops did not touch the man and let him go on his way. The only reason the cops did not let the man file charges, was because the man would not provide any information, claiming he did not have to. Why is it right for the cops to help this man out, when he won't even provide information for them?The owner of this property asked for this man to be restricted from coming into that store and removed. Though probably unfair, on the cashier's fault, the cops have a job to do, and this man was making it harder for them to complete that task. Unlike a lot of people claim, cops can't just do whatever they want, and in doing so, also can't just leave things to work themselves out. This could have been avoided, if the man just simply provided his information. This would do no harm to the man and would sort everything out. The only mean person in this situation is the cashier, and there is no evidence in this video, to tie that to racism or white privilege.Con then provides another video, where a man who was picking up trash on his property, what wrongfully accused of trespassing. This was the cop's fault, and the cop made some bad and unjust decisions in the video, which included arming his taser, and drawing his weapon. If you watch the whole video though, the cops partner realizes that the cop made a bad decision, and let the man go. You have to realize that those other cops who were surrounding the man, did not know what was going on, and were not commanding officers, therefore just had to follow protocol. Again, there is no tie to racism here, this could have happened to anyone, this cop was just being unjust.If con is using cops as a reason for white supremacy, then I would ask the question, why did the officers partner let the man go, and disagree with his own partner?These videos show no sign of white supremacy, nor do they show any legitimate proof of racism.
This should actually be sufficient enough to substantiate my third argument about stereotypes.
Assuming a white person were to walk into the same dollar store, I highly doubt he would have been targeted the same way or had the cops called on him.
Con claims that white people don't have to worry about cops attacking them, yet this happens to white people as well:The last video is a video, of a guy who is plainly just standing on public property. This happens to both black, and white people alike. There are no racist intentions, just crappy people.
The fact is black people are more likely to be sentenced because of accusations of wrongdoing.
Extend my second contention about the DPIC's statistics of black/latina people on death-row.
Con states that he is not referring to white supremacy in this point, yet he is debating the topic of white supremacy. Then Con goes on to say that Caucasian people have apparent advantages. What advantages are these exactly? By law, white people don't have any advantages.So Con is using a claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Con is using evidence for Institutionalized Discrimination, and not white supremacy.
Whether I am arguing white supremacy is irrelevant, even though I'm clearly not. I already explained how Institutionalized Discrimination constitutes White Privilege.
Extend.
Con brings up a good point, considering why there are black and Latino criminals than white criminals in the USA. Then con claims it is because of Socio-economic disadvantages, lack of education, and being born into criminal lifestyles. While this is all true, this does not prove white privilege in any way. The number of white people who commit crimes also have these disadvantages as well.Con is claiming that white people don't have this problem, therefore assuming that white people don't have a lack of education, white people aren't born into criminal lifestyles, and white people don't have Socio-economic disadvantages, which is all untrue.
Take this as Pro conceding my fourth contention about systemic racism.
Extend my last paragraph from Round 2.
But during a lo of elections, a lot of people don't vote. Con doesn't provide statistics of any non-voting from anti-Obama people.The question that I am asking is if white supremacy is a problem in the U.S. and the system as con claims is biased to white people, then how did a black man become the president of the United States twice?
This question doesn't address nor refute the claim of white privilege, and my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year, so this doesn't require any evidence.
Con states that statistically, more black people are born into lower income homes than white people yet provide no evidence for it. I will give Con the benefit of the doubt and provide this evidence for him, to give voters more clairty.Con is not wrong. There are statistically more black people in poverty, than white people in poverty. Why is this though? Black people have the same advantages educationally than white people do, and in fact they have an advantage that white people don't."Previous research shows that black high school graduates are more likely than similar whites to attend college net of differences in socioeconomic family background and academic performance. That is, blacks evidence a net advantage in college-going."
So not only does Pro concede my fourth point, but provided evidence to substantiate it thereby making my point for me.
Then tries to double-down on the back-pedaling through claiming the advantages of both sides even it out.
To give you an example of this, let's say that a black person and a white person graduate high school at the same time with the same exact grades and standards. If a college has to choose between the two, that college is legally required to choose the black person over the white person.So, if this is the case, then why is it that more black people are in poverty then white people?
But this doesn't even it out. We have years of systemic oppression and economic disadvantages, so these exceptions are given to help fights years and years of Institutionalized Discrimination. This argument alone is self-defeating.
Conclusion
I have successfully proven that White Privilege is a problem.
Round 4
Pro
#7
This debate has been rather enjoyable, and I am ready for my final argument.
Looking at Cons argument, he seems to lay it out as a final argument of sorts, so either Con thinks that he has beaten me, or he must have thought that was his final round. Non-the less, I will rebuttal Cons arguments, and conclude mine as well.
Overview:
Throughout most of the debate, Con provides very little evidence of some big claims. Con has yet to rebuttal my very first argument, and big portions of my second and third ones.
Though Con has been very confident throughout the debate, Con lacks both evidence for his claims, and argues points on topics that are indifferent to the topic of the debate.
This overview is short and simple, because there is nothing really more to say.
Rebuttals:
It's important to know I am not talking about White Supremacy. I do make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious. This is why I cannot label it 'White Supremacy.' Because it doesn't fit the definition.
If you are arguing something that is not labeled white supremacy, and does not fit the definition, then you are arguing a completely different topic, and therefore with this claim, Con has proved that all of his arguments have not been on topic so far.
This should actually be sufficient enough to substantiate my third argument about stereotypes.Assuming a white person were to walk into the same dollar store, I highly doubt he would have been targeted the same way or had the cops called on him.
Here is Con, again providing no evidence for a big claim. Con is claiming that if the race of the man in the video was switched then this wouldn't of happened therefore it proves to be racist. This claim has no evidence backing it up, and is a big claim at that.
The fact is black people are more likely to be sentenced because of accusations of wrongdoing.Extend my second contention about the DPIC's statistics of black/latina people on death-row.
Con is half right with this claim, but still makes no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence for it. It is true that black people are more likely to be sentenced to prison than white people, but it is not true that those sentences are based on false accusations of wrongdoing. Con has already established that black people commit more crime that white people statistically. What Con has not done, and has not been able to do, is establish why this is the case. I have established why this is the case in my third argument if viewers would like to look.
Whether I am arguing white supremacy is irrelevant, even though I'm clearly not. I already explained how Institutionalized Discrimination constitutes White Privilege.Extend.
Con has just flat out stated that it is irrelevant if they are arguing the title of this topic or not. Con has just admitted once again to not be arguing about the same thing, this debate is titled for.
This question doesn't address nor refute the claim of white privilege, and my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year, so this doesn't require any evidence.
Con just stated, and I quote,"...my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year...." proving my point even further from last round in saying that a lot of people don't vote every year, and Obama being elected president twice, was not a result of people just not voting. To claim this is actually racist in of itself, because it is basically claiming that black people (like Obama) can't and don't have the capability to become the president, or get into any political decision making roles in this country.
So not only does Pro concede my fourth point, but provided evidence to substantiate it thereby making my point for me.Then tries to double-down on the back-pedaling through claiming the advantages of both sides even it out.
No, I helped you with your fourth point, and did not claim both sides have an advantage. This is a false accusation, and a lie from Cons argument. I claimed that black people by law, have a better chance of getting into college than white people, and did not make any claim saying white people had any advantage whatsoever.
But this doesn't even it out. We have years of systemic oppression and economic disadvantages, so these exceptions are given to help fights years and years of Institutionalized Discrimination. This argument alone is self-defeating.
Con, once again claims that black people have economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression, yet still provides no evidence for this far out claim. Again, I ask you once again Con, what economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression do black people have today?
ConclusionI have successfully proven that White Privilege is a problem.
Con provides a false statement in saying this, because Con has not even gotten close to doing this.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Con has repeatedly provided claims without evidence, lied about claims that I have made, has refused to rebutted most of my arguments, and has not answered some of my questions.
On the other hand, I have provided a multitude of evidence, and explanations in my rebuttals, rebutted most of cons arguments, and claims, have backed up my claims with evidence, and even helped out Con with his arguments.
I look forward to Con's final argument.
Con
#8
I summarized all of the points in the previous rounds. Since this is the final round, I cannot bring new arguments so I’ll just maintain my other contentions.
Rebuttals
If you are arguing something that is not labeled white supremacy, and does not fit the definition, then you are arguing a completely different topic, and therefore with this claim, Con has proved that all of his arguments have not been on topic so far.
I’m currently referring to a system of balance between white people and people of color.
Historic economic disadvantages and old laws have disproportioned this scale and given white people advantages not accessible to people of color. This is what we call White Privilege.
White supremacy plays a role, but it’s not the focus of the discussion. Not all internalized racism by white people is based in white supremacy. There are different forms of racism.
Here is Con, again providing no evidence for a big claim. Con is claiming that if the race of the man in the video was switched then this wouldn't of happened therefore it proves to be racist. This claim has no evidence backing it up, and is a big claim at that.
If you watch the video in question, the police make multiple references implying a lot of criminals in the area are black, demonstrating fear based on a stereotype.
Con is half right with this claim, but still makes no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence for it. It is true that black people are more likely to be sentenced to prison than white people, but it is not true that those sentences are based on false accusations of wrongdoing. Con has already established that black people commit more crime that white people statistically. What Con has not done, and has not been able to do, is establish why this is the case. I have established why this is the case in my third argument if viewers would like to look.
I included a DPIC statistic that proves the likelihood of people of color being executed because of racism in the judicial system and their economic disadvantages that prevent them from affording adequate legal counsel.
Con has just flat out stated that it is irrelevant if they are arguing the title of this topic or not. Con has just admitted once again to not be arguing about the same thing, this debate is titled for.
White privilege and white supremacy aren’t the same. I thought we were discussing white privilege?
Con just stated, and I quote,"...my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year...." proving my point even further from last round in saying that a lot of people don't vote every year, and Obama being elected president twice, was not a result of people just not voting. To claim this is actually racist in of itself, because it is basically claiming that black people (like Obama) can't and don't have the capability to become the president, or get into any political decision making roles in this country.
It just doesn’t prove the prompt. A black man can still be elected president and white privilege can still be a problem.
The fact that he’s the first and only black man to make office proves the problem of white privilege.
Con, once again claims that black people have economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression, yet still provides no evidence for this far out claim. Again, I ask you once again Con, what economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression do black people have today?
Housing, education, and status.
Most people of color are born into low-income, high crime areas that further the factors making it hard for them to afford a sufficient education. The jobs they take likewise cannot supply their costs of living.
Conclusion
So I have demonstrated the problems and issues caused by White Privilege.
And I thank Pro for the discussion!
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:
At its core pro is arguing that white privilege in its current form is mischaracterized, not resulting in "inequality and injustice" as the usual definition implies. It's something of a K to his own topic but I'll allow it. Con suffers a bit of scope creep and related confusion with closely connected matters of white supremacy.
Con yielded a lot of ground in R1 and R2, but came back in R3 to secure his victory.
In the end I'm left with the impression that the problem exists even if frequently overstated, and some factors such as increased educational access are beginning to mitigate it.
...
Pro argues it exists, but is not problematic. He supports this with slavery ending in 1865, in 1870 blacks began being elected into congress, and in 1964 a law was passed to give black people the same rights as white people "and everyone was treated equally as human beings, with the same rights and consequences."
Con argues that in present day "ignorance and indifference" associated with white privilege cause harms.
1. The Law (pro)
Pro successfully argues that the law as written is not inherently racist.
2. Police Brutality
Con uses the example of white police targeting a black teacher and being violent against her on the basis of how violent they believed her skin color to make her.
Pro challenges for a lack of statistically significant evidence (not sure the point of half defending the officer in question here; even while agreeing he was needlessly cruel).
Con brings up a few more examples, but misses pro's point and theme which extends throughout.
3. Racial Sentencing
Con argues black people are given decades when accused of rape, whereas white people are given only months for the same crime. This is particularly effective due to pro's line "the same rights and consequences." Con also mentions drugs, but without a comparison to how whites are sentenced it falls a little flat. Further, there is a difference in sentencing based on race (that source could have been much better utilized, a single line from it doesn't get across half what the graphs showed).
Pro defends that Turner is an isolated case, not indicative of a pattern; and further white people have also been wrongly accused of crimes. He defends that the rate of executions are solely in proportion to rate of capital crime occurrence.
Con argues that sentencing differences are "Institutionalized Discrimination." Further, that the differing crime rates are due to "Socio-economic disadvantages."
Pro asserts that it is impossible for the law to do this...
4. Stereotypes
Con argues that white people are more likely to commit violent crimes, but black people suffer centuries of profiling for the few of them which do likewise.
Pro challenges the ratios.,
Con backs down, and blames income inequality.
Pro leverages this with information on the education system which all other things being equal would result in African Americans doing better than White Americans.
Con says this is self defeating (I actually see why, due to the imbalance proving enough other things are not equal to create the situations already discussed; but con would have been well to talk a little more about this).
5. Systemic Racism vs Individual Racism
Con's weakest point. It feels like an assertion that racism is worse based on the color of the racist.
Pro defends and argues for dismissal due to lack of relevance.
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:
The following are Pro's and Con's argument reviews:
Con's first constructive argument of police brutality was refuted. Pro deconstructs it most likely by mentioning the restrictions officers have and pointing out Con's inadequate evidence.
Pro half-way concedes on Con's second main argument. He provides some examples to counteract Con's about the racial biases in sentencing, but then agrees with Con's point about how Black and Latino people are more likely to be sentenced than white people but attempts to counter by arguing the crime rate proportions of Black and Latino communities vs white.
Con's third argument about stereotypes is only partially refuted by Pro. He acknowledges that black communities face more rumors of violence but says certain individuals are exempt. This doesn't actually disprove my claim about innocent black people more likely to be profiled which is why I simply can't give the point to Pro here.
Con's fourth argument about how systemic racism affects people of color doesn't get refuted at all. Pro tries to undermine the significance by claiming it affects everyone equally, but this simply just isn't the case due to research I have done nor does this address the main argument.
It's important to know that Con is not talking about White Supremacy. He does make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious.
It is my opinion that Con wins with more convincing arguments.
Yeah I’m down for that. I’m working 15
Hours a day with no days off right now so I may be responding to the debates a little late, but I’m down to do it.
Also nah Lancelot I think I’m done shit talking you lol, just a little too much to deal with tbh.
I’ll take responsibility for baiting him, but his decision to escalate into personal attacks was his own choice.
Which I don’t care about really, but he bears the burden of that alone. If he tells me to stop, I’ll stop. But I’m comfortable if he wants to continue.
Meh, a case could be made for deliberate provocation. But I do see your justification.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4004-lancelot-should-not-be-president-sry
Comment #18
Isn’t that right?
Linkie to comment pls.
I have the receipts.
Mps1213 started the shit-talking, so he can handle it. I only perpetuated it.
Sure.
I’ve invested myself in the George Floyd death being a cocktail of illicit drugs that killed him vs the the knee on the neck, and not the psychoactive drugs subject.
I’ve already started doing research and preparing a
Draft intro for a new thread in the forum section to challenge MPs with. I’m sticking with that unless everyone agrees on jumping on that wagon too? At least there you can tag team with him, and anyone else can feel free to chime in as well. Then we will really see how it plays out.
Since I'll be challenging you on this account (I think a 2v2 is allowed as long as its unrated), I'll have a chance to filter out the worst bits of trash talk... hopefully.
Outcome won’t make a difference though.
Me and Mps will still shit-talk eachother after.
Whoever else joins in is just collateral.
Great, now we just have to wait for the other two.
I accept.
A 2v1 isn't exactly fair... someone has to stick up for Mps. IMO he is someone who has a lot of knowledge, and is confident of that. From my conversations with him, I can tell that although his tone may come off as condescending, he doesn't mean it - he's simply self-assured.
I propose a fair debate to settle this once and for all. Mps and I vs Lancelot and TWS, on the topic of either psychoactive drugs or climate change. Mps will provide the knowledge and research, I'll provide the structure, sourcing, and formality. Do ya'll accept?
Don’t forget to make that callout thread in the forums. It’s gonna take him off-guard.
There have been many others here who just exude the Dunning Kruger Effect, but damn, you take the cake.
Your sophomoric hypocritical banality just knows no bounds.
You lost that debate badly.
But don’t feel ashamed. Your ignorance can’t match my superior understanding of science.
I don’t have to take a more knowledgeable approach… because I’m winning the debate lol. And haven’t reported a vote and never will.
Aight mate can’t talk to you anymore. Later.
If you want to debate Global Warming again we can. You can go first and try to take a different, more knowledgeable approach.
I specifically instructed people to vote for you on that debate because I knew your sad little ego couldn’t handle losing that debate.
That’s probably why Mike took away your ability to report votes.
The amount of sore loser, sour puss, retards on this site is astounding. You guys should go to school and do something constructive with your life lol. I’m in a position where I can say stuff like that. I make more money in 2 months than you guys do in a year. And it’s because of my education and knowledge. So go do something with yourselves instead of boosting your childish ego by trolling people.
Yeah I just checked, not a single vote in your favor on our global warming debate.
Also thank you guys for talking to me, it makes me feel so good about myself knowing I’m not a complete idiot, who gets entertainment out of trolling people on a debate website lol. Y’all are hilarious, thanks guys it made my day.
Again, I have never defriended, reported a vote, or blocked anyone on this site ever. That is all you. You trolling like this is hilariously childish. You’re an idiot mate.
I don’t think you have a single vote for you in the global warming debate. You were the one claiming the effects were over exaggerated. You sir are an idiot or a troll, both are equally as embarrassing. I wouldn’t be surprised if both of the accounts I’m arguing with is you.
No you nerd I stopped responding because I had an hour long drive to the hotel from the oil spill site.
Yeah I can comprehend you TWS, what I’m saying, which apparently you can’t comprehend, is that I would have a debate with you on this topic, in the debate section, not in the forum.
This guy also thinks Global Warming is fake.
When I debated him, he got absolutely destroyed and I still won, despite forfeiting.
Yeah, loser.
Forum. Not debate section. Reading comprehension matters.
Did you stop responding because I hurt your feelings THAT bad?
So you’re a hypocrite.
I correctly predicted you would report votes against you, so I had Mike fix that problem.
Just don’t rage and start blocking and defriending people like you probably do normally when they vote against you.
You can easily go look if I’ve ever reported a vote, takes about 5 minutes.
I never have and never will. You however, have done that. Stop projecting and being a blatant hypocrite you fool. I would never report a vote because it’s absolutely embarrassing.
You probably would report votes against you because you’re a sore loser.
No dumb ass, I know you are going to report the first vote against you. I would never report any vote, because I’m not a child lol
Well I’ve never reported a vote, never blocked someone, never removed anyone from a friends list lmao. Because I respect peoples right to voice their opinion without it being removed. I will combat the vote with arguing with them, but I would never report it. I have no cares about Mike removing that ability because I would’ve never used it. It’s like taking a picture calendar away from a blind man, pointless.
You don’t even have the ability to report anymore.
So how could you report someone else for voting against me?
More importantly, why would you?
I’m very excited to see the first vote against you on that debate get reported though. Can’t wait for that lol
yes, you are.
why else would Mike take your reporting abilities away?
And if you think I’d value this idiots vote on something he knows nothing about, you’re wrong lol. That simple, I don’t value opinions from people who have no knowledge in a particular topic. Just like I wouldn’t expect someone to value my political opinion, or my opinion on anything other than pharmacology and climate change, because I am insanely uneducated in just about everything else.
I wouldn’t report the vote anyway lol, because I’m not an insecure child like yourself Lancelot.
I had Mike take away Mps’s ability to report votes, so he won’t be able to report you.
When you get your voting qualifications, would you like to vote on this debate just so Mps can see just how badly he got destroyed?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4145-all-psychoactive-substances-should-be-legalized-for-adults-to-purchase-possess-and-use
No see, I do know what you don’t know. Because you are making claims that are patently false and don’t hold up to scrutiny and you’re willing to die on that hill. Which tells me you have very little knowledge on this topic. Which is why you have yet to counter anything I’ve said with data or evidence. Invite me to a debate, I will settle it with you there.’other than that, I have worked 15 hours today at an oil spill and simply don’t have the energy to argue with ignorance anymore.
Since you are so confident in your ability to understand this complicated situation. Send me an invite to a debate on this specific topic.
See, there’s that insecurity again with yet another superfluous retort full of drivel. Not to mention a lot of unsubstantiated subjective claims about what you think I know vs what you think you know.
If you want to debate this, take it to the forum where we can properly reply with “quotes” and use hyperlinks.
Again you can say that all you’d like, however only one person in that debate had empirical evidence and data to support their claim. The other forfeited a round and made very ignorant claims that they had no evidence for. I’m sure you know which one is which. So take pride in being ignorant in a topic, just like rational madman did, and he lost the debate, and he performed better kn the debate than you did.
See man, you have presented nothing to prove me wrong. You have cited coroner and toxicology reports, sure, but you don’t know how to read them. I’ve stated explicitly why those reports don’t mean what you think they mean, and you’ve yet to counter.
Also there is no such thing as a “lethal dose” as if there’s a dose that every person would die from. It changes dramatically with weight and tolerance. Which is why LD50’s are listed in the unit of mg PER kg. Meaning as the weight of the subject increases, the lethal dose for the average person that weight, will increase.
People you have out argued know just as little about pharmacology and toxicology as you do.
Believe me I’m not flustered by what you’re saying, I’m a little embarrassed for you because I would hate to be arguing something I know nothing about. It’s very Fox News and CNN esque. Also I never said anything about political beliefs besides saying people who claim other people are brainwashed are usually brain washed by the beliefs they hold. You completely proved my point when you pointed the finger a political orientation and called them all sheep. That was exactly what I was saying, that you think you’re not a sheep, even though you lack the ability to consider other view points from people who disagree with you. Which makes you a close minded ignorant person. The YouTube algorithm and modern American politics has ruined your ability (and many other peoples) ability to critically think about anything. It’s just you vs them, no matter the other side says you will disagree with. That should be a problem to you, but you’re brainwashed so you don’t see it. That simple fact is also why you lack the ability to talk about scientific topic in a nuanced, careful, and objective way. It’s only what your side argues, they could argue he died from anything drug related and you’d jump on it regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not.
And you can call me whatever you please, however, you know nothing about this topic, which is why you haven’t addressed anything I’ve said about what that toxicology report actually means besides saying I’m drinking the Kool-aid. You have presented 0 empirical evidence to support that he had a fentanyl overdose, besides highly uneducated takes like “he had enough in his system to kill twelve people” what is your evidence for that? Is it the coroner saying they’ve seen death caused with as little as 2 nano grams per milliliter and that he had 22 in his system?
If that’s the case you haven’t looked into this enough, because that low of a lethal dose is usually indicative of a very small person (like a baby) ingesting a drug. Or that someone had an allergic reaction. You are over simplifying this subject because you have to. You don’t know enough about this topic to have an intricate understanding and conduct deep research, which is why people who have the knowledge, education, and ability to do those things disagree with you. It’s not because we are drinking the kool-aid or trying to promote the idea of racist cops. It’s because we know more about this topic and you are simply wrong.
Also ao have no political affiliation with any group, and refuse to, because people who argue and engage in politics are wasting their time and their life because it is a pointless topic with no right answers. It’s ok that you don’t know anything about this topic, which you have repeatedly proven. Just stop arguing about it with someone who does know about it.
Mps sure is a lot of bark and no bite.
I’d enjoy seeing you wipe the floor with him/her/it a second time on the subject matter.