Instigator / Pro
11
1500
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#6026

Does White Privilege Exist in the US

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
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
11
1442
rating
57
debates
57.02%
won
Description

I saw an interesting debate on here I did not see in time to accept, so I decided to just create the debate myself (Again, since this is not my original idea). I will be arguing Pro- Which means that I will be arguing the White privilege does exist and impacts minorities in a negative way, especially inside the US (I would argue that it affects Black people the most). Con will argue that White privilege does not exist in the US. The first round, my opponent can give definitions (My definition for this is "White privilege- White privilege refers to the unearned advantages afforded to people who are assumed, based largely on complexion and related physical features, to be of European ancestry." (Riders University). Argument time is one week, due to me working more than one job at the moment. I look forward to whoever I interact with!

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 and Con both put forth well-sourced and interesting arguments (however, many of Con's links don't appear to directing to the correct pages, this made it difficult to verify some of their arguments). I appreciated that Con addressed every point Pro made, but it did seem that Con misunderstood many of Pro's arguments.

In Round 1, Pro explains that in their assertion that white privilege exists, they are not claiming that white people don't face hardship or that black people are incapable of success. However, Con continuously goes back to the logic that because certain black people found success then that negates the existence of white privilege. Con also argues that statistics don't "address numerous exceptions" that would negate the existence of white privilege. Con is attempting to refute an argument that Pro hasn't made. As Con points out, the existence of white privilege simply means that black people face more obstacles in relation to their race than white people do, but these obstacles don't mean that success is impossible for black people or that white people don't face other kinds of obstacles not related to race.

Additionally, when addressing Pro's argument regarding people with black sounding names receiving fewer call-backs than people with white sounding names, Con suggests that this was because there are fewer people with black-sounding names. This doesn’t make sense in-regard to what Pro is arguing, if they had been arguing that there are less black people in the workplace than white people, Con’s rebuttal would be appropriate. However, if you look at the study Pro links to (specifically the Berkeley study), those conducting the study sent out identical resumes with both black and white sounding names, and found that the resumes with the white sounding names were more likely to receive a callback (despite having the same credentials as the black sounding names).

Another weak point in Con's argument was their criticism of Pro's use of statistics to back-up their arguments. They use hate crime statistics that show that hate crimes are committed across multiple demographics (white, jewish, hispanic, etc.), as evidence that hate-crimes are not "exclusive to one group's experience." But Pro does not claim that hate crimes happen to black people "exclusively", but that black people are more likely to experience a hate crime.

Con does point out some weak points from Pro, specifically their argument that black employees were more likely to report experiencing racism if their employer was conservative rather than liberal. This doesn’t really work as specific evidence for the existence of white privilege.

Pro would have benefited from bringing up the concept of “intersectionality” in their argument, which would have done a better job of explaining how people can experience privilege in one aspect of their identity (being white), but not in another aspect (being poor) or conversely that a black person can be disadvantaged because of their race in that they are more likely to experience racism and the obstacles that come with that, while also experiencing privilege in other ways (financial, not being disabled, being straight, etc.).

Overall, Pro supplied good arguments addressing the different obstacles black people face in America in education, workforce, and the criminal system. This supports the assertion that white privilege exists, as it offers numerous examples of obstacles based on or fueled by race that white people are not likely to experience. Con repeatedly addressed points that Pro didn't make, but again, I appreciate that they tried to address every point Pro made.

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 sides had well thought out, logical arguments However, I feel that some of Pro's arguments were overly repetitive and did not address the important issues that Con brought up. I think the deciding factor in my vote is the point that Con made about 'considering other possible contributors to the statistics'. Pro failed to effectively counter this and attempted to sidestep the issue and reassert previous arguments. All in all, I believe that Pro did not succeed in meeting the burden of proof for that reason.

Both showed very respectful conduct and had clear and concise writing. Very well done debate overall.