Instigator / Pro
0
1514
rating
37
debates
63.51%
won
Topic
#6084
white privilege exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Mieky
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1500
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Description
White privilege exists. Meaning whites have an unfair advantage over non whites. I am open to use a better definition if con wants but that's what I am assuming. I assume I have an unfair advantage against niggers.
Round 1
Whites have an unfair advantage because we have higher IQs than most non whites. Even Asians who score higher tend to lack the creativity necessary to put them in the category of human.
Whites are also less prone to violence than negroes.
Having a higher IQ and being less prone to violence increases a person's chance to have a good life, avoid prison and make a high income.
Also white people don't have as much hygiene problems so they can probably make friends easier.
Forfeited
Round 2
My opponent is black, so he is on CPT (colored people time) which made him late for his round and forcing him to forfeit. That's another white privilege I actually can do stuff on time
my opponent has not tried to make a stance, Instead, he has offered white supremacist arguments, Clearly, if your argument rests on stereotypes and racial epithets. it is weak. In this case, it is so weak that the only response is infinitely more surprising then anything I could possibly give.
We must remind everyone that white privilege is not attached to any personal characteristics such as intellect, personal hygiene, or punctuality. The concern is about systems—how sociocultural frameworks, institutional arrangements, and policy systems bestow unearned racial advantages. Having privilege means your existence is not made more difficult because of your skin color.
His attempt at mockery of my tardiness only goes further to show how he is not interested in debating but promotes hatred!
Round 3
My opponent is acting like a nigger. He literally offered zero rebuttals for my arguments and if he wanted to contest my definition of white privilege he could have did it in round one but he refused to
It is clear at this point that my opponent does not possess anargument. He defaults to using racial epithets, derogatory phrases, and bigoted comments. In any structured debate, this is automatically anacceptanceof losing the argument. In addition, it paradoxically showcases the socio-political bigotry that enables a white person in America to wield unfounded social power.
His unwillingness to put thought into him engagingwith the topic, hisdependenceon insults, and the fusion of violence with irrational animusshowthere is no legitimate position he can work from.
I remained within the confines of the explanation given on white privilege and its systemic advantagesas opposed to personal attributes. My opponent did not attempt togivea counter-explanation because, in fact, his actions showed hecan’tprovide a rebuttal. He demonstrated through his conduct that systemic bias still exists in blatant, obvious form, catalyzing systemic forms of oppression thatmuchaid the privileged.
I came prepared to discuss,whereas he motivated himself solely to hurl ad hominem attacks. That disparity as a whole underlines this entire interaction.
His unwillingness to put thought into him engagingwith the topic, hisdependenceon insults, and the fusion of violence with irrational animusshowthere is no legitimate position he can work from.
I remained within the confines of the explanation given on white privilege and its systemic advantagesas opposed to personal attributes. My opponent did not attempt togivea counter-explanation because, in fact, his actions showed hecan’tprovide a rebuttal. He demonstrated through his conduct that systemic bias still exists in blatant, obvious form, catalyzing systemic forms of oppression thatmuchaid the privileged.
I came prepared to discuss,whereas he motivated himself solely to hurl ad hominem attacks. That disparity as a whole underlines this entire interaction.
You would think if freedom of speech is allowed anywhere it would be on a debate site .
How is this debate allowed?
thank you
Done.
@whiteflame
do that please
It doesn't allow for edits. If you want to copy it, I can delete it and you can re-post it.
I accidentally clicked the wrong thing in my vote. Can you let me edit it somehow?
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Reason for Removal: when awarding points in the winner-take-all format, the voter is required, at minimum, to assess arguments in order to award points. Even if the debaters’ conduct ends up being a factor in their decision, that argument analysis must be present. Simply stating that one side did not refute the other is insufficient - the voter must provide analysis of specific points brought up by both sides in the debate.
**************************************************
I’ll take a look at this.
Con's profile photo is cute. Its difficult to vote against that.
Can you take a look at Rizzler's vote and read con's second round where he makes no positive arguments and just calls me racist. He makes no effort to support his own position and the rizzler is essentially placing a type of revenge vote to avenge a position he holds.
I have premises for my arguments, you just didn't address them. I mentioned lower IQs for example and you just let my points stand.
sorry for the combined words i am in a rush.
Also Negroes is not a racist term. It feels wrong when a white person uses it but it's pretty neutral though is slowly riding the "euphemism wheel"
The 70s it wasn't racist, the 80s and 90s it was just too close to the word nigger so whites stopped saying it in case they were misheard, knowing that a lot of people just react emotionally to the word. Now because whites have decided not to say it, other whites not hearing it often have started to think the term was racist.
Pro life people and pretty much every Muslim is just incapable of placing fair votes. It's a tragedy but none the less true
In this context, someone who votes their bias.
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
You might be right. but whats a yes man?
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
I didn't have the chance to respond. But Its obvious that your racist. You didn't even mention the topic at hand instead you go on talking about how whites are the supreme race. An if ur white why are you calling African Americans "Negroes".
Im talking about Wylted but i cant tag him so im taging you Barney
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
So topic is just white vs black? Well, there is some space to argue there too. What counts as advantage? And do you mean all white people? Some whites are way below some black people, in wealth and everything. Also, black people do have some important advantages, like bigger dick on average and generally higher reproduction rate to replace white people. So yes, there is space to argue.
You can be more privileged than darkies and less then the big people and you would still be privileged but so would the bug people
"Meaning whites have an unfair advantage over non whites"
Are white people superior to asian people? Or does this topic just limits itself to white vs black?
You are not a trump tard so you would be arguing devils advocate.
I would accept, but I cant.
No conservative tards want to come here and claim white privilege doesn't exist