White male privilege is a myth
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I do not believe that there is white male privilege.
Pro did better, according to me.
Pro concedes that the white privledge outlined by con in the opening round doesn’t exist, but focuses on inherent advantages from whites, from intelligence, to inherent wealth. The best specific argument pro makes is relating to being born in poverty, and the generational impact.
Pro could have gone much further here in order to demonstrate this, but imo, he did enough to convey the point. This is not argued or refuted by con in his next round.
In fact, my issue with cons rebuttal is that doesn’t directly address most of what pro argued: cons argument here is primarily that white wealth isn’t inherited - which is only part of pros point (though I couldn’t see an obvious source for cons claim), and that the lives of black people are improving economically. This may be true, but con doesn’t explain why this means thr advantage pro explains doesn’t exist.
The resolution is “white male privilege” - con barely covered the white part - pro barely covered the male part - but I felt pro did much better here conveying the specific advantages afforded to white men, and was danced around by con.
Arguments to pro.
Spelling and Grammar and conduct: Both had very fine conduct and spelling and grammar so both tied in those aspects, however, the similarities end from there.
Reliable Sources: The instigator did provide one absolutely absurd and incorrect source in his final argument, being the one that quote " claims that capitalism is responsible for lowering child mortality rates and preventing tooth decay rather than advances in medical science",. Through conducting some research and using common sense this is obviously true. However aside from that one source, con not only provided more sources but also used his data in his arguments, something too which the contender failed too and instead relied on anecdotal claims. Therefore the instigator won in that aspect.
Convincing arguments: The instigator made some decent arguments particularly in his 1st rebuttel, however they also made some condradicting points. For example at one point the instigator made this contradicting point. ." Black people make up about 13% of the population and make up 27% of poor people in America. Capitalism has raised their living standards,". In case you don't see the blaring contradiction, all this stat proves is that black poverty is a huge issue in America as a minority which only makes up 13 % of the population, also makes up 27 % of poor people in America. Which is a very high statistic too have in supposedly "capitalist paridise",.
- The contender also made stronger rebuttels particularly on " White people are not handed down money. They work hard for their money. 69% of kids from rich parents work for their money while only 6% are inherited."
The contender than argued back,
"The ones at the very top of the wealth ladder all inherit massive amounts of money though. On top of that, just because you work to make MORE money doesn't mean you didn't get a massive head start by being born with a rich daddy."
This is obviously a very true point as just because whites may work harder, doesn't mean they don't have a better head start than other races due too most blacks living more poverty than their white counterparts.
And of course, my personal favorite argument that the contender made was this masterpiece,
" If you want to say those advances were helped because of capitalism, then I could easily cancel that out by pointing to the USSR which went from being an abject feudalistic shit hole to being one of the most advanced countries on earth under socialism. The USSR also saw these advances much more rapidly than any capitalist country in history."
- Before I begin my analysis of this point, I would like too state that I do not support the USSR due too the vass amount of corruption and human rights issues in that country. However in terms of it's success in advancement, what the Contender is saying is indeed correct. Compared too Old russia and the USSR, the USSR had a better millitary, a better economy, better infastructure, less wealth inequality, and overall became a global superpower, even comparable too the old british empire, and the USA.
All of this being said I feel very strongly that while the instigator had better sources and both had equal amounts of conduct and grammar, overall pro made more convincing arguments for their claim.