White male privilege is a myth
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I do not believe that there is white male privilege.
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.
Being more intelligent than a race is not a privilege.
Black people are not held back by white people. They're holding themselves back.
The money and power white people gained are earned through hard work and labor.
Capitalism is helping with this. "For example, the percentage of American households below the poverty line who have basic appliances has grown steadily over the last few decades, with poor families in 2005 being more likely to own things like a clothes dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, or air conditioner than the average household was in 1971. And consumer items that didn’t even exist back then, such as cell phones, were owned by half of the poor households in 2005 and are owned by a substantial majority of them today." Black people make up about 13% of the population and make up 27% of poor people in America. Capitalism has raised their living standards
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.
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 2 sources to con for sources
RFD:
Con cited more sources than pro did, therefore con should win on sources. However in terms of arguments, while con did make decent arguments, pro refuted every single one of them using common sense with a few examples.
Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award an argument point, the voter must:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 sources to pro for sources
RFD: Neither said made sufficient arguments. Con did not rule out enough alternatives and Pro grounded the argument in a slippery slope fallacy.
Con gets this by default because pro did not provide any sources
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
ik affirmative action sux :(
Yes, east asians and Jews have the highest IQ on average. Much of it is cultural/environmental though and I am a lot less "nature over nurture" than a true "race realist".
Harvard specifically has higher entrance criteria for asians because they generally perform better in ways that would get them into harvard. In contrast, Blacks can have a low math score, like the 94th percentile, and still gain entrance to MIT which puts them at a severe disadvantage automatically being underprepared for the curriculum.
Awful how unintended consequences work.
"whites usually have higher IQs than most other races."
lol I'm assuming Asians are the exception to most other races 😂
Sorry I missed this round just expound on your points and I'll make up for it in round 3.
Yeah. lol. im new to this site.
Yeah I noticed that, thanks for looking out though.
How about you argue for the existence of white male privilege and justincole argues against it since I think he made a mistake on the positions.
Your position in the description contradicts your stance on the issue.