Instigator / Con
Points: 8

White male privilege is a myth

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Type1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 19
Description
I do not believe that there is white male privilege.
Round 1
Published:
Many feminist today claim that they are oppressed, but none can give a example that hasn't been debunked. Like the wage gap which has been debunked by the university of woman. "Even in a unionized environment where work tasks are similar, hourly wages are identical, and tenure dictates promotions, female workers earn $0.89 on the male-worker dollar (weekly earnings). We use confidential administrative data on bus and train operators from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to show that the weekly earnings gap can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make. Women value time away from work and flexibility more than men, taking more unpaid time off using the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and working fewer overtime hours than men. When overtime hours are scheduled three months in advance, men and women work a similar number of hours; but when those hours are offered at the last minute, men work nearly twice as many. When selecting work schedules, women try to avoid weekend, holiday, and split shifts more than men. To avoid unfavorable work times, women prioritize their schedules over route safety and select routes with a higher probability of accidents. Women are less likely than men to game the scheduling system by trading off work hours at regular wages for overtime hours at premium wages. These results suggest that some policies that increase workplace flexibility, like shift swapping and expanded cover lists, can reduce the gender earnings gap and disproportionately increase the well-being of female workers." As explained here man worked more hours than woman and are more likely to stay home with their kids longer. Scientifically woman are better care takers and are more caring than man. This does not mean that man cant take care of their kids too. It is a 2 persons job after all. Man also work longer hours than woman. "It ignores the fact that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2017, men worked an average of 8.05 hours in an average day compared to 7.24 hours for women." Now going away from the wage gap feminist also like to use the excuse that, "its not bills and laws and social interactions." feminist say "mansplaing" which is when "the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." which is not true. Man do not explain things to woman in a manner that condescends woman. There are man out there who are sexist but they are not that big of a issue in America anymore. Man are more likely to be victims of a violent crime, man have a higher suicide rate than woman. Does this sound like "privilege"? Yes there are issue that woman face today and yes there are issues that man face today. Both genders face issues and to claim that woman "have it worst" and that man "have male privileged" is just wrong. 

Published:
Things like the wage gap and mansplaining are bullshit and I fully concede to those points, but there is a deeper form of white male privilege that you are unlikely to hear about on any feminist blog or at any BLM protest.  This form of white male privilege is so controversial and so illusive that you are unlikely to hear this from anyone else in your entire life.


There are three primary components to this "privilege matrix".

1: There are bloodlines, the vast majority of which are caucasian, which have hereditary wealth and privilege many of which even control the government from the shadows with their immense wealth, which means the most powerful people on earth will almost always end up being white men until the system itself changes.

2: White men are often privileged just from being born, because men usually have higher IQs than women and whites usually have higher IQs than most other races.

3: White people are more likely to live in first world countries and democracies, and are less likely to be born into poverty than darker skinned people. This is because even though women and blacks etc. technically have equal rights they are still effected by the past, especially when it comes to race. Although there are some cultural things which may effect women, culture and history very much effect populations which were once enslaved or oppressed racially to a much greater extent. For example African Americans have been inheriting dust for generations and although it is possible for a black person to be very successful it is much more rare for it to be handed to them like it is for whites. Blacks are poor because for generations they were raised in poverty, and have developed a "ghetto" sub-culture in which poverty and racial division is taken for granted, thus they are still systemically oppressed if not systematically so.


White male privilege will always exist until capitalism ends because white males are more likely to inherit significant sums of wealth, more likely to succeed in the market even if they do not and in the 0.0001 etc. percentile of wealth there is a hidden hereditary "elite" which consists pretty much entirely of white men and controls the entire world.
Round 2
Published:
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 students graduate from high school at a rate of 69% but this is not because of white privilege. This because of many different factors. In college, 75% of white students study. 16% of black students are suspended. This is earned not given.


Whether you think it's because of Trump or Obama black unemployment rates are the lowest its been in a long time. at 6.5%. Which shows that more black people are going out and getting jobs to contribute to society and to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. 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 




















sources:

Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
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 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. If I was already rich there would be a lot more career opportunities open to me. Plus even if you don't inherit a penny the rich environment you are raised in will help you succeed, meanwhile black kids are fed on a diet of kool-aid and grits and taught nothing by their parents except ebonics and how to steal stereos out of cars.

Being more intelligent than a race is not a privilege. 
Yes it is, it puts you at an advantage just for being born. Also much of it is due to the privilege they already have of being born in a generally more stable environment with more opportunities and resources.

Black people are not held back by white people. They're holding themselves back. 
Everyone who is not rich is being held back by rich people because we have a system that makes it easier to get rich the more rich you are and more difficult the more poor you are. 

The money and power white people gained are earned through hard work and labor. 
Yes, it's totally due to that. I mean, without the hard work and labour of your employees how would you be able to sit back and steal the value they produce for your business that you started because you already had the money to start it in the first place? I wish I could be smart enough to be given enough money to steal the value produced by other people's labour, but I am just not good enough to be arbitrarily handed those advantages due to my own lack of work ethic I suppose.

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 
This is largely not due to capitalism, but due to the fact that more shit is being invented. It is also due to those damn communist democrats who insist on helping out the poor. The article you sourced is literally retarded, it claims that capitalism is responsible for lowering child mortality rates and preventing tooth decay rather than advances in medical science. 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.
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
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.
#11
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
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.
#10
Added:
--> @Titanium
ik affirmative action sux :(
#9
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
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".
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
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.
#7
Added:
--> @Type1
"whites usually have higher IQs than most other races."
lol I'm assuming Asians are the exception to most other races 😂
#6
Added:
Sorry I missed this round just expound on your points and I'll make up for it in round 3.
Contender
#5
Added:
Yeah. lol. im new to this site.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Alec
Yeah I noticed that, thanks for looking out though.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Type1
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.
#2
Added:
--> @justincole
Your position in the description contradicts your stance on the issue.
#1
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro did better, according to me.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.