Instigator / Con
2
1526
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#3578
should minorities be equalized to the majority?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
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
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
CON = arguing why minorities should not be equalized to the majority
PRO = arguing why minorities should be equalized to the majority
This is a spin-off debate from this original debate between me and Mall
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3451-none-white-demographic-change-in-the-west
Round 1
Within a country, there are certain groups of people (whom in this case minorities opposite of the majority's composition) who do not add the same level of contribution/preservation to the nation-state as the majority does (largely composed of ethnic host descendants, heterosexuals, and nuclear families all in-which make up the greater collective). Minorities should never be equalized to the majority for the sole reason it is the majority that has a fundamental duty in maintaining the greater society arisen from them and they have every right to maintain that inherent status and turning a blindeye to this built-in Truth of human hierarchy poses the risk of negative societal transformations harming it's very image.
EXAMPLE: If you were to observe at what's happening in White Western Civilization, you'll find out that the White populations (responsible for the West's prosperity) are projected to become a minority in their own ancestral homelands by the estimated year of 2050 and one factor driving this calculation is this idea that it is a required necessity for minorities to be equalized to the majority which has summoned a clash of identities skewing its civilizational fabrication.
I believe in justice. That means no person is mistreated and the person(s) that needs the help the most constructively gets just that.
Now many would define that as equality.
So that is equality between all persons. Now do all persons contribute to society?
I don't know. I don't know all people to know that.
Do unborn "white persons" contribute to society?
I understand newborns will get equal treatment . The opportunities, advantages and rights available for anyone else will apply to that new life.
Do all persons contribute same amount to society?
If I knew exactly how to measure that, I could answer that.
So what would be the justification or fairness about not equating treatment or rights or anything of the sort based on what a person does?
We know a person can have a potential of abilities. That's the point of protecting life across the board. Not prioritizing some outside of urgent circumstances but across the board.
Which stems back to the "pro life" position which is an attempt to broaden the equalizing but that is perhaps a topic for another time.
Round 2
Yeah Mall, due to personal lifework I need to get back too. Can we reschedule this debate for another time?
Most definitely.
Round 3
Forfeited
In closing I'll leave this straightforward illustration.
A man is born .
Unbeknownst to his potential, he must live inside a society.
A society that must shelter him with some protection by rights.
What is that famous expression?
All men are created equal.
Why?
One man to the next man can accomplish a productive life.
But he's got to have a society, a government that is willing to give him equal chance. An equal opportunity at education, medical care, subsidy or assistance programs.
Even for second chances, equal fair shot with rehabilitation programs.
Don't argue the lack of contribution from someone when they only get the short end to provide on.
Here's somebody who barely contributes in the workforce. Giving the person the equal opportunity to prove themselves, you get in , what you put out to offer.
When the person is able to do as much as the next because they were offered the same chance at employment as the next instead of a raw deal, it comes full circle.
End the cycle of bias that hurts us, recycle the fair play that helps us.
No, no minority group or any group for that matter should be "equalized" to another.
With the exception of the estimated 335,000 Africans brought to North America, everyone else pretty much came here from abroad of their own choosing looking for a better life. Once the Africans were freed, they could have accepted offers to leave. They chose to stay. They prospered. The very first female millionaire was a black woman. Many blacks excelled in academia and in professional positions - DESPITE - any level or measure of racism.
It wasn't until the 1960s where black Americans saw a downturn for their people, and it was of their own choosing and doing. Their failures were their own, but they blame whitey for their own problems.
They just need to accept their failures as their own, admit there is a problem among their own, and start forcing their own to take more personal accountability and responsibility for their choices and actions.
You can't just equalize different people. That is like saying "you are white" to a black dude and expect nothing from it.