Instigator / Pro
8
1472
rating
33
debates
46.97%
won
Topic
#4101
White privilege is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Definitions:
White Privilege: inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice.
Problem: a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.
Both definitions come from Oxford Dictionary.
I (Pro) will be arguing that white privilege, is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
You (Con) will be arguing that white privilege is a problem that we have in the USA today.
Rules:
One forfeit is equivalent to a loss. This is not the official DART standards, but this is a personalized debate, so you must agree to this in order to debate.
If my opponent wishes for one forfeit without losing, then they must PM me to talk about it.
Round 1
Pro
#1
First off, I would like to thank Sir. Lancelot for accepting this debate.
So, what is white privilege? Oxford dictionary defines it as, and I quote, "inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice". So, in simplistic terms, white privilege is when white people have a racial advantage to black people. Now I will be arguing that this is not the case, and in fact white privilege is not a problem in America today. I will not be arguing that it doesn't exist. I will prove my claim with this single reason, then rebuttal to the responses of my opponent.
Reason 1: The Law
The law, and government in the USA hasn't always been racially just. Going back to even when America was founded (1776) our founding fathers tried to go out of there way, to keep slavery legal, by changing specific documents, so that it wouldn't change, or contradict Americas foundational believes. Over time though, this has changed drastically. In 1865, America had realized that slavery was immoral and wrong, and in doing so we abolished slavery. Just 5 years after Joseph Rainey, the first black man to get elected to congress, was put in a major position of power. but the white supremacy doesn't end there. Blacks were still oppressed even after slavery was abolished. Then, in between the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights movement happened. This gave black people all of the same rights as white people, and everyone was treated equally as human beings, with the same rights and consequences.
All in all, if white privaledge is white people have a racial advantage over black people, then why do some people think it is still a prominent problem in the USA? The fact of the matter is that it is not a problem. In 1964, congress passed a law that gave black people the same rights and advantages as everyone else.
"In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing."
Con
#2
Thank you, Pro, for creating this thread.
Preamble:
So I shall aim to prove the harms caused by White Privilege in this country. Now I want to make myself clear, I am not claiming white people are racist. Such an accusation would require me to think that the harms caused by white privilege are done with malicious intent. There is certainly malevolence at hand here, but currently, the role of White Privilege in this current generation is due to ignorance and indifference.
BOP
Because of the resolution title, the BOP is on me to demonstrate how White Privilege IS a problem in this country.
1. Police Brutality
Because of racist stereotypes of black people being illiterate thugs and drug dealers, police will act with less restraint against civilians of darker skin. Black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race than people of lighter skin color. They can also invoke the excuse that the civilian was actively resisting arrest and the enablers will allow the abusive officer to get away with his violence and misconduct because of his race.
2. Racial Sentencing
The author of the book The Lovely Bones had mistakenly identified an African American man, Anthony Broadwater, as her rapist. It would be decades of serving a wrongful sentence until he would be released. While Alice Sebold is not at fault here, the fact that the authorities failed to investigate this case critically demonstrates the disregard the law has for people of color.
Whereas a white man named Brock Turner who was proven to be guilty of the sexual assault charges filed against him, would only be given a 3 months' sentence. Drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decades longer than the sentence Brock received. It is this apparent lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system that gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony. His White Privilege.
Regarding the Death Penalty, Black and Latina people are more likely to be executed than their whiter counterparts.
Racial bias against defendants of color and in favor of white victims has a strong effect on who is capitally prosecuted, sentenced to death, and executed.
3. Stereotypes
White people are not subject to the same rumors and stereotypes that black people face on a daily basis. Serial killers like Nikolas Cruz, Elliot Rodger, and Payton Gendron were all white. Despite a lot of shootings being committed by white people, these incidences have not led to white people being profiled or even scrutinized against because of their race. But because of a few crimes committed by people of color, black people will be subject to centuries' old stereotypes and rumors about their predisposition to violence.
4. Systemic Racism vs Individual Racism
Many white people complain of black people being racist, so they made up a fictitious term called "reverse racism." Reverse racism is simply not a thing. The takeaway here is that racism is racism, period.
Black people can be racist, but it is unlikely to cause harm because the amount of racist black people oppressing white people are nonexistent. <---- This is why individual racism is not the main issue here.
White people being racist does harm for multiple reasons, all of which including discriminating against candidates because of their race, having them blackballed, and denying them insurance because of who their parents are. Historical experiences of being born into a low-income class will come to affect people of color in this generation as well, simply by the fact that they can't choose who their heritage.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you Con for your reply.
Rebuttals:
1. Police BrutalityBecause of racist stereotypes of black people being illiterate thugs and drug dealers, police will act with less restraint against civilians of darker skin. Black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race than people of lighter skin color. They can also invoke the excuse that the civilian was actively resisting arrest and the enablers will allow the abusive officer to get away with his violence and misconduct because of his race.
Con brings up police brutality as his first example for white privilege being a problem in the U.S. today. Con claims that black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race. This claim is more or less an assumption than an actual fact. Con provides no evidence or statistics for black people being profiled more than white people. Con provides a link to a video, of a cop being abusive to a teacher of color. I can provide the full video as well for more clarity.
Police officers have rules, by which they have to follow, to a tee. This includes the levels of force that an officer uses when detaining.
Now, I will not be defending everything this cop did in the video, because some things he did and said were cruel.
Police have levels of force, that includes Verbal, Visual, physical force, less lethal, and lethal. This officer uses verbal, and visual force at the beginning of the vehicle. It is only when officer is becoming impatient with the woman when he uses physical. The officer never enacts less lethal, or lethal. From what I saw in the video, this officer was doing, and saying some unusually cruel things.
But alas, this is just but one example of a cop being potentially racist, and doesn't account for Cons claim, that police brutality is a reason why white privilege is a problem today.
Lack of evidence gives me no choice but to move on to Con's next point.
2. Racial SentencingThe author of the book The Lovely Bones had mistakenly identified an African American man, Anthony Broadwater, as her rapist. It would be decades of serving a wrongful sentence until he would be released. While Alice Sebold is not at fault here, the fact that the authorities failed to investigate this case critically demonstrates the disregard the law has for people of color.
Con claims that the author of the book The Lovely Bones has mistakenly identified an African American man as her rapist. Even though Anthony Broadwater was wrongfully accused, this does not lead to the claim that Con is making. Alice Sebold is not at fault here, and nor is the authorities, because they were going based off of the only evidence that they had: the victim.
Using Con's source, it states: "Sebold identified Broadwater as her rapist on the witness stand. He maintained his innocence and was denied release five times because he refused to admit guilt. When he was released, the year Lucky was published, he was required to register as violent sex offender.
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."
This shows the only evidence they had to go off on was a witness/victim, and DNA. The DNA was only later deemed to be unreliable, meaning at the time, this evidence tied Broadwater to the crime. The authorities had no other choice but to look at the evidence at hand, and convict someone.
Con's claim for this evidence is that white supremacy is a problem today, because of racial sentencing, using this book as their evidence.
Whereas a white man named Brock Turner who was proven to be guilty of the sexual assault charges filed against him, would only be given a 3 months' sentence. Drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decades longer than the sentence Brock received. It is this apparent lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system that gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony. His White Privilege.
Again, this is one example for a white man being let out too early. If everything in the world could be proved with one example, then most things in the world could be justified. Con states that drug addicts of color receive a sentencing decade longer than the sentence Brock received yet provides no evidence. Con claims that the lack of accountability and racial bias in the justice system, gives Brock Turner a clear advantage over Anthony, because of his white privilege. If this is the case, then why is the opposite also true? White people are wrongly convicted as well, and black people are also let out too early?
Cases like:
Jasmine Eskew
Russ Faria
Lydia Salce
Heidi Hascher
And the list goes on. Feel free to look up these people's stories for clarity.
Regarding the Death Penalty, Black and Latina people are more likely to be executed than their whiter counterparts.Racial bias against defendants of color and in favor of white victims has a strong effect on who is capitally prosecuted, sentenced to death, and executed.
Now Con brings up the death penalty, claiming that Black and Latina people is more likely to be executed than white people. This time, Con provides evidence, and this is true. Black and Latino people are more likely to be executed than white people, but why is that? It is because in this country, violent crime is more prominent in the black community and Latino community rather than the white community.
"Serious violent crime and aggravated assault against blacks (58% and 61%) and indigenous Americans (55% and 59%) was reported more often than against whites (51% and 54%) or Asians (50% and 51%)."
This point proves nothing more than the fact that the black community usually commits more violent crime, than white people.
Con tries to use one example of a white man being let out too early, and one example of a black man being wrongly convicted, as proof for white privilege, when in fact there is evidence on both sides. Again, because of lack of evidence, I am forced to move onto the next reason.
3. StereotypesWhite people are not subject to the same rumors and stereotypes that black people face on a daily basis.
I would love to know where Con got statistics for rumors.
Serial killers like Nikolas Cruz, Elliot Rodger, and Payton Gendron were all white.
Yes, and it is actually a stereotype for serial killers to be white, because the statistics show that to be true.
Despite a lot of shootings being committed by white people, these incidences have not led to white people being profiled or even scrutinized against because of their race. But because of a few crimes committed by people of color, black people will be subject to centuries' old stereotypes and rumors about their predisposition to violence.
I would not say a few. Again, the black community commits more violent crime than white people, which leads to these so-called stereotypes. These stereotypes don't apply to all black people though. It only applies to the black people in those communities. I don't see anyone scared of Barrack Obama pulling out a Glock.
Once again, Con only provides one example of a mass shooting by a white man, who is racist, yet does not address all of the other killings and shootings committed in black communities, so I will for him:
"The mass shootings have disproportionately occurred in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Nearly 50 percent of the shootings analyzed by The Trace took place in majority-Black census tracts, though less than 10 percent of census tracts nationally have majority Black populations. The pattern held in almost every city that has had more than five mass shootings in 2020. In Chicago, for example, 31 out of 36 shootings with four or more victims happened in majority-Black census tracts. In Detroit and Milwaukee, each of which saw five mass shootings, all of them occurred in majority-Black neighborhoods."
4. Systemic Racism vs Individual RacismMany white people complain of black people being racist, so they made up a fictitious term called "reverse racism." Reverse racism is simply not a thing. The takeaway here is that racism is racism, period.
I agree, although I don't personally hear white people call it "reverse racism" rather they just call it racism. The fact is that racism can come from anywhere. It can come from black people, white people, Asian people, Latino people, the list goes on. I am just a little confused on why this constitutes as a reason for white privilege being a problem in the U.S.
Black people can be racist, but it is unlikely to cause harm because the amount of racist black people oppressing white people are nonexistent. <---- This is why individual racism is not the main issue here.
It would cause the same amount of harm. Con's reasoning for this is because the system is racist against black people yet provides no evidence for this claim.
The system is not racist, because it does not give white people any advantage over black people. Therefore, it would cause the same amount of harm for a black person to be racist toward a white person, as it does vice versa. Again, I am confused on why this is a reason. It's seeming more like reason to why black people being racist is ok, rather than white privilege is a problem.
White people being racist does harm for multiple reasons, all of which including discriminating against candidates because of their race, having them blackballed, and denying them insurance because of who their parents are.
Then how did a black man become the president of the USA, by a large majority, if the system is racist?
Historical experiences of being born into a low-income class will come to affect people of color in this generation as well, simply by the fact that they can't choose who their heritage.
White people born in a low-income home would also affect white people as well. This point proves nothing.
Conclusion:
All in all, most of Con's arguments lacked evidence, and had a claim with one example backing it up. Con did not respond to my first post whatsoever. I think it is clear that white privilege is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
Con
#4
There appears to be some unnecessary aggression towards Pro in the comments' section. One of the comments made said that Pro is arguing that white privilege is "good," and that he has to argue either it is good or bad. This is a Strawman and a False Dilemma, and I would prefer voters not to assume this is Pro's position because there is nothing to indicate he thinks this way.
Rebuttals:
Con brings up police brutality as his first example for white privilege being a problem in the U.S. today. Con claims that black people are more likely to be profiled because of their race. This claim is more or less an assumption than an actual fact. Con provides no evidence or statistics for black people being profiled more than white people. Con provides a link to a video, of a cop being abusive to a teacher of color. I can provide the full video as well for more clarity.Police officers have rules, by which they have to follow, to a tee. This includes the levels of force that an officer uses when detaining.Now, I will not be defending everything this cop did in the video, because some things he did and said were cruel.Police have levels of force, that includes Verbal, Visual, physical force, less lethal, and lethal. This officer uses verbal, and visual force at the beginning of the vehicle. It is only when officer is becoming impatient with the woman when he uses physical. The officer never enacts less lethal, or lethal. From what I saw in the video, this officer was doing, and saying some unusually cruel things.But alas, this is just but one example of a cop being potentially racist, and doesn't account for Cons claim, that police brutality is a reason why white privilege is a problem today.Lack of evidence gives me no choice but to move on to Con's next point.
This is just one of many examples.
Heck, you can even look up the issue with George Floyd. This is probably the most conventional example of racism in the U.S. and a demonstration of the issues perpetuated by White Privilege.
You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white.
And then this guy gets profiled just for picking up trash. RAW: Bodycam video shows police confront man picking up trash outside building - YouTube
It's not a coincidence you can find many videos with this same theme in mind.
Con claims that the author of the book The Lovely Bones has mistakenly identified an African American man as her rapist. Even though Anthony Broadwater was wrongfully accused, this does not lead to the claim that Con is making. Alice Sebold is not at fault here, and nor is the authorities, because they were going based off of the only evidence that they had: the victim.Using Con's source, it states: "Sebold identified Broadwater as her rapist on the witness stand. He maintained his innocence and was denied release five times because he refused to admit guilt. When he was released, the year Lucky was published, he was required to register as violent sex offender.
A re-examination of the case found serious flaws in Broadwater’s arrest and trial, including microscopic hair analysis that tied him to the crime but was later deemed to be unreliable."This shows the only evidence they had to go off on was a witness/victim, and DNA. The DNA was only later deemed to be unreliable, meaning at the time, this evidence tied Broadwater to the crime. The authorities had no other choice but to look at the evidence at hand, and convict someone.Con's claim for this evidence is that white supremacy is a problem today, because of racial sentencing, using this book as their evidence.
No, no, no, no, no.
The book is irrelevant to the point I'm making and is only referenced so readers know who the author is. If I just gave the name of the author, I could infer that most people would not recognize it.
Also keep in mind that I'm not referring to white supremacy. White supremacy exists in a similar, but exclusive category.
This is Institutionalized Discrimination - Prejudicial practices and policies within institutions that result in the systematic denial of resources and opportunities to members of subordinate groups.
The role White Privilege plays is the apparent advantages Caucasian people have when actually found guilty of the crime. Their wealth can minimize the sentencing or get them a good defense team.
Now Con brings up the death penalty, claiming that Black and Latina people is more likely to be executed than white people. This time, Con provides evidence, and this is true. Black and Latino people are more likely to be executed than white people, but why is that? It is because in this country, violent crime is more prominent in the black community and Latino community rather than the white community."Serious violent crime and aggravated assault against blacks (58% and 61%) and indigenous Americans (55% and 59%) was reported more often than against whites (51% and 54%) or Asians (50% and 51%)."
You have to consider why though.
Socio-economic disadvantages have been affecting black and Latina communities the most for centuries and the sufficient lack of education or high-demand skill training leads them to pursue crime in order to survive. And some are born into the criminal life and punished for factors they were placed in beyond their control.
White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages.
Then how did a black man become the president of the USA, by a large majority, if the system is racist?
This is a specious question.
Considering there are a large amount of anti-Obama people who didn't vote, this is sufficient enough to tip the scale of balance back into the power of his supporters.
White people born in a low-income home would also affect white people as well. This point proves nothing.
Statistically, this is lower than the amount of black people born into low-income homes. The African American community has been dealing with this crisis for centuries while the majority of white people are privileged enough to be middle-class.
I look forward to Pro's response.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you Con for your argument.
As Con said, the situation in the comments were accusations, with no point to them whatsoever. I am not arguing that white privilege is good nor that it doesn't exist, I am simply arguing that it is not a problem that we have in the USA today.
Rebuttals:
Con brings up an example of a dollar store employee, calling the cops on a black man, who was trying to shop. After watching entirety of the video, it seems to be, that the dollar store employee was being irrational, threatened the man, and called the cops on him, but this does not prove that the man was being racist. It could have been a variety of reasons. When the cops show up, the cops simply ask for this man's identification, and or name. In cases like this if you are in the right, it is a smart decision to do what the cops say, and comply, otherwise it makes you look guilty for resisting. The cops did not touch the man and let him go on his way. The only reason the cops did not let the man file charges, was because the man would not provide any information, claiming he did not have to. Why is it right for the cops to help this man out, when he won't even provide information for them?
The owner of this property asked for this man to be restricted from coming into that store and removed. Though probably unfair, on the cashier's fault, the cops have a job to do, and this man was making it harder for them to complete that task. Unlike a lot of people claim, cops can't just do whatever they want, and in doing so, also can't just leave things to work themselves out. This could have been avoided, if the man just simply provided his information. This would do no harm to the man and would sort everything out. The only mean person in this situation is the cashier, and there is no evidence in this video, to tie that to racism or white privilege.
Con then provides another video, where a man who was picking up trash on his property, what wrongfully accused of trespassing. This was the cop's fault, and the cop made some bad and unjust decisions in the video, which included arming his taser, and drawing his weapon. If you watch the whole video though, the cops partner realizes that the cop made a bad decision, and let the man go. You have to realize that those other cops who were surrounding the man, did not know what was going on, and were not commanding officers, therefore just had to follow protocol. Again, there is no tie to racism here, this could have happened to anyone, this cop was just being unjust.
If con is using cops as a reason for white supremacy, then I would ask the question, why did the officers partner let the man go, and disagree with his own partner?
These videos show no sign of white supremacy, nor do they show any legitimate proof of racism.
You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white.And then this guy gets profiled just for picking up trash.It's not a coincidence you can find many videos with this same theme in mind.
Con claims that white people don't have to worry about cops attacking them, yet this happens to white people as well:
The last video is a video, of a guy who is plainly just standing on public property. This happens to both black, and white people alike. There are no racist intentions, just crappy people.
No, no, no, no, no.The book is irrelevant to the point I'm making and is only referenced so readers know who the author is. If I just gave the name of the author, I could infer that most people would not recognize it.Also keep in mind that I'm not referring to white supremacy. White supremacy exists in a similar, but exclusive category.This is Institutionalized Discrimination - Prejudicial practices and policies within institutions that result in the systematic denial of resources and opportunities to members of subordinate groups.The role White Privilege plays is the apparent advantages Caucasian people have when actually found guilty of the crime. Their wealth can minimize the sentencing or get them a good defense team.
Con states that he is not referring to white supremacy in this point, yet he is debating the topic of white supremacy. Then Con goes on to say that Caucasian people have apparent advantages. What advantages are these exactly? By law, white people don't have any advantages.
So Con is using a claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Con is using evidence for Institutionalized Discrimination, and not white supremacy.
You have to consider why though.Socio-economic disadvantages have been affecting black and Latina communities the most for centuries and the sufficient lack of education or high-demand skill training leads them to pursue crime in order to survive. And some are born into the criminal life and punished for factors they were placed in beyond their control.White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages.
Con brings up a good point, considering why there are black and Latino criminals than white criminals in the USA. Then con claims it is because of Socio-economic disadvantages, lack of education, and being born into criminal lifestyles. While this is all true, this does not prove white privilege in any way. The number of white people who commit crimes also have these disadvantages as well.
Con is claiming that white people don't have this problem, therefore assuming that white people don't have a lack of education, white people aren't born into criminal lifestyles, and white people don't have Socio-economic disadvantages, which is all untrue.
This is a specious question.Considering there are a large amount of anti-Obama people who didn't vote, this is sufficient enough to tip the scale of balance back into the power of his supporters.
But during a lo of elections, a lot of people don't vote. Con doesn't provide statistics of any non-voting from anti-Obama people.
The question that I am asking is if white supremacy is a problem in the U.S. and the system as con claims is biased to white people, then how did a black man become the president of the United States twice?
Statistically, this is lower than the amount of black people born into low-income homes. The African American community has been dealing with this crisis for centuries while the majority of white people are privileged enough to be middle-class.
Con states that statistically, more black people are born into lower income homes than white people yet provide no evidence for it. I will give Con the benefit of the doubt and provide this evidence for him, to give voters more clairty.
Con is not wrong. There are statistically more black people in poverty, than white people in poverty. Why is this though? Black people have the same advantages educationally than white people do, and in fact they have an advantage that white people don't.
"Previous research shows that black high school graduates are more likely than similar whites to attend college net of differences in socioeconomic family background and academic performance. That is, blacks evidence a net advantage in college-going."
To give you an example of this, let's say that a black person and a white person graduate high school at the same time with the same exact grades and standards. If a college has to choose between the two, that college is legally required to choose the black person over the white person.
So, if this is the case, then why is it that more black people are in poverty then white people?
Conclusion:
Con again makes a lot of claims like:
"You can walk into a grocery store without having to worry about being maced or having the cops called on you because you're white."
"White people don't have this problem because of their inherent status and advantages."
Without any evidence whatsoever to these claims.
Con still has yet to rebuttal to my first argument and did not rebuttal to a big chunk of my previous argument.
Con also brings up a topic that is not what we are debating and admits it.
Con
#6
As Con, there are 4 major contentions I have used to demonstrate how White Privilege is currently a problem.
Overview
- My first constructive argument of police brutality was refuted. Pro deconstructs it thoroughly by mentioning the restrictions officers have and pointing out my inadequate evidence.
- Pro half-way concedes on my second main argument. He provides some examples to counteract mine about the racial biases in sentencing, but then agrees with my point about how black and latina people are more likely to be sentenced than white people but attempts to counter by arguing the crime rate proportions of black/latina communities vs white.
- My third argument about stereotypes is only partially refuted by Pro. He acknowledges that black communities face more rumors of violence but says certain individuals are exempt. This doesn't actually disprove my claim about innocent black people more likely to be profiled which is why I simply can't give the point to Pro here.
- My fourth argument about how systemic racism affects people of color doesn't get refuted at all. Pro tries to undermine the significance by claiming it affects everyone equally, but this simply just isn't the case nor does this address the main argument.
It's important to know I am not talking about White Supremacy. I do make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious. This is why I cannot label it 'White Supremacy.' Because it doesn't fit the definition.
Furthermore, while I could have done a better job of supporting my case by supplying more evidence, I have still fulfilled the minimal requirement for the BOP. So the contentions I talked about shall remain for now.
Con brings up an example of a dollar store employee, calling the cops on a black man, who was trying to shop. After watching entirety of the video, it seems to be, that the dollar store employee was being irrational, threatened the man, and called the cops on him, but this does not prove that the man was being racist. It could have been a variety of reasons. When the cops show up, the cops simply ask for this man's identification, and or name. In cases like this if you are in the right, it is a smart decision to do what the cops say, and comply, otherwise it makes you look guilty for resisting. The cops did not touch the man and let him go on his way. The only reason the cops did not let the man file charges, was because the man would not provide any information, claiming he did not have to. Why is it right for the cops to help this man out, when he won't even provide information for them?The owner of this property asked for this man to be restricted from coming into that store and removed. Though probably unfair, on the cashier's fault, the cops have a job to do, and this man was making it harder for them to complete that task. Unlike a lot of people claim, cops can't just do whatever they want, and in doing so, also can't just leave things to work themselves out. This could have been avoided, if the man just simply provided his information. This would do no harm to the man and would sort everything out. The only mean person in this situation is the cashier, and there is no evidence in this video, to tie that to racism or white privilege.Con then provides another video, where a man who was picking up trash on his property, what wrongfully accused of trespassing. This was the cop's fault, and the cop made some bad and unjust decisions in the video, which included arming his taser, and drawing his weapon. If you watch the whole video though, the cops partner realizes that the cop made a bad decision, and let the man go. You have to realize that those other cops who were surrounding the man, did not know what was going on, and were not commanding officers, therefore just had to follow protocol. Again, there is no tie to racism here, this could have happened to anyone, this cop was just being unjust.If con is using cops as a reason for white supremacy, then I would ask the question, why did the officers partner let the man go, and disagree with his own partner?These videos show no sign of white supremacy, nor do they show any legitimate proof of racism.
This should actually be sufficient enough to substantiate my third argument about stereotypes.
Assuming a white person were to walk into the same dollar store, I highly doubt he would have been targeted the same way or had the cops called on him.
Con claims that white people don't have to worry about cops attacking them, yet this happens to white people as well:The last video is a video, of a guy who is plainly just standing on public property. This happens to both black, and white people alike. There are no racist intentions, just crappy people.
The fact is black people are more likely to be sentenced because of accusations of wrongdoing.
Extend my second contention about the DPIC's statistics of black/latina people on death-row.
Con states that he is not referring to white supremacy in this point, yet he is debating the topic of white supremacy. Then Con goes on to say that Caucasian people have apparent advantages. What advantages are these exactly? By law, white people don't have any advantages.So Con is using a claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Con is using evidence for Institutionalized Discrimination, and not white supremacy.
Whether I am arguing white supremacy is irrelevant, even though I'm clearly not. I already explained how Institutionalized Discrimination constitutes White Privilege.
Extend.
Con brings up a good point, considering why there are black and Latino criminals than white criminals in the USA. Then con claims it is because of Socio-economic disadvantages, lack of education, and being born into criminal lifestyles. While this is all true, this does not prove white privilege in any way. The number of white people who commit crimes also have these disadvantages as well.Con is claiming that white people don't have this problem, therefore assuming that white people don't have a lack of education, white people aren't born into criminal lifestyles, and white people don't have Socio-economic disadvantages, which is all untrue.
Take this as Pro conceding my fourth contention about systemic racism.
Extend my last paragraph from Round 2.
But during a lo of elections, a lot of people don't vote. Con doesn't provide statistics of any non-voting from anti-Obama people.The question that I am asking is if white supremacy is a problem in the U.S. and the system as con claims is biased to white people, then how did a black man become the president of the United States twice?
This question doesn't address nor refute the claim of white privilege, and my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year, so this doesn't require any evidence.
Con states that statistically, more black people are born into lower income homes than white people yet provide no evidence for it. I will give Con the benefit of the doubt and provide this evidence for him, to give voters more clairty.Con is not wrong. There are statistically more black people in poverty, than white people in poverty. Why is this though? Black people have the same advantages educationally than white people do, and in fact they have an advantage that white people don't."Previous research shows that black high school graduates are more likely than similar whites to attend college net of differences in socioeconomic family background and academic performance. That is, blacks evidence a net advantage in college-going."
So not only does Pro concede my fourth point, but provided evidence to substantiate it thereby making my point for me.
Then tries to double-down on the back-pedaling through claiming the advantages of both sides even it out.
To give you an example of this, let's say that a black person and a white person graduate high school at the same time with the same exact grades and standards. If a college has to choose between the two, that college is legally required to choose the black person over the white person.So, if this is the case, then why is it that more black people are in poverty then white people?
But this doesn't even it out. We have years of systemic oppression and economic disadvantages, so these exceptions are given to help fights years and years of Institutionalized Discrimination. This argument alone is self-defeating.
Conclusion
I have successfully proven that White Privilege is a problem.
Round 4
Pro
#7
This debate has been rather enjoyable, and I am ready for my final argument.
Looking at Cons argument, he seems to lay it out as a final argument of sorts, so either Con thinks that he has beaten me, or he must have thought that was his final round. Non-the less, I will rebuttal Cons arguments, and conclude mine as well.
Overview:
Throughout most of the debate, Con provides very little evidence of some big claims. Con has yet to rebuttal my very first argument, and big portions of my second and third ones.
Though Con has been very confident throughout the debate, Con lacks both evidence for his claims, and argues points on topics that are indifferent to the topic of the debate.
This overview is short and simple, because there is nothing really more to say.
Rebuttals:
It's important to know I am not talking about White Supremacy. I do make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious. This is why I cannot label it 'White Supremacy.' Because it doesn't fit the definition.
If you are arguing something that is not labeled white supremacy, and does not fit the definition, then you are arguing a completely different topic, and therefore with this claim, Con has proved that all of his arguments have not been on topic so far.
This should actually be sufficient enough to substantiate my third argument about stereotypes.Assuming a white person were to walk into the same dollar store, I highly doubt he would have been targeted the same way or had the cops called on him.
Here is Con, again providing no evidence for a big claim. Con is claiming that if the race of the man in the video was switched then this wouldn't of happened therefore it proves to be racist. This claim has no evidence backing it up, and is a big claim at that.
The fact is black people are more likely to be sentenced because of accusations of wrongdoing.Extend my second contention about the DPIC's statistics of black/latina people on death-row.
Con is half right with this claim, but still makes no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence for it. It is true that black people are more likely to be sentenced to prison than white people, but it is not true that those sentences are based on false accusations of wrongdoing. Con has already established that black people commit more crime that white people statistically. What Con has not done, and has not been able to do, is establish why this is the case. I have established why this is the case in my third argument if viewers would like to look.
Whether I am arguing white supremacy is irrelevant, even though I'm clearly not. I already explained how Institutionalized Discrimination constitutes White Privilege.Extend.
Con has just flat out stated that it is irrelevant if they are arguing the title of this topic or not. Con has just admitted once again to not be arguing about the same thing, this debate is titled for.
This question doesn't address nor refute the claim of white privilege, and my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year, so this doesn't require any evidence.
Con just stated, and I quote,"...my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year...." proving my point even further from last round in saying that a lot of people don't vote every year, and Obama being elected president twice, was not a result of people just not voting. To claim this is actually racist in of itself, because it is basically claiming that black people (like Obama) can't and don't have the capability to become the president, or get into any political decision making roles in this country.
So not only does Pro concede my fourth point, but provided evidence to substantiate it thereby making my point for me.Then tries to double-down on the back-pedaling through claiming the advantages of both sides even it out.
No, I helped you with your fourth point, and did not claim both sides have an advantage. This is a false accusation, and a lie from Cons argument. I claimed that black people by law, have a better chance of getting into college than white people, and did not make any claim saying white people had any advantage whatsoever.
But this doesn't even it out. We have years of systemic oppression and economic disadvantages, so these exceptions are given to help fights years and years of Institutionalized Discrimination. This argument alone is self-defeating.
Con, once again claims that black people have economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression, yet still provides no evidence for this far out claim. Again, I ask you once again Con, what economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression do black people have today?
ConclusionI have successfully proven that White Privilege is a problem.
Con provides a false statement in saying this, because Con has not even gotten close to doing this.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Con has repeatedly provided claims without evidence, lied about claims that I have made, has refused to rebutted most of my arguments, and has not answered some of my questions.
On the other hand, I have provided a multitude of evidence, and explanations in my rebuttals, rebutted most of cons arguments, and claims, have backed up my claims with evidence, and even helped out Con with his arguments.
I look forward to Con's final argument.
Con
#8
I summarized all of the points in the previous rounds. Since this is the final round, I cannot bring new arguments so I’ll just maintain my other contentions.
Rebuttals
If you are arguing something that is not labeled white supremacy, and does not fit the definition, then you are arguing a completely different topic, and therefore with this claim, Con has proved that all of his arguments have not been on topic so far.
I’m currently referring to a system of balance between white people and people of color.
Historic economic disadvantages and old laws have disproportioned this scale and given white people advantages not accessible to people of color. This is what we call White Privilege.
White supremacy plays a role, but it’s not the focus of the discussion. Not all internalized racism by white people is based in white supremacy. There are different forms of racism.
Here is Con, again providing no evidence for a big claim. Con is claiming that if the race of the man in the video was switched then this wouldn't of happened therefore it proves to be racist. This claim has no evidence backing it up, and is a big claim at that.
If you watch the video in question, the police make multiple references implying a lot of criminals in the area are black, demonstrating fear based on a stereotype.
Con is half right with this claim, but still makes no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence for it. It is true that black people are more likely to be sentenced to prison than white people, but it is not true that those sentences are based on false accusations of wrongdoing. Con has already established that black people commit more crime that white people statistically. What Con has not done, and has not been able to do, is establish why this is the case. I have established why this is the case in my third argument if viewers would like to look.
I included a DPIC statistic that proves the likelihood of people of color being executed because of racism in the judicial system and their economic disadvantages that prevent them from affording adequate legal counsel.
Con has just flat out stated that it is irrelevant if they are arguing the title of this topic or not. Con has just admitted once again to not be arguing about the same thing, this debate is titled for.
White privilege and white supremacy aren’t the same. I thought we were discussing white privilege?
Con just stated, and I quote,"...my response is a well-known fact about how many people refuse to vote every year...." proving my point even further from last round in saying that a lot of people don't vote every year, and Obama being elected president twice, was not a result of people just not voting. To claim this is actually racist in of itself, because it is basically claiming that black people (like Obama) can't and don't have the capability to become the president, or get into any political decision making roles in this country.
It just doesn’t prove the prompt. A black man can still be elected president and white privilege can still be a problem.
The fact that he’s the first and only black man to make office proves the problem of white privilege.
Con, once again claims that black people have economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression, yet still provides no evidence for this far out claim. Again, I ask you once again Con, what economic disadvantages, and systemic oppression do black people have today?
Housing, education, and status.
Most people of color are born into low-income, high crime areas that further the factors making it hard for them to afford a sufficient education. The jobs they take likewise cannot supply their costs of living.
Conclusion
So I have demonstrated the problems and issues caused by White Privilege.
And I thank Pro for the discussion!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
At its core pro is arguing that white privilege in its current form is mischaracterized, not resulting in "inequality and injustice" as the usual definition implies. It's something of a K to his own topic but I'll allow it. Con suffers a bit of scope creep and related confusion with closely connected matters of white supremacy.
Con yielded a lot of ground in R1 and R2, but came back in R3 to secure his victory.
In the end I'm left with the impression that the problem exists even if frequently overstated, and some factors such as increased educational access are beginning to mitigate it.
...
Pro argues it exists, but is not problematic. He supports this with slavery ending in 1865, in 1870 blacks began being elected into congress, and in 1964 a law was passed to give black people the same rights as white people "and everyone was treated equally as human beings, with the same rights and consequences."
Con argues that in present day "ignorance and indifference" associated with white privilege cause harms.
1. The Law (pro)
Pro successfully argues that the law as written is not inherently racist.
2. Police Brutality
Con uses the example of white police targeting a black teacher and being violent against her on the basis of how violent they believed her skin color to make her.
Pro challenges for a lack of statistically significant evidence (not sure the point of half defending the officer in question here; even while agreeing he was needlessly cruel).
Con brings up a few more examples, but misses pro's point and theme which extends throughout.
3. Racial Sentencing
Con argues black people are given decades when accused of rape, whereas white people are given only months for the same crime. This is particularly effective due to pro's line "the same rights and consequences." Con also mentions drugs, but without a comparison to how whites are sentenced it falls a little flat. Further, there is a difference in sentencing based on race (that source could have been much better utilized, a single line from it doesn't get across half what the graphs showed).
Pro defends that Turner is an isolated case, not indicative of a pattern; and further white people have also been wrongly accused of crimes. He defends that the rate of executions are solely in proportion to rate of capital crime occurrence.
Con argues that sentencing differences are "Institutionalized Discrimination." Further, that the differing crime rates are due to "Socio-economic disadvantages."
Pro asserts that it is impossible for the law to do this...
4. Stereotypes
Con argues that white people are more likely to commit violent crimes, but black people suffer centuries of profiling for the few of them which do likewise.
Pro challenges the ratios.,
Con backs down, and blames income inequality.
Pro leverages this with information on the education system which all other things being equal would result in African Americans doing better than White Americans.
Con says this is self defeating (I actually see why, due to the imbalance proving enough other things are not equal to create the situations already discussed; but con would have been well to talk a little more about this).
5. Systemic Racism vs Individual Racism
Con's weakest point. It feels like an assertion that racism is worse based on the color of the racist.
Pro defends and argues for dismissal due to lack of relevance.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The following are Pro's and Con's argument reviews:
Con's first constructive argument of police brutality was refuted. Pro deconstructs it most likely by mentioning the restrictions officers have and pointing out Con's inadequate evidence.
Pro half-way concedes on Con's second main argument. He provides some examples to counteract Con's about the racial biases in sentencing, but then agrees with Con's point about how Black and Latino people are more likely to be sentenced than white people but attempts to counter by arguing the crime rate proportions of Black and Latino communities vs white.
Con's third argument about stereotypes is only partially refuted by Pro. He acknowledges that black communities face more rumors of violence but says certain individuals are exempt. This doesn't actually disprove my claim about innocent black people more likely to be profiled which is why I simply can't give the point to Pro here.
Con's fourth argument about how systemic racism affects people of color doesn't get refuted at all. Pro tries to undermine the significance by claiming it affects everyone equally, but this simply just isn't the case due to research I have done nor does this address the main argument.
It's important to know that Con is not talking about White Supremacy. He does make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious.
It is my opinion that Con wins with more convincing arguments.
“It’s cool if you think I’m insecure lol (sic)… Call me insecure all you please, you are wrong, and know nothing about this topic.”
~ Now you’re being a hypocrite and now it’s obvious that you’re clearly flustered
“Also You’re roving (sic) my point.”
~ LOL!!! Your delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.
I’ve proven no such thing.
“You are willing to die on a hill, call people sheep basically,”
~ Strawman fallacy. Among others. And all liberal progressives ARE “sheeple.”
“While presenting 0 reason to agree with you on anything you’re saying.”
~ I’ve already out-argued others on this subject within various forum postings. I’ve linked to the coroner and toxicology reports as well as credible sources demonstrating that the amount Floyd had in his system was more than enough to kill two dozen or more people.
“You also still force big vocabulary, because you’re likely nothing special on the intelligence front, and that’s fine. Just stop making claims about stuff you have no knowledge in.”
Wow. Never heard that response to my use of correctly used terminology you call “big vocabulary” as being unintelligent. I’m always accused of trying to act intelligent/smart, never dumb/unintelligent. That’s a new insecure sophomorically banal retort.
I use big words precisely because I am intelligent; and I choose any word that accurately describes what is needed to be described or labeled within the context of the discussion. The fact that you have to address my use of “big vocabulary” is further proof of your insecurities.
I have the requisite knowledge to discuss this subject on Floyd, you do not. All you have are fallacious appeals to authority by mouth pieces with a few letters after their name who were bought and paid for to say what the driving narrative needed said and NOT fact based truth.
Creating the debate while being uneducated and unprepared was not your smartest move.
That’s willful ignorance.
Lmao ok pal. You’d lose 10/10 times in a test of understanding of drugs and you know that. Just trolling, which is worse than being dumb lol
Could just be that you did lazy research.
Don't feel bad.
There was no way for you to win against an expert like me because you lack a basic understanding of what drugs are and how they work.
You haven’t won anything mate, and I never said anything was unfair so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
You haven’t won anything mate, and I never said anything was unfair so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
You can challenge me to a rematch on the debate if you feel my victory was unfair.
:)
If Lancelot thinks he embarrassed he is an idiot lol. Couldn’t argue a single point I made, without basically advocating for anything dangerous to be made illegal. So again you can say stupid stuff like that all day. Has no bearing over me at all.
You have less argumentative power than RM does on that topic and it’s saying something, you also forfeited a round, so it doesn’t concern me if you think you won lol. It won’t even concern me if the voters vote for you, because you are wrong. You have no knowledge on the topic, and anyone who votes for you is in the same boat.
TWS1405_2-
Mps1213 thinks psychoactive drugs should be legalized. Please challenge him to a debate on that same subject and embarrass him as badly as I did.
It’s cool if you think I’m insecure lol. Also You’re roving my point. You are willing to die on a hill, call people sheep basically,
While presenting 0 reason to agree with you on anything you’re saying. Call me insecure all you please, you are wrong, and know nothing about this topic. You also still force big vocabulary, because you’re likely nothing special on the intelligence front, and that’s fine. Just stop making claims about stuff you have no knowledge in.
Only one I see with insecurities is you with these continuous superfluous self-righteous retorts.
Oh boy. This will be entertaining.
Ok let’s play the pharmacology and drug game if you please.
You say there’s a huge body count from fentanyl, that is true. However just because someone has fentanyl in their system doesn’t immediately mean they die… also i bet you can’t even tell me why fentanyl is causing so much death. It’s certainly not because fentanyl is some poison or something. It’s because our government prohibits drugs to be sold in the way that alcohol and tobacco are. So when people are buying drugs off the street they have literally no idea what they’re taking. Studies have shown 97% of illicit drugs contain more than 1 substance. The most common contaminant? Fentanyl. Fentanyl has an LD50 much much lower than any other common opioid, and when it is combined with other opioids that LX50 drops even further. LD50 means lethal dose for average user, it is based off of body weight and can change with tolerance.
So you are engaging in a school of through called pharmacological determinism, or at least you are engaging with an aspect of it. That school of though basically says certain drugs must do certain things. Alcohol must sedate and disinhibit, heroin must addict you and make you a slave to it, your essentially claiming that fentanyl must always kill you when used.
The school of thought has been utterly picked apart by all pharmacology studies, and all cross cultural drug use. Fentanyl is used in hospitals today, all over the world. So just because he had fentanyl in his system does not mean that is evidence that fentanyl killed him. That is where you are drinking the Kool-aid as you claimed I was doing earlier. You are the one making claims about topic you have absolutely 0 knowledge in, and it is readily apparent by the ignorant stuff you say about fentanyl.
I agree having a PhD. Doesn’t make a lie not a lie, which is why I said argue the matter not the man. What exactly about the excerpt that I posted is factually incorrect? You better be on point because I know my stuff. This is my area of expertise and have dedicated years of my life studying it.
So fentanyl, arguably isn’t even what is killing people when we hear of these deaths. It’s people not knowing what they’re taking. Imagine if you went to buy cigarettes or alcohol and it was laced with PCP, or fentanyl, or methamphetamine, there would be no way to use alcohol properly and safely because you don’t even know what you’re ingesting. And that is exactly what happened during alcohol prohibition, a minimum of 10,000 people died from contaminated alcohol during that time period. When it ended that problem went away very quickly.
So again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, you have made an Malformed, ignorant opinion, and are willing to die on a hill for it because you’re so wrapped into your beliefs that you can’t just shut your mouth and actually try to learn something. You have to act like an expert in everything and you will most likely be wrong if you take that approach to all things in life, especially inherently scientific topics.
The only reason I’m confident in my ability to say this is because I have formal education in this topic, have dedicated years to s to dying it, written papers on pharmacology and social impacts of drugs use. Most other topics I don’t say anything about because I’m uneducated in most other things because I’m obsessed with this topic, and niche geoscience topics, other than that I keep my mouth shut and try to learn. You should do the same.
Also using big words isn’t necessary 90% of the time. In my opinion it usually makes the person seem insecure or less knowledgeable about whatever the topic may be. Because they aren’t able to explain it in lay terms, because they don’t understand it well. Or they feel that people think they’re not intelligent so they have to force unnecessary vocabulary into their sentences. They do this make themselves feel better and to convince other people they’re smart.
I understand the argument of the appeal to authority. However that’s not what I’m doing. You are the one drinking the kool-aid. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I have presented actual empirical data and information the deconstruct your claim. You have only said I’m drinking the Kool-aid. Also don’t argue the man, argue the matter. Stop using ad hominem type arguments. Argue the actual data I have presented. You can’t do it, because you are wrong. It’s that simple.
I’ve noticed people who say stuff about drinking kool-aid never make it far in life, never achieve anything of value, and will deny any amount of evidence that is brought to them, unless it is by someone they follow. See empirical evidence doesn’t need that. Evidence is evidence. No matter who presents it, some people may have a little more credibility but those people can still get things wrong as well. However, there many, many independent sources that show it was likely not fentanyl that killed George Floyd. They have no connection to each other, besides the fact they are toxicologists and understand how blood and drugs work. If it would’ve been trump who presented the evidence I just stated, it would have been just as valid as what Dr. Carl Hart said, because it is true.
Just because you accuse someone of being brain washed, or being a sheep, doesn’t mean they are, it also doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. I’ve discovered the people who say shit like that are usually more brainwashed than the people they’re saying it too. Meaning they usually only support one group of ideas, associate with one type of identity, political beliefs, religious belief, etc. I’ve yet to meet someone who says stuff like that, that is actually objective and evidence based in their beliefs.
Maybe you and should have a debate about how drug laws give police an excuse to abuse people. So you can see what an objective approach looks like.
Nice fallacious appeals to authority there.
When a case such as this becomes polarizing and highly politicized, one side will always seek out those willing to say what they want them to say in order to back their side, no matter how incorrect what they say is. Slapping a Phd behind the lie doesn’t make the lie magically truth. Especially when there is more than a decade of research and a huge body count continuously stacking up because of fentanyl.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid!!! Sooner or later you’ll either choke on it and give it up, or you’ll just poison yourself six feet under.
Why don’t you read the opinion of an actual toxicologist who has a PhD. In pharmacology and psychology and has been a chairman on the NIH for years, and has been studying how humans respond to drugs for over 35 years. This is a part of his article on it: he himself analyzed the reports and conducted his own.
“ The argument that drugs were responsible for Mr. Floyd’s death could well be employed by Mr. Chauvin’s lawyers and supporters. But it doesn’t hold up. My analysis of Mr. Floyd’s toxicology report is that drugs could not have contributed to his death. Nor could they have made him “crazed.” In other words, drugs didn’t make him act so violently that lethal force was necessary nor did it cause some fatal medical condition.
Mr. Floyd had a negligible amount of drugs in his system — 19 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine and 2.9 nanograms per milliliter of THC, the major psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Those numbers suggest he hadn’t used them in at least several hours, maybe a day.
He also had 11 nanograms of fentanyl in his blood. That number, in and of itself, doesn’t tell us much. Immediately after a person dies, the blood concentration of fentanyl increases significantly, so knowing only the post-mortem amount does not tell us about Mr. Floyd’s level of intoxication before his death.
What’s more, the same amount of fentanyl that produces euphoria in a tolerant user can result in an overdose in a newer user. That’s why, along with the toxicology report, we have to look at Mr. Floyd’s behavior shortly before his death.
Videos show Mr. Floyd behaving rationally and appropriately, considering the circumstances. When officers asked him to get out of his car, he did not seem drowsy or lethargic, which is how people high on opioids behave.
Instead, video clearly shows Mr. Chauvin pressing his knee into Mr. Floyd’s neck as he yelled out, “I can’t breathe” until he became unresponsive, while two other officers helped pin him down by applying pressure to his back.
The findings of the two autopsy reports — one from the Hennepin County medical examiner’s office and the other from a medical examiner hired by Mr. Floyd’s family — classified the manner of Mr. Floyd’s death as homicide.“
Again just because you call someone uneducated doesn’t mean they are. I’m sure you’d have the Gall to call him uneducated as well. Even though he’s more qualified than 99% of people on this topic. Just because you read a couple articles doesn’t mean your more educated or have a better understanding than people who have dedicated years of their life to this specific topic.
Mate, you can read toxicology reports all you want attempt to cross reference things but you’re not a toxicologist. I happen to have a chemistry degree, and have studied pharmacology for years. It’s not as simple as comparing lethal doses. Do you even have any evidence fentanyl was active in his system at the time of arrest? Are you aware fentanyl is only active for about 35 minutes? Are you aware the lethal dose will grow significantly as the person gains a tolerance?
Just because you call someone uneducated doesn’t mean they are, it also doesn’t mean that you’re educated on the topic because you read some stuff. Which is probably why you didn’t address the fact that the levels of drugs in your blood will usually increase upon death: you don’t even know when George Floyd took the fentanyl. He could’ve taken it two days ago. Reading Mayo Clinic doesn’t make you an expert dude.
Also he wasn’t acting like someone on fentanyl. He was acting like he was on a stimulant. In my opinion it’s more likely that he was in methamphetamine, if he was on a drug at all. He did have that drug in his system as well. And that drug lasts hours. The reason he was complaining about having problems breathing was likely because he had COVID. Also if he was on an amphetamine, he likely was panicking when getting pulled over which increases difficulty breathing. Again, even though he was complaining, there’s no evidence he was dying.
You can use all the fancy words all you want, that doesn’t mean your correct and have the slightest knowledge of toxicology. What is your evidence that fentanyl was active in his system? He wasn’t slurring his words, he wasn’t barely moving, he didn’t seem tired. Instead he was talking quickly, eyes wide open, and was very animated. Those are not effects of a fentanyl overdose, they’re actually the opposite of that.
Also i have no problem with you saying this wasn’t a racist situation, it wasn’t in my mind either. But just because that is true doesn’t mean that the cop didn’t kill him. It also doesn’t mean you get to jump straight to a drug overdose. That’s not how this works. You disproved the null hypothesis by saying this wasn’t a racist attack. All that does is disprove that particular aspect. It proves nothing else.
Thanks for your uneducated unsubstantiated subjective personal opinion. Tad superfluous. No. It was completely superfluous.
I’ve read the toxicology and coroner reports. I’ve correlated what was documented with research done by the Mayo Clinic and several others. All affirm the amount of fentanyl in his system is what killed him. Not the knee on the neck. He complained of respiratory problems shortly after consuming the drug cocktail, and can be easily heard saying as much on the body cam of the first officers on scene.
If you believe George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose you are simply wrong. George Floyd had fentanyl in his system, sure, he also had methamphetamine in his system. Why not blame the meth?
I know Fox News tried to claim he was over “the lethal dose” of fentanyl. First off, there is no one lethal dose. It changes with body weight and tolerance to the drug. Also the amount of drugs that appear in the blood will increase after death. That is because there I son blood circulating to filter out the substance. Also you can bleed during death, substances that are in your stomach can enter the blood stream. So there is no evidence George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose.
He wasn’t dying before the cop showed up, but he was left dead on the ground after the cop kneeled on his neck for over 9 minutes. He also had COVID, why not blame COVID? It’s because you’re anti drug and think fentanyl only kills people whenever it is used.
However we I would agree it likely didn’t have much to do with racism. There were 4 other black people in the car, I get that part. However to claim it’s a fentanyl death is genuinely just stupid and uneducated.
In my opinion this was an act of discrimination against drug users. Which is why he repeatedly said “this why you don’t do drugs kids” while he was in the act of killing George Floyd. The guy in Memphis was the same thing, which is why they repeatedly said “look at how high he looks.” The cops and government use drugs to excuse their brutality and animalistic behavior all the time. You are furthering that agenda by making claims about toxicology, which you know nothing about.
Bump
George FLoyd is NOT an example of racism. Unless you are inferring it’s racism against white males. BEcause that is WHAT it was.
Floyd died of a Fentanyl overdose, but because it was a white cop and a black criminal, BINGO! Racism.
The real litmus test on so called police racism is what happened with Tyre Nichols. If Nichols actually died not of his injuries but of his Crohns Disease and/or a drug overdose, you can bet the media will focus on that disease or overdose to write off the five black officers arresting him as being systemic of anything.
THE problem!
Is not "a" problem.
If it causes more than two, of course it is not "a" problem.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter provides specific analysis of a number of points presented in the debate and evaluates them in the context of the debate. While the voter does at one point reference "research [he has] done" outside the debate, the voter also evaluates that argument in terms of how well it addresses what he sees as the main argument in the debate, so it is unclear that the voter based any substantial portion of their decision on information from outside the debate.
**************************************************
Or more or less, who did a better job, not based on their opinions to clarify.
Also, I would like to let voters know that they are voting on how the debate went, not based on their own bias.
Would like your guys' vote on the Nicolino Locche vs Floyd Mayweather debate, regardless of who you vote on.
Voting starts in 4-5 hours.
Previous boxing knowledge may help but is not necessary to judge on the debate.
Your full of shit Barney
"In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct)."
Nowhere did I say I was offended by the topic.
" Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all"
Nonsense, it's logically absurd to state that inequality exists but that's not a problem, con walked all over him showing the problems it's caused and his responses ranged from stereotypes to distraction and outright misrepresentation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct). Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all.
...
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Sidewalker's RFD:
Pro admits white priviledge exists while arguing it's not a problem, which is self refuting, perhaps inequality isn't a problem for the white man. Pro also bases his entire argument on the fact that there is no law supporting white priviledge, which is a non-sequitur at best, logically the argument that it exists but there are no laws supporting it means it's not a problem is simply incoherent.
Pro refutes con's arguments in a serpentine manner, everything from claiming examples don't show "white supremacy" (an irrelevent diversion) to racial stereotypes that imply whites deserve priviledge and black don't, conduct goes to con because of pro's appeal to the very same racial stereotypes upon which white priviledge is based.
Both relied on anecdotal sources and I didn't see enough difference in spelling and grammar to vote a preference.
Hello Barney, I reported a vote, and would be grateful if you could look it over.
Thank you Sir. Lancelot.
I think the debate went well, and you did a fantastic job. I am not trying to take any votes away from you, but the reasoning that Sidewalker gave did not mean anything and did not have any basis, besides the fact that he thought you were right.
Of course you will, that's what poor little persecuted white eboys do.
If you have a problem with a vote, you can always tag Barney in the comments.
Of all the mods, he's the quickest when it comes to resolving issues or complaints.
A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. Gaps in wealth between Black and white households reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this nation’s inception. The Black-white wealth gap reflects a society that has not and does not afford equality of opportunity to all its citizens.
Forgot to tag
I have reported your vote Side walker. You give no valid reason for that vote, and it seems to be very biased.
He doesn't have to address my arguments - it's hardly a formal attack. Nevertheless, I get your point, so I'll stop now.
"Are the comments not for discussing a debate?"
"Discussing a debate" does not mean "making new arguments against a specific side".
I am pretty sure there are no rules on this. However, you have to understand that you are draining one debater in favor of another. It makes it harder for a debater to focus on debate if he also has to debate you in the comments. Its not exactly nice.
That's your opinion then. If you're willing to back it up, challenge me to a debate with the same resolution, whenever you're ready.
Are the comments not for discussing a debate? If I see a silly argument, I point it out - it's a debate site.
"White privilege is a problem for a significant population of the USA. (Blacks make up 13.6% of US population)"
This is the part I am arguing against.
"If something has a negative impact on some people, it is a problem for some people"
Not according to the definitions provided in description. Hence, not a truism.
Also, are you trying to create a 2 vs 1 debate here?
P1: White privilege exists. (conceded)
P2: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (truism)
P3: If something has a negative impact on some people, it is a problem for some people. (truism)
C1: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (logic)
C2: White privilege is a problem for some people. (definition of "problem")
C3: White privilege is a problem for a significant population of the USA. (Blacks make up 13.6% of US population)
C4: White privilege is a problem in the USA. (logic)
Your argument really doesn't make sense - you're saying that because whites and Blacks are officially granted equal rights under the law, then white privilege doesn't exist - ignoring the system inequalities in the ways Blacks are treated.
No, I'm not arguing that it is good. I am arguing that there is so little of it in the USA, that it doesn't pose a threat to anyone. If I were to argue that it doesn't exist, then my opponent could say something along the lines of there being racist people in the USA, that are in charge of small companies that use this tactic (which is true). So, I did the next best thing and claimed that the amount of it is so minute that it doesn't pose a threat to anyone.
So you're arguing that white privilege is good?
Prime facie, if something exists and affects people, it is either good or bad. Since white privilege exists and affects people, it is either good or bad - and you have to argue for the former.
"Be careful, you may be walking the line of specious reasoning. While we have laws against speeding, speeding and speeders still exist."
This is why I decided to go with "it's not a problem" and not "it doesn't exist."
“A” problem? No. A lot of them.