The Instigator
zippo
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Common_Sense_Please
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Another race besides caucasian being a brain surgeon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,772 times Debate No: 7446
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (9)

 

zippo

Pro

Im not a brain surgeon, dont plan on being one and I definately do not have the ability nor qualifications to be one either. That I know and will state in the beginning, because i do not want it to be used against me in this debate.

Tonight I was watching CNN like I do every night, and Larry King had 2 Brain Surgeons on and they were talking about the head injury that Natasha Richardson, Liam Neeson's wife had while skiing. One of the brain surgeons was caucasian, and one was African American. My personal opinion Is that if I ever (god forbid) had a brain injury that needed operation I would want the Caucasian brain surgeon operating on me and not the African American. I'm far from a racist because I voted for Obama lol, that's my excuse i guess "I'm not racist I own a color TV" sort of deal.. OK back on track, I suppose just life experience and I'm only 24 has forced fed me the idea that Caucasians are superior. I have no clue if its true and I bet you its not, however you cant teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. So my 1st choice would be the Caucasian brain surgeon. My debate is basically this. There should be no African American brain surgeons at least not for another 20-30 years until this idea that white people are superior has been washed clean from our society. Because we know all right now, its out there.
Common_Sense_Please

Con

Firstly, Thank you for highlighting this argument that some people simply won't talk about. I'm sure your view is held more widely than people think, so it is good to address it.

Your view that you are not racist because you voted for Obama is contradictory to your argument. You will trust and African American with your county and ultimately the future of your nation, but you will not trust another person of that race with your life in surgery? (At least not as much as a Caucasian surgeon).

Also, this is a definition of 'racist' : "A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others." You clearly stated that; "I suppose just life experience and I'm only 24 has forced fed me the idea that Caucasians are superior." Thus suggesting you may have some racist views, but this is off the track and I will return to the argument in hand.

I question the very fact that the colour or ethnicity of a person affects their performance in surgery, or anything for that matter. There is no evidence to suggest this (the only plausible explanation I can stretch my mind to is the quality of training in other countries, but as you have said 'African Americans' I'm guessing you mean that they were born in America and trained there).

Lastly, I will comment on your conclusion of what the debate entails: "There should be no African American brain surgeons at least not for another 20-30 years until this idea that white people are superior has been washed clean from our society. Because we know all right now, its out there."

If the only problem is society's views, why does that make the African American any less able than the Caucasian? In reality, the minority view that you are expressing does not change the fact that the colour of the surgeons skin will make any different to their skill.

Also, if there were no African American surgeons for 20-30 years, how will the idea of Caucasian superiority get wiped out of the medical profession? There will be no excellent surgeons to prove these views wrong and the job 'Surgeon' will be classed as a 'Caucasian Profession', further adding to the prejudice seen now and possibly even creating segregated jobs.

In conclusion, there are only a minority of people that would choose a Caucasian surgeon over an African American one based only on their ethnicity (excluding any difference in level of skill), and most people have no problem or even don't see the separation between them in the first place (I, for one do not). We are all humans in the end, so what separates us except the amount of melanin pigment in our skin?

Thank you, I am looking forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
zippo

Pro

Could I have chosen a more difficult topic to debate? on my 1st debate here at this wonderful establishment? no I don't think I could of, and its more of a lose lose situation for me. I like the challenge though and i appreciate you taking on my debate so late at night, and also responding so quickly and with such a great response like that. Well done. (Hoping now you will take it easy on me) lol..

How is me voting for Obama and me not wanting an African American brain surgeon in any way related? I would let a mechanic work on my car but not on my brain. I would "let" obama run my country but not operate on my brain. I would follow an African American in to the battle lines yet i wouldn't let one operate on my brain.

Maybe there should be segregation when it comes to issues such as this. Let one race operate on their own race's brain. Seems fairly reasonable to me. They have barber shops for only black people.
Common_Sense_Please

Con

This is my first debate too, coincidence much? And it's not late to me, I live in England so you might get random replies in the middle of the night over there. Thank you for replying so quickly as well.

I found it related because as I saw it, it was the ethnicity of the person was the issue, not the profession. Are you saying that African Americans are good enough to do some jobs but not others? My point was, why would a Caucasian be superior in surgery while you see no such hierarchy within presidential candidates, or any other profession?

I was not commenting only on Obama and his profession, only that if a member of his race is good enough have the huge responsibility of running America then an African American should be able to have the responsibility and skill needed to be an equally skilled brain surgeon.

It seems that your view of Caucasian superiority is only found in surgery, but why? What is it about surgery that brings about the assumption that a Caucasian would be superior when you think that this is not true for other professions?

"I would follow an African American in to the battle lines yet I wouldn't let one operate on my brain." Here, you are saying you would put your life into the hands of an African American in battle, so why is having an African American operate on your brain any different? You are entrusting your life in both cases.

Your last statement alarms me the most, however. There is no such this as 'positive segregation' or most commonly described in England as 'positive discrimination', because that is essentially what it would be; discrimination. (Definition: treat differently on the basis of sex or race.) Is there any medical reason that one race should only operate their own race's brains? I would be very surprised if there is. What you are supposing is racial segregation, where services and resources are separated for different racial groups, despite living under the same government.

There is a possibility that it could lead to only black doctors for black patients and could spread to other areas, such as 'black only' buses, restaurants, hospitals, schools, even police forces. It would only seem logical the next step would be African American areas of residence so that different races live in different areas. This is apartheid. Examples of this is South Africa, and to a lesser extent the USA before the civil rights movement. These are extreme cases I know, but it isn't too unbelievable that after the segregation of doctors into different races that segregation would spread for other areas.

If the segregation did go ahead, and races started to divide in society there would be a rift between them, fueling hostility. The majority (Caucasian) would see the ethnic minority as less like them (with different resources ect) and if you have ever looked into any social psychology, when this happens, racial hatred and discrimination can be carried out freely among the majority without being chastised because the ethnic group is 'not like them' and so the normal human attitudes to these people are more hostile than to their 'own kind.' An example of this (although extreme, is the only one I have on the top of my head) is Nazism and the Jews, where Jews were segregated and isolated from the majority who were told these people were different from themselves and it was alright to show racial hatred.

Perhaps you do not mean that the segregation would affect all areas, just medical: "when it comes to issues such as this." However, who decides when the segregation would stop? It would be very easy to go one step further every time. It is often called gradual commitment or 'the foot in the door' method. Once hospitals are segregated, it isn't too far to do the same with doctors surgeries, and then with dentists, and then buses ect ect.

Also, on your comment on hair dressers; I'm not entirely sure about the situation in America, but in England there are Afro-Caribbean hair dressers only because the hair is different to Caucasian and it takes a specialist hairdressers to do it. It is not 'black only' it is just specialist to that type of hair, but if the hairdresser is also qualified in Caucasian hair then I'm sure white people could also go there.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
zippo

Pro

Yes I am saying they are good enough for some jobs. Again the whole force fed society thing comes into play again. My father is racist. I'm sure some of that has rub off on me but i try my best to vote for the underdog.

If Obama is running America he is not directly effecting me ( I know that sounds stupid) what I mean is he does not literally have my life in his hands. Not to mention if you watch American politics at all. Its not one man who decides the fate of the country it is the elected officials we also put there the help Obama. Obama and his closest aids probably come up with the idea, they bring it to the senate and house for voting. I mean its not like Obama presses a button and everything he says is done instantly. There are procedures that Americas founders came up with to not allow 1 single man to rule a nation ( like Hitler )

The superiority lies within the fact that this Dr. has his hands literally inside my brain. My life is quite literally in his hands, and I put emphasis on this because of the point i made about Obama not having my life directly in his hands. The same goes with the African American I would follow into the battle lines. I would follow him into battle, but if the top of my head was blown off I wouldn't allow him to operate on my brain. Hope you understand what I meant when i said i would follow him into battle, but not let him operate on my brain.

There is also a trust issue. What if an African American boy was raised in a white neighborhood, his parents were wealthy and they had a nice home. However, since his youth he was teased, taunted and tortured using race. Now lets say 40 years down the road, the boy has become a Dr. hell a brain surgeon even. He just so happens to have a new patient that is a boy from the racist neighborhood. Well now the tables have turned haven't they. I will leave the conclusion of that up to you. However, I think you know the direction I'm headed in.

About the segregation. You say it would be easy to start making changes to the law passing that segregation be legal on bus's and now apparently dentistry also. Like I mentioned before its not as easy as pressing a button, like on that office depot commercial. Press it and everything you want is magically done. There are rules set in place to avoid situations like that.

Be honest, even if this Afro American hair dressers also cut Caucasians hair would you go in there? I think because of the debate you will clearly say you would, heck you would even go as far as saying you would leave a generous tip. I don't believe that for a second. I think you would go to the regular barber down the street where your parents have been taking you since you were a child. (just as an example of course)
Common_Sense_Please

Con

Yes, Obama is not the only man in charge but the job he has is still immensely powerful and holds alot of responsibility, and in reality, he could have a profound effect on your everyday life even though he has to work with the senate.

It seems that your argument is one not based on medical reason as I first thought, but more on the ground of trust in the conflict between races. Your hypothetical story is farcical. Even if those circumstances came to light, a doctor has an oath he has to swear by and harming patients or discriminating against them for any reason will result in his losing his job and his livelihood. He would have ruined his hard earned life and in reality, a doctor would simply not do that. If he felt he could not work on that patient equally then he would assign another doctor on ethical terms and he would have no contact. Your reasons could also be applied in a completely Caucasian context as well. In relation to your story, let's say that there is a poor working class Caucasian boy who grew up being relentlessly taunted and bullied all his life by the rich middle to upper class Caucasian children in his town. He manages to get enough money and worked hard enough to become a brain surgeon and one of these upper class boys came into hospital needing brain surgery. Do the tables turn? This could apply to an infinite number of scenarios, so the racial aspect of your story is irrelevant.

"There are rules set in place to avoid situations like that." Yes there are, but they are easily changed and distorted to go for the government's favour. For example, in England a law in on its way that a terror suspect could be held for up to 90 days without charge or trial. This is false imprisonment and against human rights but it is going ahead anyway with widespread support, all for the sake of national security. This is a different law to what we are discussing but it is still an example of how the law can easily be changed for national interest. Another example is the Lisbon Treaty that is supposed to be in the process of uniting countries of Europe in a trade pact. Europe said by law that if any country voted against it in a referendum then it would be scrapped. However, Ireland recently voted firmly against it and Europe is pushing for another vote in Ireland while still pushing the treaty ahead. I know these examples are in Europe but the democratic systems are much the same.

And with the hairdressers, I will not say I would, just for the debate, I will tell the truth. If there was a Caucasian specialised hairdressers nearby then I would most likely go there instead, but not because I would feel uncomfortable or threatened, but because the 'White' hairdressers would definitely have hairdressers there that specialise in Caucasian hair, while in the Afro-Caribbean hairdressers, the staff may not be qualified. If it clearly said 'Caucasian hair and Afro-Caribbean', I would feel fine (not to mention the prices, if the Afro-Caribbean one is alot cheaper and can do Caucasian hair I would go there).

My impression is that you would not let an African American operate on you because you think they would victimise you because you are white. Is this true? And if so, what is your reasoning behind it?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
zippo

Pro

I find ridiculously funny, that you would call my statement "farcical" Yet a few sentences later you use the exact same situation only slightly altered to prove a theory that would in effect have the same results. I also find it funny that you think, just because someone has taken an oath that they would never break the rules. We are all human, and we all have emotions, and if they were built up enough and stored for long enough, eventually some people just snap, and the rules and guidelines that society has set out for everyone to follow suddenly don't seem to matter to the person anymore. Since the emotions have taken over mostly everything is done on impulse and not thought through thoroughly, much like your 1st paragraph.

My impression is that you would not let an African American operate on you because you think they would victimize you because you are white. Is this true? And if so, what is your reasoning behind it?

Personally, my reasoning behind it is just living life. I'm not saying I am racist but I cant stop what has been "programmed" in me for my entire life. I go through my life born in 1985 im not old but im not a child either, watching tv, seeing African American athletes, actors and the list goes on and on, they are very successfull and i congratulate them on that. However, when is the last time you seen an African American scientist discover something? or invent anything. Im not saying they have done nothing. What im saying is from my personal perspective they havn't done enough to proove themselves worthy of positions with such a high level of skill is required and intellect. I know you will throw barack Obama back in to the ring. So let me point out some of his flaws that i've noticed. He's only articulate when he has a speech prepared, when he's in a regular town hall meeting, he stumbles and studders practically ever sentence. Clearly there is something to that. Unless you want to simply put a blanket over your eyes and completely ignore it just to satisfy the fact that you can claim you are 100% unprejudiced. However I wont press you to prove if you are or aren't. Just the simple fact that there is a lot left for them to do, in my view before i trust them enough to put their hands inside my head.

Not to mention every company not only in America, but Canada and Europe, people are hired based on their race. Not to discriminate them, but to hire minorities to even out the playing field. If you want me to provide facts, I will later on. For now let me use an example. ( A company has to hire a new employee for their marketing team and there are 3 candidates for the position. Candidate 1 is white he went to a great college and has a perfect work record and is easily the top candidate for this position. Candidate 2 Has the same skills as candidate 1 except he went to different schools specializing in a different area, so if candidate 1 didn't work out they would most likely go with candidate 2, by the way candidate 2 is from Germany. Now here comes candidate 3, African American intelligent great appearance for the marketing section of their company. However he went to a lower standard community college with sub par grades. However because he is black he was given the position. Now i don't know about you, but i would rather the other 2 candidates fill that position because they are actually more qualified to be there. Yet because of strict laws against discrimination the African American was given the job on a shiny, polished silver platter. Same can be said for higher level positions a brain surgeon. You can argue that they wont get a position like a brain surgeon unless they have the actual experience, so there is on choosing a brain surgeon just based on race or because they have to based on strict discriminatory laws. Here is my argument towards that, again i use the discrimination example but for schools. African American students are known to have lower iq's on average and its been shown i can also provide those facts for you. Because he is African American and because of the strict laws against discrimination his teacher wasn't as strict on him. He was able to graduate with a high level of education, but this discrimination has totally void any validity he may have ( in my view) in being in that position in the 1st place. I would rather the dr. who earned his way there rather than the African American who was handed that position just so he wouldnt file a lawsuit for descrimination.
Common_Sense_Please

Con

My little story that was relating to yours was an example that showed the racial element of your hypothetical situation was irrelevant, and I agree, mine was farcical too. It would not happen, and has not happened. I was not trying to say that it could happen, I was trying to say that it has the same chance of happening as yours, which is very low indeed.

"You think just because someone has taken an oath that they would never break the rules". Yes, people do break oaths but one as serious as a doctors is not taken lightly. This surgeon would be an educated and logical man/woman and common sense shows that the probability of them trading in their job for petty revenge against an old adversary is very slim. I challenge you to find an example of this anywhere in the western world where a doctor has broken their oath and deliberately harmed their patient in surgery/care because of their past experiences. If you can not, your theory is hypothetical and without evidence or reason.

Last African American scientist/ inventor..where do I start? Dr. Daniel Hale Williams- He founded the Provident Hospital in Chicago in 1891, and he performed the first successful open heart surgery in 1893.
George Washington Carver- Developed hundreds of applications for farm products important to the economy of the South, including the peanut, sweet potato, soybean, and pecan.
Percy L Julian- Achieved the synthesis of cortisone, which is used to treat arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.
Dr. Charles Richard Drew- Set up the first blood bank after his research into blood plasma.
Granville R Woods- He invented a telegraph that allowed moving trains to communicate with other trains and train stations, thus improving railway efficiency and safety.
Mark Dean- He led the team of IBM scientists that developed the ISA bus—a device that enabled computer components to communicate with each other rapidly, which made personal computers fast and efficient for the first time. Dean also led the design team responsible for creating the first one-gigahertz computer processor chip.

The list goes on. If an African American was not good enough to be a brain surgeon then he would not get qualified. No amount of positive discrimination will stop that fact. And if hypothetically it was true, then mortality rates would be considerably higher and performance would be lacking resulting in them being struck off. There is not a group of African American brain surgeons working while under qualified, it would not be acceptable.

On Obama, I don't know much about his speeches, but there would be reasons why his unprepared speeches are stuttered. Every world leader is like this. George Bush's speeches even failed when they were prepared, but by him, not his advisers. I don't know if you have analysed any of his own works but I did in high school, where he was comparing war to a baseball match and using inappropriate language and incorrect grammar. It was laughable to a class of sixteen year olds. Compared to that, Obama seems to be doing pretty well on his own. Everything he says will be scrutinized and picked apart by the media, so he is wise to think extra carefully before speaking, and that would result in stutters and pauses, not to mention the nervous reaction to addressing such a large crowd; it doesn't matter how many times you do it, nerves still get to you.

I will not claim I am 100% unprejudiced but I am not unreasonably so, and I do not judge someone's skill on the basis of the colour of their skin.

I believe that positive discrimination in the workplace is wrong, and I do know that in some cases it does happen. However, it is to some extent, against the law. Also, do you have any evidence that teachers go easier on African American students? Because it sounds like to me, one of those overexagerations and assumptions made by the mass media to victimise groups outside the majority to sell more papers (Like the 'winter festival' fiasco in England where town councils were accused of scrapping Christmas festivities for a 'winter festival' so not to offend Muslims. This was made up, where the winter festival was a completely separate celebration to Christmas). Also, a discrimination lawsuit against an African American not getting a job against 2 white people would not go ahead if his qualifications were lower, as this would be the reason presented to the court, if it made it that far. The business/hospital or wherever they are suing will win.
Debate Round No. 4
zippo

Pro

I find it ridiculous, that you would put a potato/peanut farmer on the same level as someone compared to

http://www.crystalinks.com...
Archimedes
Aristotle
Niels Nohr
Nicolaus Copernicus
Marie Curie
Charles Darwin
Leonardo Da Vinci
Rene Descartes
Thomas Alva Edison
Albert Einstein
Benjamin Franklin
Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton
Max Planck
Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen
Carl Sagan
Nikola Tesla
Archimedes
Aristotle
Niels Nohr
Nicolaus Copernicus
Marie Curie
Charles Darwin
Leonardo Da Vinci
Rene Descartes
Thomas Alva Edison
Albert Einstein
Benjamin Franklin
Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton
Max Planck
Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen
Carl Sagan
Nikola Tesla

I found it funny also that you had to Google/Yahoo your information to find those black scientists. I certainly don't remember being taught about George Washington Carver the peanut farmer while i was growing up in school. I was taught about Albert Einstein you know the guy who came up with E = mc squared which changed the entire way the world was viewed. Your scientist came up with peanut butter. The other scientists you mentioned also are miniscule compared to someone like Albert Einstein and the others i listed above. I wouldn't have had to Google 90% of the scientists i listed above, could i name everything they invented off the top of my head? Of course not, but I know them by name and this is the 1st time I've ever heard of your famous peanut farmer.

You comparing apples to oranges or in this case peanuts to cashews..?

"I believe that positive discrimination in the workplace is wrong, and I do know that in some cases it does happen. However, it is to some extent, against the law."

Not only do you agree it's wrong, but you admit and agree with my position that in some cases it does happen. Then you say to some extent it's against the law, yes that is correct but only to some extent as you just pointed out.

I for one don't like to gamble especially when it comes to my health. People play the lotto 649 in America in the hopes of being the 1 in 100 millionth person to have that golden ticket. I dont want to be that 1 in 100 millionth that just happens to get that Dr. who was given a "golden ticket" because of his minority status.

Actually your right it is against the law in some cases if it's done voluntarily. An example is promotional quotas. A company isn't allowed to voluntarily use promotional quotas to hire more minorities. However if that company is found to be discriminating against one race/sex/religion they can be forced by the courts to have a promotional quota to even out the playing field. Some companies went as far as hiring minorities that wernet even qualified for the job just so they would meet the quotas. My resources can be found here.

http://books.google.ca...

There was also a case 1978 University of California vs. Bakke. Bakke sued the University because there were 18 seats set aside for people of color. Bakke said the colored students were less qualified than he was, and The Supreme Court favored Bakke

(Allan Bakke received his doctorate shawl during his graduation from the University of California's medical school at Davis, California, June 6, 1982.)

Link to resources:

http://books.google.ca...

Title: Race/Gender-Plus Policies
Page: 151

How about the fact that when you fill out an application in the United States for a job, at least most of the places I have been too they ask on the application what race you are. This helps them maintain the EOA Equal Opportunity Act thus eliminating any chances of discriminatory lawsuits against them.

"George Bush's speeches even failed when they were prepared, but by him, not his advisers" Your right on this 100% George Bush is a freak of nature, and should have never landed that position in the 1st place. Which brings me back to the point that not everyone gets a job because they are qualified. Thanks for opening that door for me.

Obama does pretty well on his own? You realize he has his own speech writer? guess not by the way its Jon Favreau

"Also, do you have any evidence that teachers go easier on African American students?"
You realize in the western world there are people.. right this very second who can't read, yet they also have their grade 12? The world is not as perfect as you claim or may think it is.
Common_Sense_Please

Con

You picked out my weakest example while ignoring the others, but I will indulge you. That 'peanut farmer' was not actually a farmer. He, as I said, developed hundreds of applications for farm products. He revolutionised the industry of the south, and if you lived in the south at that time, you would be quite grateful. Times magazine even went so far as to call him the 'black Leonardo' and he challenged the views at the time that black people were intellectually inferior.

Also, every single one of your examples of non-African American (I won't say white, because not all of them are) are from a background that allowed a formal education to nurture any intelligence they had, while most of the African American inventors/scientists were born in slavery and were self taught. Therefore I believe that they can not be compared.

Yes, I used Google to find these Black scientists/inventors, but only for specifics. I definitely knew there were black scientists and inventors and also knew many of them by name. Just because you haven't heard of them it doesn't mean nobody else has.

"I don't want to be that 1 in 100 millionth that just happens to get that Dr. who was given a "golden ticket" because of his minority status." As I have said before, there will not be any brain surgeons with a 'golden ticket'. Anyone applying for the position with anything below the right amount of skill or qualifications will not get the job. Just as you won't gamble with your health, neither will the hospitals. It is not the same as giving the job to an African American in some office somewhere typing on a computer, it is life and death. Imagine what would happen if this scenario did come true and an under qualified African American killed someone; anyone connected with hiring them would get fired and it would be an international scandal, not to mention the millions that the family would sue the hospital for.

Your university example doesn't say whether the African Americans were under qualified for the university, only that Bakke was more qualified than them. Bakke could have been exemplatory but late in application. It doesn't say that the African Americans were at all less able at becoming a brain surgeon than the other Caucasians at the university, only that that individual (Bakke) was more gifted. Therefore, there could be Caucasian students there that were less qualified than Bakke, but these are not out in the open because they are all Caucasian. You don't know. This example has so many holes in it. You could even say that Bakke might have had a lower skill level than the other Caucasians there and could only get in by pointing out that he has better grades than the African American. He could be of a lower skill than the other Caucasians, but of course you wouldn't have a problem with this because they are both white.

In England, it is voluntary to give your ethnicity on application forms, I don't know about America, so I can't comment.

"Which brings me back to the point that not everyone gets a job because they are qualified. Thanks for opening that door for me." George Bush was legally elected by the American People. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, he was more than qualified. You do not vote for brain surgeons, so your comparison is irrelevant.

"You realize he has his own speech writer?" But you also said: "He's only articulate when he has a speech prepared, when he's in a regular town hall meeting, he stumbles and studders practically ever sentence." Therefore you are referring to when he has no prepared speech. So, he has no speech writer for this, and every point I made about the reasons for his stutters are valid.

"You realize in the western world there are people.. right this very second who can't read, yet they also have their grade 12?" Grade 12 in England is equivalent to completing your A levels, or it could be said that it is equivalent to finishing high school because the differences in the education systems. There is no way I could ever imagine a scenario, where someone finishes high school, let alone A levels without being able to read. It is impossible. The world not perfect, but it is not as retarded as you claim or may think it is.

Thank you for a lovely debate, I hope I have enlightened you on at least some issues.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nolife1314 7 years ago
nolife1314
Okay I join this site just because of this debate. I am black, female, going to medical school next year and I am a proud Republican. No I did not vote for Obama, I do not agree with him I know that he is black etc whatever I still disagree with him and feel like he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
I have had two open heart operations, one was performed by a white surgeon and because of him I have alot of scar tissue and will probabaly need a third in a few years. My first was performed by a middle eastern man. He saved my life I was given a year left to live and he saved me but there was soo much damage already done to my heart 10 years later another problem aroused and I needed a second one but my white surgeon well he did not do his job well so I am on meds, being monitored etc.
I am not a black activist because my mom is half white and I live around and gone to school with mostly white people my whole life. Now that I have removed any questions and doubts this is my opinion.
For you zippo to say that black people should not be allowed to be surgeons until white people are not longer feel superior is a contridaction because a lack of black surgeons will cause everyone to see it as a mostly white field, which is what it is seen as right now and for them to think it is soley a white field and hence feel superor. Furthermore, it will not allow people to be exposed to educated black individuals if we walk around with the mind set of "hey blacks should do... until we change our mindset. Your reasoning sir is stupid. To think that by not having strong intelligent well rounded black professionals until white people no longer feel superior will result in regression. I go to an mostly white university, I am literally the only black female in most of my classes, and I am not asking for any favors but I can say saying that me not become a great female surgeon until whites no longer feel superior will cause my people to regress and do the opposite .
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Zippo, you are an absolute bigot. Let us pray that a white surgeon somehow kills you in surgery. It would be one less intolerant demagogue in the world.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
This was a hard debate for me, to do, although the ambition was there to continue, and still is thats why i keep coming back for more. Plus your arguments are too good too pass up, and i like the challenge.

Maybe i should have put, "I do not believe in reverse discrimination" as the title.. as in taking from one race simply to give to another. Thats not equal rights
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 8 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Also, I'm not sure I fully understand your point you made in the comment for the university subject, I found it a bit difficult to read but I will have a go. I am not saying in any way that positive discrimination is right, or justifiable, I think it is inexcusable, but bringing the whole argument back to the original debate..just because those African Americans were not as qualified as Bakke, it does not mean they were not qualified to become a brain surgeon overall.

I am actually 17 (I don't know whether you thought I was older at all) and I was wondering whether I should tell you because you are just trying to use it against me, but I believe what you are suggesting is wrong, so I'v decided it is OK. My age doesn't necessarily represent my mental capacity to evaluate the world. I study science, and I have had it well drilled into me to evaluate and question everything, compare the evidence and come up with an INDEPENDANT conclusion. I have seen evidence for and against these statements and I have weighed them up. I do not just go on what I have experienced (as you seem to), but I look at different perspectives, evidence and opinions of others (at least, with skepticism) to create my own view from other resources as well.

"Just follow along with what everyone else things because its easier to fit in." This, I find slightly insulting. I do not go along with an opinion to fit in. Far from it. As I said, I question everything, even my teacher's and especially my peer's views. It is simply not true.

I don't just 'go for the underdog', I go with who ever's views I believe are most valid. I don't even 'support' Obama, I just think that his policy is a whole lot better than the Republicans. I would never suggest letting in under qualified brain surgeons because I like to 'vote for the underdog'. It defies all logic.

The debate was good, and if you think you have proved yourself wrong, why do you keep arguing? lol
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Einstein
Born: 14 March 1879
Died: 18 April 1955

In his late 70's look at what he had accomplished in only 70 years. Slavery has been over for MUCH longer than that. Need i say more?

"If a brain surgeon was under qualified there is a very high possibility of death."

You are 100% absolutely positively wrong. Have you ever heard of a person becoming a vegetable. Basically their heart is beating, but the brain inside their head, is gonzo. If you knew anything about frontal lobotomy you would know that they started out (using an icepick) go Google it for proof, to literally mash the frontal lobes of the brain (hence frontal lobotomy) Of course some patients died due to complications, that's a given when you jam an icepick and mash it around in someones head. However the majority did not die, but were held prisoners in their own body. So i would like, if before you make statements such as that you do a bit of research on the subject beforehand. Thanks
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 8 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Zippo,

"Well, slavery has been over for quite some time, there has been LOTS for them to invent something worth while." We are talking about a small minority of people (African Americans with formal and equal education to the rest of the population, otherwise they can't be comapared) which have been working in a miniscule period of time because of slavery and the reluctance to give them proper education. This is compared to 'white' scientists which range from the time of Aristolte to Charles Dawin. Again, the two races just cannot be compared. The Black peoples have simply not had enough time in history with equal oppertunities to 'invent something worth while.' Personally I find Mark Dean impressive. It could be said that he was the one that made it possible to have efficient PC's in our homes, something that effects nearly everyones life in the western (and even eastern in some cases) lives. I find that 'worth while'.

"So even if an under qualified African American got in, there is a really low chance that a person would DIE." I disagree with this. If a brain surgeon was underqualified there is a very high possibility of death. With the complexity of surgery, there are so many possible ways someone could die (bleeding, infection ect). Even the labotomy was a medical operation performed by medical proffesionals and if it was performed by someone who was not qualified, the result would most likely be death. However, even if we pretend your statement is true and instead of death there would be brain damage, my point about what the implications would be are still valid. (anyone connected with hiring them would get fired and it would be an international scandal, not to mention the millions that the family would sue the hospital for.)
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
I believe my initial idea of how the debate should have been presented changed throughout the course of the debate. My views changed even, the more i read about the topic. I still believe that reverse discrimination is not the answer. But thanks for the input i guess.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
yawn.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
To win the debate, Pro needed to provide some evidence that no Black brain surgeons were qualified. If there were only one, that would be an argument favoring the resolution "Objective standards for brain surgeon qualification should be raised and rigidly inforced." But it would still not be an argument for Pro's resolution. Con wins clearly.

Arguments about preferential admissions are irrelevant to this debate. If true, it does not assert that successful graduates are unqualified.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Very true, allowing them in society by giving them a free pass here and there is also not the answer. You talk about discrimination. Well how about reverse discrimination, when they are turning down qualified white people to take an under qualified African American just so we can ( all be happy and get along ) give me a break
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by cookielove13 8 years ago
cookielove13
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by pitomitz 8 years ago
pitomitz
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
zippoCommon_Sense_PleaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33