The Instigator
VenomousNinja
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
zarul
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

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: 2/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,312 times Debate No: 2500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (15)

 

VenomousNinja

Pro

Okay, first things first, this is not a racist argument, nor am I racist against blacks or dark-skinned people.

Blacks are more racist than whites! It's really simple, as a black can sue a white for racism and the black will have a very good chance of winning, happens all the time!

If a white does the same, they get called racist and they have a chance of losing a case. They get shunned, insulted, and disrespected.

This is in no way non-racist or a good example of equal rights.
zarul

Con

Blacks are not more racist than whites.

The affirmative must provide evidence to support his/her claims that blacks are more racist. The burden of proof is currently on my opponenet's side, and the affirmative needs to provide evidence.

The affirmative should (specifically) prove that blacks sue whites often for racism, and that these cases are often very successful.

The affirmative should also specifically provide proof that white's lose more often on cases involving racism/hate crimes/etc. As well, the affirmative must prove that it is black people that are more racist, and not that the government or judicial system is more likely to hear one side of the story.

The affirmative should also provide evidence supporting that whites who accuse blacks of racism are shunned and accused of racism.

If the affirmative cannot prove his/her points, there is no reason to vote for him/her.

The affirmative must provide a way to measure racism.

I will take the stand that it is very difficult (if not impossible) for us to know (exactly) whether one group of people is more racist than another. There is no device that can measure racism, its intensity, or its quantity. It is difficult to decide what counts as racism, and much racism occurs within one's thinking process, never in the open. For instance, one group could be vocally racist while another silently so, how would we decide who is more racist? We should not! It is my opinion that such things cannot be measured, and so neither group can be more racist than the other.
Debate Round No. 1
VenomousNinja

Pro

Apparently suing only happens in Hollywood, and violence is more realistic.

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com...

In 2002 there were 466,205 cases of black on white violent crimes. There were only 100,111 white on black violent crimes.

Once again, adressing 2002, 1,916,380 cases of black on white hate crimes were reported, and only 1,689 white on black hate crimes were reported.
zarul

Con

My opponent should address racism more broadly. Ninja is only looking at racism of blacks against whites, and vice versa (and reaching the wrong conclusion). Ninja cannot say that one group is more racist than the other without comparing both groups racism towards other groups (such as Latinos, Native Americans, (East) Indians, Asians, etc).

Now I shall address my opponents arguments.

Violent crime, or even crime in general is not an indicator of racism.

My opponent attempts to dice data from his source, incorrectly stating that were only 1,689 white on black hate crimes, while saying that there were 1,916,380 cases of black on white hate crimes.

In reality, it is 1,916,380 black on white crimes (the site does not provide how many black on white hat crimes there are), against 1,689 white on black hate crimes. The difference is the word hate, because the majority of crimes are not hate crimes. The overall crime comparison is 1,916,380 to 362, 784 crimes. That means that six times as many whites are victims of regular crimes. However, as the Census of 2000 shows us (http://www.census.gov...), there are 6 times as many whites as there are blacks, so it would make sense that more whites are victims (as there are more of them). This only proves that crimes are equal.

I also seriously question the validity of my opponent's source, for instance, the statistics provided are based on "race of victims, and perceived race of offender." That is a red light, showing us that this information could have serious inaccuracies. Second, this site, or at least its writer appears to be quite racist, and should not be a trusted source. For instance, at the bottom of the site...

"John is white. He is married with two children. He wears a blue collar when he leaves his shabby, inner-city house to go to work. Life has been a struggle for John, but now he faces his most difficult challenge. John's neighborhood is turning black. [...]

In a 50 percent black neighborhood, there is a 37 chance that John's family will in some way be violently victimized. As the neighborhood relentlessly turns black, some whites will have to be among the last to leave. If John is unfortunate enough to be one them, he will face the following statistics: When the neighborhood is 90 percent black, John and his family will have a 96 percent chance of being victimized. Soon after that victimization will become a virtual certainty, reaching 99 percent likely when the neighborhood turns 93 percent black."

Regardless of whether you, as a voter, see that this quote relies on accurate information, which the site itself does not source, it ultimately sounds very racist. John is characterized as the hero, working ahrd, and soon to be victim of black crime. Blacks are portrayed as aggressive invaders, ready to sweep into the neighborhood and destroy John's life. The very tone of this indicates great racism. The site makes no effort towards neutrality, and should be disregarded.

Ninja is currently using inter-racial crime as a means of measuring racism, however crime is caused more often by poverty/economic problems/drugs/insanity than by racism. Even Ninja's questionable source proves this, because the only a tiny minority of all crimes were hate crimes. Crime is not a good way to measure racism, it leaves out other more subtle (and more frequent) types of racism. Ninja should provide a better means for measuring racism.

Finally, I stand by my earlier point that we cannot measure racism of one group against another. Attacking someone just because of their race, and thinking of a racist word when someone passes you are both examples of racism, and it is difficult to measure what is more racist. As well, the affirmative only attempts to provide means for measuring violent racism, while much racism is not violent, but rather expressed through words or even thoughts. There is no way of measuring these kinds of racism, and so we cannot come to a conclusion as to whether one group is more racist than another group. Ninja has not addressed this at all, so apparently Ninja agrees.

Ultimately, Ninja must provide a good way of measuring racism, and must prove that the overall racism of blacks is greater than the overall racism of whites. If Ninja cannot do this, there is no reason to vote for him/her. Ninja is yet to do either of these.
Debate Round No. 2
VenomousNinja

Pro

I am not only using crimes to measure racism.

Everybody thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero and was so important. He wasn't. However, he has his own holiday now, people get a break from usual activities on that day!

Why? Well, the only reason I can think of, well, he's BLACK.

Martin Luther King Jr. is not important enough to have his own holiday, yet he does! He did what millions of people were doing: protesting segregation and slavery. I'd say that since King got his own holiday for doing that, that everyone who protests anything should get their own holiday. They don't, however, proving how King was not superior in importance as any other protester.

"As well, the affirmative only attempts to provide means for measuring violent racism, while much racism is not violent, but rather expressed through words or even thoughts. There is no way of measuring these kinds of racism, and so we cannot come to a conclusion as to whether one group is more racist than another group."

Very correct, there is no way to measure that type of racism. However, it is common knowledge that the more outspoken you are about a subject, the stronger you feel about said subject.

I don't see any whites complaining about how blacks are horrible or evil.

I do, however, see blacks complaining about how whites are horrible and evil. Thus, making them racist, or, at least, more racist than whites.

And, as such, don't you ever wonder how blacks can insult other races or religions in a comedy act, when whites can't do such a thing? It's really common knowledge.

It's simple, blacks are more racist than whites.

Prove me wrong...
zarul

Con

Blacks are not more racist than whites.

For this round I will be doing a line-by-line and then some wrapping up. (Quotes are his/her words)

"I am not only using crimes to measure racism."

Then you have provided no real means to measure racism, and thus, you lose.

"Everybody thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero and was so important. He wasn't. However, he has his own holiday now, people get a break from usual activities on that day!

Why? Well, the only reason I can think of, well, he's BLACK.

Martin Luther King Jr. is not important enough to have his own holiday, yet he does! He did what millions of people were doing: protesting segregation and slavery. I'd say that since King got his own holiday for doing that, that everyone who protests anything should get their own holiday. They don't, however, proving how King was not superior in importance as any other protester."

Martin Luther King Jr. does deserve respect, and he was important. Your claims are fallacious, if we are to accept them, then none of the "great leaders" of history deserve any of our respect.

Essentially, you are claiming that Luther wasn't more important than any other protestor, which is untrue, and by implication, that civil rights protestors were not heros. Every singly protestor was a hero in their own right, but Martin Luther King was a leader, he was inspiration. He was part (there were others of course) of the soul of the movement, while the mass of protesters were the body, the part that did the heavy lifting. The inspiration is still very important.

Every leader in history has the same story, did Caesar actually conquer Rome, or was it his soldiers? Did Napoleon conquer Europe, or was it his thousands of soldiers? Was Abraham Lincoln the saviour of the Union, or was it the soldiers that fought for him? Again and again, throughout history, leaders are figureheads of great movements. We honor Lincoln, yet he did not, by himself, save the Union. So should we not respect anyone?

And finally, Martin Luther King having a holiday in his name does not show racism in the slightest. It shows that a man who fought for something important is recognized for it. Even if a reader might agree (though its been well refuted) that there is racism here, it is stemming from the government, and this does not prove that blacks, as a group, are more racist than whites, as a group.

"Very correct, there is no way to measure that type of racism. However, it is common knowledge that the more outspoken you are about a subject, the stronger you feel about said subject.

don't see any whites complaining about how blacks are horrible or evil.

I do, however, see blacks complaining about how whites are horrible and evil. Thus, making them racist, or, at least, more racist than whites."

That's not true, many people are introverted, and do not speak their mind. Others prefer to be polite rather than voice their opinions (ever heard of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"?). There are many ways in which one could be racist, and not express it.

And you haven't given any source that proves that blacks complain about whites being evil. In a debate, if you are the affirmative, you need to provide proof, and your only source in this round does not address this issue, and has already been refuted in the previous round.

And really, one group could be less vocal and still more racist, as I said in my first round, there's no real way to measure racism, there's no magic barometer here.

"And, as such, don't you ever wonder how blacks can insult other races or religions in a comedy act, when whites can't do such a thing? It's really common knowledge.

It's simple, blacks are more racist than whites."

You haven't give a source, or any other proof that blacks have insulted other races (and religion isn't even relevant here). You also haven't proven that whites don't do this. It is not common knowledge, in fact, I have heard some extremely racist comments from people that I thought I knew, yet I would not say that one group is more racist than another.

So no, blacks are not more racists than whites.

My Arguments

I. My opponent has not adequately sourced his claims.

1. My opponent has provided one source, which I thoroughly refuted in the last round. His argument, based of off that source has already been torn apart, and my opponent has brought new arguments in this final round. However, my opponent has not sourced any of these arguments, and his source cannot support these new claims (and you can see why the source is bad, my args in Round 2).

2. There is no reason to expect evidence from me.

A. I am the negative, if the affirmative cannot prove their arguments, as they have not done, I win by default.

B. The majority of my arguments are very simple, and use logic, which has not been argued against by my opponent.

C. My opponent has not requested that I bring evidence.

II. My opponent has not prove that blacks, as a group, are more racist than whites.

1. The affirmative has not truly proved that blacks are more racist than whites. I have requested that the affirmative give adaquate means to measure racism, and they have been unable to truly do so. As well, the affirmative has failed to analyze racism towards other groups, which should be included in the topic, because the topic does not specify that this debate should be about who is more racist to the other.

2. The only means of measuring racism provided is essentially through government policies. The affirmative does not source these claims, and they still would not prove racism. For instance, at best, the affirmative could be granted that the government favors one side, but that does not prove that either group is more racist than the other.

3. The affirmative's means of measuring racism are inadequate, and leave out many types of racism. This means should be rejected, and so should the affirmative.

III. There is no real means to tell which group is more racist.

1. Again, I have argued that there is no scientific way for us to measure racism.

2. Because the affirmative has not provided a reliable way to detect racism, the affirmative cannot prove that either side is more racist.

3. Unless the affirmative can specifically prove that blacks as a group are more racist than whites, he/she should not receive your vote.

4. Because we cannot determine which side is more racist, I should receive your vote, there is no way to evaluate the racism of one group in comparison to another.

IV. Wrap-Up

1. There have been many huge concessions in this debate.

A. The affirmative has provided one poor, already refuted source. You cannot take the rest of their claims.

B. The affirmative has conceeded that it does not matter if the government/judicial system is racist, but what matters is the two groups overall racism.

C. Affirmative has not discussed racism of whites and blacks towards other groups, thus we cannot arrive at an accurate conclusion.

D. The affirmative has conceeded (not argued against) that his source is poor.

E. The affirmative has conceeded that there is racism that we cannot measure, thus we cannot be certain that one group is more racist.

F. The affirmative has not provided a real way to measure racism.

2. Voting

Ultimately, there's plenty of reasons to vote for me. The affirmative has not proved their case (no sources, no means to measure racism, etc), which by itself is a reason to vote for me. I have made my claims, and they have been unrefuted in their entirety. My opponent has also made many key concessions, another reason to give me your vote. Even if you agree with my opponent, I think you should vote on the debating here. If you feel anything I have done is illegitimate, note that my affirmative has not raised any issues, so there's no issue here.

So in conclusion, vote for me!
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Not necessarily, but as I've said, there's absolutely no way that someone can prove overall racism of one group or another, there's no magic racism detector.

But apparently there are quite a few people on this site with a persecution complex.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Not necessarily, but as I've said, there's absolutely no way that someone can prove overall racism of one group or another, there's no magic racism detector.

But apparently there are quite a few people on this site with a persecution complex.
Posted by Garibovic7 9 years ago
Garibovic7
Saying 'blacks are more racist than whites' is racist.
Posted by Bfoehsho 9 years ago
Bfoehsho
Zarul, your debate was much better put together, and you really deserve to win this debate, even if people are only going to vote for Ninja because they believe "blacks are more racist than whites," without looking at the argument. Good debate, both of you.
Posted by toria_2metal 9 years ago
toria_2metal
yah how does that work, when a black person would a white person a cracker then in defense the white person calls them a nigger? and the white person ALWAYS gets the blame for it. Then the blacks always think they can run the whites because we beat their ancestors because of slavery?
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
I dont know you guys I think it is pretty equil...
Posted by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
It was a good debate, yes it was. I had fun!

Well, some blacks. Ya know, on TV and stuff, you don't here about whites using the racism filled past in today(and it was seriously filled with racism), but, when you sit down and weigh it all out, whites and blacks seem to be in about the same spot in the racism meter...

So, not really.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Good debate!

Just wondering though Ninja, do you actually believe that blacks are more racist?
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
The court case was 2 years ago ... a small trial in a local town , I never saw any articles. If you want to look be my guest .. It happened on a 4th of July weekend in Marshfeild , MA ... One of the Asian kids happened to have an uncle in MA that was a DA.
As for the civil case , it is public knowledge look it up. MA once again. I don't have to make up cases, I know there is just as much racism against white people by black people as there is against black people by white people. I also know that there are many programs in effect that cause racial discrimination against white people as black people.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
I'm sure if both of them are court cases you can provide links though. They would either be on local news or an official site.

Anyone can come up on the internet and make up stories about how they've been oppressed, and until you provide proof, no one will take you seriously.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
VenomousNinjazarulTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 TY 9 years ago
TY
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 desk19 9 years ago
desk19
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by bjm1382 9 years ago
bjm1382
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Bfoehsho 9 years ago
Bfoehsho
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JSTR 9 years ago
JSTR
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 CP 9 years ago
CP
VenomousNinjazarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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