The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Discrimination can sometimes be correct.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 64045
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Discrimination is never correct due to the fact, that it pointlessly hurts people for no apparent reason.

How can judging someone on their sex, skin colour, or even hair colour ever benefit our society in any way, shape or form? It makes no sense. People using discriminative terms for no logical reason are emphatically wrong. Think about it this way:

The person who is being insulted at with your discriminative statement could go onto self harm or even commit suicide. There have been many cases where this has happened. Surely this is enough to stop any discriminative terms, but, yet, people continue.



When we stop children from being molested purely due to their age, by point-blank banning any sexual contact between those above and below the age of majority discrimination can be correct (DCBC).

When we stop children drinking alcohol due to age, DCBC.

When we stop any average height or tall people form performing the midget role in a play, circus act or music video, DCBC.

When we stop a dude who doesn't appear to be our boyfriend from fingering us, DCBC.

When we stop a girl who doesn't appear to be our girlfriend from blowing us, DCBC.

When we stop Nazis from killing Jews by killing them into submission, DCBC.

When we end world war 2 by bombing a huge chunk of a nation for the sake of sending out one last almighty roar to prevent almost twice as many lives of our own people having been taken, DCBC.

When we ensure that our hair dying company puts a model on the cover of the right hair color for the right packet and ban any non brunettes [or people who would look ugly being brunette] from auditioning to be the brunette model, DCBC.

When we discriminate against those allergic to peanuts from being invited to a party where peanuts are being readily eaten and the shells tossed around, DCBC.

Want more examples? Okay... Just ask.
Debate Round No. 1


Except when we do those things; we are doing it for the good of those individual well-being or we are defending ourselves.
That is not what discriminination is.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, discrimination is defined as

"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex"

For clarification, unjust's definition is listed as:

not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

The majority of the statements you gave below are morally just. In terms of the advertisements, they are not discrimination, if not clearly stated in the application information, then that is NOT discriminative.

When we stop children from being molested, we purely do it for their well being as it is not safe for their age group.

When we stop children drinking alcohol, they are not mature enough to be able to sensibly judge the amount of alcohol they drink.

When we stop a boy/girl from fingering/blowing us, we are protecting our moral well-being which, if we are stopping, we clearly are doing to make sure our well-being remains intact.

When we stop Nazis from killing Jews by killing them, that is purely for saving another race. Nazis did an unjust act and so killing them to prevent further unjust acts is not discrimination.

Ending WW2 was to save a larger amount of lives than killing, and doing it for the good of their own country - again, not unjust.

When we stop people allergic to peanuts coming to parties, we are clearly doing it to protect them from getting a reaction from the peanuts.

So, to put into summary, your points are incorrect as they are not discrimination. Discrimination is ALWAYS unjust; your points are just.


Con is choosing to only use one of many definitions of discrimination... I will just take the one they gave because it's so funny.

They are basing the entire concept of discrimination on amorality. Amorality is not immorality, it is simply ignoring what is moral.

To be unjust, as Con says, is to not be based on morality (it is isn't necessarily to go against it as such).

So let's begin with advertisements. Do you think that morality was involved? No! So guess what? It was unjust by Con's own definition.

How about preventing under 18 year olds from having sex with those above 18? This is not for their well-being, sex is perfectly safe for their age group. do you think in the caveman times when there was literally no medicine and maximum life-span was like 25 [] these dudes were banging from 12 and up face it. You think they just were like "OMG, let's wait until we're 18 so our 7 year old kid is left behind to care for his 4 year old twin brothers"? No, they were like "OMG My tits have bloomed f*ck me big boy!" Just kidding, the women had no say in it, it was like pure rape. Point being that under 18's are so capable to have sex but it's just pure prejudice and discrimination. Some 14 year olds are way more mature than some 21 year olds, it's called random distribution of maturity (yes I invented that phrase but it's so legit that you may as well accept it). It's still correct to do it because it stops the greater issue of teenage pregnancy that would reduce economy as it makes mothers fail exams and children grow up to be just as unproductive... Well at least it tries to.

Hmm, drinking alcohol is just as stupid but is more stupid. No one is 'mature enough' to drink alcohol safely because everyone gets harmed by it. On the other hand, sex can genuinely harm under 10 year olds but that's because the pu**y gets ripped wide open and they literally break their pelvis and hip muscles and it's just horrible because the guy's schlong is too thick for them... Okay anyway, regarding alcohol no on should be drinking it. We randomly allow over 18-21 year olds, depending on nation due to the random prejudice that not only assumes everyone is magically capable of handling alcohol at 21 when just the day before their birthday they weren't allowed a drop but face it, the government just wants to profit off of it without too many people taking up hospital beds and not doing well in school to become hard workers for the economy. Liver failure's a b*tch at 16... for your exams that you can't revise for I mean. It is still correct because of the proneness of youngsters to get harmed physically and probably need hospitalization of they were fully entitled to drink as much as they wanted and that would make an unproductive economy if they all grew up unqualified as they wasted their education getting legally drunk without any restriction and destroyed their organs and brain in the process.

Now as for the whole cheating on your partner thing, I don't think you quite get it. The race, age, sex and many other methods of distinguishing people such as nose shape are all involved in the discrimination of anyone who doesn't appear identical to their boyfriend/girlfriend's criteria in these categories. It's like saying "sorry I refuse you sex because you don't look like my boyfriend"that's literally that people do, and it's correct to do it which is why this resolution is so stupid. It says 'sometimes correct', it doesn't even say 'always correct'. What is sometimes? Like how often? This is all so silly really. If I prove it to be correct in just 2 situations I already win the whole debate. So like I've literally already won it...

Anyway, the Nazis were not doing anything unjust. Hitler was just defending Darwinism by removing the genetically inferior from the genepool, great guy he was protecting us all from genetic doom of unmonitored natural selection!

Ending WWII was so unjust, because of the reason that I just stated and also because it killed so many innocent Japanese dudes who legit did nothing wrong.

If the people allergic to peanuts died from an allergic reaction they can't reproduce and infest the genepool yay for humanity! Go Hitler, go!

Yay, I proved it all to be discrimination and correct. Zero of my examples incorporate morality into their reasoning, it's either pure science or simple desire to f*ck the same looking person as before. All of them were correct because it was written in the Bible... Oh wait that was just graffiti. :)
Debate Round No. 2


RatofDoom2 forfeited this round.


Another win in the bag.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
i think the main issue here is the definition of discrimination and distinguishing between discrimination and just decision making. While I obviously agree with Imperfiets logical statements because they all nake sense, I think the debate should've begun with the assumption that RatofDoom2 did not mean discrimination in the sense that humans beings must make decisions, but meant the definition they described, in which case imperfiet does have a good case for ageism as it relates to underage drinking,ect.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Discrimination is a useful tool to stay away from undesirable people. Disciminating because of skin color or any outward appearance is never useful. The heart and behavior are legitimate discriminations.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff