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

Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 93033
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening argument
Round 3: Comeback against the other persons argument
Round 4: Final statement

looking forward to debate


I will be pleased to debate with you. Hope we can have nice debate!
Debate Round No. 1


No i the government don't have a SPECIAL responsibility to help minorities, i fear that if the government does so they will favor the minority over the majority which will lead to inequality. The government have a responsibility to help all of its citizens and if they were to favor a minority, like giving the better job opportunities because they are the minority, then i honestly think we have failed as a society because we are just favoring a certain kind of people just because the belong in a certain demographic.


First of all, I would never encourage inequality. I do not believe that the government should just provide jobs to someone, just because they are a minority. However, I believe that we should do some work to push them into jobs, or for example helping them out, with anti-discrimination laws. We need to make sure that people can pursue their dreams no matter their sexual orientation, religion or anything else that could make them a minority.

We need to make sure that everyone in a society feels welcome and accepted, because otherwise that could lead to crime, school shootings etc. If everyone feels like they are contributing to a community, and working together no matter their background, people would also be better to accept people even if they are different. We could look at Scandinavia. They are a bunch of countries with a homogeneous community, and for example, the Danish crime rates are almost at zero, and the former government Denmark had, would make small steps for making sure all people would fit into the community.

So in conclusion, we might to take some steps that creates "inequality" and those steps might lead us to even more equality. Equality is many things. One of the things that defines equality, is that everyone have the same chances in life. In some states in the Unites States of America, transgender people could lose their job and housing, because they are being who they are. That is actually inequality because they can not maintain their housing and job, but as you describe it, if we were to put laws in place that would ban employers from firing people based on who they are, that is inequality. We can not please everyone when doing politics.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all i don't believe that in anyway the low crime rate have anything to do with inequality but rather the low amount of people in poverty in said country. Also i believe that some anti-discrimination laws like the law that forbid you saying anything racist or even hurtful is just plain stupid, mainly because it attacks one of out most valuable freedoms namely the freedom of speech. You also made an argument about helping minorities could prevent school shootings which isn't true since 79 % of school shooters are with, and white people are not a part of this infamous minority so that don't make any sense what so ever. If a company decides to let an employee go because of their background then that is none of our business since it's a a private company, we can think it's bad to do such things but in the end it all comes down to the company and who they want representing them. You can't compare USA and Denmark because they have such a different demographic where USA has a lot more minorities than Denmark.


First of all I don't believe that in anyway the low crime rate have anything to do with inequality but rather the low amount of people in poverty in said country". Equality also exists when discussing money. If we have more equality, the population should then have around the same size of money in their household. We see really low poverty in Denmark, and the crime rates are really low. A lot of factors go into increasing crime, but I do think that Denmark is doing something right, with decreasing poverty and increasing equality and making sure people feel welcome into the society.

You talk about private businesses and choosing who they hire and fire. Cool. That is totally fine. But. From what I understand, you think it is totally fine to let someone go, for being who they are. That is like total inequality. That would also shame people into being something they are not. That is inequality. From what I understood, we both want societies that are equal. Firing someone based on the gender identity, or the religion they have chosen to follow, is not at all equality. That is not giving everyone the same chances in life. That completely defeats the purpose of the constitution in USA. If I may quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

But we are not equal if someone is fired for the colour of their skin. Yes, the business should be able to hire whomever they feel like could do the best job, but letting someone go just because of them being a minority is a damn bad excuse, and completely defeats the meaning the constitution.

I think we have gone slightly off-topic, if we were to talk about freedom of speech, but since you're the host, I will follow your lead.
I do believe in freedom of speech, and that we should all be able to voice our opinions as loud as we wish.
But. I also live by another rule, which I "invented" myself.
"Live your life as you desire, as long as you do not harm/hurt anyone in the process".
The problem with freedom of speech is that it does not teach people when to use it, and when not to. Do not get me wrong, I fully support it, but I do think we need to make sure that it does not defeat people living their life to their fullest. The civil rights movement, lead by Martin Luther King Jr. He used the freedom of speech for the better. He got to voice his opinions, and actually got to create more equality for the black people in America, and possibly in all over the world.
That is one of many examples where freedom of speech has helped a lot.

But we need to be able to see things from both sides. Freedom of speech can be harmful. Minorities can suffer greatly because of it. I've heard quite often the phrase "All Muslims are terrorists" and "All refugees should be sent back home, because they cannot be integrated in a modern society." If I was a Muslim I would be really hurt, by all of these comments. We need to be better to teach people about when to use freedom of speech, and when not to. Because if we were to have a non-restricted freedom of speech, who knows how the world would look today? I do not think it would be as "peaceful" as it is today.
Debate Round No. 3


First of freedom of speech means freedom of speech, even though you do not like what is being said. By saying that the companies cant fire an employee because of who they are you ,are restricting the companies greatly and you might as well tell them to hire specific persons because they are part of the minority. Freedom is also letting the companies act as they want as long as they don't break any laws, it is the company who is getting represented by the specific person so it is also their choice, if you owned a company you would perhaps not want to have a person hired if said person had dyed his/her hair green and had lots off tattoos and piercing because that wouldn't be a signal I would send to the public, according to you companies shouldn't let a person like that go because people like that they are a part of a minority. If they where gay or perhaps Muslims companies should also be allowed to fire that person because that its their company and therefore their choice in the end, if we as a society ban that companies can fire an employee if they want to we move closer to a society with less freedom. So vote for con if you don't want less freedom for companies and if you don't want to see minorities get more benefits just because they are a minority.


First of, I never said anything about restricting a company's ability to hire a person. If they judge that green hair and piercings are a bad signal to send, they should be able to not hire them. But what I did say, is that if they hire someone, and if they turn out to be gay for example that should not change anything. Your sexual orientation is so private, and it would not matter for anyone.

This might be extremely socialismish, but a lot of people have fought over many generations to be here where we are. They have fought for human rights. They have fought for people being able to get out of their social ranking. And being able to hire/fire someone is a privilege here in the modern societies. Firing someone based upon their personal stuff, is discrimination at its finest. People have fought against discrimination for a very long time. They have fought a very hard battle to get to where we are today, but we still have a long and tough battle ahead of us. And this would be a very big step back on the road of progress we have made.

"So vote for con if you don't want less freedom for companies and if you don't want to see minorities get more benefits just because they are a minority." I just quoted you. You say you do not want to give more "benefits" to minorities just because they are a minority. I do not think it is a benefit to make sure transgender people can keep their home, or making sure that people can live their life as they desire without the fear of people jumping on you on, in the middle of the night just because you're "different". I think personal freedom is extremely important, and should not be compromised at all. An individual should have the ability to life live without the fear of losing their job or house, just because they are gay, transgender, a Muslim and etc.

We need to make sure everyone feels safe in the country they are staying in, and we also have to make sure that you can be comfortable in your own skin. And yes, we might to make anti-discrimination laws, but those are great! I mean, making sure gay people can get into a partnership, is not something I see as a benefit, I see it as a right. Making sure all people can worship whatever they please is something I also see as a right, not a "benefit".

Thank you for a nice debate where we had a nice and clean tone, and not getting angry at each other. I've had a few of those in the past.
I wish everyone a lovely summer!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BrandonHyde 2 years ago
I agree with con. Positive discrimination will obviously cause a favorability towards that certain demographic and equally cause negative discrimination towards others who fit outside of that demographic. In general generalizations are hurtful to equality for not all black people are poor or uneducated and not all white people are rich and educated. So why give black people, for example, such a thing as affirmative action which favors them to whites in various college positions and job positions - when quite equally a white person can be in the exact same boat as the black person. The only way a government should influence a minority group which as a collective whole is doing worse than the majority is by trying to improve their communities and any negative attributes or cultures they may have - like improve their infrastructure and schools, and try to get rid of gang-culture and a generations of fatherless-ness.
No votes have been placed for this debate.