The Instigator
qwzx
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
mplo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Institutional racism, BLM, Race Relations, and White priviledge : Is Ameica's society racist?

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...
qwzx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 101943
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

qwzx

Con

This round is acceptance and I hope my opponent will accept. I wish mplo good luck if he does. I will be arguing that America no longer exhibits signs of institutional racism and that whites do not have an inherent advantage over nonwhites just because of skin color.
mplo

Pro

I actually disagree with the notion that there's no longer any institutional racism. Our society is still racist. As for White privilege, it's more prevalent among the wealthier whites here in this country. Many poorer whites, on the other hand, are little or no better off than the blacks or other non-whites here in the United States.

As for race relations here in the United States, in general, there are times when they've been a little bit better, but they were never great. Although there are more friendships forming across the racial/ethnic/color barriers, people dating/intermarrying among races/ethnicities and religions, and more and more kids are coming up bi-racial, race relations here in the United States, generally have a long way to go.
Debate Round No. 1
qwzx

Con

Opening Arguement

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Institutional racism is a pattern of social institutions " such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law " giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race.

Institutional racism and white privilege no longer exists in modern day America. While there are individual cases of racism, that is hardly proof of individual racism. In order for my opponent to prove that America is racist, he must prove through the preponderance of the evidence that there is institutional racism still prevalent today. In order to judge if something that is racist, there must be evidence of racism. Therefore, the majority of the BOP will rest on mplo. The concept of white privilege does not exist for many reasons. My opponent will most likely bring up cases of wealth inequality among races. The first and most foremost thing is that inequality does not mean inequity. Wealth inequality does not necessarily mean that someone rigged the system in their favor. Just because the white person has more money in their pockets than a black person does not mean that inequity has taken place. To believe that a white skin color will result in a higher income is nonsense. There was a study done by Christina Houseworth "We find that black female nurses earn 9 percent more at the mean and median than white female nurses, controlling for selection into nursing employment. Among K-12 teachers, black females earn 7 percent more than white females at the median. There is no black-white wage gap among all women with a bachelor's degree." If there is institutional racism that prevents blacks from earning equal money for the same jobs then, why would blacks earn more in these two fields? Everything is about cause and effect, blacks are more likely to drop out of high school, and are less likely to pursue higher education therefore blacks" overall income will be less. The wealth gap has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with culture. The black single motherhood rate skyrocketed and led to this rapid increase in organized crime and drug use that we see today. My opponent might use this point as an argument for white privilege and institutional racism but that is simply not the case. If the unreasonably single motherhood rate is so high due to racism, mplo must explain why it skyrocketed DURING and AFTER the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. Is America more racist than it was in the 1960s? And if so, how did that happen? And, the race that earns the most money is not even whites BUT, Asians! If there is institutional racism, how did that happen? Did the Asian Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Asian founding fathers write our US constitution to benefit the Asians? It is worth noting that Asians were also victims of racism in America"s history and they turned out quite fine in modern day society. There is simply no institutional racism stopping any blacks from achieving the American dream.
mplo

Pro

Here's another thing: Wealthier whites get more privilege and protection than poorer whites and blacks alike. Both blacks and poorer whites are more at risk for being victims of police brutality, but it also depends on the circumstances, as well. The wealthier and middle-class whites live under far better conditions, get better nutrition, and, in general, are less likely to get cheated, whether it be getting a car, receiving decent healthcare, and decent treatment, or being able to support themselves and/or their families, assuming that they have families.

Poor people regardless of who they are, get dumped on and brutalized much more often, but blacks and other non-whites are subject to even more of it, due to skin color.
Debate Round No. 2
qwzx

Con

Rebuttal

In the previous round, I had addressed how life is about cause and effect. A study was done and showed that people's income can change and improve. 61% of households can improve and rise into the top 20% of income earners. The USA has immense income mobility and one can improve their lives through action. I had stated in the previous round about how blacks are more likely drop out of high school and not seek a higher education. You can't just compare whites with a college background and a black that was a high school dropout.

My opponent mentions how wealthier whites typically live better lives than poor blacks and poor whites. I would also like to point out that rich blacks typically lead better lives than poor whites. You are referencing income inequality and frankly has nothing to do with our current topic of race relations. Getting a car, receiving decent healthcare, and decent treatment, or being able to support themselves and/or their families are not only exclusive to rich whites, they are available to all rich people period.

My opponent then goes on an on and off tangent on police brutality. He cites no sources and makes several unsupported claims.
One such unsupported claim had absolutely no basis on facts, evidence or reason: "Poor people regardless of who they are, get dumped on and brutalized much more often, but blacks and other non-whites are subject to even more of it, due to skin color".

He does not explain why non-whites are more subject to police brutality due to skin color. He does not even give examples of supposed widespread instances of police brutality. Instead he merely states his opinion as an absolute fact. In fact he repeatedly destroys his own argument by admitting that poor whites also suffer the same "problems" that plague nonwhite communities. If, these same problems are shared by poor whites and poor nonwhites as well, then it is not about racism or white privilege.

My opponent has argued for an existence of income inequality rather than the existence of institutional racism. The little arguments he makes have no basis on fact and he cites no sources as I have done in the comments. He has not even met the bare minimum of a BOP and has not addressed any of my points in the previous round. For these reasons, unless my opponent can effectively counter my points and gives out sufficient evidence to back up his claims then, you MUST vote CON!
mplo

Pro

I stand by my argument that institutional racism still does exist. Blacks and Hispanics are still at or near the bottom of the list, having higher concentrations of extreme poverty, inadequate and racially imbalanced schools, and the highest incidents of unemployment. Gary Orfield, a Harvard professor who has studied the situation in depth, succinctly points out that public school systems nationwide, have re -segregated, and Blacks and Latinos disproportionately attend schools that are predominantly non-white.

Ghettoes, which were created as a means of isolating and segregating blacks, are still a regular feature here in many urban areas here in the United States. Massey's Book "American Apartheid", and Andrew Hacker's book "Two nations: One black, One White: Separate and Unequal" both point out the ghettoization of blacks here in the United States, and the deleterious consequences that it has had on blacks, as a whole.
Debate Round No. 3
qwzx

Con

He continues to repeat his debunked argument and once again states about how Blacks and Hispanics are still at or near the bottom of the list, having higher concentrations of extreme poverty, inadequate and racially imbalanced schools, and the highest incidents of unemployment. He does not mention about the Asian population being on top of the list despite being nonwhite and does not address the easy income mobility that all Americans can achieve.

He makes little to no effort countering any of my points in the previous rounds. He goes on to talk about the ghettos and their racist intents on creation. I will also mention that the number of ghettos are dropping rapidly and you can't use something that happened in the 1950s to prove that there is still institutional racism today. He mentions on how some institutions are racially imbalanced but, provides no reasoning on how and why this inequality is also a sign of inequity.

SInce he has not introduced or defended any of his own arguments and has not even attempted to counter any of mine. You must vote CON as he has not met any portions of the BOP.
mplo

Pro

The titles of the books that I mentioned were not about things as they were in the 1950's. They're far more recent than that. As recently as the 1990's, which was when both of those afore-mentioned books came out, ghettoes were still very much in existence, and still are.

Many blacks and other non-whites still mention that it's still very tough for them to get any kind of meaningful employment here in Boston, which is why many of them leave the Boston area after they've finished their education here. Blacks, especially, are still more frequently victimized by police brutality, even today, which is why the Black Lives Matter movement exists. While I may not approve of a number of the tactics that the Black Lives Matter movement has frequently resorted to, their message is quite clear: The demand for more equal treatment at the hands of cops and other law-enforcement people.

The fact that blacks are disproportionately brutalized, seriously injured and killed by cops and other law enforcement people shows that institutional/systemic racism is still very prevalent in our society.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 9 months ago
Jonbonbon
qwzxmploTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty clear who won. Pro didn't make much of an effort to actually prove institutional racism. Con essentially accused pro of making a post hoc argument, and he's right. Con was able to sufficiently disarm his opponent by pointing out income mobility and the equal opportunity for all Americans to move up the ladder. Pro should've done research to prove that the wealth inequality was connected to a form of societal inequity, as that was the focus of Con's case. TLDR: pro didn't prove a connection between wealth inequality and institutional racism.