The Instigator
Rhenium
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is Reverse Racism Real

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Bob13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 754 times Debate No: 85851
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Rhenium

Con

A number of people believe that racism is a real thing, but it simply doesn't exist. If someone accepts this challenge, I will explain why.
Bob13

Pro

Racism is the belief that some races of people are superior to others.


Races include Caucasians (Whites), Africans (Blacks), Latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, Middle Easterners, and South Asians (East Indians).

Go ahead and prove that racism is not real.
Debate Round No. 1
Rhenium

Con

OMG! My bad. I meant to write that "Reverse Racism" isn't real in my argument. Wow I messed up! Sorry about that"
Racism is 100% completely and utterly real. That is undeniable.
I wish there was an argument editing option"
Bob13

Pro

By "reverse racism" do you mean "racism against whites"? That's what the term usually refers to.
Debate Round No. 2
Rhenium

Con

Yes, that's what I mean. And here's my argument why it isn't real.
I want to establish that while prejudice and racism are similar, they have different connotations. It is true that white people can experience prejudice, offensive opinion not based on reason. Anyone can. However, racism is much more complicated: It is a concept that operates on both an individual and institutional level.
Racism is an institution where a particular race is dominant, and uses this dominance to oppress the other races in order to benefit. Instances of this are slavery: White people had oppressed Blacks in order to gain profit off of Black people's labor. Then later there was segregation, which was less direct but still oppressed blacks.
Today, the oppression that racism creates is more on an economic and educational level. Job discrimination makes it difficult for Blacks to earn more money, which makes it more difficult for their children to get a better education, and therefore get a good job when their children are older. You can clearly see a cycle, and this is only one instance that the system of racism creates. White people do not experience any of this, and in fact benefit off of this. If African Americans and other minorities are refused from jobs due to their skin color, then white people have a higher chance of obtaining a job. Usually without even knowing it.
White people do not experience police brutality at the same level black people do. More than 100 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2014. (http://mappingpoliceviolence.org......) They also don't experience incarceration at the level either. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States' population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. They're targeted by society and poverty because of racism on a structural level. (https://www.americanprogress.org......)
So while blacks can be prejudice against whites and say bad things to offend them, they're not being racist because they don't have the institutionalized power to protect them and their statements. Furthermore, if black people make negative statements or act negatively towards white people, it doesn't affect the power, rights, and opportunities that white people have. On the other hand, if white people act negatively towards black people, the power, rights, and opportunities of black people are restricted.
Bob13

Pro

You have changed the definition of racism that I provided in the first round. If you were going to use a different definition, you should have specified that in round one.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't provide terms in R1, thus Pro can provide any term he likes. Con then concedes that racism per the definition is true, thus Pro wins arguments by concession.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is allowed to determine whether or not a definition in the first round constitutes a solid definition for the debate that cannot be contested. It's not up to moderation to decide whether or not this is reasonable.
************************************************************************
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
In round 3, Con made the point that racism is institutionalized bias; for reverse racism to exist, the bias should be against white people. Con stated that the bias in governmental institutions appears to be for white people, rather than against them; white people "do not experience police brutality" and incarceration at the same level as black people do. Con"s point that since black people are not able to be biased against white people in an institutionalized way, as his examples show, then black people aren"t reversely racist is valid"at least under Con"s definition of racism that requires institutionalized discrimination to exist in order for racism to exist.

In round 1, Pro exploited the fact that "reverse" was not in Con"s argument; he exploited ambiguity rather than actually making a case. This may have been acceptable if "reverse" wasn"t also in the contention of the debate, but it was. As such, Pro"s first concession was not a concession.

Con"s argument relied on his own definition of racism; if we went with Pro"s definition, which was posted earlier and therefore should be counted as the correct definition, then Con"s argument would not be valid. Con"s change of the definition was pointed out by Pro, but Pro did not point out how that related to the validity of Con"s argument.

Due to Debate.org"s restrictions on voting, it"s difficult to make any vote on this debate argument-wise. If I voted for Con, then I would be voting for an argument that was reliant on a changed definition, as Pro made the first definition, a definition incompatible with Con"s argument. If I voted for Pro, then I would be ignoring the fact that Pro did not point out how Con"s playing with semantics affected Con"s case, making it not an adequate rebuttal. Plus, semantics are apparently fair game unless otherwise stated, thereby making the case even more confusing.
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
Dilara
Prejudice that is systematic is not always worsted than prejudice that is not systematic.
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
Dilara
What about affirmative action?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
RheniumBob13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no arguments until the final round, when it's too late to make them. I'm just giving consuct points instead of arguments, because the debate never really took off.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
RheniumBob13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't provide terms in R1, thus Pro can provide any term he likes. Con then concedes that racism per the definition is true, thus Pro wins arguments by concession.