The Instigator
Peepette
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
dysgustophanes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It"s Better to be a Dumb White Person Than a Smart Black Person

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 1 vote the winner is...
Peepette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2016 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 87381
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Peepette

Pro

***Outlaw Tournament*****


Contention: Being a stupid white person is far better than being a smart black person. It is far more socially acceptable for a white person to be stupid. They readily receive any help when ever needed. In court, lawyers use the “idiot defense” as a legal argument as reason for an occurrence of a crime; lack of knowledge. White and stupid is socially acceptable, and even lauded, especially amongst the fundamentalist religious sect. It is number one criteria for becoming a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Smart black people don’t get any recognition, have to work too hard and are stereotyped in a negative way. v


dysgustophanes

Con

First off, I would like to acknowledge that the faults of a black person tend to be stereotyped in a larger sense. Some have also said that the mental climate of today is something that would contribute to this.

Now I would like to assert the notion of asking what could constitute this? What could 'better' be in this circumstance, and on that note far better as well.

Legally? Socially? Monetarily? Job prospects? Anything or everything? In the context of what is right; in this case what is socially acceptable (or more literally "approved of"), empirically is it better to be any one person over another? Any person even in comparison to an animal?

It's not necessarily favorable today for anyone to be stupid, and stupid could be regarded under a huge number of possible definitions.

It could mean daftness, social ineptitude, a low attention span, an IQ below 65 (clinical retardation), a tendency to struggle with subjects like algebra or calculus, dyslexia, ignorance, lack of knowledge, a low level of wisdom, et cetera. Additionally, a good proportion of the criteria I have given here are typically under scrutiny regarding the term "stupid" on a subjective level... Whereas, intelligence also holds this baring.

- LEGALLY, an outcome ideally depend on the truth regarding a person and their actions or inaction, and reasons the action or lack thereof took place, and in the system we currently have in a perfect sense accords for what is just and right as the outcome of a trial.

If someone commits a heinous crime--although there's probably a somewhat higher percentage of intelligent people likely to get away with it, whether they have the ability to get away with it perhaps relies in retrospect to the basis of their trial, and on an individual basis, which is not necessarily withstanding any kind of demographic that may be a detail of the person being put on trial. You could give an example of demographics being relevant as teenagers and people in their early twenties typically having higher insurance rates, but that's not related to the prompt, and you also haven't given any sources for the largely non-concrete material you've put forward.

As far as the trajectory an "idiot defense" might take, the consequence of someone's actions is particularly essential to the individual. The idiot defense is only made when the stupid person in question is legally retarded.

You could even argue that a black person on trial for killing a police officer might get more jail time, but the details of sentencing in this regard to the traits of a person would only be relevant in a larger statistical sense, where race might play a part in circumstance rather than any actual unbalanced scales, as such. Still, it has affected individuals, though killing someone typically puts any given person in jail for a very long time.

Is being stupid particularly advantageous for anyone regardless of who they are? Again it would depend on the given definition of stupid, which was not extrapolated upon in the OP. I suppose to properly address this I would have to consider all possibilities and respond accordingly, but this unfortunately isn't possible within the constraints of word amount allowed on this site.

- SOCIALLY, being 'stupid' doesn't always even matter. There are statistics that give reason to believe an individial with an IQ anywhere from about 125 to 150 has a much, much higher likelihood of being popular, a leader in social spheres, and generally more successful in regards to things like dating and jobs that might require such aptitude, like corporate business or engineering. The person who has an IQ above about 175 (very few cases) is more likely to be lazy, and have mental conditions like sociopathy.

As far as on a basis of if someone's more acceptable, this can only be per the person--ie, whether someone personally likes, approves of another or not (which stupidity, intelligence, or lack of one or the other may play a part, however not necessarily). In addition, this can still take the same form in the greater opinion of a group, but as the group grows in number, opinion will intrinsically vary more and more. Whether someone's black or white, being stupid probably won't normally help their case.

- MONETARILY, as far as ability to make money, this depends on what job a person has, and how well they do in their job. And how well they do, again, doesn't necessarily refer to their ability to carry out their duties.

In regard to stupidity, intelligence, lack or abundance of either, it can only be considered in part of the greater picture of the traits that constitute what an individual is. And it may only play a great deal of importance in regard to abstract and/or subjective notions of what makes something 'better' or more acceptable in the long run in comparison something else.

Intelligence takes great hold among very specific situations in life, and doesn't mean everything. It could take precedence in one's ability to survive in warfare, but chance and circumstance could also play an equal or greater part in this. It could determine the outcome of whether one is successful in their education, but things like networking and work ethic could play an equal or greater part.

It could determine whether someone goes to jail for a crime, regardless of whether they did anything wrong, but also whether they're wealthy, famous, and also details of the system of justice for the particular area involved and it's validity, will play a huge part as well.

- As far as JOB PROSPECTS go, I will assert the advice many high schoolers are given by teachers in an assembly upon their first day, and graduation. If there are two people in line for a position, and they each have an identical resume, what might stand to give one a gain over another could be anything as simple as whether or not one prefers the same brand of coffee as they supply in that work place.

Also it might make sense to hire someone of a particular race. Maybe there are an overwhelming percentage of a certain race in a field, and so someone who would stand out might get the job, even if another person who's race is already very given in the culture has slightly higher prospects. It could be a field like psychiatry where there are a large percentage of people from countries from southern Asia, who have been given H1B visas due to an exceptional academic record, and thus tend to take jobs in mental health in western nations.

It could be an academic discipline like African-American studies, and where someone may be preferred for their race, but also academic success has been shown

to be a highly regarded factor to this and any other university position. It could be The Westboro Baptist Church, but that is an extremely small pool and isn't relevant to any discussion considering large portions of the population.

In general, all stupid people suffer more to some extent. That's something that is etymologically tied in to any example where a person could be regarded in that way. Someone could write an entire book in response to this and still not address in totality the inherent invalidity of what you're trying to put forward, but I suppose that might be related to whatever you meant when you said "Outlaw Tournament."
Debate Round No. 1
Peepette

Pro

(video for legally argument)

1. Stereotyped: I totally agree that is true especially when you have the media perpetuating the stereotype. Have your heard about the white riots at the pumpkin fest in NH. We have stupid white people rioting over idiotic things like losing or winning sports teams in San Francisco, Denver and Tennessee to name a few. They barely get a blip in the news, if coverage at all at the national level http://goo.gl... . These people get a night in the drunk tank, pay a fine and off they go; blacks doing the same, go to court and get jailed. In comparison, black protest and riots gets more coverage than white ignoramuses who riot for no justifiable reason.

2. I have worked with some pretty sharp black people, much brighter than me, and I got promoted with minimal fulfillment of job duties. I didn't want the promotion. Heck, who wants more work and responsibility. All I care about is collecting a paycheck with the least amount of effort. I work only to live. Here's proof being dumb works http://goo.gl... . Last week I wore pajama pants to work and was hung over; no one batted an eye. Steve, the black guy at work, failed to wear a tie and someone said he was dressing too casual for the office.

3. Merriam Webster, stupid: Not intelligent: having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things, not sensible or logical. slow of mind : obtuse : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner : lacking intelligence or reason : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless<a stupid decision>

I’m certainly capable of learning and understanding but, playing white stupid has brought me further along in life with a lot more fun without any serious ramifications. If a smart black person did half the things I do, (if smart wouldn’t do them) He/she would end up in jail. I get a warning or a slap on the wrist. Furthermore, if I say stupid things, people turn around and leave me alone; works every time. If a black person says just about anything it's taken as confrontational or called upitty.


LEGALLY: ...in a perfect sense accords for what is just and right as the outcome of a trial..” Blacks comprise only 13% of the population in the US
http://goo.gl... . Almost a third of them spend some time in jail. It is absurd to make an assumption that a third of the black population is stupid http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... . Why are so many of them jailed?

Legally retarded” It's not PC to use the term retarded. Cognitively impaired or ignorant are the new preferred terms. The “Idiot defense” also known as the " Sgt. Schultz" defense" has been used multiple times for white collar crime. It was used in the Enron case, http://goo.gl... and used again for the FM Global scandal ttp://goo.gl... . A black person who gets arrested for vagrancy for taking a walk in an upscale white neighborhood can’t use the idiot defense because it’s not against the law to take a walk http://goo.gl... .


SOCIALLY: Show me the statistics. Smart white people are looked upon as"know it alls” and no one wants to be around them. What would you rather do with your free time, go to a boring pool side cocktail party with a bunch of smart whites to network and talk about politics and the social condition, or go to the fun loving idiot’s house for a BBQ where there's a horse shoe pit, a yard full of ATVs to ride, and an opportunity to go noodling in a pond as part of the day’s activities. Smart blacks work 60-70 hours a week to get ahead and have no time for free time.


MONETARILY: As I said before I got a promotion and raise with no effort. Look at Ben Carson, a brilliant brain surgeon, you'd think he’d have some sort of appeal over idiot Trump. A moron has a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States. I make my case. Stupid white works over smart black even at the national level.


Survival in warfare is nothing more than duck, cover or run like hell. I'm not talking about generals here, but ground troops. A smart person would look at every angle and try to outsmart the enemy, get it wrong, loose his life. Running away has a better percentage rate of survival.


JOB PROSPECTS: Again stupid works, and “young” with it is even better. People over 40 with education and years of work experience have a difficult time finding jobs. Set against a new college grad with no work experience and a 2.9 cum., guess who gets hired? It's not because wet behind the ears white Twinkie Joe likes Folders like the boss. And the smart black kid who worked his way through school with the 3.9 cum. who just doesn't fit into the company culture looses out.

H1B visas are rarely used for academic excellence. The majority are issued to get cheap labor. I worked in the high tech field for years near Boston as the in house coordinator for 2nd party tech employment services. The companies I used all had H1B employees on their rosters. Dependant on job requirements, with total compensation computated, the savings were 30-50% per hour http://goo.gl... , http://goo.gl... . For large projects the company would send a few project managers overseas to India to supervise groups of SW engineers in tech houses, not companies, just a pool of people ready for hire with a building and equipment facilities. They were paid 30k a year over the 90K for the same skill set in the US. Again smart people of color are at a disadvantage.

The Westboro Baptist Church, how is this not relevant in light of Trump’s popularity?

dysgustophanes

Con

Here, read this:

http://pastebin.com...

It is my response disproving you but there were too many characters, so I posted it there. Thanks for making the time.
Debate Round No. 2
Peepette

Pro


I’m unsure your round will be considered valid, posting via pastebin. But, I will respect the time you put into it by addressing salient points only. You put me leaky boat that’s taking on too many characters, not good little buddy.


I have to ask; have you ever read Ron Hubbard’s novel Mission Earth, all 3,992 pages of it? It the most torturous literary experiences of one’s life; self flagellation was preferred over reading this piece crap. To the point; character limits per debate round are purposeful in keeping a reader from poking their eyes out over verbiage of encyclopedic lengths.


single incident covered ... reason to place suppositions on an entire body of people”..“Assuming the indication of reality is based what gets news coverage. I don't think it is.”


It was necessary to resort to a news site that lack credibility, since no reputable mainstream outlets are covering “stupid white” people activities. This was my point entirely. You can tune a piano but can’t tune-a-fish; the media has not used these incidences as oppor-tuna-ties to show a balanced view http://goo.gl... .


Dependant on what set of crime rate statistics one wishes to use. They show that rates are fairly equal, but white crime does not get even close to 50% coverage. The black incarceration rates speak for themselves http://goo.gl.... Black Americans are incarcerated at 6 times the rate of whites. http://goo.gl.... There is no logical reason for a third of blacks ending up in jail other than bias in sentencing. Coincidence is highly improbable. There can be no assumption that all these blacks are stupid.


Saying white people wouldn't have a good reason to riot Is going a little far….


When was the last time you heard of white people rioting for any significant reason? There’s no coverage to juxtapose white idiocy against what is meaningful and occurring in the Black community. Here are few reasons why moronic whites riot: sport team wins/looses, pumpkins, straw hats, anti disco and cabbage patch dolls, debauchery of Spring Break http://goo.gl.... And if it does happen to get a blip on the news, the use of language and terminology is softer than when describing black riots. http://goo.gl... . Being a white dipstick keeps you under the law and news radar.


“I have worked with some pretty sharp black people, much brighter than me. Personal experience rarely holds qualification to speak for such a motion as a whole. Self-evident.


The statistics bear me out. Paraphrased: “Among U.S. residents, the number of associate's degrees earned 1999–2000 to 2009–10 earned by Black students increased by 89 percent. During the same time period, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded to Black students increased by 53 percent. Similarly, the numbers of master's degrees earned by Black students more than doubled from 1999–2000..”, the number of doctor's degrees awarded increased by 47 percent for Black studentshttps://goo.gl... .There are a plethora of intelligent black people.


Merit for my promotion was hardly earned and this bears itself out as well since networking capabilities far outweighs technical abilities when it comes to people of color. It’s a white man’s old boy/gal networking for the status quo world; a bright black is at a disadvantage. I can only attribute my advancement to my office drinking buddies. http://goo.gl...



“being a certain type of white person;” What does that mean??? Being a white numskull is advantageous. No one feels their job is threaded by me, no one asks for my opinion, because I don’t have one. People will tell and doofus anything without fear of judgment. The phrase “I don’t know” with a shrug gives me an aura of non-confrontation and allows people to feel more superior to me. I like making people feel good about themselves, even my fellow white nitwits. http://goo.gl...


pajama pants and how it relates” Higher standard of expectation for blacks than whites.


I have firmed my stance with more citations in this round, there's no need to be repeitive. As far as flaws in judgment are concerned, isn’t that the point overall? Lacking judgment, i.e. being a white imbecile is preferable than being a brainy black person. If you want to analyze matters concerning truth, the metaphysics on the topic is beyond me. Never cared for those Plato types, they give me migraines. Truth is a matter of opinion, let's not go there.


“Well, no... how do you know this hasn't been used before?”What are talking about streamof reality” and “invalidity” I’m at a loss here.


The wee amount of common sense I possess tells me a black person arrested for with vagrancy by walking in an upscale white neighborhood can’t use the “idiot defense” because taking a walk is not unlawful, therefore cannot claim to be ignorant of a law that does not exist. I checked the link, it works, scroll down a half page for the article. Here it is again http://goo.gl...


“Show me the statistics”You made no points here, just presented articles; moot.


What Ben Carson did for a living is relevant. He’s an intelligent person which brain surgeons have to be in order to be in the profession. Would be a wise decision to let ME to operate on your brain? If so, you are welcome to join me and my merry band of white dullards and live happily ever after. It's fun!


It’s obvious that Trump being a white clown works. Reputable citation? a Dilbert blog spot, Not. Presented are other examples on how being a dumb-arse white person is beneficial on the national level. Books have been written about stupid white people in office. Even a child recognizes a nationally recognized dimwit. Tony Abbot has hairbrained fears and is the Prime Minister of Australia! Look at this former President of the US and a possible future one with his happy white mass of morons.









Survival in warfare” Dotard Caucasians do not get trained as Navy seals, Green Berets or any kind of special type forces. Even brainless people have an innate sense for survival; that’s god given. Duck or run like a ravenous lion is chasing you is the best way to stay alive.



“it almost sounds like you were drunk when you wrote this, while suffering from affluenza.” Unless you’ve been out of diapers for at least 2 decades scrutinization of my drinking habits is not permitted. Affluenza? Cha right! I’m sitting on a 20 yr old couch.


H1b visas It’s not a matter that is stated in the law, there are loop holes, and I provided reputable citations to make my points.


dysgustophanes

Con

"I"m unsure your round will be considered valid, posting via pastebin."

- Technicalities like this don't hold much validity in face of the truth.

"But, I will respect the time you put into it by addressing salient points only. You put me leaky boat that"s taking on too many characters, not good little buddy."

- Whatever it takes to win, I guess. By not addressing everything you're simply picking and choosing what you deem acceptable. Picking and choosing like this is not paying attention to points that might be valid by other peoples opinions, not just yours. For instance, you ignored the purpose I stated of what an "idiot defense" actually means, which is that someone must be legally retarded in most cases to claim this.

"To the point; character limits per debate round are purposeful in keeping a reader from poking their eyes out over verbiage of encyclopedic lengths."

- The point of view of the spectator isn't something to take into consideration in regard to the core of a debate.
"single incident covered ... reason to place suppositions on an entire body of people".."Assuming the indication of reality is based what gets news coverage. I don't think it is."

"It was necessary to resort to a news site that lack credibility, since no reputable mainstream outlets are covering "stupid white" people activities. This was my point entirely. You can tune a piano but can"t tune-a-fish; the media has not used these incidences as oppor-tuna-ties to show a balanced view http://goo.gl...... ."

Not giving reputable sources for your reasoning due to another unproven reasoning of why the media might do something isn't valid.

"Dependant on what set of crime rate statistics one wishes to use. They show that rates are fairly equal, but white crime does not get even close to 50% coverage."

What is highlighted in the media doesn't necessarily correlate to reality, and since most of what you're saying relies on this assumption, there aren't many solid points to address in defense of myself. There's not much else I can say in place of describing how most of what you're saying is flawed, thus giving the appearance that I don't actually have anything to say.

You're giving reasoning that isn't actually eligible to respond concretely to (other than pointing out it's flaws), but I assume this is some form of defensive anecdotal and conjunctional fallacy used to drown out any possibility of me making additional points concerning my arguments outside of how you're, well, wrong.

"The black incarceration rates speak for themselves http://goo.gl....... Black Americans are incarcerated at 6 times the rate of whites. http://goo.gl...;

This doesn't necessarily equate to racism.

Aggresive personality such as sociopathy is a greater problem in some black communities, and crime is a downfall that affects them due to circumstance they sometimes fall under in the US. This is just the US. In places like African during periods that are highly publicized due to the racism that it's designated under, like apartheid, most people are black.

"There is no logical reason for a third of blacks ending up in jail other than bias in sentencing. Coincidence is highly improbable. There can be no assumption that all these blacks are stupid."

Stupidity isn't correlation for any reason a person might be put in jail. These people who are being put into jail could have a background that predisposes them for it. About a third of blacks living in the US live in poverty (https://www.census.gov...)

Saying white people wouldn't have a good reason to riot Is going a little far".

"When was the last time you heard of white people rioting for any significant reason?"

That's not significant. I assume you're talking about reasons for rioting and not just the type of people involved, since there are rarely just one type of people involved. You're using cherry-picked examples to suffice a point that stands generally.

" There"s no coverage to juxtapose white idiocy against what is meaningful and occurring in the Black community. Here are few reasons why moronic whites riot: sport team wins/looses, pumpkins, straw hats, anti disco and cabbage patch dolls, debauchery of Spring Break http://goo.gl....... "

- My points above goes again with this, what's in the media doesn't necessarily account for why people might riot, and instances that are centralized around topics of race like the "black riots"... there are not only black people there. I don't think you can find an example of rioting where there's only one race or type of people present. You are saying if A, then B; B, therefore A.

"And if it does happen to get a blip on the news, the use of language and terminology is softer than when describing black riots. http://goo.gl...... . Being a white dipstick keeps you under the law and news radar."

This is still "affirming the consequence." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

"I have worked with some pretty sharp black people, much brighter than me."

- Personal experience rarely holds qualification to speak for such a motion as a whole. Self-evident.

The statistics bear me out. Paraphrased: "Among U.S. residents, the number of associate's degrees earned 1999"2000 to 2009"10 earned by Black students increased by 89 percent. During the same time period, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded to Black students increased by 53 percent. Similarly, the numbers of master's degrees earned by Black students more than doubled from 1999"2000..", the number of doctor's degrees awarded increased by 47 percent for Black students" https://goo.gl...... .There are a plethora of intelligent black people.

- It was never denied that there are intelligent black people. But saying that you have, say, met someone who had silver skin it doesn't necessarily mean there are many people who have silver skin, even though obviously there are people of any race who are capable of intelligence. Additionally, college education doesn't necessarily accord for employment, even if specifying to say, stem degrees. And saying you have worked with smart black people doesn't necessarily speak for reasons of why some black people are smart.

"Merit for my promotion was hardly earned and this bears itself out as well since networking capabilities far outweighs technical abilities when it comes to people of color."

- Yes well, socially adept people tend to do better in some jobs. I never said skill was the only thing that matters in a job.
"It"s a white man"s old boy/gal networking for the status quo world; a bright black is at a disadvantage. I can only attribute my advancement to my office drinking buddies. http://goo.gl...;

- This is assuming that the only thing that really should matter is skill, and that your networking is attributed to bias in the workplace.

"being a certain type of white person;"

"What does that mean??? Being a white numskull is advantageous. No one feels their job is threaded by me, no one asks for my opinion, because I don"t have one."

- People will tell and doofus anything without fear of judgment. The phrase "I don"t know" with a shrug gives me an aura of non-confrontation and allows people to feel more superior to me. I like making people feel good about themselves, even my fellow white nitwits. http://goo.gl...;

This is very specific and doesn't stand for being stupid and white as a whole, with most things you're saying being similar. There's not much else to say in response to you other than your personal experience doesn't match the big picture.

"pajama pants and how it relates" Higher standard of expectation for blacks than whites."

- Again, this is specific to your situation at the time and can't stand for the whole.

Part two: http://pastebin.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Peepette

Pro

Dear opponent, I was a good sport with your last pastbin round. But you ignored the hint regarding the purpose of character limits. I really don't have any patience to copy and paste all your citations in a new pane for yet another round. I do not ascribe to multitasking, because frankly, it's too many things to keep track of, makes my brain ache, spurs me to drink in excess, which acts as an enabler for my participation in stupid white riots. There's a local anti-pink house riot brewing and I really need to stay clear due my age. I don't tip cars like I used to, my back can't take it.

For instance, you ignored the purpose I stated of what an "idiot defense" actually means, I did address this in full, and nothing was ignored. (Beats head against a hard wood table).


"It was necessary to resort to a news site that lack credibility." You are grasping at straws to disprove my point as invalid, where the reasoning and credible citations to back my position was made. An actual rebuttal needs to take place with valid points to counter my argument.

Blah Blah: After spending several hours reviewing and writing a response to my opponents presented R3. I realized endless accusations of fallacies, assumptions and invalidity are made. No reviews of citations that affirm my contentions have been reviewed that directly address my contention that
It’s Better to be a Dumb White Person than a Smart Black Person. Just because he states these things to be the case with my arguments, he believes the reader will fall into the trap that it's true; while no substantive rebuttals with counter points have been provided without inserting clausal assertions of no merit. My opponent through his encyclopedic length of verbal dribble and attention to minutiae has lost the object of this debate. So to keep my bruised head from swelling any further, from beating it against a maple coffee table in frustration, I made the stupid white person's choice to erase the remainder of my rebuttal due to overly repetitious responses to inane claims as well as to spare the reader of the same. If I wanted to work in drone a like manner I'd work at Dunkin Donuts cutting donut holes all day, not debating in this manner.

Summary: It really IS better to be a dumb white person than a smart black person on so many levels. For the most part the law does not bother you. The news rarely acknowledges you and when you riot. If it does by chance takes a small notice you're not labeled as a thug, your actions are called “youthful debauchery" and we are referred as kids no matter what the age http://goo.gl.... If dumb white is caught committing a crime they're less likely to be incarcerated. If I hold a high level white collar job and get caught embezzling or crashing the US economy, my lawyers can use the “idiot defense.” I can be off Scott free if I label myself as a dumb-arse on the law. Being a moronic white individual is beneficial in the work place as well. A white idiot is loved by all, while smart blacks are held to a higher standard and have to work too hard to not get ahead. A smart black person takes a walk in a nice white neighborhood and gets arrested. A white doing the same is asked to move on. Dumb whites advance at work, not for their technical abilities, but for the friends they have; in my case drinking pals. Smart white people, no one wants to be around them; they are a bore. Smart blacks get no recognition, example Ben Carson. White dumminess is even exalted at the national level. They achieve notable positions of power. If you're a dumb white you can belong to the Westboro Baptist church, KKK, any white supremacists group or be a part of the Trump gaggle of idiot gooses all without prejudice. No smart black would have any desire to be a part of any of this. HELL! Mississippians, belonging to the poorest state in the union and receive more social welfare than any other state; they continue to vote Republican. Republicans are the majority in the senate; it's a testament of white dumb effectiveness. In short, dumb white works, smart black does not. Vote PRO, pretty please.

dysgustophanes

Con

First off, I would like to acknowledge that the faults of a black person tend to be stereotyped in a larger sense. Some have also said that the mental climate of today is something that would contribute to this.

Now I would like to assert the notion of asking what could constitute this? What could 'better' be in this circumstance, and on that note far better as well.

It's not necessarily favorable today for anyone to be stupid, and stupid could be regarded under a huge number of possible definitions.

It could mean daftness, social ineptitude, a low attention span, an IQ below 65 (clinical retardation), a tendency to struggle with subjects like algebra or calculus, dyslexia, ignorance, lack of knowledge, a low level of wisdom, et cetera.

If someone commits a heinous crime--although there's probably a somewhat higher percentage of intelligent people likely to get away with it, whether they have the ability to get away with it perhaps relies in retrospect to the basis of their trial, and on an individual basis, which is not necessarily withstanding any kind of demographic that may be a detail of the person being put on trial. You could give an example of demographics being relevant as teenagers and people in their early twenties typically having higher insurance rates, but that's not related to the prompt, and you also haven't given any sources for the largely non-concrete material you've put forward.

You could argue that a black person on trial for killing a police officer might get more jail time, but the details of sentencing in this regard to the traits of a person would only be relevant in a larger statistical sense, where race might play a part in circumstance rather than any actual unbalanced scales, as such. Still, it has affected individuals, though killing someone typically puts any given person in jail for a very long time.

As far as on a basis of if someone's more acceptable, this can only be per the person--ie, whether someone personally likes, approves of another or not (which stupidity, intelligence, or lack of one or the other may play a part, however not necessarily). In addition, this can still take the same form in the greater opinion of a group, but as the group grows in number, opinion will intrinsically vary more and more. Whether someone's black or white, being stupid probably won't normally help their case.

"After spending several hours reviewing and writing a response to my opponents presented R3. I realized endless accusations of fallacies, assumptions and invalidity are made. No reviews of citations that affirm my contentions have been reviewed that directly address my contention that It"s Better to be a Dumb White Person than a Smart Black Person."

You tend to rely on media coverage and personal view as credence for what is justly and appropriately valid. As I have already given the points necessary in the first response, there's no reason to retort to the additional verbatim you've provided--though in fact, I did respond.

"I made the stupid white person's choice to erase the remainder of my rebuttal due to overly repetitious responses to inane claims as well as to spare the reader of the same. If I wanted to work in drone a like manner I'd work at Dunkin Donuts cutting donut holes all day, not debating in this manner."

Like the girth of your text here, it mostly coincides with your own opinion on the matter and points that lie aside whether it's better to be a dumb black person rather than smart white person. This is quite racist, which was my initial reason for responding. But after speaking to you for a bit, I realized you are a self-righteous, taciturn, stubborn, immature, determinately reticent, arrogant, crass, extremely vocal, passive aggressive, and proudly incorrigible.

My opponent has put together shoddy points and held the stance of personal opinion and bias, ignoring most of the points I've made in favor of holding theirs in a favored light. Their assertions about race and societal standing as a whole rest as pale in comparison to their seasoned, roundabout manner that they choose to respond to me, ignoring crucial points in favor of drumming up their own repertoire of belief to win at whatever cost.

This isn't about whoever looks the best. What you said about truth resting solely in opinion just doesn't hold up in reality--and that's the form your opinions take: just being solely opinionated as though you were trying to convince a small child of what you believe and reprimanding them for anything they say to the contrary.
I've noted fallacies and constant repitition in your demeanor throughout this debate, due to lack of any actual cross-points to give, as it would in all likelihood take far too long to present this assertion, and at that divident it would not be worth it to a person who goes so far as to waive a majority of what I say in favor of preachiness and pontification.

I won't ask anyone to vote one way or another, contrary to the Pro here. I believe that two people debating against one another should be ranked in accordance to a logically minded, unbiased court of peoples who seek only the truth in an argument, unrelated to opinion, belief and other uncertainties.

Thank you for reading, and I hope that the best person wins........
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dysgustophanes 11 months ago
dysgustophanes
the heck? if you wanted to vote you should have just done it XD
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
strength of opponent- 8

strength of arguments- 8

humor- 6

total- 22

sorry about the quick vote, but I need to get this moving.
Posted by dysgustophanes 11 months ago
dysgustophanes
donald.keller there was no connected purpose as such. that being said extending your argument to fit the length required for ones response isn't necessarily something that could be considered nefarious or related to aspects that are important in considering what makes up an appropriate response in debate. this being said however i will try not to do this again due to it being reportedly against the rules of the site
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: donald.keller// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins, as Con seems to not have an R2... By the way, don't post external arguments to evade the Character Limit. It's a direct violation of the rules on this site. I can not, and will not, review those arguments for that reason. Also, don't encourage people to vote in your favor on the Voting Thread. That is also a violation of site rules.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter is allowed some discretion with regards to application of the site rules, it's unclear how the lack of arguments in R2 contributes to the allocation of argument points. I can see how it could be a factor, but the voter has to do more to explain it, or simply award conduct for the violation.
************************************************************************
Posted by donald.keller 11 months ago
donald.keller
It must be in the debate, not a thread made to evade the character limit.
Posted by dysgustophanes 11 months ago
dysgustophanes
But I did have an R2 -_-

That was almost my entire case. This is so cheap
Posted by TheNextDaVinci 12 months ago
TheNextDaVinci
Intelligence is better then a preference of race, on sad thing that happens because of this thought of "white people are always favored" is reverse racism, and in the thought of including every race, your not picking the best person for the job. To me it doesn't matter if you male, female, black, white, yellow, red, blue, or Gray. I look at the person, the mind, not the body, anyone( other then people with disabilities ) can do anything as good as the other with their body.
Posted by tantrix 12 months ago
tantrix
This is just... dumb.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
PeepettedysgustophanesTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses pastebin to evade character limits in both round 2 and round 3. Con could have been innocently ignorant of his offense in round 2, but the issue was brought up by Pro at the start of round 3. Con's response was to double down; He didn't appear to make even a minimal inquiry to find out whether or not using pastebin to circumvent debate character limits was acceptable.