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

New Star Wars Movie is Racist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 84366
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




My opponent may start his arguments in his first rounds this is 4 round instead of 5.

Why is star wars doing so well over seas now for the first time unlike ever before?

Because it is racist against white men, and specifically goes out of its way to make white men look like they are on the decline. Or so it feels. Think I"m racist? But then why are the black people who complained about something similar for years, the lack of a good black male LEAD, were never called racist either? Side roles were never enough; it was the Lack of lead role that caused such suggestions.

It goes both ways. And now its our turn to feel he have been racially abused in the star wars depiction; that will continue for another 2 movies running at least. What goes around comes around huh?

Poe Darmian: Was supposed to be dead at the beginning and was added back in later to the rest of the movie when they realized they had NO white male actors at all whose face they could show. This just highlights really how much they ignored white males, who are the PRIMARY fanbase for this movie for 30 years. How can you ignore and insult such a major section of your own fanbase like that? Realistically, also the majority of the hardcore fan base?

Kylo Ren: him being the only real while actor who is not grandfather age serves to insult while men, he is an evil emotionally unstable boy who throws tantrums, and you only seem his face into 3 different scenes. I guess the movie is telling us that is who we have to identify with. Don"t worry, you are doing plenty to force us down that path. So why be surprised you get responses like this? According to the movie this is what white males are anyway.

Han Solo: is describes as useless, is an old man, and dies. Nice way of depicting one of the stand out male heroes of the original movies...

That is all the white male representation you have in the whole movie. None of it can be called positive. Add in the rest of the stuff going on today.

Believe it or not people are scared of white genocide, and real changing demographic statistics don"t help but add validity to such fears. Then you do this star wars nonsense that really ignores its principal fanbase. And we are the "racist' for saying something? Saying anything? Screw that nonsense sideways.

I never got any kind of white male privilege. Hell the original star wars was well before I was born. I never got any of the benefits and it seems like my whole life white males like me who just get shafted based on some kind of 'social correction'. But everyone of my generation just gets the short end of the stick so other people can feel better about themselves for some historical injustice we were never a part of. Tired of this game BS my entire life. Damn right I'm going to the dark side and I'm signing while I do it because the 'light' of disney is nothing but a bunch of BS nonsense designed to disinherit me while making me feel guilty so I don't resist. Please go die in a ditch Disney. And take your worthless new star wars with you.

And if anyone else says they feel left out that is fine and taken very seriously. But if we say anything we are called racist and are supposed to feel like stuff that happened BEFORE we were born somehow means we aren"t allowed to feel the same way.

This is BS. Time to form a rebel alliance. Resist tooth and nail across the galaxy in our fight for justice. Take down the autocratic PC of disney and the rest that all only works ONE way.

This episode VII isn't star wars. And it never will be. It is a PC frankenstein created by Disney for marketing and everyone who buys is just a hamster on the wheel. What is true evil is that this stuff is being used to influence children and steal their parents money above all.

Also, as another note, I'm going to be arguing the lopsided black male-white female depicted in MANY shows and movies, and not the other way around, is also racist and of course being perpetuated in the new star wars.

I never thought this until recently, but then i realized it seemed like EVERY movie and so many shows in my recent memory are dominated by this. In a way this is also a debate against affirmative action. Because there is no way the smaller population of Africans in the US produces better actors, but they are given and disproportionate numbers of roles to their ability as part of affirmative action. Just like they get more spots in schools than their grades deserve, because of affirmative action.

How is instituted racism against whites not going to just cause MORE racism on our part? Especially for those of us who are young and only grew up with the shitty parts and being told we have to put with it because of blah blah BS before we were born. This whole system is so MESSED UP beyond belief and make no logical sense at all. Anyone who wonders why white males are angry really has not thought about it at all. Anyone who doesn't understand after thinking about then really thinks white men shouldn't have feelings and should accept everything based on a guilty for something that increasingly most of us were not alive to know about or experience.


I look forward to this debate. I have read your forward and have never saw the movie - perhaps enough reading will save me 20 bucks. That being said without ever seeing the movie I can beat you because of the obvious flaws in your argument. A movie cannot be racist.

Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Secondly, your entire opening was about at best bigotry - not racism.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Disappointing, my opponents has chosen to argue in meaningless semantics.

I forget I need to establish rules in order to avoid this type of silly meaningless drivel. I expect more from people I guess.

That said just because I did not set definitions or such rules does not mean my opponent can establish them himself self servingly. All i need to do is provide my own definitions from reputable sources and it is done.

First Racist can be an adjective to describe a noun or pronoun;
Adjective: a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.

According to Cambridge Dictionary Online, Racist in the political sense as an Adjective means:
G2;re=8;.s=8;st/ disapproving
C2: In politics R03;believing that other R03;races are not as good as R03;your own and R03;therefore R03;treating them R03;unfairly.

As it says a similar word in this context is 'disproving.'

Thus the Title of the debate means "The new Star Wars Movie is Disapproving/Against whites"
Same difference.

I do not see much else that needs to be addressed other than opinion that I can safely disregard. And you have only senselessly distracted from the obvious goal of the debate. I will have to remake it and this time provide clear rules that only someone interested in a real debate take part.


You are stating it is racist, but it's not. It is not racist that I live in a gated community devoid of blacks. It is not racist that I live in a mostly white area. It is not racist that I like white beaches. It is not racist that Jar Jar brinks spoke like a Jamaican.

Your entire post was about stereo types and your woe is me attitude towards life and had nothing supportive of racism. perhaps you feel that is semantics, but it's not. You needed to consult a dictionary to figure out the difference between racism, bigotry, and stereotypes. How can you possibly read your first round and conclude it was anything about racism? It goes back to my first round point about it being an easy debate to win.

If you claim this portrayal of the white man is racist, then prove it. What did they do to show whites to be inferior? Not having whites in the movie, or held to a limited roll, or even died in the movie. That's what happens. You think Han Solo should live forever? Wouldn't that be racism - a life longevity better than any other creature in the now 7 movies?

The problem with your position that you fail to see is you are giving the other side power. You are enabling them to continue this race debate and divide. Your debate and position means you accept the paradigm that you are a racist because you do not have black friends, or hang out in black clubs, or don't watch black shows. You are setting the standard for racism to be disagreement. You are bastardizing what racism is - yet you complain about what seems like affirmative action and white guilt.

If you don't want to continue here, then go make another debate and pretend this one was about my semantics. You are the one trying to fit your myopic view of a movie into a racist mold. You are the one giving the enemy the key to the city. Go prove how racist you really are for not having more white guilt and not watching more BET. Go march with BLM and tell the world how important it is that blacks and whites be represented equally on TV and in movies.
Debate Round No. 2


It seems my "opponent' doesn"t get it. I"m remaking the debate anyway but it should be good practice to lay it out very clearly in baby spoons for those who are willfully ignorant of what is pretty obvious.

So I will lay it out as clearly as possible.

What almost everyone seems to agree regarding what is or isn"t racist revolves around the concept of "fairness." Something fair should not favor any group.

If a group is being over represented they are being favored. How do we decide when a group is over represented? There is really only a single way to do so; based on population demographics. After all everyone seems to like to see character they identify better with in roles of movies they like. Nothing else would be fair.

Important Implications: The Original Star Wars espidoe V and VI was then the least racist in its racial depictions of all Star Wars Movies. Because in terms of population % it most fairly represented races. Blacks are about 12% of the overall population, Lando was a major supporting character and accurate reflection of 12%. Blacks who complained about the lack of a male lead are the real racist; it would be racist to favor themselves to get a larger representation in the movie than they actually were. Rather the only people who have a right to complain are asian and middle eastern people really who were not represented at all.

Why do other people have to wonder why their demographic is under resented at the expense of someone else? What is really important here though; why can"t we call it racist in public? Why is it like anything can be racist except when its racist against whites and particularly white men?

Time to embrace the darkish because there is no way I an feel anything other than a whole lot of anger. Kylo Ren at least is ironically accurate.

Now Lets sum up my opponents "points."

He claims I only give stereotypes and show a poor attitude. He goes not do anything to actually explain how this is so with any logic or specifics but merely baldly states this.

What I find frustrating about my opponent is he seems to ignore that there IS something to be upset about. I am complain about nothing that blacks did not about Star Wars in the 80s; except everyone listen to them and apparently in the long term they got what they wanted.

That I have to actually start quantifying the unfairness of the new movies/movies in general towards white men; and getting granular with details and logic in terms of ratios and thus essentially shoving his nose into facts before he will even begin to see where the problem exists is part of the more general problem that is breeding resentment.

ANYONE else with this exact same complaint get instant attention and acceptance and not this response.

"It is not racist that I live in a gated community devoid of blacks. It is not racist that I live in a mostly white area. It is not racist that I like white beaches. It is not racist that Jar Jar brinks spoke like a Jamaican."

Some people would disagree with all of those. Note the typical profound liberal arrogance my opponent shows. He decides when things are racist and when they are not in a self serving manner.

I am claiming I feel something is racist towards me and my demographic. The new Star wars is a continuing representation of this trend. I am not speaking for anyone else so your baseless claims about irrelevant topics has no bearing here unless you articulate a logical way they do have such a bearing. You have not done this but just listed "stuff" with no obvious relation that we cannot extract meaning from.

"Your entire post was about stereo types and your woe is me attitude towards life and had nothing supportive of racism."

All racism complaints are a woe is me attitude by your logic then. Go complain to black lives matter while you"re at it. This bland argument is annoying because apparently everyone else can complain about racism until they get what they want at the expense of someone else; namely white guys these days. And when we do it back we get this BS in response.

This is just a continuing double standard that you are perpetuating and it is creating enormous amounts of frustration.

"You needed to consult a dictionary to figure out the difference between racism, bigotry, and stereotypes. How can you possibly read your first round and conclude it was anything about racism? It goes back to my first round point about it being an easy debate to win."

I needed a dictionary because you wanted to prattle about definitions. I just provided a source to shut that nonsense up instead of trying to let to make it subjective which is what semantics fiddlers thrive on. You attempted to say that the word "racist" was incorrectly used in the tittle and you failed miserably in that semantics ploy. You attacked the word; not the argument or ideas up for debate.

I"m not trying to do a verbal ballet here but that seems to be all you are really interested in.

"What did they do to show whites to be inferior? Not having whites in the movie, or held to a limited roll, or even died in the movie."

You haven"t seen the movie; so any denial from you is based on what?

Han is implied to be "useless" by his own dialogue. Essentially he quit the rebellion and becomes a smuggler again because that was "all he was good for," except he clearly was NOT good at that either. Thus he is clearly implied to be useless.

He later appears to be a failure as a father and a parent, and in his death scene really has very pathetic showing dying as weakly as his character was made out. He didn"t have any kind of memorable line or moment; he just died. He didn"t even say "I am your father." Nothing.

Obviously I"m not saying he should live forever; but instead the white male lead who was so good in the originals was portrayed with extreme weakness and dilution of an iconic white male hero from the orignals that just ADDS salt to the wounding fact that there is no white male hero anymore in the new movies to replace him either. We have to be content with the heros from the originals; but wait they just went out of their way to make them NOT seem so great anymore in the new one to be replaced by apparently newer better heros who AREN"T white guys. So we are supposed to be content with WHAT? Nothing? Yea right.

It not only that they don't have white hero, but they have made another white male hero from the originals meet a pretty pathetic end. This movie only detracted from Han"s hero status. He didn"t die a hero; a died a failed old man. Also; spoiler alert; potentially that is his daughter who is paired with the black guy. So we can sum up the male roles in Star wars as : Han as a failed old man who dies pretty pathetically, he could have died but the way he did and the way he depicted was extremely negative. Poe was added on as an after thought an originally died in the first 5-10 mins. Kylo Ren you almost never see his face except 3 scenes; and he is about the worst character to be indented. He isn"t even a cool collected villain like vader; he is a tantrum prone brat who the viewer doesn"t respect the way the respected vader just by how he is resented. That is pretty negative only meaningful depiction of young white males on top of how he is an evil sadistic farther killing murderer.

Luke is a crazy hermit who looks like a recovering drug addict and plays no part in the movie at all except is "found" like a lost princess at the end. Mind you, the movie it too feminist to even call Princess Leia princess anymore. The main Female lead can"t get recused because that would piss off feminists, oh and the new yoda is a girl and the added a completely pointless female stormtrooper that particular felt like it was just added in "just for the sake of it." I wish i could say it added to movie but it was really just politics on screen in the worst and most obvious way that ruined the real experience.

Poe is OK but then he WASNT supposed to be in the movie and his character was kept alive on after the opening as an afterthought when they realized there wasn"t a SINGLE white male face they could show in the movie poster. The villain is a white guy but that isnt flattering since he is put in a vey bad light and you only see his face 3 times towards the second half. Not exactly any real screen time for the white guy and the little of is very negative in its depiction.

"If you don't want to continue here, then go make another debate and pretend this one was about my semantics."

You started arguing about definitions on R1. Idk where you think there is any "pretending" involved here unless you want to admit something to everyone?

"Go march with BLM and tell the world how important it is that blacks and whites be represented equally on TV and in movies."

Actually I am saying they should be NOT be represented evenly; as in 50-50. Because last I check 50% of the population in the US wasn"t black, and black male - white female couples that are top quantity of hollywood depictions but are near the bottom in real life statistics. Where are all the other couples who are not being represented fairly if at all?

This gets to question of what equality is. Apparently for blacks complain about racism in the 1980s star wars racism for them was not being enter stage and getting the white girl when as 6% of the population they should e lucky they are getting screen time at all.

Resolution: It is not racist to not cast black men in male leads; actually since they are such a small % of the population and of interracial couples it is racist to portray them so inaccurately at the expense of other people. If they aren't represented they really can't feel that is racist against them. Because they are demanding over representation to statistical reality.

I am demanding fairness, that reality be resented without favoring one group at the expense of another.


We think in words. We talk in words. We make decisions based on words. The best way to control a population and those in society actions is to control their thoughts. The best way to control their thoughts is through words. My opponent and people in the comment section claims this is a debate about semantics. Perhaps they are right. However this discussion and debate is much larger than if the new Star Wars is racist. This debate is a parable for the nation. Knowing what you are discussing is very, very important and unfortunately too many people do not know what they are talking about.

In the end, I don"t care if you vote for me, or my opponent. As long as I have succeeded in sharing some knowledge about the bigger picture of "RACISM", the victory of this debate has no relevance, it"s a "bigger picture" area.

My opponent"s original claim was that the new star wars movie was racist. So what is racism? In short it"s a belief that inherent differences among groups involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

When one makes a racist claim and the standard is set below what racism is, and that is affirmed, then future claims are easier to prove based on past experiences. Down this slippery slope, you start to get into redistribution of "poor" students to "rich" schools, or neighborhoods that must have "low income housing". Do not fall into the trap of arguing their point for them. Argue against their position not for it. Usually ending with some claim of "fairness".

Choice of who is the actor in the movie should be based on who will play the part best, just as the choice of who gets into a college should be based on achievements and not quotas. Arguing quotas makes their position correct, only the wrongness is on the ratio not the system. If you start down that path, where does it end? The truth is the producers are interested in making money and having the best actors in each role makes that possible, not quotas or some other system of fairness. The only thing fair is to let the free market dictate with its pocket what movies succeed, not a predetermined staff race allocation.

To pick a person based on race IS racism only if you think they couldn't do the job without assistance or that group is a superior actor.

Specific to this debate topic of racism in Star Wars

My opponent has discussed many racial undertones in and around the movie. I agree with many of his assertions both personal experiences and in the movie. I also agree with many of his feelings in the first round. But that agreement is not of racism. No one is making the assertion that there fewer whites in the movie because they are inferior " either in the time of Star Wars or in real life. However, a valid claim of racism here would be blacks are superior actors as they will bring in more global money than whites will - an angle I am sure my opponent does not want to take.

My opponent discusses the Fall of Han from his hero status and his weakened look. 30 years will do that. Regan single handedly destroyed the Soviet union and ended the cold war without a shot being fired. Whom died of alzheimes. Sometimes real life is pathetic. Art imitates life...

My opponent points to Poe being an after though, who was not intended to be in the movie, however his appearance is ONLY because he is white. Racial yes, racism probably not. Discrimination, yes.

My opponent shows how Princess leia, is no longer called a princess due to the feminists. This is PC culture and sexism is not at all racism.

My opponent brings up the female storm trooper. She seems to be there just because she is female. Afirmitative action at work meeting quotes " part of the original argument" 52% off the world is female. You would think after reading my opponents statements this is something he would support. Sexism is not racism" The question: Is is sexism that she has her job only because she is a woman or is it sexism to imply she is not good enough to get the job on her own therefore we need quotas?

That luke is a drug addict is probably the realist part of the series. Many military vets turn to drugs after being exposed to war. Luke not only killed hundreds of people, but his own father " in self defense. The narrative of Luke"s life actually makes sense. That has to mess one up!

My opponent states minorities should have minor roles, however the nonwhite world makes up 80% of the world. For a world wide film distribution, the cast allocation seems appropriate to my opponents search for fairness.

Which brings us to fairness. You cannot use such meaningless words. Another left liberal word. Fair. Pay your fair share etc" It"s not fair that you live in that house and go to that school. Fair. Say what you mean. Fairness ALWAYS comes at another"s expense. There is no game of just winners. Say what you mean. Don't use the word fair and assume I know what you mean or I agree with your assumed use of "fair".

I think letting the producers make the film as they want without artificial quotas is quite fair.
Debate Round No. 3


LaughingRiddle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff so conduct to Con. Con showed that a movie can't be racist only people, Pro fails to negate this thus Con negates resolution and wins.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does have to assess arguments made by both sides. While this voter can view Con's argument as sufficient reason to negate, the voter does still have to explain why Pro's rebuttals failed.
Posted by Rockozer 9 months ago
Well con could you touch on the topic of the character roles in the movie instead of defining racism. That is kinda the point to this debate
Posted by pimpmaster 9 months ago
@ LaughingRiddle Thank you. I will give you a good conslusion I hope you will build off of :)
Posted by pimpmaster 9 months ago
@ Reformist

There is nothing semantic about knowing what is and is not racism in a discussion involving racism. My opponent has Racism, Stereotype, and bigotry conflated. Maybe a small deal here, but in life to someone who is feeling threatened by needing to be PC as my opponent states - are big deals.
Posted by Rockozer 9 months ago
Kind of disappointed at Con. He turned this into something that nobody was really looking forward too, plus he didn't see the movie so he has no reference
Posted by LaughingRiddle 10 months ago
Its ok, he is helping me refine the off the cuff argument I posted so when I do it again I can do it better. But his semantics are silly and useless.
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
Con literally could've tackled Pro so many ways but ended up in arguing useless sematics

Posted by LaughingRiddle 10 months ago
As far as the opening line is concerned, of course it was about bigotry, both to disprove myself from it and to head off the bigotry of senseless shouts of 'racist' as a personal insult in order to avoid real debate about the points brought up.

If you can't read what is contextual backdrop and what are arguments maybe you should not be accepting debates. No one forced you and it seems like you only want to be annoying... Now I know why so many people make it hard for others to accept debates.... Because of this...
Posted by Rockozer 10 months ago
Ah ok. I never really noticed this type of racial combo. I cant really think of any movies or shows that does this.

I hope you find somebody soon I am interested in this debate. I can kinda see your point though some what, I just want to see how you plan to prove it
Posted by LaughingRiddle 10 months ago
Fact: In film the MOST depicted inter racial couple is Black Male - White Female.
1) Why is this depicted so much more than any other combo? Something is racist and messed up there for sure.
2) It is so bad sometimes I'm surprised now that isn't the couple. It is just so common and cliche now.
3) While in reality statistics show the highest ratio of interracial marriage is Asian women to white men, than latina women to Non-Hispanic White men.

So its not only that they are showing disproportionately one ONE racist romance combo, but that they ignore all the actual combos and completely throw white men out of the picture just like they did pretty much in the new star wars? Maybe if it WAS JUST star wars ok, but there is a wider trend going on here that favors male black actors to a practically racist extent and shafts the domestic white majority audience and fanbase for no reason.
No votes have been placed for this debate.