The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Nowadays, an Islamic African-American Woman would have more "Rights" than a Christian White Man

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,336 times Debate No: 8204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

mongeese

Pro

Nowadays, an Islamic African-American woman would have more "rights" than a Christian White man in America.

By "rights", I mean more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation, get what one wants, and do things with less interference.

Yes, America was so eager to avoid a world run only by white Christian males that we're now going in the opposite direction.

Here is my reasoning:

1. Religion
From "America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It", page 66:
"He's also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that 'jihad' means 'internal personal struggle,' profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin 'In the name of Allah,' etc. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the same court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words 'under God'-decided in this case that making seventh graders play Muslim for two weeks was perfectly fine, just an interesting exposure to a fascinating 'culture' from which every pupil can benefit. Separation of church and state? That maybe, but nobody said nuthin' about separation of mosque and state."
Yes, we feel as if we should not impose our religion to others, but we also feel that we must not stop other religions from imposing themselves upon us. Also, calling the Middle East "the Muslim world" is perfectly acceptable, but calling the West "the Christian world" is against the Constitution.

2. Race
Supporters of affirmative action firmly believe that whites have some unwritten advantage when it comes to college and job applications. Their solution is to give other races a written advantage that forces colleges and businesses to accept other races at a ratio that does not properly reflect the ratio of applicants, and results in less whites getting in to colleges and jobs than if race was completely ignored. Furthermore, Barack Obama got a large number of votes from African Americans just because he was black. http://thesop.org... Apparently, it is good to vote FOR someone because he is another race, but bad to vote AGAINST him for it. Also, some people think that "black" is a racist term, even though "white" is a perfectly acceptable term, and "black" should thus be a perfectly acceptable comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Gender
Currently, women are not part of the draft in American government.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Additionally, at the Regional Science Fair of Houston, there was award from some Women's Rights advocate group that gave a Special Award to some random girls with good projects. If a group came out that only gave awards to guys, they would get yelled at for being sexist, but the other way around is perfectly okay. (http://hunstem.uhd.edu...)
"SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS - HOUSTON AREA SECTION"
When my school held a voluntary basketball tournament, it was required for at least two or three girls to be on every team (I forget which), which meant that you could have an all-girl team, but not an all-guy team.

This is how racism (http://en.wikipedia.org...), religious segregation (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) are going from against the oppressed to against a new oppressed.

Thank you, feverish, for wanting to debate me on this.
feverish

Con

Thanks to Mongeese for instigating this debate, glad we got the chance to discuss this topic.

From my opponent's use of inverted commas it is clear that in this debate we will not be discussing 'legal rights', 'human rights' or any other standardly applied use of the term.
http://www.google.co.uk...

Instead we shall be dealing with my opponent's own unique and three-fold interpretation of "rights". This being:

"more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation, get what one wants, and do things with less interference."

Sympathy is not generally gained by ability of any kind but rather by the situation of being in an unfortunate circumstance.
No one is going to feel sorry for you unless you have been mistreated or excluded in some way.
Likewise it is not any ability that let's you do something without interference, it is freedom.

This may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I'm pointing out that my opponent's self-supplied definition doesn't make much sense in itself. I'm not attempting to argue semantics and will assume that my opponent meant ability in the sense: are able to/ have more opportunity to.

My opponent very articulately breaks down the resolution into it's three components: Religion, Race and Gender.
I shall respond to my opponents arguments whilst also offering arguments to prove the Con position within each of these categories.

1. Religion.

a) Rebuttal:

I really don't see how my opponent's example of Islamic awareness events have anything to do with the issue of Muslims having any more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation, get what they want, or do things with less interference than Christians.
How do awareness programs effect an individuals "rights".

One can hardly live in America without being aware of Christianity either, national holidays are based around it, Christian evangelism and advertising is abundant etc.
And although separation of church and state is the official line, in reality mainstream Christian opinion influences policy on a massive scale, otherwise there would be no anti-abortion movement or intelligent design taught in science classes.
How can it not be a positive thing to learn about other cultures and religions? Being made aware is not being imposed upon.

The Muslim world would generally be interpreted to mean all Muslims (the Ummah) including those living in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If referring to the middle east I would guess it refers to countries with Islamic law and government, where there is no separation between church (or mosque) and state. Perhaps that is why it would be more acceptable. But acceptable to whom?

b) Arguments:

Christians are in the majority in America, so as America is democratic (small d) they are more likely to have their views represented in law, so therefore more likely to be able to do the things they want with less interference.

Due to the threat of terrorism, police profiling is now based heavily on religion (or an estimate of religion determined by ethnicity/appearance)
http://www.newsweek.com...
http://www.usatoday.com...

This means that Muslims are clearly not able to do things with less interference, as they are more likely to be stopped and searched by police or prevented from travelling.

2.Race.

a) Rebuttal:

In many (not all) circumstances it is indeed the case "that whites have some unwritten advantage when it comes to college and job applications."
The unwritten advantage is called bias, prejudice or racism.
Whether it is held by the individual making the selection or is endemic to the institution, it is real and it does exist.

Affirmative action laws exist to counter-balance this existing bias, not to create a new one.
In a society where minorities are under-represented and under achieving and communities are becoming ghettoised, it can only be a good thing to attempt to break the cycle.

The Obama link doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps my opponent can re-post?
In the meantime:
Average 90% of blacks have typically voted democrat since the 60s.

http://wiki.answers.com...
http://www.factcheck.org...

The extra 5% of blacks deciding to vote could easily be explained by previously apathetic and disillusioned black people gaining a new enthusiasm for politics.
People tend to vote for people who look like themselves, white people have been doing it for years and not through racism.
I don't really understand the "good to vote FOR someone because he is another race, but bad to vote AGAINST him for it" thing. Please explain the difference and how one is considered better.

As for the term black being seen as racist, I would think someone very sensitive if they were offended at being described as black which is a simple and conventionally acceptable (certainly in UK) descriptive term, but it is true that on a deeper level the labelling of a multitude of shades of pink and brown into 'black' and 'white' does have implications.
Whiteness is generally associated with purity and goodness (eg. as pure and white as the driven snow) Black with darkness and evil (eg. his heart was as black as coal.)
Labelling people by these terms with their profound connotations has a psychological impact on people and in turn can affect the opinions and values of a society.
The wiki link under my opponent's comments on race doesn't seem particularly relevant, maybe it has changed since he first posted it.

b) Arguments:

As racism exists and is directed more towards black people than white people. Black people clearly do not have more "rights".

I think there are further arguments implicit in my rebuttals for this issue so I will move on.

3. Gender.

a) rebuttal:

The argument of women not being included in the draft could also be interpreted as discrimination against them, regarding them as less fit to fight and I think as an individual who has been unwillingly drafted would receive sympathy from some people, this also makes women less able to gain sympathy.

Science needs to be made more appealing to girls because they are currently disinclined to become involved. A special reward for their efforts is not giving them more "rights".

Boy's sports are promoted harder and taken far more seriously than girl's sports in US schools, I don't know how many sports scholarships girls get but I would be surprised if boys don't get more. (This is more of an argument than a rebuttal)
It sounds like your school wanted to have mixed basketball and thought more boys would apply. Mixed b-ball sounds like great fun to me, although of course I would only want to play with adult females.

Arguments:

Women have to go through a great deal more physical trauma than men in order to have children, when children are born, women will generally be expected to take most of the responsibility (in some cases all) for their care. This alone limits women severely in being able to do what they want without interference.

I can't speak for the US but currently in the UK, girls are starting to outperform boys academically and often prove to be more ambitious than their male counterparts. Despite this most high paid professionals are still men demonstrating that women are less able to get what they want.

Racism, religious segregation and sexism are well documented and backed up by opponent's well researched wikipedia sources. They are traditionally applied to minorities and women and for the most part, this is how they are still applied in America today.

For this reason: Nowadays, an Islamic African-American Woman would have >LESS< "Rights" than a Christian White Man.

Vote Con.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

"Thanks to Mongeese for instigating this debate, glad we got the chance to discuss this topic."
Same here.

"Sympathy is not generally gained by ability of any kind but rather by the situation of being in an unfortunate circumstance.
No one is going to feel sorry for you unless you have been mistreated or excluded in some way.
Likewise it is not any ability that let's you do something without interference, it is freedom."
Sympathy can be gained through gender, race, or religion, because people feel that minorities have been mistreated and excluded, so they attempt to make up for it, but they end up unbalancing the scale in the opposite direction.
Freedom can be linked with race, gender, and religion.

"This may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I'm pointing out that my opponent's self-supplied definition doesn't make much sense in itself..."
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

1. Religion
"I really don't see how my opponent's example of Islamic awareness events have anything to do with the issue of Muslims having any more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation..."
The basic point of that passage is that California's school board decided that it would be rude to have Muslims say the pledge with the words, "under God," but a class that converts kids into Muslims is perfectly okay. This is an example of the special privileges America has started to give to minorities.

"One can hardly live in America without being aware of Christianity either..."
Yes, that is true, but likewise, Muslims are free to practice their own religion, as well, and...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Look at that. Muslim holidays fall close to Spring Break, Winter Break, Summer Break, Thanksgiving Week...
Muslims would easily be able to get out of school for other holidays.

"And although separation of church and state is the official line..."
Muslims are also anti-abortion, and believe in intelligent design.

"How can it not be a positive thing to learn about other cultures and religions?..."
They aren't just learning a new culture; they're temporarily converting to it. At my school, they're starting a Bible class next year, about the effect of the Bible on Western culture, and it is being promised that the class will have a neutral religious standpoint. That obviously isn't happening in California with the Muslims. This is because Americans currently feel the need not to let majorities impose, and to allow minorities to impose.

"The Muslim world would generally be interpreted to mean all Muslims (the Ummah) including those living in the US."
Note that the Muslim world is also used to mean the Middle East and surrounding countries, soon to include Europe and Canada. (Confused? Read "America Alone.")

"If referring to the middle east I would guess it refers to countries with Islamic law and government, where there is no separation between church (or mosque) and state..."
So, either we should be the Christian world, but can't be due to religious protest, or we aren't, and thus we lack Christian majority on our laws.

"Christians are in the majority in America, so as America is democratic (small d) they are more likely to have their views represented in law, so therefore more likely to be able to do the things they want with less interference."
Muslims and Christians actually share the views that you have said recently. Additionally, Muslims are more likely to vote Democratic.

"Due to the threat of terrorism, police profiling is now based heavily on religion (or an estimate of religion determined by ethnicity/appearance)"
However, this is an Islam African-American that we're talking about, not an Islam Middle-Eastern, so the argument becomes void.

"Whether it is held by the individual making the selection or is endemic to the institution, it is real and it does exist."
And so, they decided to balance the scales... but accidentally tipped them in the opposite direction.

"Affirmative action laws exist to counter-balance this existing bias, not to create a new one.
In a society where minorities are under-represented and under achieving and communities are becoming ghettoised, it can only be a good thing to attempt to break the cycle."
We didn't just break the cycle. We recreated it.

"The Obama link doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps my opponent can re-post?"
The web page itself died. New one:http://www.washingtonpost.com...

"The extra 5% of blacks deciding to vote could easily be explained by previously apathetic and disillusioned black people gaining a new enthusiasm for politics."
It could be more easily explained by the fact that he is black.

"People tend to vote for people who look like themselves, white people have been doing it for years and not through racism.
I don't really understand the 'good to vote FOR someone because he is another race, but bad to vote AGAINST him for it' thing. Please explain the difference and how one is considered better."
Being racist against Obama is bad. Being racist against McCain is good. That's the argument that is made. We are allowing blacks to turn the tables after we've tried to fold it up.

"As for the term black being seen as racist, I would think someone very sensitive if they were offended at being described as black..."
And yet, they still feel offended.

New link:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"As racism exists and is directed more towards black people than white people. Black people clearly do not have more 'rights'."
Government laws have been put in place to undo this. Instead, they reversed it. Now, a company has to hire more black people than they'd prefer, even from a neutral standpoint, because of affirmative action.

"The argument of women not being included in the draft could also be interpreted as discrimination against them, regarding them as less fit to fight and I think as an individual who has been unwillingly drafted would receive sympathy from some people, this also makes women less able to gain sympathy."
They used sympathy to get out of the draft. The draft forces people to do things, so being out of the draft allows people to do what they want; thus, "rights."

"Science needs to be made more appealing to girls because they are currently disinclined to become involved."
And this claim is backed by...?

"Boy's sports are promoted harder and taken far more seriously than girl's sports in US schools, I don't know how many sports scholarships girls get but I would be surprised if boys don't get more. (This is more of an argument than a rebuttal)
It sounds like your school wanted to have mixed basketball and thought more boys would apply. Mixed b-ball sounds like great fun to me, although of course I would only want to play with adult females."
That's because guys have always gotten into sports more heavily. Girls just don't want to play football so badly.

"Women have to go through a great deal more physical trauma than men in order to have children..."
However, it is their own choice.

"I can't speak for the US but currently in the UK, girls are starting to outperform boys academically and often prove to be more ambitious than their male counterparts..."
STARTING. The effect has yet to be seen in the economy, because they have to get jobs and promotions first.

"Racism, religious segregation and sexism are well documented and backed up by opponent's well researched wikipedia sources..."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
We don't have religious segregation, 'cause we ended it with the First Amendment. However, recent Muslim movements are imposing their religion on others. It's already been done in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In conclusion, we have turned the tables that we have meant to close.

Thank you.
feverish

Con

Hello again and thanks to my opponent.

Apologies as I wasn't aware in the first round that we were discussing one hypothetical Islamic African-American woman, since we are; let's give her a name.
Natalie is a nice name, let's go with that.

My opponent says: "Sympathy can be gained through gender, race, or religion, because people feel that minorities have been mistreated and excluded."
Why would people think it if it was not true?

---
1. Religion:

I haven't read America Alone and don't have access to a copy but it sounds pretty one-sided.
My opponent misrepresents this information as describing "a class that converts kids into Muslims". Partaking in the rituals of a religion for a short period is very different to converting to it.
It doesn't say that they go to mosque and I sincerely doubt that genuine Muslims would recognise them as such.
Also they are surely not restricted from practicing their own religion during this period?
There is no evidence of imposition in the quote.

The mere existence of a pledge containing the words "One nation under God" is ample proof that church and state are not truly separate and that Christianity is the dominant mentality in government. This proves my points about Christians having their views more represented and therefore more freedom to do what they want.

My opponent's argument in no way supports the resolution, unless he can explain how California awareness programs are relevant to whether Natalie has more "rights".
In what way are awareness programs a "special privilege" for Natalie?
As he says "Muslims are free to practice their own religion" like Christians, so equal "rights" there.

But the fact that Christian ideology shapes the mainstream government and society, makes Christians more able to do what they want with less interference.

"Americans currently feel the need not to let majorities impose, and to allow minorities to impose."
Majorities impose by default.

"Muslim holidays fall close to Spring Break, Winter Break, Summer Break, Thanksgiving Week."
"Muslims are also anti-abortion, and believe in intelligent design."

Yes but surely my opponent must accept that these holidays and political movements in America exist as a result of Christianity, not Islam. These were merely examples showing that Christianity is the dominant culture that actually affects policy.

The Middle east will soon include Canada and Europe? Maybe it's a good thing I can't read the book my opponent is influenced by.

"So, either we should be the Christian world, but can't be due to religious protest, or we aren't, and thus we lack Christian majority on our laws."

As I have shown, saying there is separation between church and state does not prevent Christian majority opinion influencing laws.
Also, what effect does the terminology of Muslim or Christian worlds have on (American) Natalie's "rights"?

I said: "America is democratic (small d)"
My opponent said: "Muslims are more likely to vote Democratic."

He might want to look back over this, democratic(small d) means a system of voting that elects officials to represent the people and make decisions, Democratic (large D) means Obama's party.

Police profiling is still likely to be an issue for Natalie. Even if she doesn't look middle eastern, if she dresses in traditional Muslim clothing she risks being suspected of terrorism. Some examples of black Muslims investigated by the police in connection with Islamic terrorism:

http://findarticles.com...
http://www.frontpagemag.com...
http://www.kenanmalik.com...

In addition Natalie will be a target for police profiling because of her race, this means that she is less able to do what she wants without interference.
----
2. Race:

Me: [Racism] "is real and it does exist."
Pro: "And so, they decided to balance the scales... but accidentally tipped them in the opposite direction."

Here my opponent concedes that racism is real and is capable of giving less "rights" to Natalie.
He needs to prove that with the current balance of existing racism on the one hand and affirmative action on the other, that Natalie now has more "rights".

"We didn't just break the cycle. We recreated it."
My opponent seems here to suggest that white people on the whole are "under-represented and under achieving and [their] communities are becoming ghettoised."

I am glad my opponent was able to re-post his source: http://www.washingtonpost.com......

If you read this it shows that it took time for black Democrats to switch their votes from Hilary to Barak, which proves that they were in fact influenced by his political abilities and not by any racial prejudice.

"Being racist against Obama is bad. Being racist against McCain is good. That's the argument that is made."
By whom is this argument being made and how on Earth does it affect Natalie's rights?
Everyone is free to vote how they choose, even if they do so based on prejudice (which would be almost impossible to prove.)

"And yet, they still feel offended."

As I stated before I think people are unlikely to be offended at being described as black in a descriptive way. People on this very site list there ethnicity as black without apparently feeling discriminated against.
The only example of the term being described as racist is the 'universal labelling' issue I mentioned earlier, which my opponent has glossed over.
Again, Natalie has more "rights" how?

My opponent says:
"a company has to hire more black people than they'd prefer, even from a neutral standpoint, because of affirmative action"

They 'HAVE' to hire 'more than they'd PREFER.'

Why should they have any preference one way or the other unless they are racist?

Companies that 'prefer' not to hire black people, or people of any other race (including white) should not be allowed to act this way.

It is an abuse of civil rights.
It justifies affirmative action.

Prejudice of this kind always affects the minority more (there is less of them after all) which shows that Natalie has less "rights".
---
33. Gender.

Pro: "They used sympathy to get out of the draft."

Were they ever drafted in the past?
How did they use sympathy to get out of it?
Why were people sympathetic?

It is a widely held opinion that science is less appealing to girls, although of course it is possible (though not stated by Pro) that Natalie is a keen scientist.

"Unfortunately, most girls do not consider a career in these fields in which females are underrepresented." http://www.techbridgegirls.org...

"can we close the gender-gap"
http://www.nncc.org...

" girls are less likely to obtain the education required to take up a science, math or technology career and less likely to receive appropriate career information."
http://www.zonta.org...

I am badly running out of space.
Natalie is great at football, she is not given the opportunity to represent her college in a high profile event.

Woman do not have the same "right" as men to have kids without all the physical trauma and personal sacrifice.

Yes they need to get jobs and promotions but the institutions are male-biased, so it is harder for them.

--
How is Islam being imposed? Prevalence does not mean forced prevalence. What's it got to do with Natalie?

The tables have started to turn a tiny bit, but are still nowhere near half way round.
The food on the table is still a lot closer to the white Christian man than it is to Natalie.
It needs to be equidistant.

Vote con.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

"Why would people think it if it was not true?"
I don't know; why did all of the animals believe that Snowball destroyed their windmill?

"There is no evidence of imposition in the quote."
The Bible class is forced to take a neutral standpoint, because a class that teaches Christianity is pure segregation!
The Muslim class takes an extreme Islamic standpoint, but it's okay, because the students are only learning about a different "culture," that happens to come with a religion!
That is the opinions that the people believe, but it is really just that they feel the need to restrict Christianity's majority powers, and increase Islamic minority powers, AT THE SAME TIME!

"This proves my points about Christians having their views more represented and therefore more freedom to do what they want."
Muslims also believe in "under God."
Furthermore, Christians also lack the right to teach any part of their religion in school, and Muslims get a class to themselves. And when do we interfere with Muslims when all they want to do is practice their religion legally?

"But the fact that Christian ideology shapes the mainstream government and society, makes Christians more able to do what they want with less interference."
Our country's government has been changing away from Christian ideals, more and more towards the secularism that is currently destroying Europe. And when has a Muslim been prevented in legally voicing opinions in government?

"Majorities impose by default."
Unless, of course, they try to check themselves for it, and then try to scrap all of their influence away, and then allow another religion to do things they wouldn't even consider.

"Yes but surely my opponent must accept that these holidays and political movements in America exist as a result of Christianity, not Islam. These were merely examples showing that Christianity is the dominant culture that actually affects policy."
Thanksgiving was American history, not Christianity. Spring Break and Summer Break are irrelevant.
Notice how it isn't "Christmas break" and "Christmas party" anymore in school; it is instead "Winter Break" and "Solstice Party."

"As I have shown, saying there is separation between church and state does not prevent Christian majority opinion influencing laws."
We're undoing it as we speak.

"Also, what effect does the terminology of Muslim or Christian worlds have on (American) Natalie's 'rights'?"
It was just an example of Muslim terminology over Christian terminology; otherwise, nothing.

"He might want to look back over this, democratic(small d) means a system of voting that elects officials to represent the people and make decisions, Democratic (large D) means Obama's party."
I'm saying that Muslims are part of the majority party, so they ARE represented in government equally to Christians.

"Police profiling is still likely to be an issue for Natalie..."
Those aren't random black Muslims being interrogated for being Islam; those are people being prosecuted for criminal actions. Big difference.

"In addition Natalie will be a target for police profiling because of her race..."
Black racism by policemen was done away with long ago...

"My opponent seems here to suggest that white people on the whole are 'under-represented and under achieving and [their] communities are becoming ghettoised.'"
When a white man and a black woman of equal qualifications are being chosen for a job, the black man will be selected nowadays. That is the part that gives black people more rights. Economy is different.

"If you read this it shows that it took time for black Democrats to switch their votes from Hilary to Barak, which proves that they were in fact influenced by his political abilities and not by any racial prejudice."
"The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator."
This implies that race caused the large shift.
Look at this: http://newsbusters.org...

"By whom is this argument being made and how on Earth does it affect Natalie's rights?"
Natalie's race has more sympathy; additionally, Natalie would have an advantage against, say, Mark (that's the white guy now) in a presidential campaign.

"As I stated before I think people are unlikely to be offended at being described as black in a descriptive way..."
There are still people who are offended.

More rights come later.

"Why should they have any preference one way or the other unless they are racist?"
Because the percentages required for companies do not properly reflect the amount of qualified blacks in the field seeking the job.

"Companies that 'prefer' not to hire black people, or people of any other race (including white) should not be allowed to act this way."
The reason they'd prefer not to hire black people is because black people have had a trend of not being as qualified for the job; the media then turned this into racism. Affirmative action isn't even fighting racism, because it sparks more racism against underqualified, yet still hired, blacks.

"Were they ever drafted in the past?..."
No.
Women were considered to be weaker, and that men had to defend them.

"It is a widely held opinion that science is less appealing to girls..."
Being a secretary is less appealing to guys. Should we offer a bonus to guys who want to be secretaries? Wait a minute! That's sexism!

Gender discrimination is largely an economic fallacy, mostly backed by statistics and never backed by an actual incident.
From "A Closer Look at Comparable Worth," "There is no pay gap for full-time workers age 21-35 living alone."
From "Economic Facts and Fallacies," "Among college-educated, never-married individuals with no children who worked full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old... men averaged $40,000 a year in income, while women averaged $47,000.
It has been discovered that marriage is just about the sole reason for any pay gap whatsoever. Additionally, it doesn't really matter whose name is on the paycheck in a marriage, as, according to "The Economist" magazine, "Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers' buying decisions-- from health care and homes to furniture and food."

"Natalie is great at football, she is not given the opportunity to represent her college in a high profile event."
Mark just loves volleyball, but guys don't get any opportunity to play volleyball in high school or college.

"Woman do not have the same 'right' as men to have kids without all the physical trauma and personal sacrifice."
Woman can actually have kids; men cannot.

"How is Islam being imposed? Prevalence does not mean forced prevalence. What's it got to do with Natalie?"
Natalie can go preach her own religion at a school; Mark cannot.

"The tables have started to turn a tiny bit, but are still nowhere near half way round."
Natalie and Mark have equal qualifications for college, but Natalie gets the scholarship for being an African American woman.

"The food on the table is still a lot closer to the white Christian man than it is to Natalie."
Not with Mark realizing this and pushing the plate over... and the plate crosses over the dividing line. Whoops.

"It needs to be equidistant."
Mark pushed it a bit too hard. Whoops.

"Vote con."
Vote PRO.

"Thankyou."
Thank you.
feverish

Con

Note: intended to just post link to youtube page but video has embedded. It's not a major part of my case.

Much thanks to Mongeese for an intense debate, 3 rounds doesn't seem enough as we have only scratched the surface but I expect even if we argued 20 rounds we would never see eye to eye.

Let's examine the lives of our two hypothetical subjects without assuming too many specific facts about them.

Mark (like my opponent) is a white, Christian, American boy. All his life he has grown up feeling an accepted member of society because almost all his figures of authority and positive adult role models have looked and believed the same way he does. He has grown up in a nation founded by individuals like himself and shaped by their opinions. When he looks at people in positions of power he can easily imagine himself in their shoes because they look, talk and act like him.

Natalie on the other hand has been made to feel minority and second class from the start. When she looks at how media and society stereotypes people like her she does not feel empowered. Black people are portrayed as criminals and thugs achieving success (with notable exceptions like the pres) only through sports or entertainment. Muslims are portrayed as terrorists and fanatics. Woman are regarded as sex objects or (perhaps especially in black and Muslim culture) encouraged to be subservient and concentrate on children and chores.

The "rights" we have been discussing are not legal rights or human rights but the personal freedom and opportunities to achieve our goals; granted by mainstream society, cultural opinion and individual psychology. Natalie clearly starts off at a disadvantage.

---
In this debate my opponent has accepted that racism and prejudice set people like Natalie at a disadvantage:
Me:"[racism] ..does exist"
Pro: "And so they decide to balance the scales.."
Me: "The food on the table is still a lot closer to [Mark] than it is to Natalie."
Pro: "not with Mark realising this...").

His argument is that the steps that have been taken (such as affirmative action, religious awareness programs and..um.. not drafting woman, and giving some girls a science award) to counteract discrimination have gone too far and now we are discriminating against guys like him and Mark.

I don't think any of his points have proved this satisfactorily (unless you think his anecdotal evidence of not being able to field an all male b-ball team at a high school tournament qualifies?) but that will of course be up to voters to decide.

---
In the space remaining I will attempt to counter some of Pro's points in his last round.

I'm not sure what my opponent's intention was in referring to Orwell. If he's saying Natalie would get sympathy because of Stalinesque propaganda then this doesn't make much sense.

Some of his comments are starting to sound 'a bit Geo'. He sees conspiracy theories against the Christian majority behind the "forced" neutrality of Bible class and the "imposing" of "extreme" Islam at these schools.
Also he talks about the sinister "secularism that is currently destroying Europe" without explaining further.

He has no evidence for these 'extreme' opinions and they do not affect Natalie's "rights".

---

It seems that he does not have a problem with the token secularism of Christian America, only with genuine secularism (apparently destructive).

"we're doing it as we speak"
About time.

---

"Black racism by policemen was done away with long ago..."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

I was about the age my opponent is now when the Rodney King thing kicked off.
More recently:

http://socialistworker.org...
http://glciii.wordpress.com...
and the video above.

---

"When a white man and a black woman of equal qualifications are being chosen for a job, the black man will be selected nowadays."

Might want to read that one again.

It's not true anyway, even without the typo. If they've already got their quota of minorities and are racist, they will choose the white guy.

---

Source: "The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator."
Pro:"This implies that race caused the large shift."

It implies no such thing, Obama's race is not something you wouldn't notice straightaway. If they were influenced by race there would be no large shift from Clinton to Obama.

---

My opponent failed to prove that people are offended at being described as black. Maybe he doesn't like being called white as projection is common. However, see below.

---

"Because the percentages required for companies do not properly reflect the amount of qualified blacks in the field seeking the job."

That's a racist statement.

I'm not calling my opponent 'a racist' but he should think about what he's saying.

We aren't even talking here about any specific job, yet my opponent makes a blanket assessment that there are not enough qualified black people in the field.

The position could be for a reggae sound system operator or jerk chicken chef for one thing but even if it was for a nuclear physicist my opponent offers no evidence or reason why there would not be enough qualified black people.

Looking back over that quote again, it also brings to mind an issue relevant to my opponent's earlier questions about the word 'black' being perceived as racist.
Usage can be a factor.
Talking about 'black people' is not really going to offend anyone but I can see how calling them 'blacks' might.
Would it not be odd if I referred to my opponent (or myself) as 'a white'? It doesn't make sense grammatically and it is objectifying people.
One of the reasons 'the n word' is so offensive is because it's original usage by slave traders described people as an object with neutral gender. A commodity to be traded.

---

"black people have had a trend of not being as qualified for the job; the media then turned this into racism."

Another seriously dodgy statement with no basis in evidence or reality.

Black people in America have been hideously oppressed for hundreds of years, they are finally given a helping hand and the media turned THAT into 'political correctness gone mad' and 'inverted racism.'

---

"Affirmative action isn't even fighting racism, because it sparks more racism"

Not true, although it's often used to justify and smokescreen existing racism.
People may not be bold enough to complain publicly about the minorities themselves but they can complain about 'special treatment'.

Making a big point of issues like these is one example of how right-wing politicians are able to communicate with racist voters and say "hey guys, we're on your side" without coming out with actual racist comments .

---

Maybe we should encourage more men to become secretaries. I see no reason why a man couldn't be as good a secretary as a woman and a woman as good a scientist as a man. Anyone who does is probably sexist.

--

"Woman can actually have kids; men cannot."

Um.. I don't know if I should be giving sex ed. to a minor but just so my opponent is aware; you need ingredients from both man and woman to make a child.

I have a kid. (I am a man so men can have kids.)
Unlike her mum, I had the freedom to have her without the restriction of carrying her in my belly for nine months or ripping myself apart pushing her out.

Luckily for her, in a society where racism still exists, she looks almost white.

---

I don't know if my opponent is proud to be white but he should certainly count himself lucky that he was born a white Christian American.
Look at who holds the power in the world (and especially in his own country) he's in good company.

Thanks again to Mongeese for the debate and thanks to everyone for reading.
Con.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Sorry, yes I wasn't trying to say it was you, I've no idea who it was.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, it wasn't me. I don't know who it was.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Yeah it was looking pretty slow but someone seems to be voting 7 points against me in all my debates today, oh well.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Voting seems to be slow.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Cool, thanks for clarifying that mongeese.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, if it sounded like that, I would just like to say that I was not talking about all jobs; just the ones in which affirmative action has become a problem for employers.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Hi mongeese, I have thought about it. Maybe you should.

We weren't discussing any specific area of employment when you made this statement.
So what you are basically saying is that black people are underqualified for all jobs.

Affirmative action isn't a problem.
It is a partial solution to a very real problem.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Sheesh, 112 views and no votes. I'm sure people just need time to catch up, like I do.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"'Because the percentages required for companies do not properly reflect the amount of qualified blacks in the field seeking the job.'

That's a racist statement."

Think about it. If there were enough qualified black people seeking a job to fit government regulations, affirmative action wouldn't even be a problem. And yet, it is.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Okay mate, pretty tired but have posted a round.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by artC 7 years ago
artC
mongeesefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
mongeesefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
mongeesefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeesefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23