The Instigator
PoeJoe
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Ped-X-ing
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia Can Be Justified

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 5 votes the winner is...
PoeJoe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,606 times Debate No: 6088
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

PoeJoe

Pro

We've all heard the sob stories. Hell, they are probably occurring as we speak! Somewhere, a homosexual cuddles in a crowded locker as he is beaten and called derogatory terms such as "f*g", "f*got", and "c*cksucker". Someplace, a construction worker snickers at a beautiful blond walking down an adjacent street. Somewhere, an African American's job application is torn for no other reason than his being black.

But there is an untold story. And that is the story of the discriminator. He is misunderstood by society, and misjudged.

Who are we to assume the personality of discriminators before getting to know them each individually? Perhaps they have a kind heart. Perhaps they work at soup kitchens on the weekends. How do we know?

What if a feminist fell on them as a child? What if the KKK saved a young girl from being raped by a bunch of Mexicans? What if a child had two abusive, gay parents?

I think it is wrong to prematurely assign personality traits to discriminators. We must get to know these people first before judging them. Therefore, I strongly support the notion that "Racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified".

I leave the floor open to my opponent.
Ped-X-ing

Con

first of all, my statement is that homophobia is the fear of gay people. and it cannot be justified to be AFRAID of gay people. at the same note, it is not wrong to be afraid of gay people, so it doesn't need to be justified in the first place.

due to affirmative action, racism is no longer a problem, so it also does not need justification because it is not affecting anybody.

and sexism has no problem either, because there are no current examples where sexism is a problem in society.

neg is the correct way to vote because all of the said topics do not need justification, so they cannot be justified.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"And that is the story of the discriminator. He is misunderstood by society, and misjudged"

he? it could be a girl also.

"What if the KKK saved a young girl from being raped by a bunch of Mexicans? "

what does that even have to do with anything? KKK killed black people. and they believed they were the superior race.

mexicans? rape? irrelivant
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Pro

I seem to have upset my opponent in defaulting to the masculine pronoun "he". I apologize. I was merely obeying traditional grammar rules. I can totally understand where my opponent is coming from.

But something rather ironic about the fact that my opponent was upset by my usage of masculine pronouns, is that doing so proved that racism, sexism, and homophobia are still problems! To reiterate: In being offended by my sexism, my opponent contradicted his statement that sexism is no longer a problem.

But I don't need to use a semantical argument to prove my point. Just do a quick Google News search (http://news.google.com...), and you will find that discrimination is hugely abundant! The existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia is beyond obvious. My opponent's argument -- that because racism, sexism, and homophobia don't exist, they don't need to be justified -- starts with an invalid premise, and therefore leads to an invalid conclusion. Because that was my opponent's only argument, my opponent's entire case becomes void.

Now, on to further proving the resolution!

The word "can" implies a hypothetical scenario. This fact is exemplified in a common question that is familiar to all of us: "Can I have a piece of paper?". We all know the common satirical response: "You could. Yes, you have the ability to possess paper." As can be seen, the word "can", in its most rudimentary form, is able to be applied to hypothetical situations. Therefore, if I can come up with one scenario in which racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified (even if imagined), I win this debate.

I have provided three hypothetical scenarios in which racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified. In the same way I was once afraid of bowling balls because one hit me on the head, another child can grow a similar fear of feminists if a feminist fell on them. In the same way a person may mimic their savior in a traumatic situation, a young girl may mimic the KKK if they saved her from being raped by -- to satisfy my opponent -- a bunch of black guys. In the same way children detest people similar to their abusive parents, a child may detest gay people if her or his abusive parents happened to be gay.

No matter how absurd my hypothetical situations may be, they must be allowed because of the resolution. Under these bizarre occurences, of course racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified. It doesn't make it right, but it can be justified.

I rest my case.
Ped-X-ing

Con

"doing so proved that racism, sexism, and homophobia are still problems!"

first of all, I was not saying it's sexist by doing so, I was simply saying it was more politically correct to use both sex's regardless the fact that we all understand what he meant. on the contrary, many people believe that the DOI should say that all men "and women" are created equal, but I do not believe so, because "that all men are created equal" implies women within it wo"men".

"The existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia is beyond obvious."

despite the existance of such things (and I never said they didn't exist) there is still the point of the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to justify something that does not need justification.

sexism is feeling that one sex is greater than another sex.

there is no problem in believing that. just because you are sexist does not mean that you will act upon it, nor is this debate about acting upon these diagnosis's.

racism is believing a superiority over another race.

there is never a problem with feeling racist. Ironically, you're asian, and I believe that asians are superior to whites, but I'm not going to worship you just because I believe that you are naturally inclined and gifted to be better at everything.

homophobia is the fear of homosexuals/gay people

there is nothing wrong with fearing gay people. it makes sense. you're afraid that they are going to hit on you, and it's a possibility, but it doesn't mean that you're going to attack them because you're afraid of them hitting on you.

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY WHAT IS ALREADY OKAY!

Justify - to declare innocent or guiltless

read the definition. it supports my case. if you don't believe that a definition, look it up yourself..

http://dictionary.reference.com...

thankyou!

X
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kokonut_soda 5 years ago
kokonut_soda
Racism, sexism, and homophobia cannot be justified, going with Ragnar_Rahl's correct definition. Yes, maybe the individual has a reason for racist, sexist, or homophobic, but that doesn't make it okay, because they're all still based on ignorance, which I think we can all agree on is NOT okay, or justified.

The individual's personal situation (being abused by a gay couple, almost being raped by Mexicans...) does not justify them from trying to rise above those situations and seeing through their ignorant prejudices.
Posted by Ped-X-ing 5 years ago
Ped-X-ing
Sadly, the voters rarely look at that though
Posted by PoeJoe 5 years ago
PoeJoe
Conduct - TIE - No forfeited rounds; no underhand tactics; no verbal assaults.
English - PRO - Con needs to learn how to use capital letters.
Argument - PRO - Con's case that racism, sexism, and homophobia are natural and therefore don't need justification defeats itself. If it's natural, then it's justified, no?
Sources - PRO - PRO provided a source proving the existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia. This trumps CON's single definition.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY WHAT IS ALREADY OKAY!
"

Um, to "justify" something for any meaningful means to point out why it is okay, why someone is guiltless, or it's an invalid concept. Your dictionary source was wrong this time :d.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Ha ha ha!

I assume this is a joke, or at least meant "tongue-in-cheek" PoeJoe? Your opponent will, no doubt, have noticed that your ethnicity is Asian.

Whatever, I'll be watching this one with interest!
Posted by annawee 5 years ago
annawee
I think it is wrong to prematurely assign personality traits to discriminators. We must get to know these people first before judging them.
what a silly contradictionary statement
saying that you musnt jugde a discriminator before you get to know them, is a bit ironic
as that is exactly what the discriminator does to the discriminatees.
just because a person has had a bad experiance with a certain type of person,
it doesnt justify sterotyping allll people under the same catagory
bad experiance is just a cause of stereotyping and descrimination, not an
excuse to descriminate purely based on your experiances.
Posted by LightC 5 years ago
LightC
Interesting premise
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
PoeJoePed-X-ingTied
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 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 Wingdman 5 years ago
Wingdman
PoeJoePed-X-ingTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Enduring_Freedom 5 years ago
Enduring_Freedom
PoeJoePed-X-ingTied
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 PoeJoe 5 years ago
PoeJoe
PoeJoePed-X-ingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Ped-X-ing 5 years ago
Ped-X-ing
PoeJoePed-X-ingTied
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