The Instigator
thatkidshayy
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

Racism. Right, or wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,610 times Debate No: 55232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (8)

 

thatkidshayy

Con

Racism is wrong because it is an incorrect theory that has caused a lot of evil. We all belong to the human race. The different so called "races" don't actually exist biologically. What we are talking about are the different characteristics within a same race, even if they are occurring within specific geographical spaces. Just like a cat is a cat whether it's a ginger tabby or a tortoise shell or black and white. Having a different skin colour isn't different from having different hair colour and different eye colour. Only the cultural aspect of it makes races actual "race" and cultural studies is the only field in which you can talk about "race" by using that word. That is the first problem with racism: race is actually a non existent parameter.
The second problem is that racism not only advocates that people with different skin colour are a different "race", but that one race is superior to all others, which is nonsense. Some skin colours are better suited to some climates. That's it. That's the only time you can claim any "superiority" (and that's the wrong term, there's just "better suited"). Blacks do better than whites in hot climates because their skin are a natural sunblock. Actually whites don't have any feature that make them better suited to cold climates, so you could argue that black is the better skin colour because what makes white is not a particular adaptation to the climate, but the lack of one for another. Blacks can live in Northern countries, no problem. Whites have to wear sunblock to go south.
The third problem with that is that racism generalizes. And that is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly no two black people are alike, either mentally or physically (unless they're twins, also applicable to whites). They also have a wide range of features. There are lots of different skin tones, from dark ebony black to olive tones for example. And there are different shapes of noses, mouths, different cheekbones, different eye sets, etc, etc... The second reason it is incorrect is that racism generalizes only other races. Racists have no problem admitting there's individuality. But only within their own race. A white racist will argue all blacks are the same, but will always agree that each white person is different.
Finally and most importantly, racism is incorrect because it takes what are physical features and turn them into moral ones: Black people are black and they have wide noses, therefore they're all stupid and lack morality. Please explain to me how your skin colour affects who you are as a person in any way?

Racism, a completely incorrect theory, has been the cause of much evil in the world. The genocide of the Jews under the Third Reich in Germany is all down to racism. The slave trade to America is all down to racism. The genocide of the Native Americans, the extermination of the Incas and the Aztecs is down to racism. The Ku Klux Klan murders are down to racism. The everyday discrimination's suffered by many immigrants today in many countries is down to racism. Racism is awful because it makes the racist think he has all rights on members of the other "races". In doing so, not only does he commit awful crimes, but he thinks himself God, omniscient and omnipotent.
Wylted

Pro

Introduction- My opponent does want this debate to be part of a dialogue. So I'll respect her wishes and debate in a way I'm unaccustomed to. I will also be addressing her and not the readers. I am however writing in a way that heavily considers the readers. Those both voting and non voting. If this style of debating is annoying please let me know so I don't do it again.

Color Blind- My opponent seems to be saying racism is wrong because all races are the same but with different skin colors. This is wrong for people to believe whether they're racist or not. I may get into why it's wrong from a pro racism angle later, but for now let me digress. By ignoring the differences between different races of people, we also ignore their different cultures. I'm taking some quotes of the website that follows them.

"As the nation"s demographics shift, the sight of a white teacher leaning over the desk of a brown or black student is likely become more and more common. In order to be effective, teachers will have to learn about the cultural experiences of their students, while using these experiences as a foundation for teaching. The approach is called culturally relevant pedagogy.

But that is hard to do if a teacher doesn"t see differences as valuable. That means the blinders have to come off, says Randy Ross, a senior equity specialist at the New England Equity Assistance Center, a program of Brown University"s Education Alliance. Ross facilitates workshops on racism and culturally responsive teaching. And in her experience, white people have the hardest time opening their eyes."

http://www.tolerance.org...

So in conclusion, regardless of where you coming from being pro or anti racism. It is wrong to be colorblind and with this new knowledge of why, your premises for being anti-racist largely destroyed.

We live in a society where color matters. It doesn't matter whether you're racist or not. We need to come to grips with this fact.

What is racism?- You seem to be saying racism is the view that a race is superior to all others. We can define racism as that, if you want. Please let me know. However sometimes racism just means hatred for another race. If you actually go and talk to some racist white nationalists. You'll see that many of the view Jewish people as superior to themselves.

Sure they may view them as physically and morally weaker, but they spend a lot of time fearing their superiority. They picture the Jews as extremely smart, in control of the world and working better as a group. Take a look at the -Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

This piece of propaganda pretty accurately describes how racist white nationalists view the Jewish race in general. They come across as superior in many ways. At least from an amoral point of view.

If you want to stick to defining racism as racial superiority that's fine, but we could give it multiple definitions. Just please let me know.

It will be hard for me to debate you if I'm not aware of what definition we're going with. For now I will assume it's either/or and proceed accordingly.

Racism is innate- Racism is hardwired into the brain. We're all racist (mostly). Studies have been done to prove this. http://www.nature.com...

Here is an excerpt from an article discussing the results of that study.

"Researchers explain that the same brain circuits that allow us to classify a person into an ethnic group overlap with other circuits that process emotion and make decisions, leading people to make unconscious decisions based on another's race."

http://m.medicaldaily.com...

There has also been studies that show kids are racist by 3-5 years old. This is even when the parents don't show any outward signs of racism.

http://www4.uwm.edu...

Let's just face it we're all racists. It's something we just are. We are typically born with 2 arms, a set of eyes, a brain, a heart and as racists. If society decides having 2 legs is wrong, we don't cut one off. We also shouldn't try to repress our racism.

Repressed Thoughts and/or feelings- Repressing thoughts and feelings is unhealthy. Once somebody decides that being a racist or racism is wrong, we start repressing our racist thoughts and feelings. You need to accept racism as either a neutral thing, that is just a part of being human or even a good thing.

Another article excerpt, discussing the results of a study.

"Effects of consistent emotion suppression include increased physical stress on your body, including high blood pressure, increased incidence of diabetes and heart disease. In addition, people who engage in emotion suppression regularly rare more likely to experience stiff joints, bone weakness and more illnesses due to lowered immunity."

http://www.mysahana.org...

So for health's sake. Don't repress your racism. Embrace your racism. View it as neither right not wrong. Just as something that is.

What's the alternative- We've learned that racism is innate. It's just something that is. It's neither right or wrong. It's just an evolutionary trait as a result of man's tribal origins.

We've learned that repressing our racism is bad for our health.

Despite the negative consequences of repression and the fact we're innately racist, what if we did decide to suppress our racist ways and pursue multiculturalism? Do the benefits of multiculturalism outweigh the negatives of repression? Well let's see.

Recent studies have actually shown that multicultural communities are worse off than segregated communities.

Here are excerpts from an article discussing the results of 1 such study.

"But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."

http://www.boston.com...

By further reading the article you'll see it discusses people hunkering down and being distrusting of their neighbors in multicultural communities. If we all just embraced our racism, we wouldn't even attempt multiculturalism. We would have better communities and just be happier generally.

Conclusion- Racism is natural and innate. Repressing it is bad for our health and communities. Viewing racism as neutral or good actually does a lot to help us be healthier, safer and happier.

I look forward to con's responses.
Debate Round No. 1
thatkidshayy

Con

thatkidshayy forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

I was really looking forward to my opponent's responses. Hopefully she'll find her way back and I'll get to see them.
Debate Round No. 2
thatkidshayy

Con

thatkidshayy forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

I've argued why racism is actually a healthy thing to have. My opponent doesn't touch my arguments. My opponent may very well be right that no race is superior to another. However this doesn't make racism wrong.

There may not be a God but being a Christian isn't wrong. There may not be food, but being hungry isn't wrong. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Bop is on Con. This is the acception, because she should be pro racism is wrong. Instigator should pretty much always be pro.
Posted by Endurify 2 years ago
Endurify
Also why did con write first? BoP is on Pro...
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
My absolute pleasure, Wylted :)
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thank you Zarroette.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@schachdame The girl that Wylted is debating is obviously has shallow thoughts, and probably thought that it be an achievement/doing the world wonders to argue against racism. On the other hand, Wylted wants to test his debating ability/intellectual prowess by attempting to beat what is basically a truism.

You're welcome.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Why do people bother with debates that are not even controversial unless you force someone to make it that? There are interesting topics out there and we are getting inspired to think about the positive sides of racism. This is just sad.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Lol
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
That's a shame. I was hoping you bit-off more than you could chew, Wylted...
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Fazz, stop being racist. It's wrong.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I thought this was gonna be a losing battle for Pro when I first saw the challenge. I should've known Wylted would take it. XD
I can't wait to see the rest of this debate now.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: One should always appreciate it, when someone spends hours on research and thinking just to have his work thrown away by a full forfeit. Con showed poor conduct, barely any proper argumentation and no source usage at all. Clear thing. I'd love to find a way to take Con points for using that exhausting font, but I'll check it with "conduct".
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought the debate was pretty even for what was written. Con tried to argue that race does not exist. Pro tried to argue that racism is inherent, and that it's not good to ignore such a fact. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit. Sources to Pro, for being the only debater to provide them.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Pro did a wordplay, corrupting definition rather then making real arguments.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
Progressivist
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and great arguments by Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
thatkidshayyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted clearly provided better and indepth argument points, as well as forfeited. Take take into consideration that con forfeited two times. It would have been a better argument if con did not forfeit. Good show!