The Instigator
Zarlak
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
throctar
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Racists slurs are taken to seriously in our community (Pro) Agree (con) Disagree

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarlak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 54976
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Zarlak

Pro

Whilst a majority of the time I chose not to use racist slurs or slang so to say to refer to the people in my community, I do not believe that its a problem to do so. Just to clarify what I mean by "Racists Slang", I am referring to the use of words such as, Abbo, Wog, Nigger, ching, yakee ect.

I do not believe that these racists slurs should be taken to heart as insults and I am in search for someone who disagrees. Which I honestly think is not hard due to the amount of people who take racism heavily to heart.
throctar

Con

I believe it really comes down to a few things that determine whether it is taken to heart and is offensive. Socially it is incorrect to go around and call black people, nigger you will end up getting a right hook to the face. The words themselves may or may not be offensive to each individual. Also often these words have other meaning behind them and could also have a personal offense to an individual. I believe that if the individual doesn't mind and embraces where they came from and don't mind being called Wog or nigger then it is ok. For example Nigger can be take offense because in pervious years black slaves were often called and abused with the name nigger! I believe Racists Slurs should only be used if the individual consents and embraces there heritage!
Debate Round No. 1
Zarlak

Pro

This is 2015, the generations who lived out the salve years are likely not around to experience these racial slurs and using terms such as Wog or Nigger in a non-aggressive manner should be received as a form of communication, for example if I was at a party that was predominantly Caucasian figures and I needed to ask someone if they had seen my black friend, I would generalise by the use of one of these racial slurs. It is not being used as an insult nor an aggressive act against my black friend but it is being used for communicational purposes, now while I think a majority of people would be shocked by my language I do not chose to believe they should be. Generalizing somebody by their appearance through the use of racial slang should be accepted on a wider level by the community that we live in, especially when the receiver of the racism is okay with it.

Having said all of this I do agree with you that it depends on the persons background on situation, and when you mentioned someone getting a right hook to the face that is highly unlikely due to the risks of the victim sewing you for assault. Believe it or not it is against the law to abuse someone in the case of racial statements.
throctar

Con

throctar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarlak

Pro

Due to you forfeiting you're turn im going to chose not elaborate any further on the topic in the pure hope that you'll come back for further discussion on the matter
throctar

Con

throctar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zarlak 3 years ago
Zarlak
sorry, simple typo... nevertheless
Posted by Zarlak 3 years ago
Zarlak
sorry, simple typo... nevertheless
Posted by Lt.Harris 3 years ago
Lt.Harris
Pro, "This is 2015." No it's not. It's 2014.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by baus 3 years ago
baus
ZarlakthroctarTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF without sources and equal S&G.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
ZarlakthroctarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: FF conduct to pro. Lot's of misspellings by pro. I also felt like pro's arguments were a little better supported. Neither side offered much in the form of rebuttals.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
ZarlakthroctarTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Apart from spelling 'too' incorrectly in the title, and getting the year wrong, Pro made a lot of mistakes, in this debate. Con shot him/herself in the foot by saying that "Socially it is incorrect to go around and call black people, nigger you will end up getting a right hook to the face." But then Pro tried to excuse it, and when you mentioned someone getting a right hook to the face that is highly unlikely due to the risks of the victim sewing you for assault" (along with making a sarcastic comment afterwards, lol). Con basically handed you the debate, and you didn't take it. Anyway, Con made the exemption of 'as long as the person is okay with the term, it's okay to use'. I think that this is relatively reasonable. Pro failed to show why this was unreasonable, and in fact agreed with Con's argument here. Conduct to Pro for Con's round forfeit.