The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Surefoot
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism Exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 36992
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

imabench

Pro

I know thats confusing so let me spell out the definitions to clarify.

Racism: Discrimination against a person or racial group in a society by an individual, a group, or by a law because of the color of one's skin or ethnicity

Reverse Racism: Discrimination against a person of the majority race caused by a law meant to protect a person of a minority race from discrimination/racism

Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination against a person who is a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of the majority from being discriminated against by another law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racism

Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination against a person of a racial majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racism

Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination of a person who is a minority caused by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racism

Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination of a person who is a part of a racial majority caused by a law meant to protect a person of a minority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racism

Glad that clears it up. First round acceptance only
Surefoot

Con

To break it down, your argument states that there are laws that hurt everyone by trying to be balance out and be fair to everyone based on the color of their skin.
I disagree.
Though a long and rather roundabout explanation is given to address the confusion given by the topic, there is no actual argument in support of the topic and as such I have nothing to oppose except to state that I disagree. I see no proof given of this 'reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse racism'. No law, no case that would lead me to believe in its existence, and quite frankly I can think of nothing to back it based on my own knowledge and the knowledge of those around me.
Therefore I am justified in standing firm in my opinion that it does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

The first round was acceptance only but con posted arguments anyways.... Since the debate has a 2000 character limit, such an act normally warrants a complete forfeit but instead ill simply ignore it and proceed with countering con's arguments.

Reverse x5 racism does exist since as the con actually pointed out for me, there are laws that hurt people by trying to prevent anyone from being discriminated against by discrimination and anti-discrimination laws. Every law that tries to make everybody equal in terms of race always causes some people to be discriminated against unfairly, whether it be those who the laws were trying to protect, or the ones who werent.

Its kind of like half-lives in decaying elements (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If you take away half of an amount of a material, the material will never fully go away into nothingness since in theory there will always be some of it left even after a large number of half-lifes.

In the same way, no matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who will be discriminated against due to loopholes in the discrimination laws themselves.

"there is no actual argument in support of the topic and as such I have nothing to oppose except to state that I disagree"

You were the one who just stated that all anti-discrimination laws cause someone to always be discriminated against, which was going to be my actual argument had you not gone ahead and posted arguments in an acceptence only round -_____-

"Therefore I am justified in standing firm in my opinion that it does not exist."

Well thats just your opinion then isnt it?

No matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who are left out or discriminated against by those anti-discrimination laws. And if you correct it by passing another law to counter the first law, then people will still be left out and discriminated against.

Therefore 5x Reverse racism exists.
Surefoot

Con

Con has never done this before; perfection and experience is gained through time and practice. It is not an inner trait.

"No matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who are left out or discriminated against by those anti-discrimination laws. And if you correct it by passing another law to counter the first law, then people will still be left out and discriminated against."

I am well aware of anti-discrimination laws; at no point did I dispute the existence of such laws. However, my point is to ask for proof of such a law. A backing for the stated opinion. I have no need to fully back my argument because the pro has yet to back their argument.

"Well thats just your opinion then isnt it?"

It is a debate. Opinion is integral to debate, as are facts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) major discrimination against ethnicity, religion, and gender. Noted, MAJOR discrimination. Which could lead in to the pro's argument. However, after this act cases were settled individually using precedent cases all of which must follow the same guidelines.

Is the pro going to back their argument and give me something to oppose, or just continue with meaningless chatter concerning half-lives and the levels of racism and its applications in nondiscriminatory laws?
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by hikarijon 3 years ago
hikarijon
hm, to admit there is a racial divide between the same species that needs a law to protect one or the other is actually racist within itself, should there be no knowledge of a divide then no lawwould exist, the divide is an imaginary boundary like all of them, religious, racial cultural ... hell why not discriminate against someone with grey hair because mine is brown....oh, i just noticed a grey hair dammit thats my argument down the toilet!
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
America, the land of the million laws.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
This should be interesting... For the record that's 5x on the reversals, making it back to reverse racism instead of just racism again (plus requiring a bigger feedback loop to cause it).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
imabenchSurefootTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no rule about rule violations FFing the whole argument. CONDUCT: Con broke a rule. ARGUMENT: Con's major failing was repeatedly relying on pro having not proved his case, while not doing much to advance her own. Pro's major failing may have been the argument setup itself, an extra round was needed to respond to claims of him not meeting his BoP, and while he proved reverse racism, he did not expand on any cases of the feedback loop taking it all the way up to 5x reverse racism. I did however agree with his simple half life example, however much only applied to the first level of racism and not the multi-tiered reverse racism he wished to prove.