Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.
Debate Rounds (3)
Also, welfare is available to everyone, not just to black people. To say otherwise is just needlessly inflammatory.
Slavery is not unique to the American continent, nor have the victims of this atrocity always been African.
What is unique in the American case is the intergration of the historical injustice into the black culture, and cultural feeling of victimization and entitlement. Legal slavery (except as punishment for a crime), was abolished in the United States almost one and one-half centuries ago. Not a single former slave, or even child of a former slave, is alive today.
Welfare is available to everyone, I agree, but blacks are more likely to be on welfare.
But what special privileges are granted to blacks that are not afforded to non-blacks?
After that last round I had to check your profile to see if you were mentally retarded.
Turns out you're British.
American blacks were not helped by Affirmative Action. Black poverty rates have gone up. Black unemployment rate has gone up. Black crime rate has gone up. It is a culture of entitlement and dependency that is eating away at the black community from the inside.
A better resolution to draw is: 'Slavery is over. White trash conservatives need to get over it.'
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used sources, and I think both would have benefited from it. Pro made needlessly inflammatory remarks--between them, and the "retarded/British" part, I'm awarding conduct to Con. As to arguments, I think that since in some important ways sources were needed, that Con insufficiently rebutted the prima facie case, resulting IMHO in a tie. Pro did a terrible job...but Con conceded some points with further unsupported assertions (the correlation between welfare programs' increase and poverty increase being waved away). Had he simply negated Pro's statements, I would have given him the arguments. Had he sourced his own assertions, he would have won arguments (indeed, I think he's right). But, instead he rebutted assertions with NEW assertions, so I don't think I can give him arguments based on that. S&G was close enough for government work.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.