The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,806 times Debate No: 38761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am sick and tired of blacks demanding welfare and special privileges simply because aunt so-and-so's great-great-grandma was a slave. Get the flip over it already. Slavery is over and it is time for you to get a job.


Though I am against compensation payments by the descendants of slave owners to the descendants of slaves; I believe that slavery has had a very long-lasting effect. It is because of slavery that African American communities are in poverty, since for a hundred years afterwards, they were treated as second class citizens, and started with far less education than freemen. Affirmative Action has helped somewhat to elevate people, but the battle is not yet over for equality among races.

Also, welfare is available to everyone, not just to black people. To say otherwise is just needlessly inflammatory.
Debate Round No. 1


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.


Yes, slavery ended a long time ago; no one is arguing against that, but segregation legislation ended half a century ago and the results from it are still seen today. Segregation meant that black people could not go to good schools, universities, use good public services or live in affluent areas. This segregation still resonates in a more tacit, unlegislated form, in which traditionally 'black' areas are, thanks to the woefully decentralised nature of American governance, left to fester in their poverty. As I said, Affirmative Action helped this, but by no means eradicated it. You were right in saying that not even the children of former slaves are still alive, but the children and grandchildren of segregated minorities are still alive. They are still suffering from the fallout of this.

But what special privileges are granted to blacks that are not afforded to non-blacks?
Debate Round No. 2


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.


The increases in poverty in black communities was caused not by affirmative action creating a culture of entitlement, but by the dismantling of FDR and Eisenhower's social programmes in the seventies and eighties. Affirmative Action was just something to paper the cracks in the reduction of government spending on education and infrastructure, which affected the abilities of all poor people to become socially mobile. Affirmative Action also applied to the Asian population, yet that population now have a higher rate of employment than Caucasians. The same can also be said for women, who have surpassed men since the programmes were introduced. The two races with higher unemployment than Caucasians are African Americans and Hispanics. Hispanics have no history of slavery in the US (at least of the traditional variety), yet they still have higher unemployment than Caucasians. Hispanics and African Americans live in the worst areas, and were hit hardest by the cuts in social programmes. It is not a sense of entitlement that has caused those communities to have high unemployment, but a lack of social services and adequate devices for social mobility. See what a little research can do for one's argument?

A better resolution to draw is: 'Slavery is over. White trash conservatives need to get over it.'
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Andy99 3 years ago
I don't think race or color of your skin should be part of any conversation, scheme, agenda, program.
Poor people should be helped but not based on their race. Anyone who suggests helping poor people based on their skin color is a racist himself. Period.

The other problem with programs based on race is something that nobody ever talks about - there are millions of 'black' people in US who came from Dominican Republic, Jamaica etc , who were never slaves and had nothing to do with it, but they still get the benefits coz of their skin color. Infact these immigrant 'blacks' end up taking benefits that were meant for genuine American blacks who had their forefathers as slaves.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
This is actually not a racist question whatsoever and it really is an important topic that needs to be looked into. Could it have been said in an insensitive or racist way? Perhaps, but that doesn't devalue the question at hand. And by the way in YOUR very attempt to point out insensativitiy and racism YOU become the very thing your fighting against. "Your such a stereotypical WHITE conservative and that's not a good thing to be." How is THAT not intolerant or even racist??? Seriously where is the line drawn? Are you suggesting that it's ok to attack him like this because he is white and white people can't be the victims of racial intolerance? If that's what you think then sir, F*** off. I of notice your name suggest you are a liberal so I do of course understand if you are a little slower then the average educated American.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
@briantheliberal Seriously, take your whiny hurt feelings over our last debate elsewhere. If you can't recognize that a debate topic has been exaggerated intentionally to raise eyebrows you shouldn't be on a debate site. I will tell you like I told the last debater who cried about my insensitivity, " Debate is an intellectual contact sport, cupcake, I suggest you buy a helmet." -
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
Wow, what an ignorant and incredibly racially insensitive topic. Seriously, you are such a stereotypical white conservative and that's not a good thing at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
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.