The Instigator
mohammedsgaylover
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PeacefulChaos
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet.

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...
PeacefulChaos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,286 times Debate No: 19754
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (3)

 

mohammedsgaylover

Pro

Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet because I can't think of 1 law in place which protects the rights of single white males. I can't think of and what I can't think of I can find, a law for protecting the rights of every person-group imaginable.... Except straight single white males.

Discuss :)
PeacefulChaos

Con


I thank my opponent for instigating this topic. This should be an interesting debate.



My opponent: “Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet because I can't think of 1 law in place which protects the rights of single white males.



I am not entirely sure where my opponent gotten this spurious claim; however, I assure him there are laws protecting straight, single, white males such as myself. For example, the U.S. constitution applies to everyone who is a U.S. citizen. Thus, the specific group of people in question are protected in the following areas: freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to assemble and petition the government, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, and more [1]. It is not required that the constitution list every single ethnicity, race, and group of people that are entitled to a certain right. As long as you are a citizen of the U.S., you are protected by the constitution.



Now that I have proved single, straight, white males have equal rights, I shall move on to my arguments. I will be presenting three different groups that have been discriminated against during three different time lines.



1. The first example I am presenting is the Holocaust, which was from January 30, 1933 to May 8, 1945, under the control of Adolf Hitler [2]. Over 6,000,000 Jews were killed simply because of their religion. This is, perhaps, the biggest form of genocide the world has ever seen. Thus, unless my opponent can somehow prove that discrimination on this level has happened to single, white, straight males, then the resolution is negated.



2. The second example is in the more recent past, and it happened under the control of Slobodan Milosevic. He believed the Serbians should only be part of “The Greater Serbia”, and every other ethnicity ought to be driven out by a process called, “ethnic cleansing”. This process killed hundreds of thousands of Bosnians and Croats and drove out approximately 2,000,000 people from their homes. The once unified Yugoslavia fell apart. Tell me, do you see straight, white, males being driven out of their homes on this scale? I doubt it.



3. The third example is happening during present times. Currently, those who are Baha’i are discriminated against and persecuted in Iran [3] [4]. In Iran, if you are a Baha’i, you are unlikely to get an education, job, or even the right to a fair trial. In fact, the government has imprisoned seven of the Baha’i leaders without any charges. Single, white, straight males do not have to undergo this discrimination and persecution that is happening to those who are Baha’i in Iran.



Conclusion:



My opponent claims he cannot think of one law protecting single, white, straight males. However, I have shown otherwise, and proved that the group of people in question has a plethora of rights protecting them. In addition, I have provided three different groups that have been persecuted on much larger scales than single, white, straight, males.



I would also like to apologize for posting my argument so late. I have been extremely busy with schoolwork, but I eventually got it in. Anyways, I wish my opponent luck in his debate.



[1] http://www.usconstitution.net...



[2] http://www.holocaustcenter.org...



[3]



[4] http://iran.bahai.us...


Debate Round No. 1
mohammedsgaylover

Pro

mohammedsgaylover forfeited this round.
PeacefulChaos

Con


I was not aware that my opponent was referring to present times, and I apologize for not noticing the wording of the resolution. In addition, I will be refuting the arguments my opponent made in the comments section.



Moving on, I would like to direct your attention to the issue of whether or not single, white, straight males have laws protecting them. Here are my opponent’s only arguments for this debate:



A) The group of people in question does not have any laws whatsoever protecting them.


B) The group of people in question does not have any groups standing up for them.



I have already shown how single, white, straight males have laws protecting them due to the U.S. constitution; however, my opponent disregards this because it does not apply to them specifically. There is one major problem with this refutation: it does not matter if these laws apply to them specifically or not. It is my duty to prove that there are laws protecting the group of people in question, and I have done so. Whether or not it is specific to them is irrelevant.



Moreover, this group of people does not have any groups standing up for them for one primary reason: they do not need anyone standing up for them. The other groups of people my opponent has listed in the comments section all have laws specifically applying to them, or they have a group standing up for them because they need it. For example, in some states, people are legalizing gay marriage. Thus, there are laws in some states specifically addressed to gay people so they have the right to marry one another. However, this alone shows that gay people needed the law in the first place. In contrast, there are no laws stating straight, white, single males can marry the opposite sex, because this idea was never challenged in the first place. Therefore, this group of people fall under the protection of the U.S. constitution and its laws.



I will drop two of the three examples I provided, because up until now, I thought we were talking about the past as well as the present. However, now that my opponent has clarified, I shall make one additional argument of my own and defend my example of Baha’is in Iran.



4. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males are.



It is common knowledge that those who are gay and lesbian are discriminated against in many countries. My opponent will most likely attempt to refute this argument by claiming there are thousands of groups standing up for gays and lesbians; however, we have to ask ourselves, “Why are there groups standing up for them?” The answer is quite simple: because they are discriminated against. If they were not discriminated against, then there would be no need for these protective groups or specific laws.



In addition, discrimination against gays and lesbians goes past than the simple rude gesture on the street or not allowing marriage. Some religions prohibit homosexuality and, in some cases, are punishable by death. Let us take the religion of Christianity as an example.



Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”



Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."



These are both direct passages from the Bible. While there may be some Christians that attempt to agree with homosexuality, others strictly follow the Bible and completely disagree with it. With the largest widespread religion in the world against gays and lesbians, I would say they are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males.



Another example is the religion of Islam. In the Hadith (which are a collection of sayings attributed to Muhammad), there are several references concerning homosexuality.



“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”



As you can see, the Hadith is directly against homosexuality. Nearly everyone who follows the religion of Islam views homosexuality as a sin; thus, adherents of this religion discriminate against single, white, straight males.



In conclusion, two of the world’s largest religions (Islam and Christianity) discriminate against homosexuals. In contrast, single, white, straight males are not discriminated on this level, and the majority of people on this earth accept them.



3) It does not matter how big the group is: it matters how badly they are being discriminated against. Should the resolution have read, “Single, white, straight males are the largest and most discriminated group on the planet”, then this refutation would have been viable. However, the resolution does not state this; thus, your refutation is useless.



Moreover, you stated Baha’is have groups campaigning for them. Again, there are two problems with this:



A) Despite attempts to stop discrimination of those who are Baha’i, they are still being discriminated against. Simply because there are groups campaigning for them does not change the fact that they are being persecuted much more than single, white, straight males.



B) I have previously stated that there would only be one reason as to why groups would be attempting to protect another group: it is because they are being discriminated against. Single, white, straight males do not have any groups standing up for them because they are not being discriminated against. After all, do you see single, white, straight males expelled, fired, put to death, put in jail, and more without charges as Baha'is in Iran or homosexuals are? I would think not.



Conclusion:



In conclusion, I have provided two groups that are discriminated against more than straight, single, white males are. My opponent consistently claims that there are no groups and/or specific laws for the group of people in question; however, I have shown that this is because they are not discriminated against in the first place. Thus, they do not need groups and/or specific laws.



Before ending this round, I would like to apologize for referring to you as a male in my first rebuttal in round one. At the time, I did not realize you were a female, so I apologize for this mistake. Anyways, I wish you luck in your rebuttals.


Debate Round No. 2
mohammedsgaylover

Pro

Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet because I can't think of 1 law in place which protects the rights of single white males. I can't think of and what I can't think of I can find, a law for protecting the rights of every person-group imaginable.... Except straight single white males.

Discuss :)

All points, here we go.
You have numbered them, I will do the same and counter you.

1) There are thousands of pro-zion and pro-jew groups in the world. All protecting Jewish interests. There are non for single white straight males. You cannot find 1 law protected group which does this. Judaism is both a cultural and religious identity and not a race as the Caucasian race is. In the present day WHICH IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT OR i WOULD HAVE WORDED IT 'Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group IN HISTORY............... Next.

2) Once again its past but I will entertain you on this one. Most of the people cleansed were white males, I cannot verify if they were married or not but I would assume the kids weren't. They were cleansed as they were destroying Serbia (My Serbian GF lived through it all) and using Islam, just as is happening now in the States, to try to establish Islamic rules. There are many pro-muslim groups in the world looking out for muslims, some of those muslims are single white and straight but as Islam is mainly a very mixed bunch............ You point fails badly.

3) The World Factbook states that Bah�'�s make up 0.12% of the world based on a 2007 estimate,[12] corresponding to 7.9 million people. There are groups campaigning for them, as those groups provided you with your information. There are more than 7.9 million single straight white males in England alone and NOBODY has set up groups for them, gay yes, straight no, black, brown and anything else yes, ... White, single, straight... no

Conclusion:

My opponent is yet to provide 1 single law or law protected group trying to get equal rights for single white straight males and has attempted to use mixed races which make up religions and a small groups of people in Iran.

I say again, there are groups campaigning for every other group yet white single straight males continue to get ignored in today's world. It is because groups are not being allowed to stand up for the rights of this group they are being deniable to rights and therefore discriminated against by default. I understand people are too scared to stand up of single straight white men's rights because it is somehow racist to to that but O.K. to create groups which cater for everyone else. The few occasions where groups which attempt to cater just for white men holistically they are shot down as racists but throw the word 'gay' into the description and suddenly it is o.k. There us a UFC fighter (Cain Velasquez) with 'Brown Pride' Tattooed on his body, can you imagine 'white pride' on a FOX T.V. endorsed pro athlete? I didn't think you could.
Discrimination by default in NOT allowing single white straight males have groups which look out for them... All the others do.
PeacefulChaos

Con

My opponent simply copied and pasted what she typed in the comments section, and I have already refuted these rebuttals and arguments. In addition, my opponent has yet to address the new argument I produced; thus, because there is nothing new (with the exception of the conclusion), I will create several more arguments and rebuttals.

Arguments:

Before beginning, I would like to ask a question. Why is it that everyone who is colored gets a law specifically applied to them stating they have protection against discrimination? And why is it straight, white, single males do not have a law specifically applying to them stating the exact same thing? The answer should be obvious: they do not have a law specifically applied to them because they are not discriminated against. In contrast, colored people were discriminated against a plethora of times in the past; thus, the U.S. created laws specifically applying to them. I have, of course, frequently mentioned this in round two; however, it is essential that everyone understands this.

In refutation to this, my opponent has attempted to offer another solution. She claims the group in question does not have groups standing up for them because it would seem racist. However, why would it seem racist? Again, the answer is obvious. It is because this particular group does not need groups standing up for them; therefore, it would not seem right to help a group of people who do not need help while there are other people who do need help. Let us look at an analogy to better understand this situation.

Remember, one of my opponent’s arguments is single, white, straight males are the most discriminated against group on the planet because they do not have any groups standing up for them, whereas other groups do. Let us apply this reasoning to the following topic, “Rich people are discriminated against more than poor people, because poor people have groups standing up for them.” As you can see, this makes no sense whatsoever. Simply because rich people do not have welfare and shelters specifically for them does not mean they are discriminated against more than poor people, who do have welfare and shelters protecting them. In addition, one of the reasons rich people do not have organizations protecting them is simply because they do not need them. Therefore, we can apply the analogy to this situation. Single, white, straight males are not the most discriminated against group for the same reasons rich people are not discriminated against more than poor people.

Moreover, has it ever occurred to you that the laws specifically applied to certain groups of people only raise them to a level equal to that of single, white, straight males? Did it occur to you that single, white, straight males already had these laws protecting them? Did it occur to you that the groups campaigning for other groups are only fighting for their rights to be equal to that of others? If not, then please take these questions into consideration.

5. Animals, insects, arachnids, and bugs are discriminated against more than single, white, males are.

It is because my opponent is so insistent on grammar and wording that I have decided to make this argument. The resolution states, “Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet.” A group does not necessarily mean a human group; thus, animals, insects, arachnids, bugs, etc. are all perfectly acceptable in this debate. In addition, they are discriminated against much more than humans, let alone single, white, straight males. After all, animals barely have any rights, and are abused when subjected to testing [5] [6]. Insects, bugs, and arachnids do not even have rights at all, and we squash them as if they are nothing to us in our everyday lives. Quite literally. Thus, unless my opponent can somehow show that single, white, straight males are discriminated on this level, the resolution is negated.

Conclusion:

I have created one new argument, several more points, and have reinforced my rebuttals with additional points. Oh, and I’ve also changed my avatar while typing this up, but that is not really an issue in this debate =)


Well, good luck to my opponent. Let us see what other surprises you have up your sleeve.


[5] http://www.animalexperimentspictures.com...

[6] http://www.cosmeticanimaltestingpictures.com...

Debate Round No. 3
mohammedsgaylover

Pro

mohammedsgaylover forfeited this round.
PeacefulChaos

Con

There is not much to refute here, so I'll extend all arguments. In addition, I just realized that we never actually defined "discrimination". It's a bit late in the game to do so, but I think by looking at the definition we can better understand my arguments.

Discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality [1].

Discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately [1].

By creating laws and/or groups in favor of or against another group (i.e. groups campaigning for gay marriage), you are singling them out. This means you discriminate in favor of that particular group. The resolution reads, "Straight, single, white males are the most discriminated group on the planet". Thus, because my opponent did not put "discriminated against group on the planet," we are also taking discrimination for particular groups into consideration as well. This means groups such as homosexuals are not only discriminated against, but people also discriminate in favor of them. Because they are discriminated against both ways, people discriminate against and/or for them much more than single, white, straight males, which means the resolution is negated.

Sorry this is rather short, but there is not a lot I can do here. Good luck to my opponent in the final round.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
mohammedsgaylover

Pro

mohammedsgaylover forfeited this round.
PeacefulChaos

Con

Well, that was disappointing. Before ending this debate, I would like to summarize everything that has happened.

My opponent has failed to address my three main arguments (not including the points I made last round), which are the following:

3. Baha'i are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males are.

4. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males are.

5. Animals, insects, arachnids, and bugs are discriminated against more than single, white, males are.


Furthermore, she has forfeited three out of five rounds. In one of the rounds my opponent did not forfeit, she simply reposted arguments she produced in the comments section, all of which I had already refuted. Thus, the only round that my opponent has been productive has been in the first round.

In conclusion, it is evident that I have won this debate, and I urge a vote to Con.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
Hi, I'll finish the debate even though you have yet to identify even 1 support network and even stated that this social group of in NO need of support. Based on your discrimination definition it has now by default and definition become impossible for you to disagree with my opening debate lol
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
In that case, it was nice debating with you.
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
ooops, xmas rush and i missed a round, no matter, i've already won this debate anyway
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
aye brother. Your debate will lose points otherwise :)
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I guess I'll have to be more specific from now on.
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
I wouldn't expect that, I just quoted what you stated.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
No, I am saying that I was referring to the general population. You cannot possibly expect me to go and find every single case where single, white, straight males have been discriminated against, now can you? Thus, I am obviously referring to the general population.
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
So you admit your argument was incorrect and not worded correctly?
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I am referring to the general population of single, white, straight males. After all, there are exceptions to every rule, including the rule, "There are exceptions to every rule," lol. Merry Christmas to you too!
Posted by mohammedsgaylover 5 years ago
mohammedsgaylover
But you said there is NO discrimination against them.... I think I'll take a look at 'the white trash beautiful' of trailer parks for a bit of inspiration. I'm a black woman by the way, I may see things you are not exposed to. Merry Christmas too.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
mohammedsgayloverPeacefulChaosTied
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: Conduct for forfeit, arguments because Pro used childish and halfway answers to defend his point.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
mohammedsgayloverPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: didn't read it but saw pro FF. So conduct con
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
mohammedsgayloverPeacefulChaosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct b/c of the forfeits. Furthermore, con provided plenty of counterexamples.