The Instigator
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
mindjob
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

The straight white male is the most discriminated person in America.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,518 times Debate No: 2512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (34)

 

ericjpomeroy

Pro

I believe that straight white male are the most hated people in America. Not just hated by other races, but by eachother. I will go further, but this being a 4 rounder I will be brief.
mindjob

Con

Hello ericjpomeroy. Good topic.

Half of me agrees with pro's contention, but the other half that can separate facts from gut reaction disagrees.

Whenever my girlfriend or mother is watching lifetime, I begin to feel that all of the female gender blames the ills of the world on men, and that the only good male is the one that not just jumps when a woman commands him to jump, but also asks "how high". We get brought up in school hearing about what our fore-fathers did to native americans and blacks. On the face of it, it seems that everyone hates "the man", who we all know to be "the white man". But let me be brief, for now, about why I this hatred at white men is superficial at best.

I often hear from women of all stripes that men are the source of all of their problems, and the problems of the country and the world. Some of this might be true, but I find that women hate themselves and each other more than they hate men. While I often hear women disparage men, much more often I hear them disparage themselves. They tear apart what another woman is wearing, what she is saying, how she is acting, etc. Women constantly feel like they are in competition with each other over men. They try to outdo each other, buying the cutest outfit they can find from Victoria's Secret or the latest bag from Coach, not only because they think men will pay attention (though most of us couldn't care less), but they do it much more to outdo their fellow woman. Only when they temporarily get tired of the constant competition amongst themselves do they stop and blame men for supposedly "making" them do all these things. Again, however, they assume we care. Ask most any woman. They will corroborate this.

As for native americans, while some of them might pay lip service to the rhetoric of denouncing white men for what we did to them during the 1600-1800s, I contend that the majority of them are past it. The majority of them might recognize that what white men did to them back then was horrible, but that this is 2008 and they should live in the modern day. Even if they did all hate us as much as pro contends, their numbers as a percentage of the country's total population show that their hate wouldn't amount to much.

The same is true for blacks. What white men did to them throughout slavery was horrible, and we should all remember what happened, but many blacks contend that we should live in the here and now. Perhaps more blacks than native americans harbor a personal hatred towards white men for slavery, jim crow, and segregation, but not all of them do. My point is that, even is a majority of blacks genuinely hated "the white man", they only make up about 16% of the total population, so that hate doesn't add up to much numerically.

Even if some of these groups do harbor genuine hatred for white men, lets remember that the vast majority of them don't hate ALL white men. Women, native americans, and blacks have much more love for Bill Clinton than, perhaps, Newt Gingrich or some other representative of conservative, white America. If the premise of this debate was that conservative, white men are the most hated people in the country, I would probably agree. Lumping in all white men in the same category as being more universally hated than everyone else makes that contention false.

I intended to make my argument much more brief than this. Sorry.
Debate Round No. 1
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Thank you very much for taking this debate. Your points were well thought out. I think this will be a fun debate.
Now my topic is the straight white man is the most discriminated against person in America. Now there are several points I can make about this, but since you brought up one of them, I will discuss it. White men are the punching bags of American History. We are considered to be tyrants, slavers, woman abusing, land stealing, villains. I will admit, in the past white men have done terrible things, but what race hasn't? Blacks in Africa sold rival tribes as slaves to the white man, that little tid-bit is ignored a lot in the history books. The Indians would have been conquered by the spaniards eventually, not saying that what we did was right, but it was different times, harder times. But not modern times.

The white man of today is paying for sins of the past we had no control over. You watch, if John McCain gets elected it is because of the racist, sexist white man keeping everyone else down. If Obama gets elected it is cause of the black man rose up against the evil white man. If Clinton gets elected it is cause the women voters threw off the shackles of a sexist nation. When it comes to White men, if you don't approve of or support a person of a different race or sex, it is because we are evil bigots. I have had discussions about illegal immigration with certain peers in the past and they always close their arguments with "Typical racist white man.". When you are a straight white male you are a bigot, no questions asked. Is that fair? Isn't that a form of racial profiling?

Anyway, that is all I have for this round, I will try to keep it short.
mindjob

Con

We are considered by some people in each demographic I listed as "tyrants, slavers, woman abusing, land stealing, villains", etc., because we were. We did a lot of horrible crap, and not all that long ago in society's mind either. But like I pointed out in my last round, the blame for that is not leveled on all white men. Many black people who were around during the civil rights movement remember that most of the freedom riders that fought for civil rights for blacks were actually young white men and women from the north. Black tribesmen did sell fellow black people to slave traders. Every history book I've read (I was a history major in my undergrad) do make mention of this. But it was the British that turned slavery into a white-supremacy issue. The Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, etc., looked at slavery as much more of a business issue, absent of much of the racism that characterized British slavery. It is the British tradition that we have here and why "white men" get blamed here for being what you say. You seem to make the point that the Spanish aren't really white men when you say that Indians would have been conquered by them were it not us, and you're probably right. But the Spanish were white men too. But we come from the British tradition, which eventually turned itself into "manifest destiny" in the mid 1800s. I suppose my point here is that, you shouldn't call an accurate account of history as being hateful. It just is what it is.

Like I said in my last round, some Indians might still harbor hatred for white people, but I personally think that the majority of them have moved past it. I come from South Florida, where the Seminoles own and operate a number of casinos that do very well. From my experiences, it seems that they are much more concerned with their businesses and the profit they turn, rather than what white people did to them back in the day.

I think you mistake a general hatred for conservative, white people, and particularly men, for a hatred of all straight, white men. Like I said above, women, blacks, hispanics, and most other people (who aren't ardently conservative) like Bill Clinton. Even those who do harbor hatred for white people, like what you say, have few bad things to say about Clinton. Most of the people in the groups we're talking about recognize the distinction between white men who have fought against civil rights for them, and those who fought for it. For example, most black people would remember LBJ fondly while hating George Wallace (at least up until he tearfully apologized to the NAACP before he died). Women love men like Bill Clinton, while hate those who feel as though they should be in the kitchen making us sandwiches, or more reasonably, feel that it is ok that women make only about 80 cents to the dollar that men make. Even among those who do harbor more general hatred for white men, I still contend that most women are too concerned with hating each other than directing their hatred at men, like how I mentioned above.

If Obama loses to McCain, it may or may not be considered racism. It depends on what happened in the campaigns. Consider Harold Ford Jr.'s campaign for the Senate in 2006. He was ahead in the polls with only weeks left before the election in Tennessee, of all states, until the RNC ran the "call me" ad. In it, a white woman claims to have met the single Ford at the playboy mansion, and tells Ford to call her while blowing him a kiss, with the insinuation being that Ford is a philandering black man who has sexual relations with white women. Within a week of the ad's first run, Ford had dropped about 10% in the polls and never recovered. There is no other explanation for this precipitous drop besides Republicans appealing to latent southern conservative racism, a "southern strategy" they have relied on since Nixon. Should the same kind of thing happen against Obama, you bet racism would be blamed for the loss, and that would be a correct assessment.

This is why this hatred that you speak of still exists, if it does to the extent you say it does. We are the punching bags of history because we made that history, and continue to today. The discrimination against white men is the natural result of the racism amongst white men that still exists today, in addition to the racism that has always existed among those who made American history. But like I said in the last round, that hatred for the white man, while it might be potent, is still concentrated among a very small number of people. They make up a very vocal minority. Consider the number of white men in the country and the latent racism that still exists, as evidenced by that Harold Ford ad. Even though that hatred might be much less vocal, its existence in larger numbers makes the total amount of hatred much more than the vocal minorities. This is true for women, who spend much more of their time being catty among themselves, Indians who are more busy counting their profits from casinos than to live in the past, and blacks who might have more of a grudge against the white man, but only make up a small percentage of the total country.

The argument over illegal immigration, unfortunately, does engender some racist tendencies. Those in border states have to deal with the very real problems of the costs associated with illegal immigration, while most other people in the country just flip out because all of the sudden, the person packing their groceries is having trouble speaking english. That latter example, I contend, is much more rooted in racism, considering those same people would not have much of a problem if that grocery bagger was from some European country and was lilly white. Even so, hispanics have much more love for liberal white men, who they don't feel this racism from, as opposed to conservative white men who they see as wanting them out of this country. This is one more reason that your proposition should have been that conservative, white men are more hated than anyone else, not all white men.
Debate Round No. 2
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Good debate so far I think. Still a lot to say though. I would like refer to a statement you made:"Those in border states have to deal with the very real problems of the costs associated with illegal immigration, while most other people in the country just flip out because all of the sudden, the person packing their groceries is having trouble speaking english. That latter example, I contend, is much more rooted in racism, considering those same people would not have much of a problem if that grocery bagger was from some European country and was lilly white." This is what I am talking about. You are right! They wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. But you automatically assume that it is a racist agenda! Could it be because Europeans aren't illegally immigrating in record numbers to America? Here is my point about that whole situation. If it was russians illegally immigrating by the millions to America, and there were whole towns and counties that spoke mainly Russian, the entire country would rise up to cut this problem off. But it is Mexicans, so Liberal white America says "You can't have a problem with what they are doing, they aren't the same color as you!". So illegal immigrants come into our country, use our resources, get free health care(which legal American citizens don't even get), break our laws, and because they aren't white we have to take it with a smile or we are racist. Trust me, if there were millions of people from any nation, coming here illegally, refusing to speak our language, respect our culture and laws, the same people that are pissed about Mexican illegal immigration would be just as pissed, the only difference is we would get the blessing from Liberal America, as long as they are white illegals.

You bring up a good point about how White Liberals are not as discriminated against as Conservatives. It is very true. Why is it true though? Cause Liberals go out of their way to kiss the asses of the non-white communities. The thing is they don't DO anything for those communities. The reason Republicans whites are despised is pure politics. Republicans throughout history have been battling for civil rights against the Democrats. Republicans are the reason segregation ended, blacks can vote, slavery ended, blacks can run for office, all the while being opposed by the democrats. for example:

June 26, 1857
Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is "cruelly wrong," while Democrats "cultivate and excite hatred" for blacks

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: "I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever"; Douglas became Democratic Party's 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858
U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as "inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders"; as President Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860
Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862
President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862
U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy "shall be forever free"

August 19, 1862
Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862
Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republican's Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans' plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864
Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864
Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864
African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: "I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man"

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down "blacks in the back of the bus" law

October 19, 1956
On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: "American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school - public or private - with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America"

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party's 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958
President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

I have a lot of other stuff, but you get my point. Now here is a kind of curve ball. I want to state now, that the most discrimination against straight white males, is by other whites. Namely liberals. White people can't be proud to be white or they are racist. Affirmative action, how racist is that? If I apply for a job and a black man applies for the same job, he gets it, why? Well, because he is black. All black colleges, Latino Scholarships, NAACP, black history month, BET, whites couldn't have anything like these things. Because that would be racist. You can't deny that straight white males, conservative or not, have to walk on egg shells when it comes to race. A Mexican can yell "Latino pride!", a black man can yell "Black pride!", all a white man can say is "I support you both cause I am not a racist!".

The double standard is there, it is created by Democrats. People like Bill Clinton, a womanizing, tax raising, liar, are looked up to by liberals as what a white man should be. It is crazy.
mindjob

Con

You're missing the point of my grocery bagger example. The point was that, where there are real-world, practical problems, there is no question that illegal immigration is a problem. The problem is evident enough in the budgets of municipalities and the states. Your grocery bagger not speaking english very well is not a real-world, practical problem. You consider it indicative of larger problems, but they really have nothing to do with anything larger besides your desire to hear fluent english everywhere you go. The seed of that discontent is based in racist, xenophobic belief. All those problems you mentioned, from free health care to living in exceedingly large numbers, are all issues in border states. Few people would argue with you there. I certainly wouldn't. But it's when you confuse the two-the budget problems of the border states and the distain for a non-english speaker bagging your groceries-is when the rest of America looks at you as a racist and criticizes you accordingly. Keep your arguments based in real-world terms, such a budget shortfalls and benefits that not even citizens receive, and you shouldn't have a problem. But making such broad generalizations like you did in your last argument, while not even bothering to think that many of the problems you mention only apply to a small number of illegals or take into account the ways in which our country benefits from them, and you become deserving of the criticism you hate so much. Those of us who can make those distinctions (liberals) don't get the labels and hatred that afflicts those who keep making baseless generalizations (conservatives). No wonder hispanics support liberal Democrats.

Thank you for recognizing the split between conservatives and liberals in the level of hatred they receive. It shows that you agree with my position that not all white men are hated, like you say, which proves my argument that your debate topic is false. Therefore, I win this debate.

But regarding what you said in your argument...I am really getting tired of people coming on this site and trying to claim all sorts of revisionist versions of political history without any knowledge whatsoever of how the parties have evolved. The fact of the matter is that the parties have switched on a number of issues between now and when they were founded. The Democrats were originally formed to keep government small and to promote state's rights. The Republicans were originally created to represent the North in its desire to end or contain slavery, as well as use the government to advance their business interests through tariffs... how much as changed indeed. But your inability to recognize how the parties have dramatically changed over time is sad and a disgrace to whoever your history teacher was.

Parties have changed, but ideologies have remained the same. The same conservative and liberal beliefs are pretty much still in existence now, but the party that represents them have changed. It was conservatives that wanted to uphold slavery while liberals that wanted to end it. It was conservatives that threw out Reconstructionist policies in favor of Jim Crow. It was conservatives that insisted that there weren't enough soldiers in the army to get the south to integrate their churches, their pools, their schools, etc. (channeling Strom Thurmond here, who left the Democratic party to start his Segregationist party in 1947 as a response to Truman desegregating the military, and later joined the Republicans). It was conservatives that fought against Brown v. Board and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts (both passed by LBJ, a Democrat). It was conservatives that fought against the ERA and its conservatives that continue to fight against equal rights for homosexuals. It's no small wonder why conservatives are so hated by everyone who isn't a straight, white male. For you not to understand the difference between a Democrat and a Dixiecrat in the 1950s is just disgraceful. Your not understanding how the South became solidly Republican after the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights acts is equally disheartening.

It is Republicans that have former Grand Dragons of the KKK run for office, and have people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson amongst their ranks. Liberals, represented by Democrats, integrated the military, brought Brown v. Board to the Supreme Court, passed the Civil Rights Acts, tried to pass the ERA and continue to work for equal rights for homosexuals. Clearly, your assertion that Democrats do nothing for everyone who isn't white is about as unfounded as you can get. Please go educate yourself on American political development before you start your next round, and don't get your lessons from Rush Limbaugh.

Liberals don't have a problem with blacks and hispanics taking pride in their heritage because, being the minority, their cultural flavor gets drowned out if they don't keep it up. We understand this. As white men, we don't have to promote white culture because the entire country reflects it already. We are the majority. We have and continue to run the show in this country. What extra help do we need to keep our identity? The idea that our identity is in danger in any way is ridiculous. For this reason, and all the reasons I listed above, liberals and the rest of minority America have every right to disparage and "hate" conservatives as fervently as they wish. Unfortunately for your argument, the majority of them are too concerned with everyday issues and divisions amongst themselves to be concerned with hating on you, as mentioned in my prior rounds.

Aside from his mistakes with Monica Lewinski, Bill Clinton is what a good politician should be. What, would you prefer white males to emulate Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Strom Thurmond or Larry Craig? Do you really have a problem with a man that actually is concerned with paying the country's bills by taxing those who can afford to foot the bill? Sure, he screwed up with Lewinski, but at least SHE was older than 18, and no one died when he mislead about it either. But I digress.
Debate Round No. 3
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Ok, you keep saying "Hate". The topic is "The straight white male is the most DISCRIMINATED person in America.". Discrimination: "Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice." Not hate.

Of course minorities love Liberals, you coddle them, give them handouts, treat them like the retarded kid in P.E. who gets 6 strikes instead of 3. You create programs specifically for them to get ahead that aren't anything except handouts and superficial solutions.

I want to address your issues with the attitude towards your example of the illegal immigrant bagger who doesn't speak english. The issues you claim are separate, are actually linked. The ILLEGAL immigrant bagger is the target of frustration because he is an ILLEGAL immigrant. That is exactly what I am talking about, you insinuated that I am a racist cause I want Americans working in America! I will be annoyed if the guy bagging my groceries, or washing my car, or serving my food, didn't speak english. But you automatically assume that it is influenced by racism, why, because I am white. Which further proves my point. Why can't I be annoyed because he is here illegally? Because he isn't white, so liberals say I have to like him! And to say that illegal immigration only affects the border states is just show how ill-informed you are. It affects the whole nation negatively and to say otherwise is just ignorance. We lose several billions a year to them, yet liberals praise them at every turn.

Crank out spanish news papers, form all spanish speaking communities, slowly but surely make Americans conform to a bunch of criminals here illegally, and call any who oppose them racist! Typical liberal tactic. See, you guys do that, you put it on TV, then you look like civil rights activists when all you really are, are traitors to your own Nation. But most of television is Liberal. So MTV will put a bunch of illegals on TV being arrested by white cops, call it racist and unjust, and liberals are heroes. That is why minorities look down on conservatives, not because of their policies, but because the liberal media has made the stereotype of a white man to be a racist and a bigot. I just want to point out that white people can be discriminated against by other white people. Discrimination is discrimination. You didn't win this debate.

I think it is hilarious you will sit here and claim civil rights as a liberal act yet it is liberals that keep driving a wedge between the races! Hate crime laws, affirmative action, scholarships for certain non-white races not based on merit but just race, then there is the liberal shield of racism used against conservatives. Why don't you guys just wrap all the minorities in bubble wrap so the big, bad, white man can't get them. It is funny/sad, that you can sit there and prove my point. White people are generalized as racist if they don't agree with the liberal agenda. Saying that liberals are looked at as the saviors by minorities doesn't mean that my point isn't valid. Name a person more discriminated than the straight white male, you have yet to do that.

To claim that Bill Clinton is the ideal political candidate is more scary than funny. He is immoral, a criminal, a draft dodger, and a liar. I guess he is a great liberal candidate. By the by, giving tax cuts to the rich is probably the best thing you can do for the economy. I don't know many people making 20,000 a year that are employers. Tax cuts for the rich result in lower prices, higher wages, and more jobs. Reaganomics. Clinton was a par president and a sub-par person at best.

Why do you think white males are joining all-white gangs in record numbers? It isn't because of their hate for other races. It is because of racial discrimination towards them. They feel that equal rights aren't equal. They feel they are looked down on because of who they are. A white male is 85% more likely to be convicted of a hate crime than a minority. Yet a white male is more 70% more likely to be attacked by a minority than by a white person.

Ok, let me close with this. I think I have given many points that give credit to my stance on this issue. The white males in America are considered racist, immoral, and money grubbing. It is assumed that if your white, you are rich and privileged. This is judging a person by the color of their skin, which is discrimination. Taking the white man's identity and portraying it to be evil unless they agree with you is discrimination. I refuse to live in fear of being called racist just because I don't agree with liberal ideals. I oppose illegal immigration, hate crimes, and affirmative action. If you think those are beliefs of a racist person, than I state that they are beliefs of a person who wants EQUAL rights for all Americans with no exceptions.
mindjob

Con

You're actually the one that started the "hate" talk. In the three sentences of your opening round, you said hate twice while never mentioning discrimination. Forgive me for getting confused. That is one of the many problems with conservatives. You're quick to blame everyone else when you're the one that screwed up in the first place.

So now we give them handouts and treat them like children? But wait: "The thing is they don't DO anything for those communities". You remember saying that, right? Which is it?

I bring up the grocery bagger example because it is your paper tiger. You build such a huge issue out of nothing. The grocery bagger has nothing to do with the situation in border states because he poses no problem to you besides offending your easily upset sensibilities. Conservatives get so damn worked up over stuff that has no tangible affect on them whatsoever. What, were you going for that bagger position too? No, you weren't. Odds are, another hispanic with difficulty speaking english was. If we were talking about a border state suffering budget shortfalls because of illegals draining resources from an increasingly strained tax base, then that would be a real debate discussing real issues that affect large numbers of real people. An illegal grocery bagger in a non-border state is a non-issue that you can't help but build into something it isn't. Now why would you do this? There are few other reasons besides racism, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not making that claim perse, but its hard to think of any other reason given how much of a non-issue it is. The rest of the country is this rational, which is why the rest of the country looks at you as being irrationally racist. Mainly border states lose billions to them, but we also make billions off of them as well. The only places where it is a net loss is in border states. Not acknowledging that shows your ignorance and leads the rest of the country that knows this to think what they do of you.

Lol. I don't even know what the hell your saying in the beginning of this paragraph. "Crank out spanish news papers, form all spanish speaking communities, slowly but surely make Americans conform to a bunch of criminals here illegally, and call any who oppose them racist! Typical liberal tactic". What? Do you proofread your arguments before you submit them? Liberals are the heroes of minorities because we acknowledge the contributions they make as well as the issues they pose. For example, two illegal doctors that had saved who knows how many lives were discovered and deported a couple of months ago. They were undoubtably contributing to this country, but this doesn't cross your mind. They broke a law, a minor one a couple decades ago, but still, they broke it and must be kicked out. How reasonable is that? You would love to do this to 12 million people. Have you even bothered to think about the logistics of that? Nope. You act on black and white gut reaction without any thought to reality whatsoever. Liberals, however, recognize reality and act accordingly. This is why liberals are the heroes of hispanics and why conservatives are looked down on, and rightly so.

The premise of this debate, as you phrased it, was straight, white men were discriminated against more than anyone else. However, I'm a straight, white man and we've spent this whole debate detailing how you're the hated one. Not me. Therefore, based on how you worded it, you lose. Even so, based on what I've mentioned above, I'm frankly surprised that minorities don't hate you more. In fact, the baseless paper tiger arguments I've heard from you this whole time lead me to a different hypothesis. Hispanic males are the most discriminated against people in this country, and you're the one discriminating against them. Or, it could be black men, or women, or gays. Pick the demographic that you believe to be subordinate to white men. Any of them would be more hated than you are. You aren't the most discriminated person in the country because, unlike prejudice, our beliefs of you are based off of the words that come out of your mouth. Therefore, it isn't discrimination, it's simply calling it what it is.

I just named people more discriminated against. Based on the prevailing issues in this debate, hispanics. Were this other debates, I could say blacks or women or gays, with you doing the discriminating. Your wishful thinking that racism doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it does. Your equating the grocery bagger to border state issues is a perfect example of this. Your ignorance and oversimplification is proof to all the rest of us that everything you mentioned is still needed. The wedge issue is the racism that is still engendered by conservatives, not liberals calling you out for it.

And please. Liberal media? How much more of a baseless crutch could you possibly come up with. Every time conservatives screwed up in the world and the media covered it as the news it really is, conservatives couldn't stand it and called them liberal. Once again, you and your paper tigers. There was no liberal media. There was the media and you couldn't stand when they would actually cover a screw up of yours. So in response to the fake threat you created, you start up the "fair ad balanced" fox news which ought to be sued for false advertising. Conservatives had managed to convince so many people that they were the victims of the objective news that now fox...I can't even call it news...has become very popular. As a result, now CNN has Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck. Now, Keith Olbermann spouts the liberal spins on MSNBC. This wasn't the way it was prior to 1996. Just like Bush claiming Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but then Al Qaeda shows up after we invade, you created the problem you railed against so much. If you honestly think the media was liberal, I'd suggest you watch "The Insider" with Russell Crowe. That'll give you a great example of how wrong you really are. Of course, you aren't concerned with facts. They only get in your way.

Clinton was immoral? And Bush was an angel? Like I said, no one died when Clinton lied. Newt Gingrich was a draft dodger, and gave his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital. Henry Hyde cheated on his wife with a woman who was married when he was in his early 40s, and tried to pass it off as a "youthful indiscretion". That's nauseating, and so is your failed understanding of history, as well as economics. I'd love to have a debate with you on how much of an utter failure Reaganomics is. Look up debt figures from the department of the treasury. Reagan added almost 3 trillion to the debt. GHWB added about another 1.5. GWB added over 3. Before Reagan took office, the national debt was less than 1 trillion. Clinton balanced the budget and surpluses, yet now we're well over 9 trillion in debt. Yea, that sounds like a resounding success. But we've gotten way off topic from the purpose of this debate.

Ok. Using your logic, why do you think there are so many black, hispanic and asian gangs? Why is there NOW and gay pride organizations? Well, let me tell you. Based on your logic, they exist because of hatred and discrimination they had to face because of conservatives. But by my logic, people are impressionable and love to latch onto the paper tigers conservatives seem to create almost out of compulsion. That's some really faulty logic your showing, just like in the rest of the debate.

How many times do I have to point out to you that the only white men being discriminated against are conservative white men, and thats because you're busy dishing out discrimination of your own, and in larger amounts. This schism between liberal and conservative that you fail to recognize proves that I have won this debate. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk as though conservatives are the only white men in the country.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam2 9 months ago
Adam2
The Civil War was NOT about slavery. Completely wrong. When those carpetbaggers moved down south, they introduced another system called convict leasing
Posted by Haroush 9 months ago
Haroush
I wonder what people are thinking now that five years have passed and all these new events have unfolded. Not to mention, women having higher paying jobs than men as well as more jobs too. Let's not forget the unemployment rate for men.
Posted by Haroush 9 months ago
Haroush
Wow! Eric don't feel like you are alone because you are not. I agree with you that white men are the most discriminated against. People act like others don't have the power right now. Though this is far from the truth. As of right now, we have LGBT supporters and advocates all throughout the congress, white house, and the supreme court. Not to mention, all the NAACP advocates as well. This should be an overwhelming win for Eric but these people didn't base their decisions on the truth. It figures though. It don't surprise me either. Let's not forget about all of those who are religious as well. Though who cares about these people, right? I imagine this is what most people think. The worst part is most of these people based their views off of the past and what others have done to them, not off of independent fair thought.
Posted by Lysis17 6 years ago
Lysis17
this was a really good debate!
Posted by mindjob 6 years ago
mindjob
Sure. I had fun too, though I wish we had stuck to the original topic more. Anytime
Posted by ericjpomeroy 6 years ago
ericjpomeroy
I never expected to win this debate, but I gotta say it was a fun anyway. Thanks for accepting mindjob.
Posted by mindjob 6 years ago
mindjob
As I was writing my arguments, I found myself getting caught up in the ancillary debates and couldn't get myself out of it. I wish that hadn't happened. Sorry
Posted by Miserlou 6 years ago
Miserlou
I wish both the debaters would stop throwing liberal and conservative around, because it doesn't have a real bearing on the topic.

White men still have the most power in the country, but since more minorities are gaining power they have, for the first time, been able to complain about people who oppress them. And, yes, racism- the good old fashion white supremist racism- is alive and well
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
The white man being the most hated is quite different from being discriminated against.

In my mind, discriminating against someone involves a certain amount of power.

What power do minorities hold over white men, generally speaking? They don't really deny them jobs or promotions or the whatnot...
Posted by ComradeJon1 6 years ago
ComradeJon1
your histroy is very backwards eric. the republican party switched to conservativism around 1890 and have since then, been the party more related to racism. democrats are are in fact the first of the two groups to have a jewish vice presidential candidate and will undoubtedly have the first woman or black cnadidate.

besides that, its ridiculous to assume that the white man has so many "problems". feminism and related beliefs are only an example of strong hearted individuals who want their own dominance. It doesnt by any means mean that we (being white men) are treated unfairly. It would be like saying the entire white race is racist because there was a group of klan members
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by gwilker 3 years ago
gwilker
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by MormonMacky 4 years ago
MormonMacky
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by krpearce 4 years ago
krpearce
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by atheistman 5 years ago
atheistman
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ItalianStalian7 5 years ago
ItalianStalian7
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by silentrigger1285 6 years ago
silentrigger1285
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by brauer 6 years ago
brauer
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Lysis17 6 years ago
Lysis17
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
ericjpomeroymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30