The Instigator
echav1994
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Diirez
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

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...
echav1994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,146 times Debate No: 36432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

echav1994

Pro

In today's society and culture the accusation that something is racist or some is a racist is used too often. What is racism? It is the belief that a group of people divided by race are INFERIOR genetically. Now research shows that races do have differences beyond skin color and these differences are not something that is positive from person to person. For example some are taller, longer life expectancy, and are more likely to have certain diseases later in life. People of race can fall into certain categories in society no matter the country. For example the Germans always have been lead piano makers no matter the country as studies have shown. But these differences do not in any sense qualify someone as inferior or superior. Now, a politician brought up that more hurricanes are named after whites than blacks and this is racist. Such is one of the many bad ways of using the world. Does she really believe that the people who name the hurricanes believe the whites are genetically superior than blacks. No, I believe she wants blacks to be more represented which is understandable, people take pride of who they are and what they are. In conclusion, racism is an evil that exists in this world and is morally wrong, but it is not as common as some people would like to think.
Diirez

Con

So I couldn't find pro's definition of "racism" anywhere.

The word Racism has many different definitions, for example Webster Dictionary cites that racism is: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." But Webster also cites that racism is also: "racial prejudice or discrimination ." [1]

So here's what we'll do, I'll accept the first definition of pro (since it's a simplified version of Webster's first definition) but we'll also conclude the second definition of the word. So in conclusion these will be the definitions of the word "racism" that we'll examine while looking at situations:

1. Racism is the belief that a group of people divided by race are INFERIOR genetically.
2. Racism is racial prejudice or discrimination.

For here on out, I want my opponent to cite the sources to "studies" such as the German piano maker study.

In terms of the politician and hurricane example, Pro is right to say it has no use of the first definition. Naming hurricanes doesn't show belief of inferiority genetically. However, choosing 90% culturally white names in a mixed culture country is discrimination, therefore it fights the second definition of racism and is accurate.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
echav1994

Pro

The example of the Germans is an example from the study of Thomas Sowell who was a long time Stanford professor before retirement and author of "The Economics of Race and Politics". He had compared Germans from Brazil, Australia, and America. He also looked at the Chinese where the I was an average higher IQ no matter the country (Indonesia, USA, China, etc.). Now, don't assume it is genetics because it is not. Thus, this is not racist. Also, these again prove no inferiority. This actually a result of culture and how each generation is raised by the next thus incorporating certain customs and attitudes. These customs and attitudes differ thus certain raises and cultures have different patterns. But back to my argument. There is racism (an evil) and then there is "institutional racism" which is more in line with representation. Is it right to call someone racist if this person is black and he thinks blacks are better rappers and basketball players? No. He is simply looking at cultural patterns and history which show blacks dominate in these areas much like the Germans in pianos. Now there are exceptions without a doubt, as I said earlier these patterns are not definite. Also, representation is wanted by all and I wouldn't be surprised that the majority of the people who name the hurricanes are white. So why is it racist for them to pick names they like or are familiar with. Is it there job to make sure they are "politically correct" and make every race happy? Equal rights and representation according to race in the ares of laws and rights is something needed for a morally good society, but as much people want to shape cultures for equality this is not possible. Thus, people use "racist" to often and because of this an inflation is occurring where the word is losing its value of representing evil.
Diirez

Con

We're not "losing" the real racism by trying to break the social stereotypes.

Surely saying more Germans piano is not racist. Neither is saying more blacks play basketball and rap. But saying if Germans are better than anyone else at making pianos, that's racist.

But there's many racist saying that we say. Such as blacks eat watermelon and drink kool-aid. We stereotype and discriminate. If we lessen the outburst and emotions involved in stereotypes and social stigmas then we will have areas ONLY dominated by that racial stereotype and then jobs suddenly become a racial thing.

We shouldn't even care if more German's make pianos, it doesn't matter. A job is a job and the more we racially stereotype the more problems we're causing and making it socially unacceptable to do that is the right direction.

The word "racism" isn't being misused or too lose, it's to keep people from discrimination.
Debate Round No. 2
echav1994

Pro

In conclusion, people use the word racist in these ways. If you vote against Obama your racist, if you think his presidency has been mediocre, if your against affirmative action your racist, even if your republican many people will say your racist, if you think George Zimmerman was innocent your guilty of racism in some eyes, if your for less welfare your racist and don't care about poor blacks and the same for universal health care, Mitt Romney, George Bush, and John McCain are all racists. More examples include if you believe in securing the border and that illegal immigrants hurt our economy you are racist against Latinos. Lastly, racism is a serious evil and does exist but it is overused. Even if my challenger says these examples are so small, by definition if even only one person uses the word race or racism in these examples above it is loose and overused.
Diirez

Con

"If you vote against Obama, you're racist."
Never heard that one.
"If you think his presidency has been mediocre"
Well if you think his presidency was bad but have no knowledge of what makes it bad, you could argue racism is involved.
"If you're against affirmative action, you're racist"
That's because most people against affirmative action are racist.
"If you think George Zimmerman was innocent you're guilty of racism in some eyes"
Well duh, a white man shoots a black kid for walking home.
"if you're for less welfare, you're racist and don't care about poor blacks"
Which is true.
"The same for universal healthcare."
Which is true.
"Mitt Romney, George Bush and John McCain are all racists."
They have said some controversial things. I don't blame people for speculating.
"Securing the border and that illegal immigrants hurt the economy, you are racist against Latinos."
That's an ongoing debate.

The examples haven't really shown anything or any examples of people actually using this. He/She just pulls out examples from nowhere, not citing anything.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zhege 4 years ago
Zhege
Starting with the hurricane names, this diverse country still consists of 3/4 white population. Since the names are in English, it should be obvious we're excluding Spanish, oriental, and other names (for the most part, unless it's common). This makes 90% of the names being culturally white have a clear reason as to why. Here are the list of names http://www.nhc.noaa.gov.... As we can see, the Atlantic names have the most "American" names and less than half are culturally white.

As for con's closing statement, it's as if he wanted to lose the debate. I've been called racist for not voting Obama. Affirmative action means choosing a minority over someone who may be more qualified which is racial prejudice (your definition of racism). Zimmerman was found not guilty and that there was no racism involved. Less for welfare is not racism, some people strive to better themselves, it doesn't make sense to help those who do not want to help themselves (not speaking in absolutes, some people need the help, but not all). Universal healthcare is not being placed in the US as it is in Europe which supposedly it's resembling. Honestly, if someone involved in something is colored and they are being treated inferior (pro's definition), then con pulls out the race card.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Amen to that. Best of luck to you.
Posted by Knight 4 years ago
Knight
True, i would debate this but i am on the pro side as well.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativeAmerican 4 years ago
ConservativeAmerican
echav1994DiirezTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied, neither really made introductions or anything. Spelling and grammar was atrocious on both sides. Pro didn't necassarily make a good argument, Con just made a really terrible argument. Especially in the last round when he proved Pro was right in a sense by claiming if you're against welfare and affirmative action you're racist. Overall the debate was terrible and both sides completely missed out on other better sub subjects to discuss.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
echav1994DiirezTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The irony is that Con's shallow, baseless claims toward the end actually served Pro's argument quite well. Indeed, as Con demonstrates perfectly, many people are quick to pull out the race card in modern society for no rational reason. "Opposed to welfare? Racist!"... And spelling/grammar wasn't good for both sides. Conduct was equal. And Pro pulled out a source (Sowell's book), but it was poorly incorporated into the argument, so sources are equal as well. Nice topic, Pro.
Vote Placed by countzander 4 years ago
countzander
echav1994DiirezTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's last-round arguments are the most ignorant things that I've read all summer. "It is racist to be against affirmative action." Seriously? Maybe people should be judged on merit, not genetic coincidences? I disagreed with con's position before the debate, but come on. Nevertheless, con used better references. Pro, despite his poor use of English, interestingly made the better argument. Conservatism is not equivalent to racism.