The Instigator
Stefy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

White privilege exists

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 7 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,415 times Debate No: 67473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (7)

 

Stefy

Pro

First round for acceptance.
Wylted

Con

I accept.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The definition is from Wikipedia. I'm not quite clear on their source.

I'd also like to state that white privelages is kind of like the Matrix according to most proponents. You can not see, hear, touch or smell white privelage but trust us, it's there.

Just swap out the word Matrix for the word white privelages in the clip and that's literally how proponents describe it.

Anyway, I accept and look forward to my opponent's arguments. As the person proving a positive the burden of proof is on my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Stefy

Pro

To understand why white privilege exists, one needs to understand what it is. It is not that white people are neccisarily given extra privileges, but that minorities are denied opportunities and rights purley on the basis of their race.
1) 20% of white people and 10% of black/Latino(a) people use drugs like cocaine, but minorities suffer the vast majority of legal consequences, according to the Huffington Post.
2) It is more common for government to order racial profiling of black people than of whites, and stop and frisk primarily affects minorities as well as police brutality/excessive force.
That is just within the justice system. There are no prominent hate groups against white people, there are against minorities. White people set the justice system, laws and governance.
I disagree with the statement that white privilege cannot be physically seen. It can. In the fact that we are ruled by a vast majority white government, in the Ferguson inspired protests (they're not doing it for nothing), and in day to day life.
Wylted

Con

I'm just going to focus on negation just as I would any conspiracy theory. Focus on that definition I provided again for a moment.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

The key thing to remember is the bolded part. If a statistical anomaly can be explained by other factors than race such as economic factors than it can't be considered white privilege.

"1) 20% of white people and 10% of black/Latino(a) people use drugs like cocaine, but minorities suffer the vast majority of legal consequences, according to the Huffington Post."

I think my opponent should offer links to articles that can be found online. A problem with tracking down this article is that huffington post literally has hundreds of thousands of articles. We actually don't know the percentage of people who do drugs in any race.

The difference in conviction rates for non whites can be explained by a more extensive criminal history. A repeat offender is likely to receive harsher punishments than a first time offender as explained by the following article.

"minorities involved in the urban drug trade are more likely to have more extensive arrest records than suburban dealers and users, which can lead to longer sentences, Olson said."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

A black person and white person facing a judge with a similar arrest record is likely to have similar results in sentencing. Black people are also more likely to be arrested initially not because of the color of their skin but because they live in a high crime area where drug dealing is more likely to be open and police as a result of crime statistics are also likely to patrol those areas more.

From the same article:

"I don't think it's necessarily a policy of the police department to do that. I think it's just an outcome of where they put their resources."

"The difference in police deployments means minorities involved in the urban drug trade are more likely to have more extensive arrest records than suburban dealers and users, which can lead to longer sentences, Olson said."

"The divide stems in part from intense police activity in high-crime urban areas, where sales take place in open-air drug markets, making it easier to arrest dealers and buyers, said David Olson, chairman of Loyola University Chicago's criminal justice department."


If you're a white person living in a high crime area, selling your drugs on the street instead of in the privacy of your own home than you're likely to face the same things. By the same token if a black person is living a low crime area and dealing drugs in a discreet manner, he isn't very likely to be targeted by police.

This doesn't qualify as white privilege because factors outside of race that would effect whites equally in the same settings are the cause of statistical differences. It would be silly to ask cops to stop patrolling high crime areas as much, to stop arresting people when their crime is extremely obvious and for judges to be softer on repeat offenders.

"it is more common for government to order racial profiling of black people than of whites, and stop and frisk primarily affects minorities as well as police brutality/excessive force.

Stop and frisk is more likely to effect blacks because they are more likely to live in high crime areas and other factors exit as well. I really need to see your stats on racial profiling. I see nothing other than a bare assertion to claim that it occurs at a relevant frequency or even at all.

Police brutality is likely to be a result of more frequent interactions with police for the reasons previously stated. I'd also like to see some numbers on this. I suspect it's just something that seems to be true due to media coverage cherry picking the stories they use.

"There are no prominent hate groups against white people, there are against minorities. White people set the justice system, laws and governance.

Bare assertion and not rue none the less. The black Panthers are a racist organization in my opinion. Plus this leaves out some of the special advantages blacks get such as special scholarship programs, favoritism when applying for a job with equal qualifications to a white (affirmative action, quotas etc.) and many other social programs specifically targeting them.

This is a democracy so obviously the largest racial group will have the biggest say in government. To see if there is white privilege, we need to see if these laws are applied evenly across the board in a manner that doesn't consider race, and that's precisely what we see.

There are certain groups overly represented in government such as Jewish people but that's a result of them choosing a different path that is more effective at getting them there and not part of any sort of privilege.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Stefy

Pro

My opponent's main counterargument is that the black community is primarily affected by negative aspects of the justice system (police brutality, longer sentences due to crime history, ect.) because they tend to live in higher crime areas. This is true because in fact, poorer white people are more widely dispersed, while poorer black people are ghettoized, as in more concentrated in predominately black areas. What my opponent fails to take into account, however, is that this still constitutes white privilege. A black child born into a crime ridden area is going to have a lot more challenges. An argument one could make is that this is a rememant of discrimination from the era prior to the civil rights movement. As a result of intense discrimination after slavery and up to the end of segregation, black people had a much harder time being economically successful, leading to the eventual creation of the projects, which is a large part of why poor black people are historically more concentrated into an area than poorer whites.
Also, my opponent mentions that black people have advantages such as scholarships and other affirmative action, and cites their existence as an arguments against the existence of white privilege. However, these programs were created because white privilege does exist, and it is harder for many black young people to get out of these crime ridden neighborhoods, and it is easier for white people to succeed than black people. This disparity in location and socioeconomic challenge affects young people early on and for the rest of there lives, as black youth are disproportionately affected by the school-to-prison pipeline. And it is not because black youth are just worse behaved, as emotionally and mentally disabled black children are also disproportionately affected, also the theory that race has any natural affect on behavior independent of conditioning by the society they live in, is solidly disproven because it simply is not in line with any established modern science that is not the product of 1860's racist, biased scientific study.
My opponent also says that their is more white people running government because their is more white people in the country. This is true and while that is not how our democracy works which is by election, not demographic, it is not a bad thing for government to be proportionally representative. However, it is still the case that in the case of such proportional representation, white people are still setting the system. And while im not advocating for disproportionate representation neccissarily, it is necessary that government and the people be conscious of this advantage, which is not the case.
My opponents main issue is that they look toward the surface of what is happening in the country, without looking at underlying historically supported causes of these currant circumstances. And I vehemately disagree with my opponents use of the term "conspiracy theory." I do not support its existence as a conspiracy, but as a social phenomenon the cause of which is the fault of no modern day individual, save for perhaps the ones comfortable to live in blissful ignorance of the phenomenon because they are privileged enough to be able to ignore something that genuinely affect the lives of people every day of their lives, in big ways and small ways. To acknowledge the existence of white privilege is not to say that white individuals do not struggle or can never be economically worse off, but that a of a black individual and white individual of the same economic level and in the same demographic in all other aspects but race (age, sex, ect.), the black individual will more often have a more difficult tome moving up the socioeconomic ladder.
I suggest you research the work of Jane Elliot, particularly this video: http://youtu.be... and perhaps this may also interest you: m.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg
Here is the link from my last argument: http://m.huffpost.com...
http://www.tolerance.org...
Wylted

Con

Once again, I'm going to do some point by point rebuttals.

"is is true because in fact, poorer white people are more widely dispersed, while poorer black people are ghettoized, as in more concentrated in predominately black areas. What my opponent fails to take into account, however, is that this still constitutes white privilege."

Does it? Let's examine that definition from earlier once again.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

My opponent's statement doesn't constitute white privilege. He has not shown that a white person born in the same conditions will have the an easier life or other advantages than a black person in the same boat. We need to see some eviof it to prove White privilege exists.

"black people had a much harder time being economically successful, leading to the eventual creation of the projects, which is a large part of why poor black people are historically more concentrated into an area than poorer whites."

Racism is a very large part of America's history and there are still some traces of it here today. Poor black people being concentrated into certain areas is a remnant of the past. They may be more likely to start out in the ghetto but the question is are they treated differently than a white person in the same situation, and the answer is no.

I know white privilege is an extremely popular myth but it's just that a myth.

"black youth are disproportionately affected by the school-to-prison pipeline. And it is not because black youth are just worse behaved, as emotionally and mentally disabled black children are also disproportionately affected"

I really wish you would use better citationsbut I managed to track down this study anyway, and you miss a few key points. http://ocrdata.ed.gov...

The New York Times actually explaiquite well why these difference happen between races and it's not because teachers are racist or that white privilage exists. White kids in the same circumstances arly to experience the same outcomes in punishment. Here is what the New York Times state after analyzing the Data.

"Black students are more than four times as likely as white students " and Latino students are twice as likely " to attend schools where one out of every five teachers does not meet all state teaching requirements."

"The Education Department"s report found that black, Latino, American Indian and Native Alaskan students are three times as likely as white students to attend schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers. And in nearly a quarter of school districts with at least two high schools, the teacher salary gap between high schools with the highest concentrations of black and Latino students and those with the lowest is more than $5,000 a year."


http://www.nytimes.com...

Those are a lot of the factors that explain the difference in stats, but more exist.

For example numerous studies have concluded that minority parents are less likely to be as heavily involved in their childrens school life. http://www.nova.edu...

It's this lack of involvement that can lead to bad grades and behavior problems which would increase likelihood of being suspended.

"it is still the case that in the case of such proportional representation, white people are still setting the system."

As long as the system they ceate treats minorities the same as whites, it cn't be called white privilege. Refer back to the definition.

"My opponents main issue is that they look toward the surface of what is happening in the country, without looking at underlying historically supported causes of these currant circumstances."

I'm aware of these historical trends and how they're playing out. Black people may very well be disadvantaged as a result of them but it doesn't qualify as white privilege. They may be born into different circumstances more frequently as a result of their history but the quest is are they any more disadvantaged than a white person born into those conditions, and the answer is no.

"a black individual and white individual of the same economic level and in the same demographic in all other aspects but race (age, sex, ect.), the black individual will more often have a more difficult tome moving up the socioeconomic ladder."

This has not been demonstrated at all. Every single possible example of White Privilege that has been brought up has just as easily been knocked down.

CONCLUSION

I took a risky approach in this debate just focusing on negation but I've negated every single fact my opponent has brought up. Given the evidence provided you must vote con.

White Privilege is a myth.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
cool
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'll be sure to watch it when I get into a wifi zone
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
Make sure tou watch the whole thing. its mulitiple parts and this is part one. it is not terribly long.
http://youtu.be...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I didn't see the video and racial profiling, doesn't happen that often though I've experienced racial profiling.

I was walking through a black neighborhood and a cop pulled me over because in his experience white people in black neighborhoods are usually up to no good.

You should send that video again, maybe it got lost.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
you didnt prove it you argued your point better. The number one privilege white people have is the pribvilege yo be ignorant about the struggles minorities must face everyday. Your parents never had to sit you down and have a talk with you about being careful when yiu gt racially profiled did they.
Did you ever check out that viseo i sent you from Jane elliot? Where shes at the high school? Its on youtube amd i bet you didnt. Even if you disagree i think youll find it interesting. But if you watch it wath the whole thing.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I think I proved in this debate that systematic racism doesn't exist and stores want to stop shoplifters regardless of race. I've actually seen studies that have shown Black people are less likely to be stopped when they're seen shoplifting.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
Your late to the party bro.
Of course white people can be impovrished. but a white person will never suffer from certain prejudices that black people do. They will never be followed in a store just because they look suspicious for being black. They will never be targeted by systrmatic or widespead racism, though they may in spevific isolated incidents.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Neither exist.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Black privilege also exists. White privilege exists but that doesn't mean all white people have had great lives and all black people have had terrible lives. A White person can suffer from poverty, abuse, diseases ect and compared to a black person who hasn't dealt with those problems be very unprivileged.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Yeah, I'm starting to learn that myself
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
StefyWyltedTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted's spelling in the last round was insanely bad. As for arguments, Pro's arguments had no backing and often nitpicked the studies when he did have backing. He had no idea what constitutes White Privilege, and made little relevant observations that Con refuted easily.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted showed without a doubt that white privelage is a myth.
Vote Placed by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to use sources that have backed up his case and Con refuted every single point made.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically, Con won by showing multiple times that 'white privilege' isn't a racial phenomenon that advantages only whites, but rather a result of a racial majority. Pro eventually provided sources, but Con had deeper interpretation of them and also provided his own, so source points to Con. S&G was better on Con's side, but not enough I think to warrant points.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not have well-cited sources, so that's to con. As for arguments, con showed how pro's "evidence" was only applying to that certain situation, and that justice was still served regardless of skin color.
Vote Placed by Bwacit 2 years ago
Bwacit
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: The only reason that I gave this debate to Pro was simply that although Con did refute and state that he was treating this like a theory, I could not mark him for "convincing arguments" simply because they were rebuttals, not arguments. I do believe that Con was more organized and well-crafted in his speeches, and if he had simply made a SINGLE POINT I would have given the win to him. But seeing as he failed to do that, I believe Pro won this debate. (And a word to the wise to Pro..my debate teacher has taught me never to source Huffington Post, and I have been called out on this, because it is a BLOG and anybody can post anything, so it is not valid nor trustworthy, and therefore I had to give sources to Con.)
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
StefyWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct. S&G - Con. Pro has some minor grammatical issues such as starting sentences with "and" as well as some rough formatting. Con had no such issues, thus he is awarded these points. Arguments - Con. Con effectively rebutted each arguments presented by Pro. Pro needed to show that white privilege exists, and instead of providing empirical proofs she relied heavily on circumstantial evidence in the form of scenarios. Con was able to show how the scenarios aren't due to white privilege but rather simply the outcome of living in certain areas and having different upbringings. Con was able to show that, regardless of skin color, people in the "wrong" area are more likely to be stopped by cops. While also showing the benefits colored people receive education wise. Among other strong rebuttals, these serve to show why Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro failed to properly cite her sources, making Con search for them himself. Con properly cited his.