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

You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 105269
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I strongly believe that you can be racist to anyone, and anyone can be racist to you. If somebody makes a joke such as "white people be like" or the N word, "vanilla softies" or "Ching Chong" or anything offensive to a race, shocker- it"s RACIST! Racism applies to everyone. Let"s have a healthy, mature talk about this.


I accept your challenge. Thank you for providing a debate, and let us hope it is constructive. :)

(I'm assuming that this is from the perspective of a white individual, because of the bipartisan sides of race in America, consisting of the white and the people of color, and the Pro using you vs. every race implies this.)

To begin, let's assume this: Racism is bad, and there is an institution that goes against non-white people in the U.S government.

Also, to clarify one thing: The dictionary definition for racism does not apply to a complex system that has held hands with history since the dawn of cultural diffusion. But, for the sake of this debate, racism should be contextualized to an institutional prejudice against a group due to their racial features.

This is the optimal definition of racism for a few reasons.
1) Racism only has true power in the form of an institution that governs a minority. Everything else is a form of race prejudice, but it isn't institutional, in the context of the country that set the standard for racism around the world: the U.S.
2) This is because of white privilege
2a) As quoted, "Many people misunderstand what white privilege is. They think it means that we whites don"t struggle. That"s not the case. It means that the quality of our struggles are different than other racial groups" because we"re considered the 'default' group by an overwhelming majority of the systems we interact with." (Source:

Using this logic, white people are the default, and because of this, you can not apply an eye-for-an-eye concept. If you were to bash someone's head in, and then do a little bit of surgery to fix it, you are still not truly equal, because your face is the default, untouched face. Now, imagine that you /did/ take out their eye in this situation, and they took out yours. You are still not equal, because of preexisting conditions that led us to a point where problems still exist.

Let's trace back to the center argument. Because racism is defined as only institutional, and because there is no institutional racism in place against white people, racism only exists when it is applied to minorities.
And yes, all minorities, because the system of institution implies that white people are the ideal form of citizen, and are in any way supreme.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with the fact that certain races have greater sufferings than other races in terms of discrimination, and that the definition of racism has changed over time. White people are often privileged, and that is a fact. Although I agree with the eye for an eye interpretation of yours, both people are harmed nonetheless. The second receiver of the eye-poking is still a victim in this sense. Here's what I'm trying to say- any race can be discriminated by another race, and that is racism- discrimination against a race. Just like the idea that you can't be sexist to a man- you can. It's just that people don't see it that way because women often suffer more. There was a period where all white people were being discriminatory against other races, but that period is over. An example- there are 2 communities of people, those being A and B. Group A, for some time, has been racist to group B. Over time, only 40% are still racist, but a person B hurts one of the non-racist people of People A. This is, rather than revenge justice, (which I believe in) simply assuming one's behavior based on their community's actions. So yes, there is a difference between racism and being offensive to a race. This is based on my generation"s knowledge, and how I believe it should be perceived as.


Ok, my opponent created a few arguments to respond to what I said, as well as concede a few points.

1) My opponent conceded that the institution has a racial bias against nonwhite minorities, and also ceded that white/white-passing people gain a higher status in the U.S.A due to their skin tone. However, they also created an example of Races A and B. Here are the flaws in their logic.
a) "Group A, for some time, has been racist to group B"
Though this exemplifies prejudice, it does not establish who the group in power is, and this is not an accurate portrayal of our racial history. I'll provide a more realistic sample.
"Group A enslaved masses of Group B individuals and imported them into their homeland, now known as Grouparia. Group A used tactics that forced the masses of B's into submission. Only due to pressure from Eurogrouparians (or the French/British in this case) did Grouparia decide to free the slaves. However, half of Grouparia didn't want to free the slaves, and when that half was beaten in war, they still contained a strong anti-B rhetoric. This continues into segregating the two groups (and sneakily using Group A powers, rhetoric, and utility to make sure that Group B couldn't get the upper hand). A few Group B individuals were lucky enough to be able to stage protest and eventually ended this. However, in the status quo, due to rhetoric left back from slavery, Group A still has power and an institution to back its racism. Group B is the minority and they have yet to receive rights"

^^ That is a history of race relations that further suits this. Simply put, Group A has had institutional power over Group B and still does, however they still use rhetoric against each other. Group B has to deal with name-calling and an institution.
See next point.

b)"both people are harmed nonetheless"
Pro should not ignore ratios and magnitude for the sake of their argument, by covering it with saying both sides are harmed they ignore the profound racially biased institution in place and equate it to name-calling. By doing this, Pro conveniently ignores thousands of years of insitutional racism and doles equal punishment to an opressor and a victim, which is quite about the best way to increase inequality.

c) "racism [is]- discrimination against a race"
Pro conflate discrimination, racism and prejudice. We are only here to discuss definition and in this context because anti-white prejudice must counter the institution, it cannot be enforced, and thus it is not discrimination, for discrimination is the act of enforcing power to promote bigotry. This applies to the sexism argument as well. Misandry exists, but it is only in the context of institutional misogyny, something we are not here to debate.

As pro ceded, we are not in a post-racial society. There is an institution that harms POC, and saying that name calling on both sides means that white people are victims ignores the institution in place. A vote to Pro strengthens racist institution.
Debate Round No. 2


A) The reply you said had nothing to do with what I said.
B) The state/country as a whole did this. Did every single person? No. Even if it was, things have changed. Not everybody is racist now. Of course some still are, however, but don"t hate apples because you tried a rotten one.
C). I don"t think you understand my argument at all.


Hi, some finals points to make before voting.
A) My reply was linked to my first constructive, where I made a counterargument against the Group A/B idea, and restated it not only to prove that it wasn't a sufficient analogy, but also that such an implication when executed properly was further evidence as to why the Contenting argument is correct. Furthermore, direct points against what was said were made to address the arguments. I even added quotes for the purpose of clarity. These are direct rebuttal arguments. When my opponent considers racism and prejudice on and the same and creates an instigation based on that assumption, the contending argument is that they are different, and there are reasons and purposes as to what racism contributes to and as to what prejudice contributes to.
Put simply, because my opponent didn't argue against my argument, racism contributes to an institutional prejudice, while prejudice contributes to nothing. This makes them different.

B) The institution is not led by a single human or a select few. We, as a representative democracy, elect officials to represent our values. In doing this, we created an institution of bigotry and racism. While no rational American is directly racist nowadays, many have done plenty to contribute to institutional racism by doing exactly what Pro does in this statement, by absolving blame from a race and assuming that there is no actual problem to solve. People contribute by saying we live in a post-racial society and by ignoring police brutality and wage gaps. They contribute by saying nothing, and by keeping their eyes shut.

C) Ad Hominem argument that is meant to be patronizing. Contender understands and has directly clashed with argument, so there is no basis to this.

Now, to highlight some issues to vote on:

Pro has ceded that institutional racism exists, however their only rebuttals to Contending arguments were that we are post-racial, and bases a lot of their argument on this (See the entire Group A/B point). Because of their ceding, Pro cannot use these points; they are invalid in this debate.

Second, to quote Malcom X "If you dig a knife nine inches into my back and pull out six inches, that's not progress". Assuming institutional bias (which we have in this debate), the only thing worse than no change is a regression of civil rights, displayed when anti-black or anti-POC prejudice is presented by individuals. These contribute to institutionalized racism by linking prejudice to current and past law.

Third, Pro ceded that people receive privilege for being white. Because they said this, they understand that if we were to commit acts of prejudice against white people, they still have a shield of their privilege, and in this case their privilege allows them to be shielded from institutional bias, especially considering that the institution has provided such bubbles.
Vote Con for a more relevant definition of racism that realizes and computes intricate history.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins!

[*Reason removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Con. you are dumb.
Posted by blacklives.matter 7 months ago

You have stated your claim as if it was fact and common sense, however in the context of this debate, white privilege is recognized as a reality of the institution otherwise. I respect you opinion but it is a matter for a separate debate.
Posted by Mharman 7 months ago
Con, white people are not privileged over black people. Furthermore, if if they do have privilege, that doesn't mean that people can't be racist towards them.
Posted by blacklives.matter 7 months ago

I'm sorry that you feel this way. However, in this debate there is no need to define good and bad. My assumption that racism is bad is completely understood by my opponent, and thus it is implied in this context. Provided that Pro had diverged upon what racism was to a more in-depth extent, then there would have been more clash.
Posted by drewsco 7 months ago
These debaters are making poorly constructed arguments/propositions.

In the first debater's proposition, he/she doesn't affirm nor deny whether racism is good or bad, or acceptable or not. He/she merely states that anyone is capable of "being a racist to any race" and conversely, any race can is capable of being racist to you.

The second debater's opening statement presumes that racism is bad and makes an argument based on that presumption. However, the assertion--that racism is bad-was never asserted in the proposition from the first debater.

Both debaters need to be more clear and specific with their propositions/refutation.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
This is a truism. Anyone is able to do the act of racism, but consequences usually follow. The real question is "Is this alright to do?".
No votes have been placed for this debate.