The Instigator
0cards0
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DebaterGood
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

can racial discrimination be ok?

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: 4/14/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 89688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

0cards0

Pro

there is a new ride sharing app for women that dont feel comfortable with male drivers, i think its ok, but if we switch it with race then it doesnt sound ok, from a business point of view it is valid to discriminate based on job qualifications, so if the app is for women & if they dont feel comfortable with male drivers then its a valid justification to not hire man, but if white people would feel uncomfortable with black drivers based on the claim that most offenders of inter-racial crimes between blacks and whites are black then would it be ok to make an app for white people & to not hire blacks?
DebaterGood

Con

First of all, good luck to my opponent. Secondly, my argument is that racial discrimination cannot be ok. My opponent has said that since women could be allowed to not ride-share with men, and that there would be an issue if instead of gender, race was the factor that was discriminated. This is too vague in an argument, since there was no previous statement as to where " racial discrimination be ok". However, I will argue this argument putting both examples made by my opponent at face value. As for women not wanting to ride with men, that is a different argument, since women are less likely to be able to fight back, according to statistics. (I am not saying that ALL women can't fight back, cause believe me, there are very strong women out there!) As for race, race can be applied to men, women, children, and is too vague a topic to discriminate against. While preference may be ok, to do something in which a whole race is discriminated against is unreasonable. For example, for Uber, you are able to see the driver's profile picture, and are fully allowed to cancel for whatever reason. If one's personal preferences keep them from accepting a ride from someone of an undesired gender, race, than that is fine, since you are not disallowing the person from making money. To create a platform that totally segregates races from each other, is not ok because it not only creates divides in our relations with others, but creates stereotypes about people that aren't always true.
This is the major contention of my debate, since the ride-sharing topic is not even a part of the debate. If it wasn't fair to separate blacks and whites on buses, how is it fair to do the same in cars, stores, public places?
Debate Round No. 1
0cards0

Pro

"to do something in which a whole race is discriminated against is unreasonable"
yet it is ok to discriminate against a whole gender? the fact that most rape/assaults offenders are men right is enough of a justification for gender discrimination right? & yet the fact that most offenders of inter-racial crimes between blacks and whites are black isnt enough of a justification for race discrimination? i think the answer is that the fact that most offenders of inter-racial crimes between blacks and whites are black isnt true for the taxi business, if that was true for that business then making an app for only whites will be justified, am i right?
DebaterGood

Con

First of all, discrimination based on gender is not ok, although my opponent had tried to misinterpret my argument into one that said that I was giving a double standard. I was merely trying to equivocate the terms as said in my opponents first argument. NO discrimination can be OK, whether it be gender, race, religion, etc. By discriminating, you not only create harsh stereotypes about a whole group of people, but there becomes a divide within racial groups, which basically eradicates the work done by great leaders such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. While it is natural human practice to hold racist tendencies, it isn't certainly not OK to act or make decisions based off of those views.

"yet the fact that most offenders of inter-racial crimes between blacks and whites are black isn't enough of a justification for race discrimination?"

This is an example of the divide that is created by looking only at some of the facts that state 'whites harm blacks' or blacks harm whites'. By making a statement like this you are not only saying that one race is always the aggressor, but there a a lack of follow up evidence. My opponent made no statement about who may have instigated a fight, or at least some statistic as to why the start came about, which make one WHOLE race of people look like they are naturally violent. While I am sure that my opponent will state that a large portion of these attacks are unprovoked, however this may or may not be true, as 50% of the "unprovoked" attacks had no evidence to back up the case. So while there are people who are crazy and do aggress towards others, we cannot just characterize a whole race, gender, religion, etc. If theoretically my opponents argument is correct, then it would be justifiable to restrict certain races, gender, etcs, from entering stores, (remember the civil rights movement?) which I'm sure my opponent would even agree would be RIDICULOUS. We cannot simply let a few bad experiences affect the way we treat human beings, no matter what background they may come from. I appreciate the debate made by my opponent, because this is an issue that needs to be talked about, and hopefully the arguments made by both side will inform and entertain DDO readers.
Debate Round No. 2
0cards0

Pro

i think you are contradicting yourself, first you said "As for women not wanting to ride with men, that is a different argument, since women are less likely to be able to fight back, according to statistics." but then you said "discrimination based on gender is not ok" so which is it?
btw its our last round, i think we will need more rounds, is it possible to make more rounds? im new to this site
DebaterGood

Con

First, I am new to this site as well, and I don't think you can make more rounds without making a new debate. Secondly, I apologize for my lack of clarity to the subject of gender, which was rebutted by my opponent in round 2. I hold my position on discrimination NOT being ok, however I wan't sure as to WHAT was being discriminated against (race/gender/etc) so I was trying to separate the arguments to make for a more concise premise to debate about, so my apologies. To conclude this debate, I believe that racial discrimination isn't ok because of two reasons; the racial divide created, and a new class of stereotypes made by one's personal beliefs. It isn't fair to base actions against one's background, as we have seen during the civil rights movement that has seen many great leaders fight for the abolishment of discrimination and racism.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
No. But discrimination is the difference between .."To be or not"..
Posted by DoctorFight 10 months ago
DoctorFight
You haven't stated an argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.