The Instigator
factandevidence1234
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Blacks and Whites Should Be Equally Treated

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 1 vote the winner is...
factandevidence1234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 115978
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

factandevidence1234

Pro

Why shouldn't blacks be treated equally? Is it their skin? The way they look? Well, I am going to oppose that. You don't get to choose your skin color before you're born. Did you get a little pamphlet while you were in you're mother's woom that asked you what color you wanted to be? No! You can't help it if you're black or white, you just are. Skin does not show who you are, but deeds do. If a black person saved your life, would you still have a prejudice against blacks? Would you force yourself to believe it was a white person, because you might think that blacks aren't capable of doing what white's can?
Labels on blacks are a problem. People may say that a person is a savage because he's black, but are there no labels on a white person? Is there only black savagery? Is there no such thing as being "White" but also being a "Savage? Have you ever heard the words "White Savagery" before? Chances are you haven't. Let's use an example. You just bought an expensive, rare Greek coin, and that same day you bought it, it was stolen. You caught a glimpse of the person's skin, and he was black, and now, you hold a grudge on all blacks for their "savagery". Now the same exact thing happened with your new Roman coin, but this time, it was stolen by a white person. Would you now label all people as , "White savages", or is there no such thing as a "white savage?"
So it's ok to you for a white person to steal, but not a black person?
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2

Con

What do you mean exactly about treating black and white people? You can't treat any of them worse to the point where it breaks the law either way. And you can't force someone to be nice to someone no matter their reason as to why.

I can argue that yes the African population could be considered more savage than that of Europe's. In the sense of IQ and not being able to get ahead technology wise even though most African countries have more resources and more land than Europe itself.
Debate Round No. 1
factandevidence1234

Pro

Just because the European economy has more tech is not a reason to be racist towards color. You shouldn't hate the whole of African people because of one person. That's just a prejudice. It's like you should treat poverty the same way as your friend. You don't think of somebody as lower than you because they might be poor, or black. And as I said before, this question has gone unanswered. Is there such thing as white savagery? Or is the label only on blacks. There's only black savagery, right? A black person can steal something and go to jail looking like crap, whereas a white person can go to jail for a much more serious crime, (murder, drugs, etc.) looking like he just got out of a mansion. Am I right?
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2

Con

White savagery I could say existed in the early days of the British Empire. Around the year 800 when everything started to come together. Angelo-Saxon style people back when Beowulf was written. That was a more savage time. Black savagery is most naturally still seen today with warfare that's waged in the Congo and scalping. The way they live their lives in Africa if you live below the ivory coast. You're most likely to see acts that I would say are savage.

Now when I wrote what I wrote I was talking about the whole of Africa mostly. People in America are not savage. There are only savage acts. In what someone means, say a racist. Black savagery would implicate that 13% of the population (IE black people)(https://ucr.fbi.gov...) have 45% of the homicides per year. But the people themselves aren't necessarily savage themselves because of the education they have. May most black people live in more poor like areas. Due to their culture of not wanting to "act white", which means to do well in school and to talk proper. As Dave Chappelle says, "Black people have two voices, their street voice; and their interview voice." It's just how it is these days and you can't change that without advertising that it's good to be well educated.

Now onto labels, it's true there's bias in the court systems. Someone more attractive will get less of a sentence than someone that's not. A woman will usually gain less of a sentence than a man would. Every case is different, the way someone killed someone. The day it was, how old was the person they killed. It's up to the judge to very well, judge people.

Having more technology doesn't give grounds to be racist of course. Most people aren't racist because they believe that Africans have no technology. Even though they started their civilizations nearly 2000 years ahead of Europeans but are still behind on most things. It doesn't make the people any less of people, just that there is a superiority that comes out of it. That," haha my country is richer than yours and has a better military" has been around forever. Literally, the world is just a giant competition and there's no way to to stop it without going extinct as a people because we will never grow as humans. And I don't hate Africa, I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't like Africa. I'm sure a lot of people from Africa don't like Africa, that's why many Nigerians are going to Europe and the USA to get more accessibility than what they couldn't have in if they stayed.

And in this argument there isn't really a way to win, because it's all opinions, and to me outlawing any opinions is strictly forbidden because then the populace could outcast a certain ground based on the grounds that they think differently. When in the real world, the whole world has different opinions, may they be radical or not. I always say there are 3 different realities that people have to understand before they can truly argue about a topic.
1. You must understand what your opinion of a certain race or an idea is, and what you've read to effect your opinion.
2. What the truth is, which is hard to find out because people's emotions can change what the real truth is, matching up different opinions is important. So instead if you just watch MSNBC all day and no other opinions are shown to you. You must look to the other side and watch. Don't just give up after a few minutes of their dialogue because you just don't agree with them. But you must understand that if numbers are matching up across the board, you can make en educated guess on whats really happening.
3. You must understand the other side, even if the other sides opinions are uneducated and completely off of what reality is. You must try your best to truly understand what they're coming from and what they grew up seeing.

Once you have all 3 you'll have a full understanding of, if the facts don't add up with what you believe that challenge the facts until you've been fully turned around, never back down if you believe that you are right. Stick your guns and challenge over and over again until you are fully convinced that you were wrong or that you're right. Staying blind to the ideas of the other side has killed entire nations before. And I don't want to see it happen in America.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by factandevidence1234 3 years ago
factandevidence1234
He's a troll. A racist troll.
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Debating_Horse
Keep in mind that Masterful is a troll. Not too sure on his current condition now, considering his profile image is of SS Nazi Heinrich Himmler.
Posted by factandevidence1234 3 years ago
factandevidence1234
If what you say is true, blacks commit more crimes than whites, you shouldn't police all black neighborhoods but ones that have been the center of crime. As for "black savagery sir, it was not you who made me do this debate, but the racism that has been pointed towards me by people I know. I have heard the term black savagery from you and many other people, and I would like to tell you, I am inspired by you, so if I did happen to get this debate from you, I would be proud of it. However, I am bot racist Or mentally retarded, and never said that racial equality was more important than black lives, that was an assumption. I think racial equality and lives have a great difference in significance l, but from experience, it seems there is more racial slurs than life losses.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
If blacks statistically commit more crimes than whites, is it wise to dedicate resources to policing white neighborhoods or black neighborhoods?
If one chooses to police both equally, then one will be forfeiting the lives of innocent black people who fall victim to black on black violence.

The fact that you deem racial equality more important than black lives, perhaps shows you're either racist, or morally retarded. Learn to be pragmatic.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
Fact,

You seem like a reasonable person and I hope that it wasn't something I've said that has instigated you to begin this debate. As I don't know anyone else who has used the term "Black savagery"

We should debate "Racism is natural " this should Earth some of your assumptions on why people show racial prejudice and why stereotyping is beneficial.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
factandevidence1234WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brings up new points in the last round which Pro had no chance to rebuke and this is really cunning dirty strategy I don't like this conduct and don't even include his source in the vote because he tricked Pro to think it would be as casual at is was. Pro wins because they explained that just because some are savage or whatever Con produces, is yet to be proven to treat the entire race unequally from the other. I am not going to read Con's Round 2 because it's totally BS conduct to bring up totally new points in a round your enemy can't reply to unless it's a 1-round debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.