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

Does Discrimination Still Exist in America

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 112322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I believe that there still is discrimination in America today.
Definition of discrimination
1a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
This however does not include just race. It would include ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other types of discrimination. People who argue that there isn't usually only tend to see only one side of discrimination (usually race). Please argue back and tell me why you don't think there is discrimination in America.


Hello, I accept your debate. I will argue that discrimination is hardly an issue anymore, enough to be counted as not existing, in America.

Firstly, society as a collective are very supportive of minority rights. Gay marriage has been legal in all states since 2015, women have been able to vote since 1920, blacks have been given equal rights since 1964 under The Civil Rights Act. Groups like Black Lives Matter or Equality Now have been gaining support rapidly. Whenever a black person is shot by the police, it is almost inherent that there will be riots or protests. As for genders, there are now minority quotas being introduced, forcing companies to hire minorities purely for the sake of diversity. While more men than women are in certain job fields, there is nothing stopping a woman from getting the same job, on the assumption she is equally as qualified. Paying women less has also been illegal since 1963 under the Equal Pay Act. Wage gaps only exist because women, as a whole, work less hours and work lower paying jobs.

Secondly, any "hate" groups have been in rapid decline. Nazism died in the 60s with the assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell and the party has not ran for years, now only serving as a platform for people of such beliefs to meet in private discussions. Not too long ago, people claimed racism was coming back through a party known as the Tea Party, a conservative, right wing movement. However they have struggled to get hardly any of the vote and have been in decline since 2010: According to a professor from Harvard, the number of Tea Party chapters across the country slipped from about 1,000 to 600 between 2009 and 2012 (Source: Wikipedia).

But we cannot ignore the elephant in the room: Trump. People seem to blander him as a Nazi, a fascist, and a hate monger. But I reject those claims. Being anti illegal immigration is not discriminatory, he is not shipping blacks back to Africa or forcing legal immigrants back over the border. His border wall, that Mexico had to pay for, was only so because Mexico had cost the US so much through having to maintain the ICE enforcement group. His immigration ban wasn"t because he"s a xenophobe, it"s because the eight countries he banned - Syria, North Korea, Venezuela (business and tourist visas banned for leaders and their families), Libya, Chad, Syria, Iran, Somalia, and Yemen, are countries high in terrorism, suffering from corruption, or are dangers to the USA. Venezuela and North Korea haven"t been on the best of terms with the nation as of late.

Finally, going back to an earlier point, movements promoting equality have often been violent or provocative, and yet face no widespread backlash. Black Lives Matter, originally a group to "stop police discrimination against blacks", has now mutated into an organisation that advocates killing whites, state enforced reparations, and so on. LGBT parades have commonly featured costumes that involve men with their genitalia out, or other near-fornicating activities, out in broad daylight. Sometimes there are children around these displays too.

It may also be worth mentioning I do not believe in equality, I believe there are biological, objective reasons that make equality impossible, be it racial or gender specific. If the other candidate would like me to expand on that, I"d happily go into detail.
Debate Round No. 1


I am going to "waste" my round two argument by asking you to go into detail...while trying to be as non discriminating as possible. Because when you get down to it, for you to believe one group is better than another is what most hate groups stand for to begin with.


Hello again and thank you for your response. I would like to counter that the idea that a hate group exists simply off of being more able than another is a falsehood. Rather, they exist from believing the other group is weak, unworthy, or otherwise bad. Because the notion that some races or genders are more suited to certain roles than others, well, that is just simply a factual statement.

For example, men are stronger than women, biologically. In other primates, it is noted that the more egalitarian the social groups are, the closer in size the males and females are. And we evolved from apes. In groups where males are polygamous and fight each other for female mates and territory, the males are a LOT larger than the females. With gorillas, it's often a "winner-take-all" situation, where the strongest male gorilla gets all the females and all the territory, and therefore has the most grandchildren. The trade-off is that they have to find and eat a lot more food. Being bigger doesn't necessarily make your life easier in every way. That human males are a little bit bigger than human females probably indicates that there has been some male-male fighting for female mates in our evolutionary past, but not so much that it has been worth the trade-off to get gigantic in size. There is a reason that in law enforcement jobs or the military, women are required to do less physical training to pass than men. Take for example, the British Army fitness test. Press ups as part of the test and for men it is 44 in two minutes, 21 for women.

Men being stronger than women is not dictated by childhood training, but by biology. A girl and boy can be the same strength in childhood, or in many cases, the girl is stronger. After puberty, the boy becomes much stronger, and an adult man is significantly stronger than an adult women. Men and women can have similar lower body strength, especially if the woman is fit and sporty. Women can have incredibly strong legs, and a very strong core if they are athletic. What we lack is upper body strength in our chest, back, shoulders and arms. Without taking steroids, a woman cannot get as strong as a man in these areas. Even if she does weight lifting, she cannot get her upper body as strong as a man. This is not determined by training, but by biology. Testosterone increases levels of growth hormones, and growth hormone is what builds muscles. Young men on average have 8"10 times as much testosterone as young women do. The disparity decreases somewhat with age, but men still remain having several times more testosterone in their body. Even in cases of athletes, lets say in combat sports, there are gender divisions. Even a woman who has trained for years in a combat sport, still cannot fight a man who has also trained for years in a combat sport. She can win against the average guy on the street, but she cannot win in a physical fight against a man with equal training.

Now moving onto race. Outside of the obvious visual differences, there are differences in IQ and behaviour. Blacks generally dominate the sports field: in boxing, Mike Tyson, Anthony Joshua, Muhammad Ali; in running, Usain Bolt, Mo Farah; in basketball, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Stephen Curry. I could go on. This is because blacks are born with more testosterone than whites are, 19% higher to be exact (source: Blacks also have a 2:1 ratio of getting prostate cancer as compared to whites, and this has been discovered to be caused by high testosterone. This has also led blacks to be more aggressive on average; despite making up 12.6% of the American population, they commit 5x more crimes against whites than whites do against blacks. In 2013, only 0.77% of whites and blacks blacks being murdered were whites on blacks, but 53.94% were blacks on blacks. Adding Asians into the picture, let"s look at the average IQs across the three races: blacks scored 85 and their decision times were slow, whites scored 102 and their decision times were average, and Asians were the highest at an average of 106 with fast decision times. Can there be smart blacks and dumb whites? Sure. But this is inherent, and in order to change inherent differences one would have to go through self improvement or be affected by environmental factors.

Some graphs:
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for responding and I apologize for the long wait. Now you wanted to counter that hate groups exist simply off of being more able is a falsehood. But in the same paragraph you then go on to say that they exist because they believe that another group is weaker, unworthy, or otherwise bad. Remember I said hate groups exist because they believe they are better to another group, which is basically what you agreed with.
You have also presented facts that most men, biologically are stronger than women. If you said it to a women as this statement it would not be discrimination I agree. But you argue that men being bigger fight for women. Is it not in our society the same when women fight other women for the same reason.
Your race statistics while eye opening did not support your argument that there is no such thing as equality. Nor does it have very much to do with discrimination. And if it's true that equality may not be a thing that exist, to discriminate is to act on a prejudice. Which is what this debate is about. Not whether there is actual prejudice in the world but whether there is discrimination. For instance the government banning transgenders for being in the military. NOt trying to start any political arguments but that is just one of the the points I'd like to make.


Hello and let me thank you for this debate, as it draws to a close.

Firstly I would like to clarify that those race statistics do in fact support the idea of no equality, as they clarify that whites and blacks are not equal in ability. I'd also like to say that in the first paragraph, albeit I worded myself poorly, what I was getting at was that those groups not only view others as weaker in some areas, but attack them for it.

Women do fight for men's attention, of course. But they do not fight in the same way. Men attract women by who is the most courageous and strong; who is the "alpha male". Men are not typically attracted to strong women, and instead favour them to be coy, submissive, caring. That's nature.

Going back to the race statistics, where they tie into discrimination is that they counter the definition of it. At the start of this debate you said that discrimination was prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment, and that racial discrimination is the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. However prejudice is described as preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Yet, if there are statistics and facts to back up a viewpoint that blacks are not equal to whites, I would say it's based on reason/experience.

How does equality tie into discrimination? Well, if a certain group is not treated equally, that would pass for discrimination. But if they're in-equal, why should they be treated the same way? Such a thought process would be like saying a bulldog has equal chances to a greyhound in a race, or that a greyhound has equal chances in a fight as a bulldog. All dogs are dogs, sure, but not all dogs have the same characteristics; they have breeds.

Lastly I would like to clear up that end part on your reply, about transgenders not being allowed in the military. This was far from discriminatory. The purpose that this ban was passed was because transgender individuals require external supplements, such as hormone therapy or oestrogen, in order to transition. As this is interfering with the notion that soldiers, on duty, always have to be ready and alert if a firefight were to start or a gas attack were to hit, it is thus a detriment to the military. It's for the same reason that those with conditions requiring medication - for example, ADD - are not allowed into service.

I would like to thank your for your civility through this debate, as I know this can easily be a touchy subject for some. Goodbye, and to all reading, vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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