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

Minorities are not at a disadvantage in American society.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SperoXVII has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 104547
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




This is in regards to 3 main categories.
1. Education - Minorities are given every opportunity to pursue their education just as whites are.
2. Policing - Minorities are not unfairly policed, if anything they are under policed.
3. Job Opportunities - Minorities are not denied jobs simply because of the color of their skin or their race. (Meaning widespread denial)

Now this is not to say that such instances don't occur because they do for every race. The point is that it is neither systemic or widespread.
My opponent needs to be able to provide factual proof with sources to validate their position otherwise they would simply be stating their opinions.
Round 1 will be for acceptance
Round 2 will cover the first topic
Round 3 will cover the second
Round 4 will cover the third
Round 5 will be used as the conclusion

Rebuttals can be given at the beginning of each round before proceeding to the topic of the round.


My Opponent has been living under a rock. Social injustses happen almost everywhere everyday. Our own president is STILL interested in wall over the border of mexico and get rid of immigrants who come to america to find Jobs and earn money to support their family.

1. Education - HAHA, No, it has been proven that its is harder for minorites to get into prestigious colleges.
2. Policing - Actually, According to the Washington Post 777 people have been shot and killed by police in 2017 in the USA 403 of those were minorites. And you say Minorites are Under Policed? Their Overpoliced.
3. Job Opportunities - Like i said its WAYYYY harder for immigrants to get jobs thanks to new laws that are passing.

in conclusion ofcourse it may be harder to see social injustice now a days but saying that "minorites are not at a disadvantage in American society is a broad statement". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Education: Before the major leaps and bounds of the civil rights movements that took place in the 1960's, it was true that minorities were indeed at a horrendous educational disadvantage. In those days segregated schools were a nationwide phenomenon and they suffered from far less funding than traditionally white schools. However,mandatory segregation is no longer allowed in society. Modern American schools (including every type after high school) are among the most diverse campuses in the world in terms of racial, gender and religious makeup.

According to the Brookings Institute
"Americans often forget that as late as the 1960s most African-American, Latino, and Native American students were educated in wholly segregated schools funded at rates many times lower than those serving whites and were excluded from many higher education institutions entirely. The end of legal segregation followed by efforts to equalize spending since 1970 has made a substantial difference for student achievement. On every major national test, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the gap in minority and white students" test scores narrowed substantially between 1970 and 1990, especially for elementary school students. On the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the scores of African-American students climbed 54 points between 1976 and 1994, while those of white students remained stable."

As stated above, African-American students in particular saw an average SAT score increase of 54 points between 76 and 94 whereas the white students remained stable. There are no laws on the books today that put minorities at a disadvantage in terms of gaining access to education. There is however a law that actually ensures minorities not be denied access due to their race, gender or national origin and it is called Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It states as follows:


Title VI and Race, Color and National Origin Discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"

There are severe legal ramifications for those found to be discriminating against anyone for these reasons. From having Federal Financial Assistance revoked, termination from their position and/or prosecution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Affirmative Action do not allow any institution receiving federal aid to be deny minorities access simply because of their race or gender.
The following are prime examples of the educational achievements of minorities according to the U.S. census of 2016.
- 33% of women had a bachelors degree whereas 32% of men had attained one.
- 54% of Asians 25 years and older had at least a bachelors degree.
- 22% of Blacks aged 25 and older had a bachelors degree.
- 15% of Hispanics aged 25 and older had a bachelors degree.
- 36% of Whites aged 25 and older had a bachelors degree.
(Last paragraph of page 5)
Asians only account for 5.7% of the U.S. population and yet their race is virtually the only one that has more than 50% of people attaining a bachelors degree.

How is it that one of the smallest groups of people in the country attain the highest number of bachelor degrees per their population? It's because of their culture. Education and honor are paramount in the majority of Asian cultures from a very young age. Asians also have the highest number of 2 parent households which also contributes to household income and therefore the ability to pay for higher education. The two parent household and higher levels of education is another reason that Asians represent the smallest population in terms of crimes committed as well as prison population.

Many people attribute what they believe to be a lack of educational opportunities to an alleged lack of funding for schools in cities such as Chicago, Jacksonville, Baltimore and other inner cities. But the amount of funding a school receives does not dictate the quality of the education a child will receive.
For example: According to
"China still falls well behind the United States in overall spending -- at $2.2 trillion compared to around $3.5 trillion for Washington"
Despite spending over a trillion dollars more on education than China, American students still earn lower test scores in virtually every category. The same can be said of most Asian countries. Simply put, more money doesn't necessarily mean better quality in regards to education. China has become one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a rapidly growing middle class that will quickly rival that of the United States if things do not change soon.
American students ranked the following according to
-24th in science
- 39th in math
- 24th in reading

Hong Kong scored as follows:
- 2nd in math
- 2nd in reading
- 9th in science
How is it that the country that spends far more on education produces such dismal test results? It is the quality of teaching, not the money thrown at it.
Other Asian countries that scored higher in all 3 categories and that spend far less on education than America.
- Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and South Korea

One of the only legitimate complaints minorities have regarding a lack of opportunities comes from those living in cities such as Chicago, Jacksonville, Baltimore and Oakland. These cities have some of the worst crime rates in the country and they also have some of the highest populations of minorities. Such severe crime rates act as a deterrent for teachers considering relocation to those cities. And when you have a drastically higher chance of being assaulted or even murdered in these cities it is perfectly reasonable for people to hesitate. The teachers often times fall victim to violent students that face little to no consequences for their actions which doesn't exactly encourage great teachers to move to these places. Many of these students become involved in gangs which spills over into the school system. Gangs in schools typically don't make for a good atmosphere for teaching. This is also a by-product of single parent households which tends to be drastically higher in minority families.

According to the Huffingtonpost:
"The birth rate among single mothers also varied along educational, socioeconomic and racial barriers. Sixty-eight percent of black women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried, compared to 11 percent of Asian women, 43 percent of Hispanics and 26 percent of non-Hispanic whites" (another source depicting very similar statistics)

One thing to note in both these examples is that Asians account for only 17% or less of single mothers.
The smallest minority group has a consistent pattern of coming out on top in every category.

- Asians are one of the smallest minority groups in the United States
- They score higher in every category
- They commit fewer crimes per their population
- Their culture values education and honor above all else
- Over 54% of Asian Americans earn a bachelors degree

All of these factors prove that minorities are not at a disadvantage in the United States. It's the choices that people make that determines their educational future. If you choose to dedicate yourself to your studies even the poorest student can rise from nothing to join the top 1%.
This is true for every race and gender. There are far too many examples to logically claim otherwise.
African-Americans in particular have been through so much in their history here in America. They have made such tremendous leaps and bounds when it comes to advancing their lives.
Dr. Ben Carson - An accomplished neurosurgeon that ran for President but has become the Secretary of Housing and Development under the Trump administration.
Condoleeza Rice - A political scientist that served as the 66th Secretary of State during the Bush administration.
Eric Holder - Served as the 82nd Attorney General during the Obama administration. (Also the first African-American to ever hold the title)
Elijah Cummings - Representative for Marylands 7th congressional district since 1996 for the Democratic Party.
Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States. (First Black President)

Obama is living proof that there are no more boundaries for minorities. There's no longer any barriers preventing people from reaching the pinnacle of American achievements. This man became President not once but twice. And he would never have been elected without the majority of white votes, because white Americans represent 76.9% of the population. He had to win their votes in order to win the election and he did so twice!
The people named above have attended some of the most prestigious schools in the country and attained some of the highest ranking roles in modern American society. And they would never have made it so far if it weren't for the education they had access to.
It's because of the reasons stated above that it can no longer be claimed that minorities do not have equal access to education


1. Education:
Most schools have students who are either identify as LGBT or parents who are gay. The curriculum should at least mirror the real lives of these students. There are school communities around the country that are progressive and offer inclusive curriculum, but there are many that do not. There are at least 3 reasons why schools will not offer curriculum that includes LGBT topics. They are 3 Reasons Why Many Schools Won't Offer LGBT Curriculum

Imagine walking into school each day and not hearing any stories through books or curriculum that depict the life that you are living? The common language heard is used by peers in a negative way, and most adults don't intervene to stop it. Imagine that you attend a public school, but the "public" discussion that is accepted hardly ever mentions things you can relate to?

That's how many LGBT students feel.

Now that the Supreme Court made their historic decision regarding gay marriage it's time for LGBT issues and curriculum to be spoken about in schools. We know the arguments from the haters will focus on why LGBT discussions should be banned from school, but the Supreme Court ruling should help overturn the conversations that take place in school.

"Con­sider the num­bers. Accord­ing to the 2010 there are approx­i­mately 594,000 same-sex cou­ple house­holds liv­ing in the U.S. and more than 125,000 of those house­holds include nearly 220,000 chil­dren under age 18. Fur­ther, there are as many as 6 million Amer­i­can chil­dren and adults who have an LGBT par­ent. With the Supreme Court rul­ing, all U.S. res­i­dents live in a state with mar­riage equality."

Most schools have students who are either identify as LGBT or parents who are gay. The curriculum should at least mirror the real lives of these students. There are school communities around the country that are progressive and offer inclusive curriculum, but there are many that do not. There are at least 3 reasons why schools will not offer curriculum that includes LGBT topics. They are:

1. Unsupportive Administrators - Many teachers will not enter into the domain of using curriculum that includes LGBT related topics because their administrators will not support them. Although the Supreme Court ruling was historic, it will be a long time before it changes the mindset of every administrator around the US.

2. Parent Push back - There are small groups of parents in some districts, and large groups of parents in other districts who do not want their children, and any other children, exposed to LGBT related topics in school. School leaders and teachers have seen parents pull their children from when schools participate in the Day of Silence Some parents bring their own values into the public school setting and want schools to abide by those values. Teachers will not test the waters of LGBT topics in their classroom if they feel that parents will push back and administrators will not be supportive. There are some distracts that are moving forward, but there has been a great deal of push back.

3. Don't Know where to start - Many teachers and leaders do not know where to start. They usually begin by using words like tolerance and acceptance (I prefer acceptance over being tolerated). The most important place to begin is with school board policies and student codes of conduct that stipulate discipline for students who harass and bully based on sexual orientation and gender expression. They also need to be clearly written to support the use of LGBT topics in classrooms. Policies and codes of conduct set the foundation for supporting teachers and leaders when there is parent push back. Interestingly, they also provide parents of LGBT students support for when administrators ignore the very paper those policies are written on. Another place to begin is through curriculum.

The LGBT community is a minority and they are at an education disadvantage especially in today's society, so your first argument is already thrown out the window buddy.

Debate Round No. 2


1. I'm disappointed that my opponent has only offered me conjecture instead of any quantifiable statistics. Your only contention is that the LGBT should feel as though they're being taught something that mirrors their lives. You have not even described what type of things students should be taught regarding LGBT issues. This can be said of many students regarding their race, gender, or religion not just the LGBT community.
You have provided no statistics proving that the LGBT students are being harassed instead you only offer your personal opinion. Facts do not care about your feelings or anyones elses.
More importantly you have entirely failed to prove in any way that minorities are at a disadvantage in regards to education. They are not banned from attending any schools which means they get the exact same education as everyone else. They are not at a disadvantage in education.
"the arguments from the haters" are just people that realize LGBT matters are something more appropriately taught to them by the parents not the school. This falls into the same category as religion, it is simply something that should not be discussed in public schools. There are simply too many different variables to cover in order to make everyone feel as though their lifestyles are being taught. Many in the LGBT community have also stated that their are 76 genders, are you suggesting that they should have to cover all 76 genders to ensure no one is left out?
Schools are meant to teach historical events, math, science, reading, writing, and economics among other things that are relative to literally everyone across every spectrum.

1. Administrators - You haven't even named a single topic you believe should be taught regarding LGBT.

2. Parents - They have a right to decide that they do not want their children being taught such a controversial topic by anyone but themselves.

3. Don't know where - Again this is simply your conjecture without any type of proof. You do not have the right to force them to teach students anything. A persons personal life is by no means an appropriate way to determine what is taught in schools.

And you did not mention any minority aside from the LGBT, that itself seems rather discriminatory.

2. Policing
The only minority groups that seem to be claiming unfair policing are the black and hispanic communities.
Many people have argued that minorities have been the victim of unfair and sometimes brutal policing. The problem with this statement is that the numbers simply do not support the belief.
Between 2013 and 2014 The Crime and Prevention Research Center conducted an investigation to determine if there was any evidence to support the claim that blacks are more likely to be shot and killed by police officers.

Prager University created a video of compiled studies that provide evidence of non-bias police shootings.

"a recent Harvard study concluded that 1,332 police shootings over the 2000-2015 time frame reveal that blacks are actually 20 percent less likely to be shot at by police than whites, despite the fact that blacks and whites are just as likely to be carrying a weapon.

This is further confirmed by a study conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice assistant professor Peter Moskos, who determined that when the homicide rate is adjusted, "whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police."

The link above gives several studies that prove black Americans are not unfairly policed.

But seeing as how my opponent said nothing about all the other minorities in this country instead focusing solely on the LGBT community, that is where I will focus my attention.
This group of people has already made tremendous advances in society today, going from being ridiculed for being who they are to openly living their lives in public without consequence. In the past abuse of these people was tolerated and even laughed at whereas today that abuser would face severe legal consequences.
There is virtually no evidence to support the claim that members of the LGBT community are being unfairly policied. In fact there has been several cases where a member of the community has faked an attack in an attempt to paint the right as being bigoted. (a list of over 300 fake hate crimes)

There is an epidemic of people making up stories about being attacked by "white nationalists" or "bigoted" people.
This sort of thing is not helpful to the cause of people that belong to the LGBT community. It actually severely discredits them to the point that people become desensitized to it because they anticipate it to be revealed as another hoax.
The LGBT community is in no way unfairly policed. They receive the same treatment as everyone else. If they are attacked and can actually prove the attack, the police will handle the situation exactly the same way they do everyone else. My opponent seems to be in the mindset that if a member of that community were attacked for being a transsexual for example, their attacker would face no consequences. It's important to note that all minorities have the same burden of proof that the rest of the country does. You have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your allegations are true. Thus far we have seen far more examples of fake attacks both physical and mental than legitimate attacks.
ANTIFA is an organization full of members from the LGBT community and they have perpetuated violence against people that simply don't agree with their opinions. Calling them racists and bigots for a disagreement does not make someone racist or intolerant of someones gender in question.
No one is saying that the LGBT community shouldn't have equal rights. No one is advocating that they be locked up, banned from voting, owning a firearm, attending any public school of their choice, or any of the other rights/privileges that everyone else has.
The only unfair policing seen thus far is not directed towards the LGBT but against anyone that tries to speak out against their views. Which is a direct violation of our 1st amendment right, you cannot silence someone simply because they disagree with you. We have seen a mass outbreak of organizations like ANTIFA violently attacking people that disagree with them and yet they are still allowed to have gatherings. It's because they have the right to protest PEACEFULLY and only when they become violent do they face consequences. However those that oppose their opinions are often times denied access to speak at Universities around the country, many of which receive federal aid which should ensure the 1st amendment is protected. Yet we are seeing the complete opposite, speakers such as Ben Shapiro have been denied permission to speak at many Universities and when he is allowed members of the LGBT often times try to shut him down or just become violent.
Milo Yiannoppoulos (a gay conservative) is often called a white supremacist and a neo-nazi because he denies much of the conjecture put forth by modern day feminists. So it would seem that even though he's a member of the LGBT community by definition, he is an outcast to them because he doesn't agree with the ideology.
Many people of this community are trying to force people to accept them and their beliefs, going so far as my opponent is suggesting in teaching LGBT related issues in public schools. You cannot morally force your view on others.


LGBT is a minority and thats ok with me
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal: It would seem the only minority my opponent cares about would be the LGBT.

Job Opportunities: There are virtually no laws, regulations, or policies on the books that negatively target minority groups. In fact laws have actually been created to specifically aid them.
Affirmative Action and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 are prime examples of the effort to ensure that everyone is on an equal playing field. Let's not forget that the same people that are "oppressed" are some of the richest people in the world. Professional athletes that earn millions of dollars to just play a game that choose to kneel during the anthem to protest oppression is one of the most ironic examples. Virtually every player in the NFL is in the top 1% of society.
The LGBT community claims they are being oppressed and yet they can provide not even a shred of semi-solid proof to back up the claim. Instead they just put forth their feelings. One of the most obvious problems with feelings and opinions is that everyone has different versions. What offends one person may be perfectly acceptable to the next.
Take Milo Yiannopoulos for example. He calls himself every name in the book ranging from a faggot, queer and everything in between. The point is none of those names offend him despite his sexual orientation. You cannot logically or morally make policy based on peoples feelings because the result is that you end up trying to take away the rights of others. Free speech being the relevant one to my point.
Right now many in the LGBT are falsely labeling people homophobic or intolerant or trans people. They are even fighting to have people criminally prosecuted for speaking freely, speaking their minds. You may not like what other people have to say about you but that is their 1st amendment right so long as they are not calling for violence against anyone.
Which many of the LGBT have openly called for on conservatives for example since they seem to be their primary targets. Calling people a neo-nazi when you have virtually no evidence to support such a disgusting allegation simply makes you a terrible person.
Traditional Christians that hold the belief that homosexuality is a sin are routinely pushed from the public arena while others are free to accuse everyone else of being nazis. The hypocrisy is overwhelming and they simply don't see the contradictions in their actions.
And it's only when these people become violent that they are arrested or that their protest is shut down. Peaceful protest is a right of all but violent protest isn't.

I have tried to find some statistics on the unemployment rate of members of the LGBT community but was unsuccessful.
The above link is the closest I could come to finding any sort of statistics however the problem with this site is that they don't list the source of the claims they make. They leave them completely unverifiable, basically telling the reader that they should just be trusted at their word.
And again I refer back to the numerous false attacks the members of the LGBT have claimed. They are killing their credibility with these types of acts. Putting forth claims without any proof is again killing their credibility.
When they are truly being discriminated against they should report their abusers to the proper authorities and present the evidence they have. That is the same burden of proof that every other group of people is expected to provide when they make an allegation against someone. To expect people to just simply trust them at their word is both immoral and naive.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SperoXVII 2 years ago
Posted by Stonehe4rt 3 years ago
May I know your reasoning? Or is it simply because he is grabbing attention that it is amazing? You see, America is still such a free country, that people take it for granted. Everyone in the United States even the poor, are WAY better off then many RICH people in other countries. OUR POOR PEOPLE LIVE LIKE KINGS compared to other nations. When people kneel at the flag, I don't see anything to respect about that, maybe I am missing something, if so enlighten me.
Posted by SperoXVII 3 years ago
rlly? i actually think what Colin Kaepernick is doing is actually amazing.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 3 years ago
And yet we still have NFL players who kneel during the flag. What a shame. Those NFL players would probably be killed or imprisoned for doing such an act in another country. Yet they still play "victims of America" when they would have never achieved everything that they have without America.
Posted by SperoXVII 3 years ago
Yeah i lost lol you win Pro
Posted by What50 3 years ago
I applaud you pro, this is was a difficult burden of proof and you shown great knowledge in this subject.
Posted by SperoXVII 3 years ago
@Letsdebate24 Ready for the 2nd round?
Posted by SperoXVII 3 years ago
Bout time
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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