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

Racism is perfectly natural

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: 10/31/2017 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 104702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (0)




I firmly believe being racist is normal. The reason for that statement is because we give racists such a hard time, when they're just being normal human beings. My message to the readers is, Don't hate racists.

-My opponent will be arguing "Racism against blacks is not normal by any standard."

-I will be arguing "Racism against blacks is normal."

Key points that I will touch upon will be,

1. Clear visual and biological differences between white people and black people.

2. Tribal prejudices as an evolutionary defence mechanism against opposing tribes.

3. Instances of racism within in the animal kingdom.
4. Racism existing in every country around the world.

Definition of racism:

Definiton of black people:

Ask if you want to debate me. I have locked the debate because I am currently being harassed by FanBoy Mctroll.



Ok. Only three rounds, but I'm sure we'll be able to manage. First, as you said, we will discuss clear visual and biological differences between white people and black people. Here is my argument, which you will counter in the next round, and then you will move on to the next topic:

There are no clear visual or biological differences between black people and white people. Any differences between the two are, at most, quite subtle. The only true difference between the two is skin color, and besides this, the anatomy is very identical. Consider this for a moment, sir. We are the same species. Both black and white people belong to Homo Sapiens. Thus, we have much in common. It would be understandable to classify people by anatomy if neanderthals still existed, but at the moment, there is only one kind of human on Earth, and it is us. Since creatures of one species must, by biological law, share the same anatomy, this rule must apply to us as well. The sole difference between white people and black people is their skin. And even this is unimportant.

Skin color is only a result of where certain tribes of humans, spreading out across the world, settled in. Nearer to the equator, black skin was developed, as a way to cope with the extreme heat. Farther North, humans didn't need so much protection, so less pigment was released. Skin color is nothing more than the end result of evolution, and while we cannot deny it, we should not regard as something that causes any change in the nature of a person. Both types of skin have the same anatomy, with small hairs poking through the epidermal layer and blood pumping through the veins. Nothing is different between black and white people, anatomically or psychologically, and to assume this is a great folly on the part of anyone.

I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 1


This argument is similar to the "Tribal prejudices as an evolutionary defence mechanism against opposing tribes" argument. However, it focuses more on skin colour and other differences between certain races.

There are huge differences between white people and black people, at least on a physical level.

We shall begin by looking at the obvious, skin colour. The argument here can be referred to as “the outsider argument."
I believe that all humans are equal. However, I understand that instinctively, if someone were to see a strange man with red skin colour, they would be alarmed. Not just because it's unusual to see a man with red skin, but because that man with red skin, is clearly not of the same "tribe" as the observer. This red man would be perceived as an outsider and the observer would be wary of a threat, as would the red man of our observer.
The obvious visual difference is re-created as an instinctive threat in our minds, this cannot easily be ignored by our observer, as this is a natural bias. It serves to be a survival advantage when one is careful around visually different beings, or "outsiders."

There are of course other differences other than the visual, such as bone density and muscle mass. Typically blacks will have denser bones [1]
As a result, blacks are less capable when swimming compared to whites. This tells us importantly, that black people have undergone a slightly different evolutionary detour from white people. Suggesting the "outsider" argument is more than just a skin deep argument. Rather, it seems to be bound biologically, even if the differences are subtle.

To conclude this segment.
Correctly or incorrectly identifying a potential threat should not be considered racist, it's instinctive human nature, bough about by evolution to serve as a survival advantage. It's a part of who we are.




As you suggested in the comment section, I will cover two of your arguments here, instead of only one.

You say that tribal prejudices are an evolutionary defense mechanism against opposing tribes. However, we can always overcome our prejudices and put ourselves in someone else's shoes. As a race with relatively more brain matter than other species, we have the ability to see the world from different perspectives and look at the world in different ways. Tribal prejudice, while it may be "Natural," is still a strong injustice and must be overcome at all cost. I can think of many examples in which different tribes lived in a kind of harmony. For instance, the Bantu and pygmy peoples of middle and south Africa, and the Wari and Tirawaku tribes of South America, and a few others. These tribes had different beliefs, and were very primitive, but they still managed to live in relative harmony. The Bantu people even called the pygmy people the first people of the Earth and treated them as superior, even after they had settled in pygmy territory. We cannot excuse prejudice as a natural process. It is a choice made by the brain. Personally, if I saw a red person, I would be a bit frightened at first, but unless he attempted to murder me, I wouldn't do anything rash. I would try to interpret his language and then think about who he was and where he came from.

Another thing I feel I must establish is that we are no longer primitive. Humans have entered the modern age, and so racism in modern times is a ridiculous concept. In the 1800s, although America was only a slowly developing nation, we were still modern. We had trains and smelting and telegrams. It is inconceivable to have slavery in a nation like that. A nation cannot be racist and civilized at the same time. Racism is something that naturally becomes extinct. And to think that, in the 1950s, there were different parts of town for each race, brings to mind some kind of twisted alternate dimension.

As for your argument that animals have racism, I deny this as well. Animals do not have the ability to be racist, simply because there is no reason to, and due to their inability to create civilizations of any kind. Lions and tigers may fight over a piece of land, but this is not racism, because both types of cat are separate species. This would be like a man fighting with a bear. It makes perfect sense. Animals are not racist. This is an absurd statement and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it.

I await your last argument, where you will rebut my animal argument and then move on the the next topic, and then I will cover the last argument during my closing argument. I'm all set.
Debate Round No. 2


In Con's attempt to refute one of my arguments being "tribal prejudice" Con admits this prejudice is natural. Admitting it is natural supports my main premise which is "Racism is perfectly natural"
Keep in mind that racism is racial prejudice [1]

Con then proceeds to give a speech about how racism is "a strong injustice" and how "it must be overcome at all cost"
This means Con and I agree on racism being natural and racism being bad. As I am not advocating racism, I'm only saying it's natural for humans to be racist.

Considering Con has conceded their stance as Con to “Racism is natural” there is no longer any point for me to go into my other arguments, as those arguments only support the now agreed upon topic.
This is the quote from Con-
"Tribal prejudice, while it may be "Natural, is still a strong injustice""

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. If he or anyone else is interested in hearing my remaining two arguments that support "Racism is natural" then send me a PM.




I gave you two instances of natural tribes who weren't racist, but you don't seem to worry any about them. See, folks, he can't give a good argument. He uses bold words and stuff.

I don't agree on racism being natural. I think that it is an evil constructed by man. There are no instances of it in nature. Anthropological studies show that, before mankind turned to agriculture, and lived in small hunter gatherer tribes, there was no racism, because society had not yet been invented. With society, there comes class, and the ability of one man to dominate another. But, ten thousand years ago, when we foraged across the land, all tribe members were considered equal. Not only was there less racism, but also less sexism, because both men and women were portrayed as equal and did equally important things. Thus, when we say that cavemen were big apes who dominated their wives, we are doing them a great injustice. Times were better when people were cavemen. Modern civilization is the creator of all inequality. This is an undeniable fact, and proves that racism is not a natural constant. It is created by the mind, and only by the mind, and we must never forget that.

Racism is not natural. There are not segregated bathrooms in nature. There are not concentration camps in nature. racism was created when the first Mesopotamian king rose to the throne. And you, Masterful, are a fiend to advocate the despicable practice of racism. You say you're not, but you are, by considering it a universal law. It is not a universal law. We have stopped it, and that proves that a society can function without it.

Vote for me, not just because you don't believe in racism, but also because I make more sense. If you want to vote for Masterful, go ahead, but your conscience might plague you for the rest of your life.
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by What50 2 years ago
The debate is "Racism is natural" not "Racism is immoral" two big different debates. Unfortunately you said in your second argument that Racism is natural, and went off a different debate talking about Racism of being evil, which is a different debate, so Masterful won lol.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
Thank you. It's a great honor to think differently from other people. I suggest you don't use derogatory slurs. People might wrongly interpret you as racist. Also, don't go near any kids with down syndrome.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
You certainly win the title of retard.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
I win! I won't tell you how, but I have.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
I never said racism is good. Maybe you don't understand that hating racists for having a different opinion to you is prejudice and similar to how racists think.

However, enough of that, let's stick to where you said "racism is intertwined with slavery."

The fact black people had black slaves, proves slavery is not intertwined with racism, as black on black slavery is not racist. Correct?
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
6. I'll consider your African slavery exception more once you consider my Bantu/pygmy exception.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
1. They are intertwined and I'm sick of this mini debate with no point. You say I've conceded to things that I haven't.

2. You claim that racism is good because you like racists. It is OK to hate racists because they are evil. It isn't OK to hate black people for doing absolutely nothing. While those stories about evil African kings may be true, they are equally horrible and their actions don't excuse the actions of white people.

3. I posted the first link twice to drive my point home. The third link is completely different. See for yourself.

4. Saying you've won doesn't mean you have won.

5. I might lose, but I'm still right.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
1. At least you've conceded to racism and slavery not being intertwined

2. Racism is bad. No one has said it isn't.

3. You seem to have had a brain aneurysm as you posted the same link 3 times. I'm unsure as to how that link strengthens whatever point you thought you had.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
1. Capturing anybody is wrong and racism is a fallacy of mankind.

2. racism is bad.

my points: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
1.Racism and slavery are not intertwined. As I have already stated, Black Africans enslaved black Africans [A] is that racist? You failed to answer this question.

2. By assuming every racist wants black people to die, you're being prejudice towards racists, as this is a stereo-type. This means you're no better than racists.

I'm trying to keep this concise, because I know you can't keep up nor keep track of points made. Look, I even labeled my points with numbers for you :)

No votes have been placed for this debate.

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