CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Whitey shouldn't be afraid of no black people. They are in the minority. Whitey should be afraid of Hispanics. They keep coming over the border and will soon be a majority.
I meant more along the lines of how the average Chinese immigrant is doing much better than the average white person. They would be the most likely to take over.
East Asian immigrants do far better than any other immigration group.
That's some deep shit, it's the truth and the more white people have the balls to admit this brave hero's truth (because deep down inside that's how the majority of whites feel they just deny it) the better this world will be, this man has my up most respect.
Agreed. It is admirable that he stopped being a racist. I used to have racist views, but I'm committed to the dreams of Yeshua, Doctor King, and Ghandi.
I don't fear black people, or any other race, but if I had a choice to live in a country full of my own race or multicultural country, I would feel more comfortable with the first options, not through fear but because it would suit my own personal beliefs. and of course the systems suits the whites, we invented them we enforced them, we fought wars for them, we predominantly created the modern world we currently use them in! if no white man had travelled to Africa where would the black race be now?
To a greater or lesser extent everyone is a racist. I most certainly am and make absolutely no apology whatsoever for being so. I wasn't born a racist but developed my low opinion of blacks from experience and observation. Let's briefly consider this, the computer you're using, the internet, the language in which we are communicating are all inventions of white people. Then if we delve a little deeper we note that television, the radio, the telephone, electricity, the light bulb, the camera, the telescope, binoculars, navigational aids such as radar, the radio telescope, splitting of the atom, ( nuclear power) the petro-chemical industry, ( light, heat and power) plastics, the internal combustion engine, the diesel engine, the automobile, the locomotive, the jet engine, the aeroplane, space going rockets, ocean going liners, submarines, most sophisticated musical instruments, the fountain pen, the ball pen, Modern, high yield farming techniques, advanced construction methods, penicillin, an endless list of life saving and pain relieving drugs, state of the art surgical operating techniques were all discoveries/inventions of white men. The aforementioned inventions offer indisputable evidence of the superiority of the white man and how his ingenuity and enterprise will ensure that he remains firmly well ahead of his backward black brothers. To be frightened of the black sub-orders is the height of utter nonsense. Yes, they're good at rioting, violent crime, drug dealing, pimping and other criminal activities, but they can only prosper in a society where the administration is either white, or predominantly white. In their natural environment of Africa it is to the white man's western culture which the they point their begging bowls in times of trouble, which is always, it is the the western civilizations which they risk life and limb trying to reach. Left to their own devices ''the Bongo'' ends up with such shambolic countries as Liberia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and so forth. ''The bongo'' lacks the executive ability to form a cohesive administration capable of formulating policies which would provide their people with a proper health service, public services such as transport, sewage and sanitation, defense etc. No, it's to the white man that ''The Bongo'' pleads for help when his feeble and primitive brain can't figure out how to escape from his self imposed plight.
Mabye those "white people" should trace back their roots - if they go back far enough, they will end up right there with "the Bongo" (whatever that is)
There they will also find the roots for language, writing, math, architecture, medicine, mining, metal working, religion, government, commerce, philosophy, art, etc.
Want a little something more recent? How about multi-core processors, brain surgery robots, heart transplants, digital lasers, integrated circuits, lithium ion batteries, touchpads, cancer treatments, solar ovens, drought resistant plants, etc. etc. etc.
are roots may have been the same but our route to the modern world are vastly different!
the blacks remained in Africa the most mineral reach continent on the planet, and they failed to prosper and develop in an environment perfectly suited to prosper!
the whites evolved quicker and smarter in the northern hemisphere, the foundation of the modern world was built by the whites, we saw an opportunity to take advantage of a less developed race and the country they lived in, if the black race was smarter and more advance this never would have happened and there never would have been slaves in the western world.
The most important resources back then were fertile land and water (or irrigation technology). Not much of that in the vast jungles/deserts of Africa. If you will notice, most of the more developed civilizations were all built near fertile land and large water sources.
well if the Africans chose to settle in an area not suited for farming then that's where they failed! Africa is a massive country full of water ways and fertile land, yes there is desert and jungle but that doesn't cover the whole of Africa does it, the simple fact is the Africans failed to take advantage of what was there.
They didn't settle there. We all came from that region. The people from Africa settled Europe, Asia, and eventually the Americas.
the simple fact is the Africans failed to take advantage of what was there.
What are you talking about? Egypt was one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. People still flock to the pyramids by the millions. Guess what? Egypt prospered because of the Nile. It provided fertile land and water.
The Egyptians were very advanced but there inbreeding ideology was there downfall and there empire didn't last as long as it could have, but what about the rest of Africa then?? and 'was' is the optimum word to use they didn't expand and prosper beyond Egypt!!
And of course they settled there, if we all came from there then who ever didn't venture out settle in Africa, the ones who ventured far and wide prospered more i.e. the Europeans,
And Egypt is in the desert no? you said there wasn't much fertile land in the desert and jungle but the you contradict yourself with this comment: Egypt prospered because of the Nile. It provided fertile land and water.
Let's briefly consider this, the computer you're using, the internet, the language in which we are communicating are all inventions of white people. Then if we delve a little deeper we note that television, the radio, the telephone, electricity, the light bulb, the camera, the telescope, binoculars, navigational aids such as radar, the radio telescope, splitting of the atom, ( nuclear power) the petro-chemical industry, ( light, heat and power) plastics, the internal combustion engine, the diesel engine, the automobile, the locomotive, the jet engine, the aeroplane, space going rockets, ocean going liners, submarines, most sophisticated musical instruments, the fountain pen, the ball pen, Modern, high yield farming techniques, advanced construction methods, penicillin, an endless list of life saving and pain relieving drugs, state of the art surgical operating techniques were all discoveries/inventions of white men.
Long list. Very.
A lot of those specific discoveries are correctly attributed to white men.
Most of the discoveries that involved collaboration had minorities.
Just to quote some more random ones: radar, splitting of the atom, ( nuclear power) the petro-chemical industry, ( light, heat and power) plastics, space going rockets, most sophisticated musical instruments, Modern, high yield farming techniques, an endless list of life saving and pain relieving drugs, state of the art surgical operating techniques
You are listing random fields like surgical techniques or the petro-chemical industry.
I think you are ignoring a basic fact. The world superpower tends to be the leading innovator. When China was the world superpower, it was the leading innovator. The rocket was invented by the Chinese 3 thousand years ago for amusement purposes.
Universal in the sense that everyone is a racist? That is stupid.
The same as your gender claims in the other debate - vis a vis: polls shows there's an element of bias among 30% of the population, therefore everyone must be completely biased to the extent that it overrides all other thought - you have no idea what you are talking about.
Universal in the sense that everyone is a racist? That is stupid.
Of course.
polls shows there's an element of bias among 30% of the population, therefore everyone must be completely biased to the extent that it overrides all other thought - you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah. Bias in 30% of the population definitely won't skew voting. I like how 30% translates to "everyone" for you.
The exception of not knowing other humans is supposed to count??
Don't forget that "unless" also indicates a dichotomy
What does "Unless if" indicate - that I should give you a break because you don't know English??
You've made the same crazy over-the-top level generalizations in multiple debates (including your previous statement: "No such thing as a "former racist"), so your whining compels no sympathy from me. Clean it up and people won't call bullshit.
You just quoted my comments. Not that hard to put the ideas together. I am suggesting human interaction causes racism which is why racism is almost universal.
You: Nope, never (unless you never meet any humans)
Me: You're being a hyperbolic idiot
You: yep, I was using hyperbole, now try arguing with me
Um, why would I argue now that you have completely changed your opinion in the way I was suggesting...?
Which way were you suggesting then?
Universal in the sense that everyone is a racist? That is stupid.
This seems to suggest when I changed "universal" to "almost universal", it was completely changing my opinion. This all came after the isolated comment.
The only thing to come before it was the Robert Boyd comment so it must have been the reason for my change.
That blanket statements like you made are stupid on their face.
almost universal
Once your statement is qualified, then it is a matter of degree - how close to universal is "almost" (for you/for me/for whomever), and since I know you have nothing to back up the actual degree - the qualified statement was enough.
before/after
Wow - you really aren't good at this.
You: No such thing as a "former racist". / Stupid blanket statement
Me: e.g. Robert Byrd
You: Never (unless you never meet any humans) / Still stupid blanket statement
Me: stupidity
You: what?
Me: both of those are stupid
You: isn't racism universal
Me: No
You: right it is not universal, why would you think I meant everyone
Me: because of your prior hyperbolic statements
You: I was being colloquial
Me: don't do that - chose your words as if your on a debate site
You: stop calling out my exaggerated statements and debate me
Once your statement is qualified, then it is a matter of degree - how close to universal is "almost" (for you/for me/for whomever), and since I know you have nothing to back up the actual degree - the qualified statement was enough.
You: right it is not universal, why would you think I meant everyone
You are confused. I still mean everyone. You still haven't looked up colloquialism.
The "almost" was just to qualify people isolated from society. That was all. There might be other extreme cases as well. My definition would still categorize your example, Robert Byrd, as a racist.
Anywho. Back to the actual debate. Hopefully, you are no longer confused about what I mean.
So are you saying Robert Byrd is a former racist? So you believe he is no longer racist?
better, but now we are back to what do you consider extreme, etc.
Extreme like isolated from society. Severe developmental disorders. Stuff that removes a person from society while being physically in it. Extreme cases.
For the case of Robert Byrd, he just moved past his hate for blacks. That does not mean he is not a racist anymore. It just means he no longer held prejudices towards blacks (even that is suspect).
Racism is not a bad thing. It is a social mechanism. It is how you make quick judgments. Acting on those prejudices or relying on them completely is a bad thing.
"Is there some percentage you would like to stake out - would you like to try to support it?"
And, if you disagree with the numbers I proffered, can you provide any relevant critique?
he just moved past his hate for blacks. That does not mean he is not a racist anymore.
If he no longer thought blacks were inferior, then yes, he was not a racist anymore. Or, are you using some novel definition for racist?
even that is suspect
How does that link show the loss of his prejudice to be "suspect"?
Racism is not a bad thing.
The mechanism underlying racism was initially a needed one. It's usefulness has diminished greatly and is sometimes counter-productive - whether the negative outweighs the positive is subjective and impossible to precisely measure.
Acting on those prejudices or relying on them completely is a bad thing.
If he no longer thought blacks were inferior, then yes, he was not a racist anymore. Or, are you using some novel definition for racist?
Are you implying racism only applies to prejudice towards black people?
How does that link show the loss of his prejudice to be "suspect"?
Read it. It reveals he was actually in support of the KKK. He just denounced his involvement for his political career. His secret involvement and support were revealed later.
If you are going to question a source, you should probably read it.
The mechanism underlying racism was initially a needed one. It's usefulness has diminished greatly and is sometimes counter-productive - whether the negative outweighs the positive is subjective and impossible to precisely measure.
Its usefulness may be subjective, but the fact that it is still a social mechanism is not.
That means other than extreme cases of social dysfunction, a person will be racist.