CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
17
Yes No
Debate Score:30
Arguments:24
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (10)
 
 No (14)

Debate Creator

andsoccer16(1780) pic



Most racist argument ever posted on CD?

The Civil War affected everybody in the nation - mostly in a negative manner. Slavery, however, mostly affected the Negroids. I might add that, even to the Negroids slavery was not always despised. There were some who, after being given their freedom, would ask for it to be taken away.

Slaves were an investment thus, to further that investment, it was in the slave-owner's best wishes to keep him alive and healthy.

            - Terminator
I know there have been other arguments that probably said some pretty terrible things, but what I'm asking is if this is the most racist argument that wants to be taken seriously and isn't blatent flamebait.

Yes

Side Score: 13
VS.

No

Side Score: 17
2 points

His statement implies that that it is worse to negatively effect white people than black people.

'Negroid' is highly offensive, it's use in that argument adds to it's notoriety.

Is his statement, as he claims, rooted in fact?

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
0 points

His statement implies that that it is worse to negatively effect white people than black people.

Not so. I stated that only Negroids were affected by slavery, whereas the whole of society was injured by the War.

'Negroid' is highly offensive, it's use in that argument adds to it's notoriety.

Negroid is a linguistically, anthropologically, and historically valid term. It is only because of political correctness that one is not allowed to use it.

Is his statement, as he claims, rooted in fact?

Yes, it is.

Side: No
2 points

He wasn't claiming white superiority or shit like that. He was merely making a good point. Yes, I disagree; but still, it's a good point.

Would it be racist to say that if it weren't for slavery, most blacks in America would still be in Africa facing the AIDS and starvation issue? Or would be killed, mutilated, and raped by those militia forces that are OTHER Africans?

No. it's a good point. If you disagree, than argue back. But if you disagree and can't argue back, too fuckin' bad. We can't censor ourselves just because it might hurt someone's feelings. History would be so fucked up if we worried about what might be considered racist.

Side: No
2 points

I do disagree and I will argue back.

The reason that Africa is so fucked up right now is because Europe (and later the U.S.) spend centuries basically raping the continent and slavery was a huge part of that. Yes some African Americans wouldn't have ended up in this country, but it's very likely that the Africa they lived in wouldn't be at all similar to the one we see today. Slavery didn't just hurt the ones we brought over, but also the ones that are currently living there now who have to suffer from serious issues that you mentioned such as AIDS, corruption and political instability.

In addition, I wasn't rejecting historical facts based on the fact that they were racist (because how can a fact be racist) I was calling his claim that a lot of the slaves liked being slaves as racist and blatantly an attempt to revise history (a practice that really does fuck up history). If so many slaves "liked" the way things were we wouldn't see all the slave rebellions and slaves risking their lives to escape.

In addition, you can't deny that we still see the legacy of slavery in society today. Think about other ethnic groups in America: do any of them get treated even close to the same way as African-Americans do? As someone so strongly against affirmative action as you are, I'm surprised you can't realize the implications that not having slavery in our history would have. Do you think that it would even exist at all if our past wasn't so racist? Of course not.

But you're totally right: I'm sorry for pointing it out when someone severely understates the second most atrocious thing that the United States has ever done. I just figured it was so obvious that it didn't need explaining, but clearly I was wrong.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
1 point

I was calling his claim that a lot of the slaves liked being slaves as racist and blatantly an attempt to revise history

It is a fact; an historical fact. It was taken from a non-fiction book I read about a year ago written some 150 years ago.

If so many slaves "liked" the way things were we wouldn't see all the slave rebellions and slaves risking their lives to escape.

How many slaves were in the South? How many escaped, or even tried?

As I stated, there were those who were treated badly - but according to the book I mentioned, those who were mean to their slaves were an abomination to society.

You have fallen prey to Northern Abolitionist propaganda; not so unlikely a fall, I must sadly admit, seeing as how all other views are exorcised from historical textbooks.

Side: No
ThePyg(6756) Disputed
1 point

That's the problem with bleeding hearts; they disregard the historical truth that hurts.

1. Whether America took slaves or not, Europe would have gone into Africa anyway. but AIDS is not a result of European colonization. AIDS originated in Africa (according to scientists, at least). So even if you can somehow claim that starvation and militia forces are ONLY a result of European colonization, AIDS is a result of Africa being Africa.

Before the white man came, though, a less modern version of militia forces existed. Yeah, this shit goes back hundreds of years. Tribes constantly attacked other tribes and took their own slaves. They were the same people who eventually traded with white settlers (slave trading). It was something common among them. But what also happened was what militias do nowadays; mass murder, mutilation, and rape. Also, the taking of children to join their groups or tribes.

Starvation; I will say that if Europe hadn't come along, it may not have been much of an issue as it is today. But that's an uncertainty. I'm only going by what Europe did when they colonized. But genocide and AIDS would be happening anyway, with or without Europe.

Does that excuse slavery itself? Of course not; I'm pretty sure slave traders weren't thinking about the benefits for the eventual gene pool in the long run, they did it out of selfishness and disregard for other human beings. Hell, they didn't even see them as humans (maybe to help them with their moralfaggotry). But what I am saying is that modern African youth is better off because of slavery in America.

2. Most slavers were used to being slaves. Sure, the first generation may not have liked it (even though many of them were slaves under worse conditions in Africa, already), but after a couple of generations it became what they were used to. Hell, it was even common to believe back then that labor workers in the North had it worse than slavers in the South. Yes, there was abuse, and that is where some of the slaves tried to escape, but most slaves didn't attempt to revolt or even escape. Some of them thought it a very stupid idea to try and escape because in the Southern plantations they had food and shelter. They didn't know the outside world and didn't want to. I support the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, but I'm not going to try and revise social history just because I want everything to seem black and white. Terminator made a valid point that was true on many levels (as I explained).

3. And as for the whole point; trying to call someone racist just because it hurts your whole "Blame America first" bleeding heart agenda is intellectually dishonest and historically revisionist. It's as bad as Germany making it illegal for historians to review what exactly happened in the Holocaust (at least that's not the case in America, but your attitude is as bad as Germany's attitude).

I figure, though, that eventually we'll be able to blatantly point out historical facts without some jackass (Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson) calling us racist. What I've pointed out is already historically accepted; we just can't say it in the media.

Side: No

Would it be racist to say that if it weren't for slavery, most blacks in America would still be in Africa facing the AIDS and starvation issue? Or would be killed, mutilated, and raped by those militia forces that are OTHER Africans?

I have said stuff like that before.

I was called a 'racist'.

History would be so fucked up if we worried about what might be considered racist.

They are, and have been for a long time, altering history books to make other people (minorities, etc) look better.

Side: No

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist

Given the definition, the statements are not racist.

I think you fell into a trap. Since the statements cannot be disproved, you jumped on the name calling band wagon. If you feel that the statements can be disproved, then you should have done so in the original debate the argument was posted on.

Side: No

Only a liberal sees racism where a rational person sees legitimacy. I read a diary of a young girl during the Civil War, she said that the slaves were treated well, that hurting a slave was virtually unheard of - though she did hear the occasional story or two, that there were times when freed slaves came to her father asking to be taken in as slaves, and that her and her sister, after learning to read, write, and do arithmetic, were the 'teachers' and the Negroids were the 'students'.

Most of what you've heard is Northern propaganda, it isn't true. Just like the anti-Red American propaganda of the 50s and 60s, and the Anti-Iraq propaganda of today.

Side: No
cwmdulais(188) Disputed
2 points

"a diary of a young girl " I'm sorry but that would be incredibly biased, she probably wouldn't have witnessed half the brutality brought upon the slaves because of her age, and she would be pro slavery.

a large problem was also the slave ships, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASships.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASpunishments.htm

http://www.uni.edu/schneidj/webquests/adayinthelife/slaves.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

with a death rate on the ships of around 50%, around 2-6 million people would have died before they even got to America.

i AM NOT saying that terminator is racist for his comments, just i disagree with his statement.

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
1 point

Who is to say that the information on those links are not solely the worst examples imaginable? Is it not possible that they are 'cherrypicking' and only showing you how bad slave-life was for a fraction of the slaves?

Sure, life was tough for some of them. Some of them. We only hear about the harsh times, but how do you know that the so-called 'harsh times' were only harsh for an extremely small percentage of slaves, and that the others had it fairly good?

It most certainly would not be the first time that people have used propaganda to further an ill-founded agenda.

Side: yes

You want an even more racist comment, but one also based on fact?:

The people of Africa are historically untrustworthy. I take, for an example, the account of Richard Burton as he traversed central Africa. He had hired a group of natives to control the vessel that was to bring them up the river. They did their job, but they did so horribly; for instance, every few hours they would stop rowing, get off the boat, and get drunk. They did this repeatedly, most likely at least doubling the time required for Burton and his party to arrive at their destination.

Africa is a highly diseased land, and the people who live there - Negro and otherwise - are constantly at risk of contracting many diseases including malaria, hepatitis, and typhoid fever; jiggers in the jungle areas and a wide assortment of many poisonous creatures throughout the continent. Those who come to America and the rest of the civilized world run the risk of causing a plague in said countries !

AIDS, a venereal disease rampant throughout the world, began in Africa.

Side: No
1 point

So one group of Africans gets drunk while traveling with some people up a river and the whole of Africa is untrustworthy: nice argument.

Is the fact that the country suffers from myriad diseases evidence of something wrong with the African people?

No one denies that AIDS began in Africa, why is that a negative about Africans?

Side: yes