CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
23
Embrace it Fight it
Debate Score:47
Arguments:48
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Embrace it (18)
 
 Fight it (15)

Debate Creator

Grenache(6053) pic



What to do about 2044 when US whites lose majority?

From census data we get a reasonable projection of when non-whites will finally equal or surpass non-hispanic whites in the US population.  https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf.  Basically it happens somewhere around 2044.  Which in a democracy means sooner or later white dominance in politics and culture will wane.  Your thoughts on the implications?

Embrace it

Side Score: 24
VS.

Fight it

Side Score: 23
3 points

Theoretically the only ways to reverse demographic trends are through:

better birth/death ratios than competitors

immigration control/deportation

war or some other means of massive die off

I would never advocate for any of those, especially in a democracy. To the contrary, I think the shifting demographics in the US are inevitable and should be embraced. All kinds of people need to pull together and work together to uplift society as a whole.

Even if Clinton loses the current election the fact we already had a black president and we almost had a women president reflects a changing population. And the issues that seem firmly entrenched right now, from gun control to abortion to whatever, may have completely different directions in 30 years (if not sooner) depending on which non-white groups grow faster and exert themselves more.

Certainly not every issue we face comes down to white vs non-white. But what I do believe is true is the vast majority of support for Trump comes from white men longing for the way things were. And if they succeed in putting him in it will not only be the swan song, the last gasp of white dominant power, but also will put whites at a less firm footing when they come to the table with other groups in the future. You don't build a campaign on insulting large groups of people and then turn around and get much sympathy or support or cooperation from them.

Side: Embrace it
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
2 points

You are a RACIST ! You have a answer to how you will live under Muslim rule ?

Side: Fight it
Grenache(6053) Disputed
1 point

Nope, there is nothing racist in what I said. I pointed out YOUR demographics are shifting and asked what YOU will do about it if anything.

And Muslim rule has nothing to do with anything anywhere in this debate.

Side: Embrace it
2 points

I say embrace that puppy! It may be a new change of the current pace is in order, like a breath of fresh air, hopefully a good one.

Any ideas I can think of on fighting it.....well, they aren't good and I don't want to see that happen.

Personally I just don't care who is minority and who is majority, we are all part of one race and we need to get over our personal issues and accept one another.

Oh, and I absolutely agree that the majority of people who support Trump are white males wanting things back the way they were when the white male had all the power.

Side: Embrace it
1 point

Well said...................................................................................................

Side: Embrace it
1 point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIi_sUEpQOc

You may like this, it's pretty wonderful

Side: Embrace it
sylynn(626) Disputed
1 point

It is suggested not to speak with such ignorance. I was with you until your last sentence. Why do Clinton supporters think he wants everything to go back to the way it was when white males had the power? Because of his campaign slogan; the same slogan Bill Clinton used when he was running. The difference is Clinton was born and raised in what was a confederate state, where being a white male meant a whole lot more than it did for Trump who was raised in New York.

Side: Fight it
Mint_tea(4641) Clarified
1 point

I can see where you are coming from. It is absolutely my opinion and not fact that the majority of Trump supporters are people wanting that power or history again and that's from observation not statistics. Take what you will from it, I can't stand either candidate.

Side: Embrace it
2 points

What really needs to change is our views on race. We need to stop caring about what color a person is. Your political stance is irrelevant here, but let's face it, a lot of people voted for Obama because he was black. I will not deny racism has been a big part of this nation's history. They way our government and citizens have been fighting it has just made it worse. In order for society to successfully continue, we need to drop race from our vocabulary. We really need people to be blind of skin color. If hiring an equally qualified white man (or woman) instead of a black man because of skin color is racist, the same is true of hiring a black man over a white man.

I don't care that whites might lose majority, I just care that it remains a statistic and that anybody else cares.

Side: Embrace it
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

What really needs to change is our views on race. We need to stop caring about what color a person is.

That would be nice, but study after study shows that subconscious racial associations are very real.

Your political stance is irrelevant here, but let's face it, a lot of people voted for Obama because he was black.

Studies done on it show that if you take the number of people who voted for Obama because of race, and subtract the number of people who voted against him because of race, you get all of like 3 to 5% of voters. That's really not substantial.

In order for society to successfully continue, we need to drop race from our vocabulary.

But it would still exist, and the state of race relations would still exist.

We really need people to be blind of skin color. If hiring an equally qualified white man (or woman) instead of a black man because of skin color is racist, the same is true of hiring a black man over a white man.

Nobody is saying that hiring an equally qualified white man or woman over a black man or woman is overt racism, they are saying that study after study shows that when you put two equally qualified applicants against each other, the white candidate will get the job an overwhelming majority of the time. That's not overt racism, that's systemic racism.

Side: Embrace it
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
2 points

Nobody is saying that hiring an equally qualified white man or woman over a black man or woman is overt racism, they are saying that study after study shows that when you put two equally qualified applicants against each other, the white candidate will get the job an overwhelming majority of the time. That's not overt racism, that's systemic racism.

Do you really believe the nonsense you speak you DUMBASS DEMOCRAT !

Side: Fight it
1 point

I love everything you said and will agree. Thanks. I'm sorry I felt the need to bring it up, but it would not be true to say the current Presidential election has nothing to do with angry white males.

Side: Embrace it
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
2 points

Angry Negros in Charlotte. Why are those Negros angry in Charlotte and burning down their city ? 8 years of the 1st Negro President and those Negros are still angry. How did this happen ? One dead criminal causes all that uprising but where is the uprising for all the black on black crime in Chicago. Seen none how about you ?

Side: Fight it
sylynn(626) Disputed
1 point

Except I will not be voting for Trump because he is a white male like those who are voting for Hillary for no other reason than she is female. I am not opposed to a female being president. I am not opposed to a black female being president. I am opposed to voting for a person who has broken so many laws and lied so many times to the government and the public. If everything about each candidate remained the same, but genders changed, and Trump was the female, I'd proudly be voting for our first female president.

Side: Fight it
1 point

To briefly add to my comment, I think Morgan Freeman put it best when he was asked what should be done to stop racism.

"Stop talking about"

Side: Embrace it
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

So do you truly believe that if we stop talking about racism then it will suddenly go away?

Side: Embrace it
2 points

There are loads of countries that don't have white majorities. Why does it matter? Unless someone is particularly racist it should make no difference to them.

It's also good to note that this wouldn't be a sudden change. The change is already happening and it's going to be very gradual - even the racists will have ample time to accommodate themselves with the changing demographics.

Side: Embrace it

Not much of a fight required.

Brains will always reign supreme over brawn.

The official 2016 figure for the population of Africa is 1.26 billion, yet most of them are still floating around in dugout canoes and blaming the west for not providing them with free medicines as well as other basic necessities.

Whether the Bongo is in deepest Africa of Manhattan they'll still be the same pathetic bunch of whingers who haven't the ability to form effective cohesive administrations nor establish successful multi-national corporations.

Up the Nile or down the Mississippi the Bongo will always blame the white man for his woeful failings.

Regardless of their numbers they do not represent any threat or even a serious challenge to the whiteman's indisputable supremacy.

They simply haven't the brains.

Side: Fight it
shaash(434) Disputed
2 points

The culture of Africa, India, and China, was VERY different than the West. When the ego-filled Westerners came, they saw a different culture and decided theirs was more superior. Therefore, they enslaved the native people, and stole all of their wealth.

Then, once they had this wealth, the minority of super-rich people that had nothing to do but were not lazy asses became wonderful inventors and scientists. Muslims, Africans, Indians, and the Chinese also had their own brilliant thinkers, probably more than in the West, but that changed when the West used their ideology of conquest to rob all the other civilizations that believed in peace and focused on science instead of weaponry.

Then, the other civilizations had no money and were forced to focus on working to make money for their western rulers. They ran out of resources and time to study science. And now they are poor.

Knowing this history, how can you say the West has superior intellect? If you go to somewhere like India or Africa, you will notice many of the schoolchildren, even though they are surrounded by poverty, are dedicated to learning so they can grow up to be scientists, politicians, businessmen, doctors, etc.

However, I see kids in America that are just trying to find out ways to do drugs and have sex without getting caught by their parents. Not just black kids, many white kids as well.

They simply haven't the brains.

Side: Embrace it

You are talking to an actual, legitimate white supremacist. We are talking the type of person who believes that Africans are genetically inferior.

Trying to discuss the realities of history and how it applies to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (and further how that relates to scientific and cultural progress) is, unfortunately, a fruitless endeavor.

Side: Embrace it
Atrag(5666) Clarified
2 points

.. Or when they become president...?

Urg why is it that racists are never the least bit intelligent. It might make a fun debate if they were.

Side: Embrace it
Winklepicker(1021) Clarified
1 point

Obama' ascendancy is half Irish ( Offlay ) half African.

Every fool, even one as thick as you know that there are exceptions.

Shitheads would also recognize that the allegations blacks are discriminated against is annulled when we see a Black man occupying the highest office in the land.

Side: Embrace it
Grenache(6053) Disputed
1 point

The question was about US democracy, not world conquest....................................

Side: Embrace it
1 point

Start a war before 2044 and kill as many brown people as possible. ;)

Side: Fight it