#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Racism is Wrong
True
Side Score: 89
|
 |
False
Side Score: 78
|
|
3
points
Rascism is wrong because I have experienced it. It is a terrible thing they make you feel like you are less of a peson because of your skin color which makes you scared. It makes you have fear inside. Thinking that somebody is gonna get you somebody is going to hurt you because the color of your skin. Thinking somebody wouldn't give you the care you need because of the color of your skin. What are you to do? Its not your fault. Don't be racist because it makes the other person feel like they are in danger. Side: True
1
point
I could list a hundred reasons as to why it's wrong but I am hoping that people already know. Discrimination in all forms are WRONG. People regardless of race have been victims in this way. So the next time you see someone over weight using the electric shopping cart at the store, instead of judging and making rude comments, we need to be more understanding. We need to walk a mile in the others shoes... Side: True
So the next time you see someone over weight using the electric shopping cart at the store, instead of judging and making rude comments, we need to be more understanding. We need to walk a mile in the others shoes... It is easy to walk a mile in those shoes, they are riding a motorized cart, no walking at all. ;) Side: True
1
point
1
point
I don't think fat people in rascals should not be judged. Like come on, most fat people are fat from over eating, and only a small percent get that weight from a diseases. If you are obese from a disease I'm sorry for you, but most fat people need to get off their butts. Also, if one day I woke up and was obese, this would be my reaction. "Holy shit I'm a fat guy, I need to get my ass to the gym" Side: False
0
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
Discrimination based on skin color is wrong is so many ways. If you believe in evolution, like me, you probably know that the different skin colors were created by human migration. People in Africa had access to lots of light, lots of vitamin D, so they didn't need that light of a skin color for the amount of vitamin D to be sufficient. People that have migrated, on the other hand, didn't have that much access to the sun, so mutations occurred that were beneficial, the black people died more easily, (from lack of vitamin D) and there were more white people farther north. If people were more educated about this, then there would be at least a little bit less racism in our world. Side: True
0
points
|
3
points
I thought that would be a funny way to point out your typo. I don't know if you have ever seen the show House, but it had that issue. A black guy came into the hospital and the black doctor told him that people of African descent are more prone to sickle cell. The patient gets upset and leaves saying he doesn't want racist medicine. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
Excuse me, sir, but I was not insulting you at any point- I was asking you a question. You've answered it inadvertently. I wouldn't care much at all if you said that I must have come from London because of my skin tone. If your mother is an immigrant from a country in Africa, then she is African-American. If you were born in the US, however, you are not African-American. You are just American, as am I. You are of, presumably, primarily African descent. I am descended from, in order from most to least: Cherokee, Irish, Spanish, African (unaware of her country of origin, unfortunately), French, and Chinese. But I'm not a Native-Irish-Spanish-African-French- "African-American" as a politically correct term for black Americans is ridiculous because it is completely incorrect. Unless I'm mistaken, you never held citizenship in any nation but the US, and haven't lived in any other nation- correct? That makes you American. Side: False
So basically you're saying stereotyping is okay, and accurate? I'll have you know if a person is walking around in the dead of night with really baggy pants, an over sized shirt, and perhaps a team hat, it doesn't matter what their skin color is, they are probably still looking to steal. Side: True
2
points
1
point
Alright I'll spell it out for you if you insist. I see a group of black men on one side of the street and a group of white men on the other. I think to myself that the black people can collectively jump higher, eat more fried chicken, have bigger penises etc. Let me first say that all of that is incredibly unacceptable and tasteless and doesn't at all reflect my personal thoughts, because I'm sure you'll call me bigoted if I don't. Even though all of these are blatantly racist and sterotypical, they have the possibility of being correct. I'll admit that my point was more about semantics than anything, I was just trying to take another angle on the question. Side: False
1
point
Try considering EVERY bit of racism. The idea of black people liking fried chicken is racist because it of a presumed belief. They say, "oh ha ha ha never mind about asking about dinner heh heh it's gonna be fried chicken, am I right aaaaahhhhhAHAHAHAHH" But the place where most racism occurs is with Asians. Chinese people, Korean people, Japanese people, those guys. If you say to someone, "hey chink the onry prace you can succeed is under basketbarr backboald because that where you pass dlivel test haha now go eat some rice and squid balls," you are essentially being racist. What? You have never said anything like that before? I doubt that. Virtually everyone on this earth has made an insulting racist joke before. I have once before in my life, but instead of continuing it I stopped it like a good person. Side: True
Try considering EVERY bit of racism. That doesn't make any sense. We should only be considering the racism in question. He said his racist notions come true. So, my comment should only be about racist notions that turn out to be true, not all racism. The idea of black people liking fried chicken is racist because it of a presumed belief. They say, "oh ha ha ha never mind about asking about dinner heh heh it's gonna be fried chicken, am I right aaaaahhhhhAHAHAHAHH" Ok, so you are saying that I was correct in including fried chicken in my example? But the place where most racism occurs is with Asians. Chinese people, Korean people, Japanese people, those guys. If you say to someone, "hey chink the onry prace you can succeed is under basketbarr backboald because that where you pass dlivel test haha now go eat some rice and squid balls," you are essentially being racist. Ok, so racial slurs are racist. What does that have to do with what I said? Note: I am glad that you are so not racist that you don't even know real Asian racism. What? You have never said anything like that before? I doubt that. Correct, no one has ever said that. It doesn't make sense. Asians aren't good enough at basketball to pass a driving test on a basketball court either. Virtually everyone on this earth has made an insulting racist joke before. I have once before in my life, but instead of continuing it I stopped it like a good person. What does that have to do with anything. Troy said he has imagined someone acted a certain way because of stereotypes, and several times they actually acted that way. Side: False
You were only pertaining only to the black people fried chicken example. That does not make any sense. What? Where did you even assume that? You said that liking fried chicken is fine. However, it is considered racist when you automatically associate liking fried chicken with black people. Yes, nice job. I was providing you with the most popular place to make racist remarks. Asians. What is confusing about that? Note: thanks, thank you very much. I am Asian myself, and this is kinda what I hear almost every day, so... Where do you come up with these presumptions? I am saying that if you are racist, you should essentially stop being racist. I was not trying to brag or jinx myself or anyone else or whatever. I was merely telling you that if you stopped, you would be rid of it for good and no one would ridicule you. Side: True
You were only pertaining only to the black people fried chicken example. That does not make any sense. Troy said that sometimes he has racist thoughts that come true. I am saying the racist thoughts that turn out to be true only turn out to be true because of the universality of the thoughts. He was talking about a subset of racist thoughts and it doesn't make sense for you to mention that I need to address all racism. What? Where did you even assume that? You said that liking fried chicken is fine. However, it is considered racist when you automatically associate liking fried chicken with black people. Do you disagree? Do you think it isn't racist to say black people like fried chicken? Yes, nice job. I was providing you with the most popular place to make racist remarks. Asians. What is confusing about that? Note: thanks, thank you very much. I am Asian myself, and this is kinda what I hear almost every day, so... You must be around some people who can't even articulate racial slurs because what you wrote made no sense. Where do you come up with these presumptions? I am saying that if you are racist, you should essentially stop being racist. I was not trying to brag or jinx myself or anyone else or whatever. I was merely telling you that if you stopped, you would be rid of it for good and no one would ridicule you. Agreed. I am saying that when people say that their racist thoughts come true it is because they are making general statements that are true of more than just the race in question. Troy said that sometimes his racist thoughts are occasionally correct. So, that's where my presumptions came from. I was not endorsing racial stereotyping. Side: False
I saw what Troy said. However, if you simply say that all people like fried chicken, it is not considered racist; saying black people like fried chicken implies racist notions. Therefore, addressing just a certain subset of racism does not make a sufficient argument for racism as a whole. Troy says racism can ultimately be true to certain people. Saying something racist to someone or a group of people is considered insulting. That is what racism is. Making "premeditated notions about an individual based on their appearance." Are you serious? I said that it IS racist when you associate black people with automatically liking fried chicken. Yes, good job. It isn't like I was insulting YOU with that slur... Once again, that is only WHEN people's racist thoughts come true, and only to a particular subset of people or whatever. What you said was particular to the RACE ITSELF. Automatically associating black people with fried chicken is racist, I know you know that. There are some people, however, who wonder even about why they do that to them. They wonder, "Why not Indians? Why not white people? Why is it blacks?" This is where they assume it is a racist thought. I know what Troy said. He addressed a particular aspect of racism. I understand that. Your example is not supporting his statement, because black people will take that offensively no matter if you did not mean to say it. I don't blame them. Why would you bring up blacks with fried chicken? That is a racist notion, no matter what, when you are saying that they always like fried chicken. Yes, it is not racist when you say other people like fried chicken, but that is OTHER PEOPLE. If you show to a black guy that you think he loves fried chicken, it is considered racist. There is a chance perhaps four times out of ten that he might NOT like fried chicken. You said, "who doesn't like fried chicken?" There are lots of people included in that category who don't like fried chicken. Most likely some black people. If you weren't, just do not say something like that. Side: True
All I did was pick a well known racist notion and explained why it comes true. There is no reason why you should be hassling me and not Troy. Why would you bring up blacks with fried chicken? That is a racist notion Troy said racists notions can come true. It makes sense to bring up an example of racist notions coming true, right? Side: True
As I said, associating black people with fried chicken is not okay, especially if you are saying that it is okay by having small examples. It is quite clear that generalizing a racist joke is not racist, since it is not to the race itself. I am saying that black people should not---and never---be presumed to like eating fried chicken. That is correct, though I don't FULLY agree with him. I know what Troy is saying, but I can't actually agree with him since racist thoughts are just never meant to be okay in any circumstance and should never be thought of as okay. Continuing what was said earlier in my argument, generalizing a racist joke isn't considered racist, because it is addressed to a general group of people; HOWEVER, if you are to even try to mention that to the person you are making the notion AT, you are in an even worse position that you were in if you had just merely made the joke. This does not mean I support saying a racist thought, it means that racist notions are always bad. You made an example, but you were wrong in making the example. Side: True
I am saying that black people should not---and never---be presumed to like eating fried chicken. I disagree. Everyone should be presumed to like fried chicken. It is delicious. You made an example, but you were wrong in making the example. I didn't say the example was true or that I believed it. I am not wrong for writing down a racist notion in a discussion about racist notions. Side: True
Not sure if you're using sarcasm or not... So why did you choose to make the example? It is wrong because you should never presume a black person likes eating fried chicken when they could actually not like eating fried chicken. It is simple; do not make those kinds of presumptions. Do not state they like fried chicken, do not even ask if they like fried chicken. If you are at KFC, just let them order what they want to order. Don't ask if they want fried chicken. Like I said: I understand what Troy is saying about racist notions, but what you said about black people and fried chicken is not right at all no matter if it is a generalization or not. I never said I completely agreed with Troy. Because of your logic, I do not think that I would agree with you completely either. This is what I mean. Side: True
Not sure if you're using sarcasm or not... It isn't sarcasm. So why did you choose to make the example? I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. The example is a well known generalization that people make. I mentioned it because it is a racist notion that I know people have and we are having a discussion about racist notions. It is wrong because you should never presume a black person likes eating fried chicken Stop being racist. Blacks are people too. I presume every human likes fried chicken, I don't treat black people differently. but what you said about black people and fried chicken is not right at all no matter if it is a generalization or not. That isn't true. If the black person ends up liking fried chicken the statement fits for that person. Because of your logic, I do not think that I would agree with you completely either. Can you actually explain my point? Side: False
Please read the rest of my arguments if you do not understand what I am saying. ...since when did I ever make a racist notion? If you presume every human being likes fried chicken, is not racist. I have told you countless times that I understand what Troy is saying. I said that a generalization should not be mentioned to a black person, however, because they know those offensive racist jokes that you are trying to avoid telling them. ........just please read my arguments. If you make this generalization known to the black person, you will offend them. Do not just ask them if they want to eat fried chicken for lunch or dinner or whatever, just let them determine what they wish to eat. If they end up saying they want to have fried chicken, then it is not racist. I know that, I understand what you are saying. However, if you make the notion before, you will most likely be criticized as being racist. .......you were saying how you never actually agreed with what you said (weird, yes), and since I do not share opinions with Troy, you must think that I support you. This is what I have seen based on your statements. Now, can you actually understand what my point is? (If you don't know, I have put my points down in my arguments. Just try and read them over a bit to understand. Don't just pick little bits of statements and try to determine from them what I am saying as a whole. Just read the entire thing. That is what I do.) Side: True
Please read the rest of my arguments if you do not understand what I am saying. Why don't you read any of my arguments to figure out what I am saying? ...since when did I ever make a racist notion? This debate is about racist notions. That is a simple fact that you don't seem to grasp. If we are having a debate about racist notions, then mentioning an example of a racist notion is normal. That is what I did. I haven't accused you of making a racist notion. I have told you countless times that I understand what Troy is saying. I am trying to tell you to understand what I am saying. I haven't mentioned Troy in a while. I said that a generalization should not be mentioned to a black person, however, because they know those offensive racist jokes that you are trying to avoid telling them. Right, but I am not even talking about things you say to black people, I am just talking about racist thoughts people have. Definitely agree that you shouldn't mention it to a black person. ........just please read my arguments. I have read your arguments as much as you have read mine. ;) If you make this generalization known to the black person, you will offend them. Do not just ask them if they want to eat fried chicken for lunch or dinner or whatever, just let them determine what they wish to eat. If they end up saying they want to have fried chicken, then it is not racist. I know that, I understand what you are saying. However, if you make the notion before, you will most likely be criticized as being racist I was also saying that if a black person happens to eat fried chicken it isn't because they are black. I agree that mentioning it will sound racist. .......you were saying how you never actually agreed with what you said (weird, yes), and since I do not share opinions with Troy, you must think that I support you. This is what I have seen based on your statements. That isn't the point I am trying to make at all. I never said anything close to "how can you not support me, I don't agree with Troy". I am saying that when someone's racist notion comes true it is usually because it represents something inherent with all of humanity, and not just the race in question. Also, I am not exactly sure why you find it weird that someone doesn't actually hold an example as a core belief. Have you never used examples before? Now, can you actually understand what my point is? I am not sure anyone can. You seem to be saying that if you make a generalization about a race you will come across as racist, and if you mention your generalization someone of that race they will consider you racist. And those racist notions are bad. (If you don't know, I have put my points down in my arguments. Just try and read them over a bit to understand. Don't just pick little bits of statements and try to determine from them what I am saying as a whole. Just read the entire thing. That is what I do.) I would have to disagree here. This isn't anywhere close to what you do. I mentioned that black people liking fried chicken was an example of a racist notion and since then you have considered me a racist for having that bit of text in my argument. Maybe if you had read my whole argument you wouldn't have a problem. Side: False
I am reading them as you respond to my arguments. Those are your arguments, are they not? Again, don't make so simple presumptions; I never agreed with making racist notions which is why I am arguing with you over this. What is so difficult about that? Racist notions are considered racist. I don't agree with racism. You have said countless times that you have been saying things based off Troy's statements. You have just said that you haven't mentioned him in a while; if you decided not to care about his comment anymore, why are you saying that Troy said it and not you? You keep contradicting yourself. Decide if you are with Troy or if you aren't. Then return to me and I will try and talk to you again. You said yourself that you don't actually agree with the things you are saying. How can I not make the assumption that you don't agree with Troy if you don't actually support what you are saying? I don't agree with Troy because I don't agree with you for supporting his statement with the example of black people and fried chicken; I am not in agreement with you because black people should not ever be presumed to liking fried chicken. I understand what he is saying because I have read it countless times already. I did give you an example to look at, and I actually support it: the KFC lunch example. Please read it over again. ^_^ Please read my arguments again. ;) "I mentioned that black people liking fried chicken was an example of a racist notion and since then you have considered me a racist for having that bit of text in my argument" Oh, my goodness. You have contradicted yourself twice so far in this conversation. I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion. Don't ever think that they like fried chicken before they reveal to you that they do. If you don't understand, please try reading my arguments one more time. I am addressing you head-on. Your arguments are basically your responses to my arguments. Are they not? Besides, if you did not understand what I was saying why were you seemingly agreeing with my examples? I am fine if you don't agree with all of them, but it is so very awkward to see someone claim they don't understand what you are saying when they have informed you that they agree with most of the examples they have stated. (For example, in the KFC situation you should never ask your black friend if he wants fried chicken. As well as this, you shouldn't really ever ask him if he wants to go to KFC. Ask him where he wants to go, and if he tells you that he wants to eat fried chicken after all you don't have to worry about being a racist anymore, and you could, perhaps, tell him you like fried chicken as well. You agreed with all these things, because you have seemingly read all my arguments.) Side: True
I am reading them as you respond to my arguments. Those are your arguments, are they not? Apparently it made sense for you to accuse me of not reading your arguments when I addressed them. Why would it be weird for me to accuse you of the same thing? I see you responding, but your responses don't seem to indicate that you read anything. Again, don't make so simple presumptions; I never agreed with making racist notions which is why I am arguing with you over this. What is so difficult about that? Racist notions are considered racist. I don't agree with racism. I have no idea what this is in response to. This should never have been written based on what I wrote. There wasn't a single presumption in my last argument. But, I understand your point. You have said countless times that you have been saying things based off Troy's statements. You have just said that you haven't mentioned him in a while; if you decided not to care about his comment anymore, why are you saying that Troy said it and not you? You keep contradicting yourself. Decide if you are with Troy or if you aren't. Then return to me and I will try and talk to you again. I am trying to get you to understand what I wrote regardless of what Troy wrote. That's what I meant. I will repeat that for you. I want you to understand what I wrote as if Troy didn't write anything. I believe that what Troy said is worthless You said yourself that you don't actually agree with the things you are saying. How can I not make the assumption that you don't agree with Troy if you don't actually support what you are saying? I don't agree with Troy because I don't agree with you for supporting his statement with the example of black people and fried chicken; I am not in agreement with you because black people should not ever be presumed to liking fried chicken. If you presume everyone likes fried chicken you are a racist for not presuming black people like fried chicken. ;) I understand what he is saying This is getting really funny. I am not talking about what Troy said. I am talking only about what I said. I tell you that we aren't talking about what Troy said, and you come back and tell me I am talking about what Troy said and then repeat that you understand what Troy said. I did give you an example to look at, and I actually support it: the KFC lunch example. Please read it over again. ^_^ Why do I need to read it over again? I already addressed it. It is bad to interrupt someone who is trying to have lunch to explain to them that you know they want fried chicken. I agree, that is bad. Please read my arguments again. ;) Please read my arguments for a first time. ;) You have contradicted yourself twice so far in this conversation. You misread. I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion. You are a racist then. You think that presuming black people like fried chicken is a racist notion as well. You have now contradicted yourself twice on this topic. You have said that it isn't, is, and isn't again. I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion. Don't ever think that they like fried chicken before they reveal to you that they do. If you don't understand, please try reading my arguments one more time. YOUR WORDS MAKE NO SENSE. You are calling me a racist for saying that thinking black people like fried chicken is considered racist, and you are calling me racist for thinking black people like fried chicken. This is the definition of insane. Rereading stuff that makes no sense will not make sense reading it a second time. My position is that black people like fried chicken because fried chicken tastes good, not because they are black. I also wouldn't think it was weird if a black person, or any person, didn't like fried chicken. I am addressing you head-on. You would like to believe that, but when I try talking to you about what I said you respond with saying you understand what Troy said. Your arguments are basically your responses to my arguments. Are they not? Besides, if you did not understand what I was saying why were you seemingly agreeing with my examples? I am fine if you don't agree with all of them, but it is so very awkward to see someone claim they don't understand what you are saying when they have informed you that they agree with most of the examples they have stated. (For example, in the KFC situation you should never ask your black friend if he wants fried chicken. As well as this, you shouldn't really ever ask him if he wants to go to KFC. Ask him where he wants to go, and if he tells you that he wants to eat fried chicken after all you don't have to worry about being a racist anymore, and you could, perhaps, tell him you like fried chicken as well. You agreed with all these things, because you have seemingly read all my arguments.) The reason I disagree with you is because I agree with what you say and you call me a racist. So, since you think you are a racist I have to disagree with you. Side: True
I am reading your arguments as you argue with me. Those are your arguments. Understand this for a second. I did not agree with you saying that black people eating fried chicken is not racist. You disputed what I said. I disputed what you said. Thus, an argument such as this occurred. You say that you don't agree with what Troy said, yet you defend him on his comments with other people. There are also statements in which you claim that it was what Troy said and that what he said supports yours. You shouldn't have to even search to which argument I am disputing. If you have no idea what this was supposed to dispute, then don't presume that it should never have been written based on what you wrote. ;) Okay, good, you listened. However, you provided an example to Troy's statement about black people eating fried chicken. You told me that it was an example of a racist notion that is not racist. Now, you say that what Troy said was absolutely useless to this argument when you had provided the example because of him. This tells me a few things: 1) you said you ended up agreeing with me in the end when you really did not at the beginning 2) you claim you agree with me but you still argue with me 3) you end up contradicting yourself once more. :| Wow, no way this is actually happening; I said that a racist notion is one such as presuming a black person likes fried chicken. FOR EXAMPLE, when you take out a black friend you just made to lunch and you ask him if he wants fried chicken, he will take that offensively in the most likely scenario because he knows that you are saying it based off of a common racist notion. Now, if it IS NOT a black person, and it is just an Asian person or a white person, you are not being racist for asking them if they want fried chicken because they know it is not a common racist notion. For some reason, people say BLACK people like fried chicken instead of WHITE or ASIAN people. This targeting of specific race is something called racism. When it is essentially NOT black people, they will not take it offensively because it is not meant for them. (Apparently, there is actually a reason for the notion, but all of the black people already know to hate it.) -_- I am fully convinced now that you make judgments based on the starts of people's statements. I never said that presuming black people to liking fried chicken is not racist. In fact, I have been saying the exact opposite this entire time. Please read my arguments. Perhaps you are confused because you did not read the rest of my KFC lunch example. I said at the end that this is known as a racist notion, and that it is not good. Calm yourself. Do you think that I haven't gotten as angry as you have this entire time? Just because you are angry does not give you the right to yell at me. Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy. -pauses to try and relieve your anger- Now if you notice, "presuming black people liking fried chicken" is a racist notion such as "presuming black people like fried chicken because THEY THINK it tastes good." Automatically thinking that black people like fried chicken is bad enough, but what you don't realize is " that they think fried chicken is good because you think THEY think it tastes good" is even worse. Now you are simply saying that their INTERESTS FOR FOOD are in fried chicken. They will assume you are being racist with them UNLESS you tell them that you like fried chicken and you were wondering if they would like it too. Maybe eight times out of ten they are not going to take it offensively. Not ten times because they might not have completely heard you. (Only at this point will they most likely not take it offensively, just in case you didn't hear what I said earlier :|) I am responding to you with what Troy said because you yourself said in the beginning that you made an EXAMPLE of what Troy was saying; that was all you said, so I disagreed with you, and you got angry or whatever at what I said and said it was not true racism. I told you that it is racist when you presume black people like fried chicken and you responded with "He [Troy] said his racist notions come true. So, my comment should only be about racist notions that turn out to be true..." and "so you are saying that I was correct in including fried chicken in my example?" -pauses to try and relieve your anger- AFTER THIS you said, "Troy [TROY] said he has imagined someone acted a certain way because of stereotypes, and several times they actually acted that way" which is what you are (or were, apparently) supporting. I am not in consent with the example you made of Troy's statement because I don't agree with what he said in the first place, and you say now that you think his comment is worthless. Side: True
I am reading your arguments as you argue with me. Then, in that case you need better comprehension skills. Those are your arguments. Understand this for a second. What you write back as what I said is not the argument I was making. I did not agree with you saying that black people eating fried chicken is not racist. I never said that saying black people eating fried chicken is not racist. I am the only one who has consistently said it was racist. You have now said that it wasn't racist twice and is racist 2 or 3 times. You say that you don't agree with what Troy said, yet you defend him on his comments with other people. There are also statements in which you claim that it was what Troy said and that what he said supports yours. I did not mean to defend what Troy said. I didn't defend Troy's comments to anyone else I explained how what Troy said was racist when the other person defended him. I never said that what Troy said supported me. You shouldn't have to even search to which argument I am disputing. If you have no idea what this was supposed to dispute, then don't presume that it should never have been written based on what you wrote. ;) I will give you a problem with this line of thought after I report you for murdering your neighbor. It is weird that you would admit that you murdered your neighbor on here. In this day and age you aren't safe from the cops finding you just by being on the internet. Well, the cops will be by soon to arrest you after you admitted killing your neighbor. You told me that it was an example of a racist notion that is not racist. No, I did not. This is where everything went wrong for you. Troy said that sometimes racist thoughts come true, not that racist thoughts weren't racist I never said that racist thoughts weren't racist or that black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion that isn't racist. Black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion that is racist and it sometimes comes true because everyone likes fried chicken. The best thing to do here would be to recognize that and reevaluate your arguments. I never said that presuming black people to liking fried chicken is not racist. You did, but it was by accident, so I will not hold it against you. Calm yourself. I was not angry, I was trying to speak loud enough for you to hear me. It was for emphasis. Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. False statement. Please go back and read. I literally have an argument I posted with one of the paragraphs starting with the sentence "Agreed." That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy. This is the definition of insanity. You tell me that I am bad for not agreeing with you, then you admit to me agreeing with you. You admit that I disagreed with Troy's statement (said it was worthless) then you seem to lump me in with him. You continually accuse me of being on your side, but somehow have it in your head that I am not on your side. You have 2 directly opposite beliefs. Now if you notice, "presuming black people liking fried chicken" is a racist notion such as "presuming black people like fried chicken because THEY THINK it tastes good." Automatically thinking that black people like fried chicken is bad enough, but what you don't realize is " that they think fried chicken is good because you think THEY think it tastes good" is even worse. Now you are simply saying that their INTERESTS FOR FOOD are in fried chicken. They will assume you are being racist with them UNLESS you tell them that you like fried chicken and you were wondering if they would like it too. Maybe eight times out of ten they are not going to take it offensively. Not ten times because they might not have completely heard you. (Only at this point will they most likely not take it offensively, just in case you didn't hear what I said earlier :|) The use of pronouns has made it difficult to understand exactly what you are trying to say. I don't do any of the stuff that you have suggested here, and I haven't advocating doing any of that stuff, so we are in agreement. I am responding to you with what Troy said because you yourself said in the beginning that you made an EXAMPLE of what Troy was saying; that was all you said, so I disagreed with you, and you got angry or whatever at what I said and said it was not true racism. I told you that it is racist when you presume black people like fried chicken and you responded with "He [Troy] said his racist notions come true. So, my comment should only be about racist notions that turn out to be true..." and "so you are saying that I was correct in including fried chicken in my example?" Again, no one said anything about not true racism. This is something you made up in your head. You need to reevaluate your objection to what I have said. AFTER THIS you said, "Troy [TROY] said he has imagined someone acted a certain way because of stereotypes, and several times they actually acted that way" which is what you are (or were, apparently) supporting. Not supporting. Just explaining why his racist thoughts end up coming true. I am not in consent with the example you made of Troy's statement because I don't agree with what he said in the first place, and you say now that you think his comment is worthless. I am not sure what it means to be in consent to my example. You accused me of being wrong for even bringing it up. You have not explained how bringing it up was in poor taste. My original explanation of Troy's statement demonstrates how his statement was worthless, so it isn't just "now". Side: False
You cannot just presume I am bad at reading comprehension. When a person is arguing with you, their own words are their arguments. Therefore, since your words are in response to mine, those are your arguments. I have been reading them. I do not agree with the statement "black people liking fried chicken is not racist." This means that I DO think black people liking fried chicken is racist, because I DON'T think that saying it isn't racist is true. If you still do not understand, use Boolean algebra or whatever and cancel out the "not" and the "not." This should give you "I agree that saying black people like eating fried chicken is racist." "I did not mean to defend what Troy said." This is all I really need, okay? Understand? I have told you many times already that you have unconsciously given an example of Troy's belief. You said that an example of what he said was "presuming black people like fried chicken is not racist" (not quoting you). I did not agree with this, because I think that presuming black people like eating fried chicken IS racist. :| "I will give you a problem with this line of thought after I report you for murdering your neighbor. It is weird that you would admit that you murdered your neighbor on here. In this day and age you aren't safe from the cops finding you just by being on the internet. Well, the cops will be by soon to arrest you after you admitted killing your neighbor." ?????? Oh, my dear poop. I have also told you that I think presuming black people like eating fried chicken is racist. I tried explaining that, but you argued with me. I didn't understand why, exactly, you chose to dispute me when you said before that you didn't actually dispute me. -pauses to try to relieve your anger- Hm...can you perhaps give me a quote in which I said that? Oh, uhm...this is awkward...or when you thought I said that? Uhm, speaking loud enough does not mean using all caps. If what you wanted was emphasis, just say it calmly. You understand what I am saying whenever I speak calmly. Why not try the other way around as well? Yet you disagree with everything else I say. I saw your paragraph, but what Troy said that you supported with an example was that racist notions are actually not racist sometimes and come true. I don't agree, because racist notions are always racist since you are addressing a specific race, and not in general of all the races. I told you this, you agreed ONCE and now disagree every other time. ??? Holy shoot, when have I? You support me, but you still try to argue with me. That is not right! That doesn't make sense! I don't support what Troy said, and since you disagreed with me disagreeing with Troy, I don't agree with you. Here, what you are saying is that even though I don't agree with you, you think that you have been convincing me that you are with me. -pauses to relieve your anger- I never contradicted myself. I have always supported the statement that presuming a black person likes fried chicken is a racist notion. Okay, uhm, I don't think you notice what I'm saying here. I understand that a racist notion made could actually be true in some cases, but it is still not right to make the notion. If you were to try to not offend the person, just don't say it in the first place. Yes, you are right that black people could end up liking fried chicken, but if you asked them in the first place, they would take it offensively. (Also, what would happen if they told you they didn't like eating it?) Side: True
You cannot just presume I am bad at reading comprehension. It isn't a presumption. You have no idea what I have been writing because you can't read good. I have seen what you wrote in your horrible arguments and it has led me to the conclusion, so it isn't a presumption. This word presume, you keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. ;) When a person is arguing with you, their own words are their arguments. Therefore, since your words are in response to mine, those are your arguments. I have been reading them. I do not agree with the statement "black people liking fried chicken is not racist." Good, now I have proof you have no reading comprehension skills. NOBODY said that black people liking fried chicken is not racist. This is now at least the second time I have explained to you that no one said that. This means that I DO think black people liking fried chicken is racist, because I DON'T think that saying it isn't racist is true. If you still do not understand, use Boolean algebra or whatever and cancel out the "not" and the "not." This should give you "I agree that saying black people like eating fried chicken is racist." I know this. I understand what you are saying. I know how to read. "I did not mean to defend what Troy said." This is all I really need, okay? Understand? I have told you many times already that you have unconsciously given an example of Troy's belief. You said that an example of what he said was "presuming black people like fried chicken is not racist" (not quoting you). I did not agree with this, because I think that presuming black people like eating fried chicken IS racist. No, the example was when a you think a black person will like fried chicken because you are racist, and the black person you thought would like fried chicken actually ends up liking fried chicken. No one said anything about it not being racist. It was all about whether or not it comes true. :| "I will give you a problem with this line of thought after I report you for murdering your neighbor. It is weird that you would admit that you murdered your neighbor on here. In this day and age you aren't safe from the cops finding you just by being on the internet. Well, the cops will be by soon to arrest you after you admitted killing your neighbor." ?????? What? You like claiming I do things that I never did, why not tell you about the things you never did? Oh, my dear poop. I have also told you that I think presuming black people like eating fried chicken is racist. I tried explaining that, but you argued with me. I didn't understand why, exactly, you chose to dispute me when you said before that you didn't actually dispute me. Because like I said, you completely misinterpreted what I said then called me a racist. Why wouldn't I dispute you calling me a racist? Hm...can you perhaps give me a quote in which I said that? Oh, uhm...this is awkward...or when you thought I said that? "It is quite clear that generalizing a racist joke is not racist, since it is not to the race itself." "I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion." Uhm, speaking loud enough does not mean using all caps. If what you wanted was emphasis, just say it calmly. You understand what I am saying whenever I speak calmly. Why not try the other way around as well? If I tell you it wasn't in anger, it wasn't in anger. I am trying to speak loud enough so that you hear me over your dumb thoughts which drown out all knowledge. How come you see one line of text that wasn't "calm" and you decide that the massive wall of text in my arguments isn't calm? It is because you have a case of the dumb. Yet you disagree with everything else I say. I saw your paragraph, but what Troy said that you supported with an example was that racist notions are actually not racist sometimes and come true. I don't agree, because racist notions are always racist since you are addressing a specific race, and not in general of all the races. I told you this, you agreed ONCE and now disagree every other time. ??? I quoted you: "Now, you have never agreed with what I said" you literally said I never once agreed with you. So, you coming back and claiming that you said that I have agreed with you is a total lie. I obviously can't agree with everything you say because you have called me racist. I have agreed with you on many occasions. All I need is one example to show the statement that I never agree with you is false. Holy shoot, when have I? You support me, but you still try to argue with me. That is not right! That doesn't make sense! I don't support what Troy said, and since you disagreed with me disagreeing with Troy, I don't agree with you. I quoted you saying it. Read the paragraph I quoted. You claim to not like Troy's statement, and I claimed that Troy's statement is worthless. So, we should be in agreement. But, you are against me, so you think Troy's statement is accurate. So, you are in favor of using racist notions, and I am against you because you are a racist. Here, what you are saying is that even though I don't agree with you, you think that you have been convincing me that you are with me. No, what I am saying here is that you get super specific about how bad it is to use racist notions, and your word choice has made it hard to figure out if I fully agree with what you said. I will use plain English to reveal my attitude instead of some crazy scenario. Racism is wrong. I believe we can agree on that. I never contradicted myself. I have always supported the statement that presuming a black person likes fried chicken is a racist notion. Interesting. This statement doesn't follow from anything I wrote. I didn't accuse you of contradicting yourself. It is strange that you would bring it up. The only reason for you to bring it up is because you feel you have contradicted yourself and you want to confess. So, what have you contradicted yourself about? Okay, uhm, I don't think you notice what I'm saying here. I understand that a racist notion made could actually be true in some cases, but it is still not right to make the notion. If you were to try to not offend the person, just don't say it in the first place. Yes, you are right that black people could end up liking fried chicken, but if you asked them in the first place, they would take it offensively. (Also, what would happen if they told you they didn't like eating it?) What gave it away that I didn't know what you were saying? Was it the part where I said I didn't know what you were saying? I agree that saying racist things will make you look like a racist. You are the only one who brings up this topic. No one else is discussing whether that is true or not. So, I agree it makes sense that people will be offended. If they told me they didn't like it I would be surprised and ask them what they did want. "Oh really? Ok, what do you want?" Side: False
1
point
No, no, no. You are presuming I am bad at reading comprehension. To presume means to take for granted without evidence. That is what you are doing because you do not understand what I am saying. How do you know that when you haven't seen your own "horrible" arguments? ;) Whoa, calm down. You need to be able to see this: I did not agree with the racist notion, so I argued with your example of racist notions. You said the fried chicken example supported Troy's statement, when really it isn't. Like I have said (for the fifth time), if you say a black person likes eating fried chicken, it is a racist notion and is always racist. It does not matter if it might come true, because you cannot just presume that ("taking something without evidence" if you did not know already :|). For your lack of patience and literary knowledge, this means simply that there is no such thing as "a racist notion that sometimes come true." It is always racist to begin with and will offend the person no matter if it (is) actually true. Yes, I have gotten you to understand. Now, can you understand (this) argument? ;) Hmm, I think I see what you are saying. But...if you read what I said before, it will be taken offensively. It will be revealed that it is true AFTER you ask them if they like fried chicken or whatever. Do you see what I am saying? I don't want to confuse you. ;) Uhm, what you did actually occurred. You gave an example of Troy's statement, when really, it isn't. Asking a black guy if they would like to eat fried chicken for lunch? That is just a racist notion no matter what. If it's true, great, it's still racist. The person took it offensively because: a) they know it is a notorious racist notion b) they were surprised that you actually tried asking c) they are offended because you tried finding a loophole in which racist notions could be avoided. I apologize. I meant for the second quote: "I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is NOT a racist notion." So, are you still angry? I added one word, and we're fine. Now, what? ;) Find more! Alright, please please calm down. You are now replacing your caps with name-calling terms. Do not just presume I am dumb ("to take for granted without evidence"). You are saying this so openly to the fact that I could easily call (you) dumb. Then you would be giving (me) this statement. ;) No, no, no. Don't contradict yourself. You told me you agreed with me before and I saw it. The quote, "Now, you have never agreed with what I said" is really incomplete: "Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy." Logically, we should be in agreement. But you didn't say it when I argued against you. In fact, you didn't say it until I brought it up. What does this mean, then, if you supposedly never claimed that I contradicted myself? "You have now contradicted yourself twice on this topic. You have said that it isn't, is, and isn't again." "What gave it away that I didn't know what you were saying? Was it the part where I said I didn't know what you were saying?" Uhm, yes. Are you okay? "You are the only one who brings up this topic." This is a topic based on racism. Racism has its aspects. Why not address those parts to determine whether or not it is wrong? Side: True
No, no, no. You are presuming I am bad at reading comprehension. To presume means to take for granted without evidence. That is what you are doing because you do not understand what I am saying. How do you know that when you haven't seen your own "horrible" arguments? ;) No, no, no. I have news for you. You suck at reading. The evidence is that you claimed I made an argument I never made. Further evidence came when I told you that I didn't make the argument and you continued claiming I did. I did not agree with the racist notion, so I argued with your example of racist notions. This only makes sense if you can't read what I wrote. You said the fried chicken example supported Troy's statement, when really it isn't. The implication was when a black person happens to like fried chicken. If you knew how to read you would have figured that out. Like I have said (for the fifth time), if you say a black person likes eating fried chicken, it is a racist notion and is always racist. For the fifth time, it doesn't matter if you think it is a racist notion. No one argued anything different. Again, if you knew how to read you would have figured that out by now. I told you already that the fried chicken example was a form of racism. It does not matter if it might come true, because you cannot just presume that ("taking something without evidence" if you did not know already :|). For your lack of patience and literary knowledge, this means simply that there is no such thing as "a racist notion that sometimes come true." It is always racist to begin with and will offend the person no matter if it (is) actually true. Something being racist and something coming true are completely separate topics. You pointing out that it is racist doesn't mean anything because we already said it was racist. Again, no one is claiming that something coming true makes it not racist. We all agree that it is still racist. Yes, I have gotten you to understand. Now, can you understand (this) argument? ;) Quote me having a misunderstanding of your simplistic argument anywhere in this thread. I dare you. Hmm, I think I see what you are saying. But...if you read what I said before, it will be taken offensively. It will be revealed that it is true AFTER you ask them if they like fried chicken or whatever. Do you see what I am saying? I don't want to confuse you. The best way to avoid confusing me is to learn to read and to respond to what I write with actual knowledge of what I wrote. It doesn't matter if it is taken offensively or not. It is racist regardless. If you keep the thought to yourself and don't say anything it will not be taken offensively, but it will still be racist. If you had any reading comprehension you would have figured out that I told you already that it makes sense if it is taken offensively. So, now that we agree that it is taken offensively, what is your point? I hope I haven't confused you by asking you to make a point. Asking a black guy if they would like to eat fried chicken for lunch? That was your example psycho. That is just a racist notion no matter what. If it's true, great, it's still racist. That's the whole point of this debate. Whether or not racism is wrong. It has to remain racist or it doesn't fit. That was the whole point. I gave an example where no matter how true the statement is, it is a racist statement. The person took it offensively because: a) they know it is a notorious racist notion b) they were surprised that you actually tried asking c) they are offended because you tried finding a loophole in which racist notions could be avoided. Thank you for explaining. I am glad you have some grasp of something. I was getting worried for you a little. I apologize. I meant for the second quote: "I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is NOT a racist notion." So, are you still angry? I added one word, and we're fine. Now, what? ;) Find more! Of course I am still angry. I never said that. Alright, please please calm down. You are now replacing your caps with name-calling terms. Do not just presume I am dumb ("to take for granted without evidence"). You are saying this so openly to the fact that I could easily call (you) dumb. Then you would be giving (me) this statement. ;) It isn't a presumption. You can't read or write. That is dumb. You leave out words that completely change the meaning of your statement. I have evidence. No, no, no. Don't contradict yourself. You told me you agreed with me before and I saw it. The quote, "Now, you have never agreed with what I said" is really incomplete: "Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy." You say things you don't actually mean. You can't disagree with both Troy and me. We have opposing ideas. I have agreed with what you said, when is it your turn to agree with something I say. You can't even agree with me when I tell you I agree with you. None of what you quoted is a contradiction with what I said. The contradiction is what you quoted about yourself. Logically, we should be in agreement. But you didn't say it when I argued against you. In fact, you didn't say it until I brought it up. Don't you think logic should outweigh your unintelligence? What is so great about your thought process that beats out logic? I didn't say anything because I didn't think it was possible for someone with your stance on the subject to be against me. What does this mean, then, if you supposedly never claimed that I contradicted myself? "You have now contradicted yourself twice on this topic. You have said that it isn't, is, and isn't again." I did accuse you of contradicting yourself, but that was in the argument prior to the one you were responding to. If you respond to arguments from multiple posts prior, how am I supposed to know what you are responding to when you don't quote what I said? "What gave it away that I didn't know what you were saying? Was it the part where I said I didn't know what you were saying?" Uhm, yes. Are you okay? Uhm, yes. I was criticizing you Captain Obvious. "You are the only one who brings up this topic." This is a topic based on racism. Racism has its aspects. Why not address those parts to determine whether or not it is wrong? There is no need to discuss how bad it is to say your racism out loud when everyone agrees with you. You keep claiming you are right because it is mean to say racist things to people. We can discuss the topic, but if it is a separate topic it should be addressed separately. Side: False
1
point
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Stereotype definition:a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. That can be race, cloths, religion, ect. Racism definition: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. That can only be directed to skin color. Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
Fine, racism is based on race. Now look at the title again. We are talking about racism, AKA race, not colorism, AKA skin color. As said in an earlier statement of yours colorism can apply to a race with littler yellow for example in Asia. Therefor colorism and racism is not the same since racism focuses on one main color of skin and colorism focuses on more esxact colors. Side: True
1
point
In what sense is racism ever okay? Okay as in acceptable? Never. It is a deterrent to a cultural unity. Agreed. It's a biproduct of negativity and inherently bad ideology. Fair enough. There is no practicality behind racism. I wouldn't go that far. For example, if you're having a group of black people over for dinner, fried chicken could be a practical meal choice in some instances. Although I will concede that Cartman's point about universality of thought is a good one. Side: False
For example, if you're having a group of black people over for dinner, fried chicken could be a practical meal choice in some instances. And a side of watermelon right? No. That's following a stereotype. That is not a practical meal of choice. In fact one should converse with the friends to agree upon a meal. What if they don't really like fried chicken? You ignorance towards racism is incredible. Side: True
And a side of watermelon right? No. That's following a stereotype. That's what I'm saying. And if it happens to be among the individuals' favorite foods, the racism in this instance would be right. That is not a practical meal of choice. I'm saying it would be if the black people loved fried chicken. What wouldn't be practical about that? In fact one should converse with the friends to agree upon a meal. Of course. This is part of a very crude example, I would hope that no one follows this model in actuality. What if they don't really like fried chicken? You ignorance towards racism is incredible. Then the racism would be wrong. How am I displaying ignorance toward racism? Side: False
That's what I'm saying. And if it happens to be among the individuals' favorite foods, the racism in this instance would be right. Asking before serving them isn't racist. If the patron asks for chicken that isn't racism. It's racism when assumption are being made solely on one's skin color. I'm saying it would be if the black people loved fried chicken. What wouldn't be practical about that? An assumtion of a meal based on skin color isn't practical at all. It's racist and shamed upon. Then the racism would be wrong. How am I displaying ignorance toward racism? You are making assumptions based on skin color. You assume that a skin color determines food preferences. Ignorance. Side: True
Asking before serving them isn't racist. If the patron asks for chicken that isn't racism. It's racism when assumption are being made solely on one's skin color. You are so lost here. I'm having black friends over. I choose a meal of fried chicken for them on the basis of their skin color. You are correct, this is racism. My point is that the racism would be correct if they love fried chicken in the sense that I made a judgment about their tendencies simply based on their skin color without any other knowledge. Got it? An assumtion of a meal based on skin color isn't practical at all. It's racist and shamed upon. I'm not saying it is always practical. It certainly is racist and shamed upon. But it can be practical when the stereotype holds true. You are making assumptions based on skin color. You assume that a skin color determines food preferences. Ignorance. I don't know how to make myself more clear... I am using an example for the sake of discussion. Nowhere in this argument am I including my opinion on racism. Obviously I don't enact these racist notions. Side: False
|
