White folks are hurting U.S. society more than helping. -race relations.

I'll start by noting that this is an abusive topic in general, and that Pro supports the statement that "every white person [is] a devil. "1. Pro poses a contention about how "many white folks subtly and overtly feel that they are superior to others. " Because he provides no evidence to this claim, it can be thrown out immediately because there is no proof of this. Just because Pro says that someone called him instead of the minorities in front of him in a line, does not make this true either. This could easily be a story crafted to prove his point true. Pro cannot use this in this debate unless there is proof. I can easily say the opposite and claim it as a contention, but that would do nothing for this debate.2. It turns out that African Americans and Latino(a) citizens do not talk about their race as much as white people. First of all, there is, again, no proof. Second of all, Latin Americans and African Americans have just as much of a diversity as White Americas. Mexican, Peruvian, Chilean, Nigerian, etc, however, are many races that can be described when a Latino(a) or African American person can use to describe their race. One is not just "black" everyone descents from somewhere. Just because minorities do not talk about it as often does not mean that society is digressing.3. I will refute Con's point about minorities not being able to rise up from under "whites" with a single name. Obama. President Obama is indeed an African American. (Oh no! We must have forced him to be president to somehow tear him down just because us white folk are just terrible people). Pro doesn't realize how false his statement really is. There are many minorities that take positions above people of European decent. "The idea of whiteness" is not higher education and jobs. The idea of white people is that they are usually of European descent, and that is all.4. I beg a source for Con's definition of U. S. Society. The fact is, Pro cannot say this without sufficient proof. Thus far, I have proved this not to be the case.5. Maybe the top 10%-20% of the money is distributed throughout the white community, but this is not to say that these people are hurting society. However, even the minorities that make more money than the low-middle class whites here in America chose to live in poorer towns just because they wish not to be the minority [1]. No one wants to be the minority in the group, it's just common sense. I don't want to be the only white kid in a town of minorities because it is harder to fit in. Similarly, they face the same problem and chose to live where they do, expressing the stereotypes that Pro thrives to find for his debate. Another point is that though America may be 2nd in the child poverty rates, there are already more non-white children in the US than there are whites [2]. [1] . http://www.suntimes.com...[2] . http://abcnews.go.com...6. Pro abuses a point about the ills of society by claiming that "a white person just breathing is the problem. " The solution he poses is that whites can subtly or overtly oppress people of color. " This contradicts his entire case, and will be thrown out/used to support my own side of this debate. After this, Pro talks about blood-lines and how minorities have not yet given out their message. However, this has nothing to do with whites making the society worse, so it too will be thrown out.7. Pro proposes the problem as "white people. " This is basically rewording the resolution, as Pro's entire case should be about this. This contention does nothing for the debate. He also does not propose any proof that the benefits he has in his community directly affects the lack thereof in communities near him, such as the "ghetto. " 8. Pro seems to pose a solution similar to killing white people. I would first like to point out that this is completely illogical, and second, that this quite was from over 50 years ago and is completely irrelevant. Slavery has ended and African-Americans have the same opportunities as whites, nowadays.9. The organization that Pro talks about is national, and it is for people with real issues. It is not like slave trading, which Pro tries to describe it as. A white person runs it, are they really destroying our society by doing so? Pro wants us to believe this, however, it is completely false. This organization helps society, and does not hurt it.10. "As long as they physically can" is the amount of time that Pro proposes that us white folk will oppress minorities. My one refutation is that in his anecdote about Macy's, Pro (white) allowed the minorities in front of him to go to the cashier first. He did not oppress them, even though he was physically able to. Whites are not proven by Pro to take every advantage they can to abuse minorities. In conclusion to this debate I would like to say that Whites are not hurting the US society more than helping, because white have progressed our society to where it is now, along with minorities. If whites hurt the society more than they help it, being a dominant race, whites would be in ultimate power. Let me note again that our president is African American, thus proving Pro's side of this resolution to be false. President Obama was elected by white people too, correct? Does this mean that by electing Obama, we have decided to screw up the society even more? No. Pro concludes with "white are profiting over inhumanity. " The fact is, while being grammatically incorrect, this is false. White's progress because they can, as do minorities that are able to.