Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

Since this is irreversible, I will continue, but I would appreciate everyone noticing this as poor conduct on my opponents partTo address my opponents various views on my case seems arbitrary, since they all boil down to "political correctness", an ambiguous term in its nature and one not defined by my opponent. Nevertheless I will reaffirm my contentions one at a time insight of my opponents counter arguments. Rebuttals:Argument one:My opponents argument is confusing to me. The mentality seems to be summed up by "two wrongs make a right"If I were to ask my opponent "IS racism wrong" the answer would most certainly be yesSo this in and of itself counters the entire argument against my first point, but I will continue. I will use my opponents own statements to dismantle their argument. "I agree with my opponent when he says that "discrimination based on race is racism"and"Let me ask you a question. Wouldn't we be inadvertently discriminated because we allowed race A 300 years of discrimination but shut race B discrimination the second it was going to undo the damage? "If the DAMAGE that was caused in the first place was caused BY RACISM, then how is allowing MORE racism going to fix anything? ?My opponent accepts my definition of racism, but doesn't seem to think its wrong! Correction: my opponent only thinks racism is acceptable if it is the right kind of racism. Only problem is, racism is RACISM! It is NOT acceptable! It is NOT tolerable! That's why slavery and segregation were ENDED! Argument two:LINK: Racialised Students Collective Facebook Page: . https://www.facebook.com...The organization that put on the event says: Our Mission: To create and anti-racist climate on campus that will foster a healthy and rich working and learning environment for ALL. Our Focus: To provide a safe space for students who have been discriminated against and/or students who are committed to anti-racist action. Building an anti-racist networkFostering an anti-racist environment through campus-wide services, campaigns and eventsAddressing concerns and challenging systemic institutional and overt racism at Ryerson. Contributing to Ryerson Students' Union and the Continuing Education Students' Association of Ryerson (CESAR) programs and actions to address racism on campus. NOWHERE in their mission statement is the word "Minority" usedMy opponent seems to think otherwise"The safe zone is not for us, the general public. " -Not according to their mission statement"It is for the minorities who have encountered racism. " -Not according to their mission statementMy opponent has feelings about THEIR safe zone ideas, but the organizations page and mission statement have a VERY different story. My opponent further argues about "political correctness". .. From Merriam Webster's: "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people"(. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Dictionary.com: "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology. "(. http://dictionary.reference.com...)I wont put the UrbanDictionary definition though I am tempted to. My problem here is that this is such a cop-out. All my opponent did to argue against me is say that Im part of the "politically correct police". .. No, I believe I stand with the majority of the world saying RACISM IS WRONG. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I LOVE this statement from the Declaration of Independence, and it is so true. My opponent then moves on to various contentions1) I don't watch Fox new. I find it biased and do not agree with lots that I have heard, and I definitely never heard Megyn Kelly say that.2) Actually, at AA there are closed and opened meetings, and at opened meetings ANYONE may attend, and in any case a family member may attend to help a new member, so the metaphor, as poor a comparison as it is, hold no water. Ignoring that, it isn't even the same situation it non-alcoholics COULDNT attend meetings, because AA is advertised as Alcoholics Anonymous. The safe zones were sponsored by an organization that defined NO boundaries on who could attend. Argument 4: This counter argument was a complete side-step of everything my argument offered. Race stereotypes are not the cause of racism, the cause is thinking like my opponent is! That racism is "OK" as long as its blacks being racist to whites. If racism is wrong in one scenario, then it is ALWAYS wrong Regarding my opponents conclusion argument:Of course the safe zone meetings aren't going to start a Civil War. On a SIDE NOTE: (the civil war was fought because the South Seceded from the Union, and the North did not want to lose control of the Mississippi river. Abraham Lincoln himself is quoted saying"“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ”" (. http://afrospear.com...)TL;DR Abraham Lincoln was racist as well, so the entire civil war reference amused me, because both sides were racism when you research it)And my opponent actually says here that it contradicts their mission statement. YA THINK? ?? ! Yes it IS a big deal, because the way THEY advertised it was anyone is welcome. Yeah, its a HUGE deal. And if the meetings are supposed to be "healthing"(think you meant healing) from past discrimination by re-creating a racist environments, then it really IS a pitty party and not accomplishing anything that the organization stands for. I look forward to my opponents case, and sincerely hope they plan to offer one as that was how I outlined this debate.