Nowadays, an Islamic African-American Woman would have more "Rights" than a Christian White Man

Hello again and thanks to my opponent. Apologies as I wasn't aware in the first round that we were discussing one hypothetical Islamic African-American woman, since we are; let's give her a name. Natalie is a nice name, let's go with that. My opponent says: "Sympathy can be gained through gender, race, or religion, because people feel that minorities have been mistreated and excluded." Why would people think it if it was not true? --- 1. Religion: I haven't read America Alone and don't have access to a copy but it sounds pretty one-sided. My opponent misrepresents this information as describing "a class that converts kids into Muslims". Partaking in the rituals of a religion for a short period is very different to converting to it. It doesn't say that they go to mosque and I sincerely doubt that genuine Muslims would recognise them as such. Also they are surely not restricted from practicing their own religion during this period? There is no evidence of imposition in the quote. The mere existence of a pledge containing the words "One nation under God" is ample proof that church and state are not truly separate and that Christianity is the dominant mentality in government. This proves my points about Christians having their views more represented and therefore more freedom to do what they want. My opponent's argument in no way supports the resolution, unless he can explain how California awareness programs are relevant to whether Natalie has more "rights". In what way are awareness programs a "special privilege" for Natalie? As he says "Muslims are free to practice their own religion" like Christians, so equal "rights" there. But the fact that Christian ideology shapes the mainstream government and society, makes Christians more able to do what they want with less interference. "Americans currently feel the need not to let majorities impose, and to allow minorities to impose." Majorities impose by default. "Muslim holidays fall close to Spring Break, Winter Break, Summer Break, Thanksgiving Week." "Muslims are also anti-abortion, and believe in intelligent design." Yes but surely my opponent must accept that these holidays and political movements in America exist as a result of Christianity, not Islam. These were merely examples showing that Christianity is the dominant culture that actually affects policy. The Middle east will soon include Canada and Europe? Maybe it's a good thing I can't read the book my opponent is influenced by. "So, either we should be the Christian world, but can't be due to religious protest, or we aren't, and thus we lack Christian majority on our laws." As I have shown, saying there is separation between church and state does not prevent Christian majority opinion influencing laws. Also, what effect does the terminology of Muslim or Christian worlds have on (American) Natalie's "rights"? I said: "America is democratic (small d)" My opponent said: "Muslims are more likely to vote Democratic." He might want to look back over this, democratic(small d) means a system of voting that elects officials to represent the people and make decisions, Democratic (large D) means Obama's party. Police profiling is still likely to be an issue for Natalie. Even if she doesn't look middle eastern, if she dresses in traditional Muslim clothing she risks being suspected of terrorism. Some examples of black Muslims investigated by the police in connection with Islamic terrorism: http://findarticles.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.kenanmalik.com... In addition Natalie will be a target for police profiling because of her race, this means that she is less able to do what she wants without interference. ---- 2. Race: Me: [Racism] "is real and it does exist." Pro: "And so, they decided to balance the scales... but accidentally tipped them in the opposite direction." Here my opponent concedes that racism is real and is capable of giving less "rights" to Natalie. He needs to prove that with the current balance of existing racism on the one hand and affirmative action on the other, that Natalie now has more "rights". "We didn't just break the cycle. We recreated it." My opponent seems here to suggest that white people on the whole are "under-represented and under achieving and [their] communities are becoming ghettoised." I am glad my opponent was able to re-post his source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...... If you read this it shows that it took time for black Democrats to switch their votes from Hilary to Barak, which proves that they were in fact influenced by his political abilities and not by any racial prejudice. "Being racist against Obama is bad. Being racist against McCain is good. That's the argument that is made." By whom is this argument being made and how on Earth does it affect Natalie's rights? Everyone is free to vote how they choose, even if they do so based on prejudice (which would be almost impossible to prove.) "And yet, they still feel offended." As I stated before I think people are unlikely to be offended at being described as black in a descriptive way. People on this very site list there ethnicity as black without apparently feeling discriminated against. The only example of the term being described as racist is the 'universal labelling' issue I mentioned earlier, which my opponent has glossed over. Again, Natalie has more "rights" how? My opponent says: "a company has to hire more black people than they'd prefer, even from a neutral standpoint, because of affirmative action" They 'HAVE' to hire 'more than they'd PREFER.' Why should they have any preference one way or the other unless they are racist? Companies that 'prefer' not to hire black people, or people of any other race (including white) should not be allowed to act this way. It is an abuse of civil rights. It justifies affirmative action. Prejudice of this kind always affects the minority more (there is less of them after all) which shows that Natalie has less "rights". --- 33. Gender. Pro: "They used sympathy to get out of the draft." Were they ever drafted in the past? How did they use sympathy to get out of it? Why were people sympathetic? It is a widely held opinion that science is less appealing to girls, although of course it is possible (though not stated by Pro) that Natalie is a keen scientist. "Unfortunately, most girls do not consider a career in these fields in which females are underrepresented." http://www.techbridgegirls.org... "can we close the gender-gap" http://www.nncc.org... " girls are less likely to obtain the education required to take up a science, math or technology career and less likely to receive appropriate career information." http://www.zonta.org... I am badly running out of space. Natalie is great at football, she is not given the opportunity to represent her college in a high profile event. Woman do not have the same "right" as men to have kids without all the physical trauma and personal sacrifice. Yes they need to get jobs and promotions but the institutions are male-biased, so it is harder for them. -- How is Islam being imposed? Prevalence does not mean forced prevalence. What's it got to do with Natalie? The tables have started to turn a tiny bit, but are still nowhere near half way round. The food on the table is still a lot closer to the white Christian man than it is to Natalie. It needs to be equidistant. Vote con. Thankyou.