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

Note: intended to just post link to youtube page but video has embedded. It's not a major part of my case. Much thanks to Mongeese for an intense debate, 3 rounds doesn't seem enough as we have only scratched the surface but I expect even if we argued 20 rounds we would never see eye to eye. Let's examine the lives of our two hypothetical subjects without assuming too many specific facts about them. Mark (like my opponent) is a white, Christian, American boy. All his life he has grown up feeling an accepted member of society because almost all his figures of authority and positive adult role models have looked and believed the same way he does. He has grown up in a nation founded by individuals like himself and shaped by their opinions. When he looks at people in positions of power he can easily imagine himself in their shoes because they look, talk and act like him. Natalie on the other hand has been made to feel minority and second class from the start. When she looks at how media and society stereotypes people like her she does not feel empowered. Black people are portrayed as criminals and thugs achieving success (with notable exceptions like the pres) only through sports or entertainment. Muslims are portrayed as terrorists and fanatics. Woman are regarded as sex objects or (perhaps especially in black and Muslim culture) encouraged to be subservient and concentrate on children and chores. The "rights" we have been discussing are not legal rights or human rights but the personal freedom and opportunities to achieve our goals; granted by mainstream society, cultural opinion and individual psychology. Natalie clearly starts off at a disadvantage. --- In this debate my opponent has accepted that racism and prejudice set people like Natalie at a disadvantage: Me:"[racism] ..does exist" Pro: "And so they decide to balance the scales.." Me: "The food on the table is still a lot closer to [Mark] than it is to Natalie." Pro: "not with Mark realising this..."). His argument is that the steps that have been taken (such as affirmative action, religious awareness programs and..um.. not drafting woman, and giving some girls a science award) to counteract discrimination have gone too far and now we are discriminating against guys like him and Mark. I don't think any of his points have proved this satisfactorily (unless you think his anecdotal evidence of not being able to field an all male b-ball team at a high school tournament qualifies?) but that will of course be up to voters to decide. --- In the space remaining I will attempt to counter some of Pro's points in his last round. I'm not sure what my opponent's intention was in referring to Orwell. If he's saying Natalie would get sympathy because of Stalinesque propaganda then this doesn't make much sense. Some of his comments are starting to sound 'a bit Geo'. He sees conspiracy theories against the Christian majority behind the "forced" neutrality of Bible class and the "imposing" of "extreme" Islam at these schools. Also he talks about the sinister "secularism that is currently destroying Europe" without explaining further. He has no evidence for these 'extreme' opinions and they do not affect Natalie's "rights". --- It seems that he does not have a problem with the token secularism of Christian America, only with genuine secularism (apparently destructive). "we're doing it as we speak" About time. --- "Black racism by policemen was done away with long ago..." I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment. I was about the age my opponent is now when the Rodney King thing kicked off. More recently: http://www.youtube.com... http://socialistworker.org... http://glciii.wordpress.com... and the video above. --- "When a white man and a black woman of equal qualifications are being chosen for a job, the black man will be selected nowadays." Might want to read that one again. It's not true anyway, even without the typo. If they've already got their quota of minorities and are racist, they will choose the white guy. --- Source: "The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator." Pro:"This implies that race caused the large shift." It implies no such thing, Obama's race is not something you wouldn't notice straightaway. If they were influenced by race there would be no large shift from Clinton to Obama. --- My opponent failed to prove that people are offended at being described as black. Maybe he doesn't like being called white as projection is common. However, see below. --- "Because the percentages required for companies do not properly reflect the amount of qualified blacks in the field seeking the job." That's a racist statement. I'm not calling my opponent 'a racist' but he should think about what he's saying. We aren't even talking here about any specific job, yet my opponent makes a blanket assessment that there are not enough qualified black people in the field. The position could be for a reggae sound system operator or jerk chicken chef for one thing but even if it was for a nuclear physicist my opponent offers no evidence or reason why there would not be enough qualified black people. Looking back over that quote again, it also brings to mind an issue relevant to my opponent's earlier questions about the word 'black' being perceived as racist. Usage can be a factor. Talking about 'black people' is not really going to offend anyone but I can see how calling them 'blacks' might. Would it not be odd if I referred to my opponent (or myself) as 'a white'? It doesn't make sense grammatically and it is objectifying people. One of the reasons 'the n word' is so offensive is because it's original usage by slave traders described people as an object with neutral gender. A commodity to be traded. --- "black people have had a trend of not being as qualified for the job; the media then turned this into racism." Another seriously dodgy statement with no basis in evidence or reality. Black people in America have been hideously oppressed for hundreds of years, they are finally given a helping hand and the media turned THAT into 'political correctness gone mad' and 'inverted racism.' --- "Affirmative action isn't even fighting racism, because it sparks more racism" Not true, although it's often used to justify and smokescreen existing racism. People may not be bold enough to complain publicly about the minorities themselves but they can complain about 'special treatment'. Making a big point of issues like these is one example of how right-wing politicians are able to communicate with racist voters and say "hey guys, we're on your side" without coming out with actual racist comments . --- Maybe we should encourage more men to become secretaries. I see no reason why a man couldn't be as good a secretary as a woman and a woman as good a scientist as a man. Anyone who does is probably sexist. -- "Woman can actually have kids; men cannot." Um.. I don't know if I should be giving sex ed. to a minor but just so my opponent is aware; you need ingredients from both man and woman to make a child. I have a kid. (I am a man so men can have kids.) Unlike her mum, I had the freedom to have her without the restriction of carrying her in my belly for nine months or ripping myself apart pushing her out. Luckily for her, in a society where racism still exists, she looks almost white. --- I don't know if my opponent is proud to be white but he should certainly count himself lucky that he was born a white Christian American. Look at who holds the power in the world (and especially in his own country) he's in good company. Thanks again to Mongeese for the debate and thanks to everyone for reading. Con.