Privilege i.e.white-male privilege Honesly looking for a line of reasoning not debate.

The point of contention is rather clear considering it is the first question to which i respond with my argument. I will also point out that nowhere in the first round did i mention any argument against the existence of white privilege. My opponent misinterpreted this to be a lack of understanding of white privilege instead of reading and understanding the initial question to which i made my argument. She then proceeded to state the rest of the argument in round 1 was irrelevant, and it leaves to reason that she misinterpreted the debate to be about debating the existence of white privilege from the subject of the post. Note there is not any mention of existence here either. Based on these reasons it is clear what the point of contention was and is, and that the fault of the misunderstanding is on my opponent. Thus, my opponent did indeed make a straw man argument in round 1 and round 2. My opponent points out that not all people are born with empathy. This is true but so rare as to be statistically insignificant when speaking about group behavior and not individuals and is, therefore, irrelevant. [1] https://www.quora.com... My opponent also attempted to declare the irrelevance of specific aspects of my point concerning empathy without debating the part of the first sentence in the second paragraph "and learn from others' pain and mistakes. This idea was also supported by the quoted article. " "This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, but recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons." I say my opponent "attempted" because empathy defined is "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another" Thus, my opponent is incorrect and it is relevant to understanding other groups in societal problems like in discrimination. My opponent writes a paragraph stating that it seems obvious that people's "FULL understanding is limited to their experience is limited to their experience." It does not give a reason that people need to understand fully to make a judgment or decision based on their behalf. My opponent states that "it seems obvious" in lieu of a line of reasoning or evidence. The concept that one has to understand fully or not at all is a logical fallacy specifically a black or white fallacy. My argument can be highlighted by the existence of human communication. Communication is defined as the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. Communication is how people groups or individuals express their feelings, thoughts, and ideas to others. Stating that I must understand fully by being in their shoes contradicts one of the primary principles of communication. Humans have evolved to communicate with one another to make mutual actions. Battling discrimination is something groups have done in the past mutually because they were able to exchange information. Thus, the argument to understand fully is irrelevant and if my opponent infers that I must understand fully to make these judgments or decisions, it is illogical as well. Also "science telling us its DIFFICULT to combine logic and empathy" does not make it impossible. Reading the study closely would reveal it makes it impossible to do at the SAME TIME. This means that it is possible to alternate thoughts and thus do both at different times. i.e. I take a minute to empathize to feel their pain. Then, I think long and hard about what to do about it utilizing my analytical pathway. Afterwards, I go back to the empathy to make sure that analysis feels like a just action to their plight. Then I recheck my analysis once again to make sure it is free of logical errors, and so on and so forth. It would reason that nonprofit/charity organizations must achieve a balance of analysis and empathy to service the needy. It also mentions balancing the two in the article. Thus the inferred deduction from my opponents statement is fallacious.