It"s Better to be a Dumb White Person Than a Smart Black Person

First off, I would like to acknowledge that the faults of a black person tend to be stereotyped in a larger sense. Some have also said that the mental climate of today is something that would contribute to this. Now I would like to assert the notion of asking what could constitute this? What could 'better' be in this circumstance, and on that note far better as well. It's not necessarily favorable today for anyone to be stupid, and stupid could be regarded under a huge number of possible definitions. It could mean daftness, social ineptitude, a low attention span, an IQ below 65 (clinical retardation), a tendency to struggle with subjects like algebra or calculus, dyslexia, ignorance, lack of knowledge, a low level of wisdom, et cetera. If someone commits a heinous crime--although there's probably a somewhat higher percentage of intelligent people likely to get away with it, whether they have the ability to get away with it perhaps relies in retrospect to the basis of their trial, and on an individual basis, which is not necessarily withstanding any kind of demographic that may be a detail of the person being put on trial. You could give an example of demographics being relevant as teenagers and people in their early twenties typically having higher insurance rates, but that's not related to the prompt, and you also haven't given any sources for the largely non-concrete material you've put forward. You could argue that a black person on trial for killing a police officer might get more jail time, but the details of sentencing in this regard to the traits of a person would only be relevant in a larger statistical sense, where race might play a part in circumstance rather than any actual unbalanced scales, as such. Still, it has affected individuals, though killing someone typically puts any given person in jail for a very long time. As far as on a basis of if someone's more acceptable, this can only be per the person--ie, whether someone personally likes, approves of another or not (which stupidity, intelligence, or lack of one or the other may play a part, however not necessarily). In addition, this can still take the same form in the greater opinion of a group, but as the group grows in number, opinion will intrinsically vary more and more. Whether someone's black or white, being stupid probably won't normally help their case. "After spending several hours reviewing and writing a response to my opponents presented R3. I realized endless accusations of fallacies, assumptions and invalidity are made. No reviews of citations that affirm my contentions have been reviewed that directly address my contention that It"s Better to be a Dumb White Person than a Smart Black Person." You tend to rely on media coverage and personal view as credence for what is justly and appropriately valid. As I have already given the points necessary in the first response, there's no reason to retort to the additional verbatim you've provided--though in fact, I did respond. "I made the stupid white person's choice to erase the remainder of my rebuttal due to overly repetitious responses to inane claims as well as to spare the reader of the same. If I wanted to work in drone a like manner I'd work at Dunkin Donuts cutting donut holes all day, not debating in this manner." Like the girth of your text here, it mostly coincides with your own opinion on the matter and points that lie aside whether it's better to be a dumb black person rather than smart white person. This is quite racist, which was my initial reason for responding. But after speaking to you for a bit, I realized you are a self-righteous, taciturn, stubborn, immature, determinately reticent, arrogant, crass, extremely vocal, passive aggressive, and proudly incorrigible. My opponent has put together shoddy points and held the stance of personal opinion and bias, ignoring most of the points I've made in favor of holding theirs in a favored light. Their assertions about race and societal standing as a whole rest as pale in comparison to their seasoned, roundabout manner that they choose to respond to me, ignoring crucial points in favor of drumming up their own repertoire of belief to win at whatever cost. This isn't about whoever looks the best. What you said about truth resting solely in opinion just doesn't hold up in reality--and that's the form your opinions take: just being solely opinionated as though you were trying to convince a small child of what you believe and reprimanding them for anything they say to the contrary. I've noted fallacies and constant repitition in your demeanor throughout this debate, due to lack of any actual cross-points to give, as it would in all likelihood take far too long to present this assertion, and at that divident it would not be worth it to a person who goes so far as to waive a majority of what I say in favor of preachiness and pontification. I won't ask anyone to vote one way or another, contrary to the Pro here. I believe that two people debating against one another should be ranked in accordance to a logically minded, unbiased court of peoples who seek only the truth in an argument, unrelated to opinion, belief and other uncertainties. Thank you for reading, and I hope that the best person wins........