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

Thanks to Mongeese for instigating this debate, glad we got the chance to discuss this topic. From my opponent's use of inverted commas it is clear that in this debate we will not be discussing 'legal rights', 'human rights' or any other standardly applied use of the term. http://www.google.co.uk... Instead we shall be dealing with my opponent's own unique and three-fold interpretation of "rights". This being: "more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation, get what one wants, and do things with less interference." Sympathy is not generally gained by ability of any kind but rather by the situation of being in an unfortunate circumstance. No one is going to feel sorry for you unless you have been mistreated or excluded in some way. Likewise it is not any ability that let's you do something without interference, it is freedom. This may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I'm pointing out that my opponent's self-supplied definition doesn't make much sense in itself. I'm not attempting to argue semantics and will assume that my opponent meant ability in the sense: are able to/ have more opportunity to. My opponent very articulately breaks down the resolution into it's three components: Religion, Race and Gender. I shall respond to my opponents arguments whilst also offering arguments to prove the Con position within each of these categories. 1. Religion. a) Rebuttal: I really don't see how my opponent's example of Islamic awareness events have anything to do with the issue of Muslims having any more ability to gain the sympathy of the nation, get what they want, or do things with less interference than Christians. How do awareness programs effect an individuals "rights". One can hardly live in America without being aware of Christianity either, national holidays are based around it, Christian evangelism and advertising is abundant etc. And although separation of church and state is the official line, in reality mainstream Christian opinion influences policy on a massive scale, otherwise there would be no anti-abortion movement or intelligent design taught in science classes. How can it not be a positive thing to learn about other cultures and religions? Being made aware is not being imposed upon. The Muslim world would generally be interpreted to mean all Muslims (the Ummah) including those living in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... If referring to the middle east I would guess it refers to countries with Islamic law and government, where there is no separation between church (or mosque) and state. Perhaps that is why it would be more acceptable. But acceptable to whom? b) Arguments: Christians are in the majority in America, so as America is democratic (small d) they are more likely to have their views represented in law, so therefore more likely to be able to do the things they want with less interference. Due to the threat of terrorism, police profiling is now based heavily on religion (or an estimate of religion determined by ethnicity/appearance) http://www.newsweek.com... http://www.usatoday.com... This means that Muslims are clearly not able to do things with less interference, as they are more likely to be stopped and searched by police or prevented from travelling. 2.Race. a) Rebuttal: In many (not all) circumstances it is indeed the case "that whites have some unwritten advantage when it comes to college and job applications." The unwritten advantage is called bias, prejudice or racism. Whether it is held by the individual making the selection or is endemic to the institution, it is real and it does exist. Affirmative action laws exist to counter-balance this existing bias, not to create a new one. In a society where minorities are under-represented and under achieving and communities are becoming ghettoised, it can only be a good thing to attempt to break the cycle. The Obama link doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps my opponent can re-post? In the meantime: Average 90% of blacks have typically voted democrat since the 60s. http://wiki.answers.com... http://www.factcheck.org... The extra 5% of blacks deciding to vote could easily be explained by previously apathetic and disillusioned black people gaining a new enthusiasm for politics. People tend to vote for people who look like themselves, white people have been doing it for years and not through racism. I don't really understand the "good to vote FOR someone because he is another race, but bad to vote AGAINST him for it" thing. Please explain the difference and how one is considered better. As for the term black being seen as racist, I would think someone very sensitive if they were offended at being described as black which is a simple and conventionally acceptable (certainly in UK) descriptive term, but it is true that on a deeper level the labelling of a multitude of shades of pink and brown into 'black' and 'white' does have implications. Whiteness is generally associated with purity and goodness (eg. as pure and white as the driven snow) Black with darkness and evil (eg. his heart was as black as coal.) Labelling people by these terms with their profound connotations has a psychological impact on people and in turn can affect the opinions and values of a society. The wiki link under my opponent's comments on race doesn't seem particularly relevant, maybe it has changed since he first posted it. b) Arguments: As racism exists and is directed more towards black people than white people. Black people clearly do not have more "rights". I think there are further arguments implicit in my rebuttals for this issue so I will move on. 3. Gender. a) rebuttal: The argument of women not being included in the draft could also be interpreted as discrimination against them, regarding them as less fit to fight and I think as an individual who has been unwillingly drafted would receive sympathy from some people, this also makes women less able to gain sympathy. Science needs to be made more appealing to girls because they are currently disinclined to become involved. A special reward for their efforts is not giving them more "rights". Boy's sports are promoted harder and taken far more seriously than girl's sports in US schools, I don't know how many sports scholarships girls get but I would be surprised if boys don't get more. (This is more of an argument than a rebuttal) It sounds like your school wanted to have mixed basketball and thought more boys would apply. Mixed b-ball sounds like great fun to me, although of course I would only want to play with adult females. Arguments: Women have to go through a great deal more physical trauma than men in order to have children, when children are born, women will generally be expected to take most of the responsibility (in some cases all) for their care. This alone limits women severely in being able to do what they want without interference. I can't speak for the US but currently in the UK, girls are starting to outperform boys academically and often prove to be more ambitious than their male counterparts. Despite this most high paid professionals are still men demonstrating that women are less able to get what they want. Racism, religious segregation and sexism are well documented and backed up by opponent's well researched wikipedia sources. They are traditionally applied to minorities and women and for the most part, this is how they are still applied in America today. For this reason: Nowadays, an Islamic African-American Woman would have >LESS< "Rights" than a Christian White Man. Vote Con. Thankyou.