Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society. (2)

It's how debates function, makes for a nicer debate, and allows for exchange of ideas as pertaining to your independent points. And now to address them. 1) Now your first argument is that there is a) inequality in America and b) that "only because of a heightened awareness of sex biases that women have been able to start making progress". I do not contest a) because it's true. In fact, I made use of it in my own independent points. I do however contest b). You stated that it took heightened gender sensitivity to close the wage gap. Okay. Now show me the evidence. Statement: "This sensitivity has promoted a holistic approach" Support: Zilch Statement: "Feminist theorists in the 70s promoted advertisers to re-examine, etc. etc. " Support: Zilch How did the Feminist theorists "promote"? Were these Feminist theorists even have a heightened sense of gender sensitivity or were they just more aware of gender differences in society? And even if they got advertisers to re-examine the content of advertisements, what was changed? And if you knew the changes, how did those changes in what ways and when impacted how people saw women of power? You made some general statements, cited some statistics on the wage gap, and then expected these statements to prove you need heightened gender sensitivity to solve these problems. Broad generic statements are just those. Statements. Not Evidence. You cannot state your way into your conclusion. 2) The US has a long history of inequitable treatment. Of course it did. So did England. For that matter the only land mass that has had a history of equal treatment of humans is Antarctica. I like how you bring up how pervasive racism still is. Because racism is pervasive, those with heightened sensitivity to race must be good for society. Even though I brought up the point that those with heightened sensitivity are impeding the resolutions of racial tensions. That the United States is still racist means we should find new solutions to resolve racial tensions, ESPECIALLY since the traditional methods, according to your own statements, do not seem to be very effective in your complaints about the continued persisting prevalence of gender and race inequities. Now The Closing 1. The Oppression and Censorship Again it seems your arguments depend heavily on what you wish my arguments to be, as opposed to what they actually are. YOU WISH my position is that we shouldn't be sensitive to the issues of race/sex, when the debate title clearly says HEIGHTENED sensitivity. Thus your counter-argument is clearly irrelevant since You were just way off the mark in your wild fantasies. I would love to post the debate, but it was canceled by Service. Ask SexyLatina. He started the debate. One key battleground seems to be the issue of censorship. And the Con makes the simple, and rather naive statement "nobody is stopping you from expressing "the truth" in public". Con was dismissive of Larry Summers' "resignation". He stated he "resigned" and was not actually dismissed. He stated there were other disputes. He even gave a Wikipedia link. And he hoped that by blaming Harvard, it would detract attention from the simple truth. Larry Summers' was dismissed (or forced into resignation if you insist and somehow imagine that there exists a distinction) for suggesting that differences in innate abilities between Men and Women. Unlike Dr. Watson, who was a buffoon, Summers was making statements that originated from research and studies. These statements were not made at Harvard, or in his capacity as president of Harvard. They were made by Summers, at a conference, as an economist, and for that he lost his position at Harvard. And he lost it because of the outcry of women with a heightened gender sensitivity who took offense at his remarks, without regard as to either the intent of those remarks or to the possibility of truth behind those remarks. Con thinks that because Summers "resigned", it doesn't matter. Perhaps he wanted to spend more time with the family. Con thinks because Harvard placed pressure on him, it is Harvard that deserves the blame. Nothing at all to do with the numerous fanatics that exerted media scrutiny and pressure on Harvard to take action it would otherwise not have taken. Again, Con seems to derive the strength of arguments primarily from wishes and fantasies instead of reality. The REALITY is, Summers was fired for daring to suggest there were innate differences between men and women. And now, NO PROMINENT RESEARCHER will EVER, dare to EVER, either explore the subject or speak about it in a conference because they have Summers as an example. And what is that but censorship? If the Government threatens to take away the job of any researcher who studies and examines innate differences between men and women in the predisposition towards logical reasoning, there would be a vociferous outcry. That no vociferous outcry could be raised easily against the mass of those with heightened gender sensitivity makes them even more dangerous because they could censor, and get away with it. (fyi, this tells you what I'm against and answers the "acknowledging truth") 2. Humor and the power of words This is the other rather heated battleground. Con fails to rebut the most crucial point discussed: my arguments concerning the disempowering effects of humor. Racist humor is only disempowering "because of its taboo status in society. " The jokes not taboo do not have the same disempowering effect. Con claims I have no point in bringing up Carlos Mencia. As I said before Comedy Central is one of the few safe havens where race and stereotypes can still be openly discussed. And they are openly discussed. Carlos Mencia makes as much fun of hispanics as he does Asians or African Americans, or, of course, Caucasians. Does anyone think Comedy Central is propagating racism? No, and in fact, just the opposite. People do not leave his show hating other races. People leave his show with less racial tension then entering. And so indeed that does support my point. Racist Jokes and help soothe Racial Tensions. If only they weren't limited to the small audience of cable watchers with free time when Carlos Mencias is on television. And that too is why those with heightened sensitivity are dangerous. Because they hunt down all racist humor that takes place outside of Comedy Central, REGARDLESS OF INTENT. Even here on Debate. org, we see plenty of Mencias or Dave Chappelle attempts at humor which faces the outrage of those with heightened sensitivity. Once again I reference "Kill the Chinese Commies". Look around and you will find it, just follow a few members here who do have a heightened sensitivity. They do not tolerate anyone expressing humor in regards to race. And for these reasons, it is clear that Pro has won the debate and thanks for reading.