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

My opponent's last round concludes, "Thus, there seems to be no logical basis for believing that because I am a white male, i cannot understand another groups' discrimination. This position is damaging for all the reasons posted by myself in round 1."The reason I have ignored this reasoning from the first round is because it's not relevant. I've provided the definition of white privilege in Round 1. The official definition of white privilege = societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances [1].No part of this definition says that white people "can't understand" another group, so I am not responsible for defending that position and I'm not sure why my opponent thinks it's relevant to white privilege.Con explains, "I am not arguing against white-male privilege existing. I am arguing against using it as a concept to dismiss opinions of white-male individuals about other societal groups." That was not made clear at the inception of this debate. My opponent is clearly a novice debater (which is not meant to be an insult) meaning he didn't explain his position properly. The resolution refers to "white privilege" which means I am maintaining the existence of white privilege. By Con saying "I am not arguing against white male privilege existing" he acknowledges that my position in this debate is the correct one. If Con intended to debate something else, that should be explicit in the resolution or thoroughly outlined in Round 1.My opponent accuses me of a straw man; in reality he failed to state a clear resolution or Round 1 argument. Con then continues to elaborate on a tangent, noting "All humans possess an innate ability to empathize and learn from others' pain and mistakes." That is false. Not all humans have an easy time with empathy and some people have illnesses that prevent empathy. Science tells us it's difficult to combine logic and empathy [2]. Regardless, this seems like a distraction. My opponent intends to argue that white people can understand other people's suffering even if they do not identify as part of the same group. White privilege doesn't mean lack of empathy. White people can be empathic. White people can even try to understand the plight of other groups, but they will never have the experience. Experience is the greatest teacher. I can tell you what the ocean smells like (salty) but until you experience it for yourself, you will "never really KNOW" what it smells like - you will only have another person's subjective description and interpretation. Furthermore, understanding concepts (such as discrimination) is not the same as experiencing or enduring discrimination day in and day out for life. So it seems obvious that people's FULL understanding is limited to their experience, though certainly white people can identify problems and respond with compassion. Again that's irrelevant to the resolution of concept of white privilege.My genuine and sincere apologies if Con was unsure on how to structure or explain the debate per his intention.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.popsci.com...