Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

As it should be As it currently is
Debate Score:34
Total Votes:34
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 As it should be (22)
 As it currently is (7)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40131) pic

All rights are reserved for minorities, women, and the handicap only (non 4 whit

They made a movie called **No Country for Old Men** now we need a documentary, **No rights for White Men**

I mean think about it, what rights do white men have? 

You hear a lot about minorities rights (like their right quotas or gay mariage or no profiling).

You hear a lot of noise about women's rights (like her right to abortion). 

You hear a lot of noise about the rights of handicap people (like reserved parking, reserved seating).

But you don't hear a lot about rights for white men?

Disclaimer:  I am not white.  But I don't feel like I should be given any special consideration.  And I resent any special consideration given to someone else at some else's expence.  There's all this talk about what's fair but it seems to me that what is considred fair is really a one way street that benefits anyone at the expense of white males.

People who liked this debate also liked:



As it should be

Side Score: 27

As it currently is

Side Score: 7
2 points

Why can't you make normal tags?

Anyway, copied and pasted from another debate, the last three paragraphs are the most relevant for this debate:


1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The word "white" is refering to a race, and separating itself from the rest of humanity.

Now, you're kind of being an apologist if you choose to believe that anything less than 99.9999999% of the time "white power" is used to mean a superiority of one race over the others.

That aside though, even if one chooses to use it to simply mean pride in one's own race, one has to ask themselves what the end game is here.

The idea behind the term, even under the most altruistic circumstances possible, is still a manner of separation. At the least it says "we are different than you" or "we are separate from you."

This is inherently racism.

And yes, same can be said of "latino power" or "black power" or "native american power" or whatever.

I would like though to continue further, as I'm seeing the same kind of fabricated white victimization I've heard lately in the media, and in a couple arguements on the other side.

White people are not victims of anything okay. I know, I'm white. It's just about the easiest thing in the world to be white.

I'm really tired of this "oh white people aren't allowed to be proud" "white people can't get jobs because of discrimination" etc etc. It's all bs. White people statistically have more money, better jobs, are less likely to be arrested, are more likely to get hired, than any other race. And this is not do to any inherent ability in one race over the other, it is because of our society, minorities are more likely to be born into poverty, and everything else follows from there. There are a few programs which work to even this out, and correct past wrongs, that is it. But there is no "reverse racism" going on, and the idea is actually quite ridiculous when you look at the actual numbers behind things like say prison populations and unemployment.

Side: i'm white boo hoo poor me

Actually, I probably have more money than you, more likely to get a job than you, and have a better job than you.... well... that last one is debatable ;)

Side: As it should be
iamdavidh(4816) Disputed
1 point

Well, you may make more money, I've only been in business about 18 months now. But I've been slowly climbing the tax brackets, and have already raised my rates (woohoo!)

But, "more likely to get a job" is hard to compare, since technically I'm not employed by someone else, and so have no need to "get a job." At the same time, I can't really get fired, unless I decided to fire myself... which I just may because I don't like my attitude ;)

Side: As it currently is
1 point

White men have been in power since the inception of our nation! America was founded ONLY because rich white men didn't want to pay their taxes (to fund a war that defended them).

Throughout history, white men have been the ones in power, and at the very least have never been denied rights (such as buying property, voting, etc.). Aren't "rights" the things to which ALL people are entitled? Many of the examples you list are things that white men DO get. Such as no profiling or marriage. The fact that people have to work hard to make sure certain groups have these rights does not impede a white man's right to them.

As for handicapped people, they get special treatment because they need it. The handicapped bathroom for instance isn't there to laugh in your face that you get a tiny stall. It's there because people in wheelchairs cannot physically fit in other stalls. Or ramps? They exist because wheelchairs CANNOT go up stairs. How dare you take issue with "handicapped rights".

I think white men are desperate to be oppressed so they can stop feeling left out, but alas, it's yet to happen.

Side: As it should be
3 points

White men have been in power since long before the founding of the nation.

White men never had to fight for the right to vote in the U.S. (save for the Revolutionary War itself)...or for the right to work...or the right to marry...or the right not to be raped or beaten...or the right to have control over their own bodies...or the right to be considered people instead of white men's property.

In fact, I can't think of a single "right" white men have ever had to fight for in this country.

Every study ever done shows that Blacks and women receive far harsher criminal sentences for the same violent crimes than do white men.

Every college rape-crisis advocate will acknowledge that frat boys outright laugh when they are told that dragging an unconscious drunk woman into a bedroom, stripping her, and having sex with her while she's unconscious is actually rape.

And while no police department will admit through official channels that they engage in racial profiling, the vast majority will covertly admit that racial profiling is a routine part of police practice.

Just a few generations ago, mandatory sterilization of Blacks, Native women, poor women, and disabled women was not only legal - it was considered "good government."

White men still occupy the vast majority of positions of power in government and in business. Women still make less for the same work.

And, women are still stuck with primary child-care and household responsibilities in the vast, vast majority of cases.

Meanwhile, white men have not lost a single legal right. Not one. Nor have they been required to make much room for the political and economic participation of people who aren't white men.

Instead, what they now are doing is kvetching that, after hundreds of years of being able to shirk their responsibilities, they are finally being held to some very basic standards of civilized behavior such as "support your offspring" - a standard to which women have always been expected to adhere.

So no, I don't see how the somewhat minimal strides we have, as a Nation, made towards establishing EQUAL rights has in any way diminished the rights of white men.

Side: As it should be

So, since white have been in power for so long, they should now be discriminated against? How about making it fair? Why should the current generation of WM have to pay for the mistakes of the previous generations?

If the pendulum is too far right, you don't push it all the way left to make a correction. You push it exactly half way (where it's equal, even and fair). If you push it all the way left, it will correct again towards the right.

Side: As it currently is

Pssst...He's not normal, that's why!```````````````````````````````

Side: As it should be

What rights do you want Joe? From what you've listed above it's only a matter of those not falling into the norm who have special rights. You may not be white but you are an educated Hispanic which is as close to white as anyone might get. You can't get pregnant and you're not handi-capped unless you want to bring in your mind which is doubtful at best. What rights do you want that you don't have Joe???

Side: As it should be

I want the right of not being forced by society to pay for something I don't believe in.

Side: As it currently is

I think we all have that problem in one way or another Joey boy and I agree!

Side: As it should be

For example:

A woman gets to decide if she wants an abortion. The fetus has no choice in the matter. The father has no choice in the matter. If he wants the child, tough.

A woman gets to decide if she wants to keep the baby. The baby has no choice in the matter. The father has no choice in the matter. If he doesn't want a baby, tough. The mother can then force the father to pay child support.


Side: As it currently is
Banshee(288) Disputed
2 points

The State, not the mother, enforces the obligation of child support on the non-custodial parent. The non-custodial parent is usually the father, because he has the option of waltzing off and leaving the mother with a child to support.

His obligations as imposed by the State are minimal. He pays some child support - IF he can afford it. He's not obligated to take any parenting responsibilities. He doesn't feed his child, buy it school clothes, help it with its homework, tuck it in at night, or stay up with it when it's sick. He just sends off a check.

And THIS is considered fair?

Side: As it should be

You are mixing apples and oranges.

First of all, you are talking about a case where the child is already born, like a marriage, and then the parents split up, like a divorce. I would not make any changes to this situation. I'd keep it as it is. But if you think that the obligations imposed by the state are minimal, then you have never paid one red cent in child support.

I'm talking about before the child is born the father should be allowed to request an abortion and if the abortion is not granted he doesn't have to pay child support.

Side: As it currently is

If the father makes it clear that he does not want a baby and that he has no desire to provide child support the mother has the option of raising the child on her own or not having the child until she can provide for the child. The alternative is to force the father to pay child support; to take away his right to chose; to give the woman total control.

The alternative takes away all responsibility for a woman's action away from her. This is done by making sure that the negative consequences for her actions are minimized.

If she has unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she doesn't want the child... no worries, have an abortion at the expense of anyone who may want the child and at the expense of the child. The negative consequences for her irresponsible action are minimized.

If she wants a child but can't afford it... no worries, trick a man into having unprotected sex with you and then force him to pay child support. Again, the negative consequences for her irresponsible action are minimized.

And this is considered fair?!?!?

Side: As it currently is
Banshee(288) Disputed
1 point

He had a right to choose. He chose to have sex. Since that's the only choice that involves HIS BODY, that's the choice he gets.

A woman is legally entitled to seek an abortion BEFORE THE FETUS IS VIABLE. By definition, that means that the fetus cannot survive outside her body. She gets a choice here because this is a matter of HER BODY.

This hardly diminishes responsibility. A woman seeking an abortion may be required by the State to undergo various testing and counselling. She must make a difficult decision about the future of her family and the direction her life will take. And then, if she chooses an abortion, she must undergo an invasive surgery. If she chooses to keep the child, she accepts a lifetime of parenting responsibilities.

Moreover, States can ban the abortion of a viable fetus. That's a matter of the State's interest in the "potential life." So the "abortion right" is certainly not unlimited.

And what is the man "required" to do here, other than have an orgasm? Nothing. Maybe send a check to SUPPORT HIS CHILD - not the mother but the CHILD - but that's it.

Seems like he's the one with no consequences.

Side: As it should be

You are leaving out the other half of the discussion. You only address the issue where the woman get to chose to have an abortion. What about the part where the father chooses to have an abortion?

Side: As it currently is