The debate "SHOULD the White Race be protected" was started by
May 18, 2019, 3:19 pm.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
Likemike2288 posted 1 argument, Hellow posted 10 arguments, bernie posted 1 argument, boispendaddy posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
saad786, Likemike2288, killer, Hellow, Damian, sssk, bernie, hollieg, boispendaddy, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Deat and 22 visitors agree.
amir_alhakim07, historybuff, MADHURA, imjustheretommorow, Nemiroff, kadijatu, Threelip, sakshi, fireball4thewin, YEET and 23 visitors disagree.
White people themselves are should not be protected but rather all humans. We are all equal. Simple as that
I mean we shouldn't we commit genocide against if that's what you mean
Then I understand.
Its possible he is a troll. It is also possible he honestly believes that we should preserve the "purity" of the white race by keeping out people of other races. There are alot of people in the US who believe that. Tucker Carlson certainly does.
maybe I jumped the gun on the race thing, but humans do share the same qualities yes?
Don't over think the topic, we all are coming to a agreement what is race. Do you really think he actually mean it in a offensive way? Your right, they're may not be a point. I don't know what he is talking about ether. If you think he did mean something of an offensive way, you think he's a troll?
Anyway, my point is I don't see any meaning behind it. White people, black people, white race, black race, it doesn't matter. I think everyone should be protected.
Do you think the author is a troll? serious question, I think that justifies your thoughts because some people you can tell there trolls.
The reason a definition for race exists, is because people drew fairly arbitrary lines. One person has darker skin pigmentation than another, so they decided they are a different race. Race exists insofar as people decided it does. But biologically there is no difference. If tomorrow we all decided that we identify as human and not our skin color then races would no longer exist as they are just an artificial construct.
ok, I agree that all people should be protected. But the topic doesn't say white people, it says white race. You cannot protect a race. You cannot injure a race. So it sounds very much like the author meant the topic in the racist connotation. But since the author hasn't clarified what they meant, I'm not sure there is a point in debating what they meant.
I don't see the difference between a white man and black man. They are both human. They are the same to me, just different color.
definition of Protected: "Keep safe from harm or injury."
Definition of Defend: "Keep from getting harmed or injured."
Understand if we arnt being Protected, then were not being defended. I don't know were purity came from. Nothing has been said about purity in the topic. This topic doesn't sound bias. You replace with white with lamp. And it would be the same thing.
OK, I understand were your coming from according to the topic. I understand what your saying. Would you prefer him to say all races should be protected?
As for the word race. There is an actual definition on Google of "race." what ever your scientists say, I don't agree with. Unless they all say that.
There is no difference between white people and black people. It is pretty much just skin pigment. So saying the "white race" is a bit ridiculous to begin with.
The point of this debate topic was to defend white people, then yeah sure. All people should be defended.
If the point was to protect the "white race" then i disagree. The only way to defend a "race" is with some sort of ridiculous racial purity nonsense. People like tucker carlson want to keep out immigrants to prevent american from becoming "dirty". He wants to protect the "white race" by keeping other people out. And that is 100% wrong in my opinion.
scientifically, all humans are 1 *species*. race is not a thing.
and I'm not sure how your declaring meaning to words you didnt type. It's not that I am assuming but I'm providing an answer to both hypotheticals. yes all people should he protected, but this statement is often used to steal attention from actual, real, threats. instead of hypothetical philosophy.
Scientifically, All humans are one race. Who said race isn't a thing? I want to know.
All I am reading, and what your reading is. "White race should be protected." Keep in mind, anyone can be a threat in the world. "Black lives matter." was to push the fact that they were oppressed. What this guy said is what I saw for the first time. So there is no real meaning behind it. Don't over think it.
once again, the race should not be protected. scientifically, race isnt even a real thing. however, all people of all backgrounds do need to be protected... in general.
however, if there is no threat, why bother mentioning it? if your talking about in theory, then sure. but often this is used to demean the cause of groups under actual threats, like black lives matter vs all lives matter.
Well why should we name a threat? Any other race should be protected in general. And besides, everyone in the U.S should be protected. I don't think mentioning a threat is needed.
This is a blunt topic. White race should be protected. So should black, Asian, Occasion Hispanic, Latino anyone.
once again, are we protecting black people or the black "race" (as absurd of a term race is).
as I said, all individuals should be protected, purity should not.
and my question remains. protected from what? BLM for example, named a specific threat. why cant you or the original poster name the threat you perceive white people face?
Well, if he wrote "Blacks Should be protected." are you going to disagree. That's all it says. "White race should be protected." That's it. From what? anything that is a threat. I don't see any bad meaning behind it.
and also, what are we protecting them from?
are they under threat?
all individuals should be protected. but whether a race should be protected sounds like it means protecting the racial purity.
if all white people mingle with nonwhite people, the white "race" may cease to exist. but isnt that the individual choice of those people as to who to love and procreate with? I'm all for protecting people, not races.
I havent voted because the question is stupidly vague and the poster never clarified. but I would disagree based on that interpretation.
I don't see how you see it.
All I read is. "White race should be protected." I see no hidden meaning behind it.
I will disagree just because the topic is stupid and ambiguous. Should the "white race" be protected at the expense of other races, hell no. And most people who say things like this, that is exactly what they mean. For example when Tucker Carlson said that immigrants make america "dirtier". The argument he would make is that people who aren't white should be kept out to protect the "white race".
Is that something you would support?
so who disagreed with this? I really want too know why.
most of the books I read are nonfiction, and currently I'm reviewing my old textbooks. not much of a reader for fun, except some mangas.
how old are you? and what are you favorite books?
yes because all races should be protected?
this is why we can own firearms in the US
and I see that Two people disagree with this topic. huh
What do you mean?
Be protected from what?
white isnt a race.
and of course everyone should be protected, are white people in danger?