Heres how to debunk these people in their lanaguage:
When one is impoverished, problems are immediate: physical safety, shelter, nutrition. You aren`t concerned with distribution of privileges, you are concerned with RIGHTS
Understanding privilege and its causes itself requires privilege, otherwise you are only looking at effects, things happening to you anecdotally. What I mean is that privilege is a cognitive, broad, and societal concept, it requires free time and introspection to build conceptualizations on, which means that you have developed past initial concerns of impoverishment.
Also, the current narrative is one of plausible deniability, you can say anything about any race and deny what white people say because they "don't know what its like". This neccesitates conflict since there will always bee a language gap and disagreement, common language must be found and this approach is terrible for that.
White people imposed systems onto others, but they impose systems on themselves they must understand, and they themselves "appropriate" culture. Whats the difference between having culture "pushed" on you, and it being "appropiated"? It is all an exchange of ideas, much like speaker and listener, you can't choose what information to select from, and you can't choose what you are hearing.
Also, to understand other cultures requires privilege: education, language, and extraneous relationships must be developed. Privilege goes up, cosmopolitan goes up.
Essentially, as far as you can understand what its like to be white and you yourself aren't white, that is your privilege.
And ultimately, if we can't have white people denying white privilege, we cannot have a university/scientific community that can resolve conflicts civilly through words and ideas, and we might as well regress through history and resolve these conflicts through the sword and duels. The act of denying isn't direct opposition, understand from my white perspective that we are very distant/linear-thinking/systems-orientated people and it is an obligation to have a dialogue, so we do not "progress" to an unquestioning political slant. You cannot assume that a hypothesis is brought up immediately because they have a biased interest, that would undermine the entire industry and you should be cautious because that is happening today.