Donald Trump is not currently Racist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
RESOLVED: Donald Trump is not currently Racist
Definitions:
currently: at the present time. OR After 2010
Racist-a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
BOP IS ON CON, PRO WILL WAIVE R1 AND CON WAIVES R4
- All of these arguments are after 2010
- 4 points were made
- Don’t know why there is a 30k character limit when I am the only presenting arguments and my opponent will be rebutting
Presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren is facing further fallout from her past self-identification as Native American after the Washington Post on Tuesday published a copy of her 1986 State Bar of Texas registration card on which she listed her race as "American Indian." {1}
In 1616, the Rolfes travelled to London where Pocahontas was presented to English society as an example of the "civilized savage" in hopes of stimulating investment in the Jamestown settlement. She became something of a celebrity, was elegantly fêted, and attended a masque at Whitehall Palace. In 1617, the Rolfes set sail for Virginia, but Pocahontas died at Gravesend of unknown causes, aged 20 or 21. She was buried in St George's Church, Gravesend in England, but her grave's exact location is unknown, as the church has been rebuilt.{3}
Even though Trump knew she was an American he still called her by where her parents were from.
Pretty much targeting her value based on race instead of what she has done.
Omar has made a career of denouncing anyone and anything in her way as racist. That would include virtually all of her political and personal opponents. It includes even inanimate objects like the border wall, that's racist. So was the Congress, so is the entire state of North Dakota, she once tweeted.{6}
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would, by the standard of identity politics, seem to have everything in common with Ilhan Omar. She was born in Somalia, moved to Kenya and eventually came to this country. Unlike Omar, she loves and cares about the United States. She believes this country is superior to the country she came from.{6}
the president simply rejects her citizenship because she has problems with the form of governance
The words “Why don’t they go back” is akin to the KKK using "Go back to your country.". The KKK used to target African Americans and in this case, Trump is attacking Ilhan Omar who is an African American.
My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.
The Revisions to OMB Directive 15 defines each racial and ethnic category as follows:
- American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
- Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
- Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
- Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
- White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.{7}
All of these arguments are after 2010
4 points were made
Don’t know why there is a 30k character limit when I am the only presenting arguments and my opponent will be rebutting
Pocahontas was a satirical comment to poke fun at Elizabeth's Warren Ridiculous claim that she was Native American.
First, there is no such thing as a race "traitor" you are a human being and it's disgusting to see someone be called a race "traitor" your race does not matter if you are black, doesn't mean you need to fit into typical black culture music, events, etc
Now it would be something if he stayed consistent to this very idea but he doesn't. Just earlier he defended A is not racist because it is satirical comment but here instead of actually presenting an argument that this wasn't race traitor-ing he says it is isn't real because well, we are human beings.
Second, she didn't betray Native Americans she was forced to go to England and integrate.
Point 2:Of course, if calling someone a race "traitor" was racist, Elizabeth Warren isn't even a Native American so she can't be a race "traitor" in the first place. A Logical Fallacy
Argument 2:Well Trump didn't know that
Of course, he knew what Pocahontas was. Why would he bring it up if he didn't?
My opponent didn't respond to my claim instead responded to my attempt at what my opponent would say and completely missing the more important point. This point has remained untested.
Is That an issue? Saying where are you from and then calling you by x ethnicity based on where you were from is racist now?
So let's say that you ask where someone came from, they reply with Ireland, and you say you are an Irishman, that's not Prejudice.
Next, this makes no sense, the lady said she was from Korea. If she was from Korea, then the Lady knows about South and North Korea especially if she was a journalist.
Having someone who has been personally affected by this mess is why Trump wants them to be a negotiator.
Argument 4:It's just a jokeI didn't argue this for trump because it wasn't a joke, but if someone says a joke in good taste, like many people have done, it is not racist. for example, saying "what's the difference between a black dad and a boomerang, the boomerang comes back" An obvious joke, not racist.
1. The Squad are all women of color who have backgrounds in different countries, some are run down.
2. Trump's point here is that someone like Ilhan Omar who has repeatedly done some outrageous things to blame America, while not recognizing that her home country of Somalia is riddled with crime, rape, and terrorism should not tell Americans what to do. For example, She blamed America for the Venezuela crisis, She even has ties to Anti-Israel and Anti-American group known as Witness for Peace. Tucker Carlson sums it up the Best:
Omar has made a career of denouncing anyone and anything in her way as racist. That would include virtually all of her political and personal opponents. It includes even inanimate objects like the border wall, that's racist. So was the Congress, so is the entire state of North Dakota, she once tweeted.{6}
Someone Like Omar has nothing good to say about the country that gave her so much. So what Trump is saying that while Omar comes to this country and hates it, shit's on it and refuses to give credit to it being one of the greatest nations, then she tries to tell us what to do with her governing? Perhaps she should care more about the terrible issues in Somalia.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would, by the standard of identity politics, seem to have everything in common with Ilhan Omar. She was born in Somalia, moved to Kenya and eventually came to this country. Unlike Omar, she loves and cares about the United States. She believes this country is superior to the country she came from.{6}
She should act more like her where she actually likes America and recognizes that Somalia is a third world country to America.
Rejects citizenship? Where are you getting this? NO Trump does not want to reject her citizenship, all Trump is saying is that If you hate America so much, perhaps go somewhere else, like your home country. What about all those celebrities that were going to go to Canada if Trump won? HAHA
Trump never said go back to your country
he is saying to be more gracious to a country that has given the squad so much.
Trump also said Travel Arrangements, meaning that he never said it was a permanent thing.
If you Hate America, perhaps consider leaving to help another country. Tell me how that is racist, please.
Argument 6:County=badTheir homeland is a fucking dump.
My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.You think I would make that argument, why? I would stick to the topic in a debate.
Religion is not a race. Race is something you can't control while Religion is something you can. My ENTIRE Opponent's argument shall be neglected because being Jewish is not a race.
The Revisions to OMB Directive 15 defines each racial and ethnic category as follows:Nothing about being Jewish or being part of a religion. You can only be one race. So you can't be a Black/jew as a race. Just black as race, and jew as religion.
- American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
- Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
- Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
- Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
- White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.{7}
If you want to talk about Trump being Prejudice towards a religious group, we can but not in this debate. Stick to the topic of Race.
This Directive provides standard classifications for record keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
So basically it is okay to attack people based on race if it is a joke? Nothing here states it isn't a racist comment unless you take the position that race doesn't exist which by reading what you have said later on, I think I am okay claiming that.
If it wasn't clear my opponent is critiquing the very conflict of this debate. Whether or not Trump is racist. Dr.Franklin basically said a race traitor doesn't exist because we are human beings. This heavily implies that he doesn't think races exist, my question would be why make a debate about is someone racist when you don't even take the position that race is real? Now given I don't need to change my opponent's mind only to make a convincing argument, I'll just present this in the hopes people pick this up. I find this to be well in-conducive because instead of saying A is not racist, my opponent heavily implies to take the position that racism doesn't exist.
Now it would be something if he stayed consistent to this very idea but he doesn't. Just earlier he defended A is not racist because it is satirical comment but here instead of actually presenting an argument that this wasn't race traitor-ing he says it is isn't real because well, we are human beings.
This is an argumentum ex silento. You have not presented any evidence to support this but still had this conclusion.
Name the logical fallacy and also demonstrate how it is a fallacy.
This is intentional cherry-picking. Just below the italics (the comment I thought my opponent was going to make) was my argument which is "A person can echo racist talking points without knowing it to be the case. A white guy can say the n-word but still be considered a racist.".My opponent didn't respond to my claim instead responded to my attempt at what my opponent would say and completely missing the more important point. This point has remained untested.
If it wasn’t clear by my first round. Trump asked three times where she was from. Trump wasn’t satisfied with New York or Manhattan instead was satisfied until she said her parents were from Korea. Trump use this as a joke. Basically said she is valuable because of her race not what she has accomplished which I have all made clear in the first round that I am regurgitating here.
Something to address someone’s national background is not akin to using someone’s race as a joke. This joke was also valuing a person’s ability by their race not what she has done irrespective of race.
An Asian-American who has parents from Korea isn’t grounds on if the person would be useful in negotiating.
Even a journalist is only useful at reporting and finding news. These things do not help in negotiating with a dictator.
A journalist aims to be as unbiased as possible in order to seem credible whereas a negotiator will use whatever means to find a good deal for their party.
Trump does not know that and he never asked from the reports.
Meaning you are implying that Trump made an effort into asking her if she was a good negotiator. If this was the case why isn’t Trump using an adviser to find him one? This is you painting a picture that cannot be reasonably deduced unless you think Trump is a 4-D chess player who checks the credibility of a candidate on how they take a racist joke.
Yet again he is replying to the italics version of what I said. He didn’t even bother to respond to my argument of my guess of what he would say.
This is again an attempt at not answering my main point that Trump is a racist. It is basically a red herring. My point is not pivotal on Trump making a joke, my point is pivotal on Trump making a racist comment.
simply spending this round pretty much telling me to argue a point that I have already argued. Comment beneath the italics:A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist.This point was not addressed in the most recent quote.
A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist.
*cough* It is also true that what Trump said is really similar to what the KKK said. My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.
*cough* Maybe she is also racist doesn't mean Trump isn’t a racist.
Now the second one I copied was from a different point but given we are talking about the subject there is overlap. All of this a non-sequitur as in not relevant to the conversation at hand. I would love for my opponent to find a single point given here that was relevant to the debate. Having 30k characters doesn’t excuse my opponent from talking about irrelevant stuff unless he wants me to read things that are not important.
The argument here is no and then lets not talk the point that what he said is akin to what the KKK have said. I don’t really have anything to respond to given he didn’t explain his “NO” instead moved onto a point that I have already addressed. See P2 (the one that has more than 3 words) under “Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries” if you are not sure that I have already countered this.
I seriously don’t know what would be enough. “why don’t they go back” is the same thing as “go back to your country” as in both send a clear message. that person should go back to their country. No real explanation was given but I will still speak about the non explanation he gave after this statement.
This is you sugar-coating sh*t. It is still sh*t no matter how palatable you make it and this is a non-sequitur. I think it is reasonable for me to assume that saying the same thing in a different way is essentially the same thing yet here we have my opponent not stating going back to your country isn’t racist instead tries to make it more palatable.
A non-sequitur. I am not talking about their travel or if it is permanent. I am talking about if it is racist or not.
Readers be aware that my opponent did not tackle the most important point I made. What Trump said is akin to what the KKK said. He instead sugar-coats it and doesn’t even mention the KKK even though he quotes me speaking about it. I find this intentionally avoiding the point at hand because I think he can’t give a point to contest. This is yet another point untested.
Trump never said go back to your country, he is saying to be more gracious to a country that has given the squad so much.
This is you sugar-coating sh*t.,All of this a non-sequitur as in not relevant to the conversation at hand. I would love for my opponent to find a single point given here that was relevant to the debate. Having 30k characters doesn’t excuse my opponent from talking about irrelevant stuff unless he wants me to read things that are not important.
Thank you for making it aware of your biases and how much you would like to shove it in when it isn’t even relevant. Yet again targets my italics representing what I thought he would say but this time he paraphrases it.
Here is what I said underneath:It is also true that what Trump said is really similar to what the KKK said. My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.Note this point was not contested. I don’t think he even brought up the KKK instead of simply quoting me talking about them. This point remained un-contested.
I don’t think my opponent knows what is going on. This debate is about whether or not Trump is racist after 2010. My job is to present the arguments and your job is to tell me how I am wrong. If my opponent didn’t understand this why did he do the very thing I said he would do?
Now this more than enough covers using an authority figure for something this reputable site deems not scientific as in based on nature and can be measured to be so. It is only for data collection purposes. Meaning my opponent used an argument of authority even though there is no authority on race instead authority on data collecting based on race.
1. Race is Real2. You can't be a "traitor" to something you can't control or a race.Seriously Omar, how am I arguing that Race doesn't even exist. You did not defend your point. My argument why you can't be a traitor to your race was not rebuttaled, Extend Argument.
This is a terrible point. The Pocahontas's name is based on the story of Pocahontas, Race is real BUT you can't be a traitor to a race, it's a race and doesn't mean you are entitled to certain beliefs and traditions. Human beings are referred to as human before race or Human>Race and an ethical issue
You have not presented any evidence on why race traitor's existed, I have argued it has not,
also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Capture was my source and I cited it
1. Elizabeth Warren Is Not Native American2. You are claiming this is racist against Native Americans by attacking a Non-Native AmericanFallacies don't need names.
Your main point was someone not knowing, My rebuttal is that Trump knew. your white guy N-word was a poor example because "Pocahontas" is not a racial slur.
What's the issue?
What is valuing someone? He knows that Koreans have been treated by the North so he offered that position, also if she was educated and a journalist, then he is basing that position offering on that not on race, no evidence too so it's epic Latin word!
Yes, they do, journalists specialize in facts, of course, this journalist could have specialized in foreign affairs, but they protected the identity of this person.
Are you joking? This point means nothing to the debate but journalists SUCK! They should be laid off in droves for a dying business, beautiful, ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
How do you know that? The official transcript was never released, no one knows what went on except for the conversation about North Korea with Trump and that lady
Trump asking for someone's ethnicity is not a big deal.Again, it was a slight indication, however, the lady showed no interest in the position Trump was offering.
why a joke in good taste is racist?
it is not similar, it was not simply "go back to your country", it's more complicated as I have explained
I agree but it is to prove that Trump has a point why Omar hates America.
Explaining Donald Trump's position and using evidence to do so is useful to understanding the quote in question. The quote of Donald Trump has a meaning that is well worth diving in to explain why the comment is not racist. however, you didn't give an example on Why or what exactly was irrelevant.
Why do you Trump was inferring to remove the citizenship of Americans?
What No! why don't they go back is not the same as go back to your country, the meaning of the quote for Trump is giving the squad an option, then why don't they go back is a QUESTION to the squad, while the KKK's comments about go back to your country IS racist and is directly talking to blacks to be deported and go back to Africa, Trump is not
Sorry, I constituted this debate, if you hate Jews you are not racist, if you take the position of trump on this Jewish comment, you are not racist, you are an ANTI-SEMITE.
This really doesn't prove anything, there are tons of authority on race and race statistics. Here are the facts: Race applies to different ethnic groups not religious because you can't be two races at a time, you are either white or black, Hispanic or Asian.{1}
So theoretically if you can only be one race, then you can't be racially black AND be racially Jewish as your race. They need to be separate.
This justification can apply to almost any scenario. Well you can't be a murderer because well you are a human being. You can't be a gardener because you are well a human being. Being a human being doesn't mean you can't be a race traitor and you haven't made that link. I am well within my judgement to say this very same argument can be justified to say races do not exist because if it works for race traitor-ing then it works for not having any races. I would actually like an actual justification that people can't be a race traitor not well we are human beings. There is no link and you haven't demonstrated it to be the case.
Wasn't saying Pocahontas wasn't a real story yet you still point that out for some reason.
Who said we are basing this off of entitlement?I am sorry when people data collect they use race above humans because using humans as a category doesn't make it is easy to categorize people. I guess you are against good data the bureau of labor statistics follows.
This entire point he made here is a complete mess and distracts for Trump not being a racist. Nothing he said here was important to the debate so I am confused about what is going on.
Nope I have presented someone betraying the very race she was apart of. You on the other hand deny race traitors can even be a thing. You are not actually critiquing my side instead feigning ignorance to a point where you don't think something exists. How am I supposed to tell you that something exists? This question is rhetorical. I don't have to change your mind for people to vote for me. I can't believe you deny the historical significance of Uncle Tom by denying the exact same scenario with the race and events only being different.
First ever link to this source was by me. Simply press ctrl+f, find Pocahontas and click on the second use of that word. You are lying and I don't even see the point to it.
My opponent failed to point out the fallacy he said I committed.If it wasn't clear already the offense wasn't because Warren wasn't Native American, it was that Trump used essentially a racist slur to berate an opponent of his. Notice he is not actually talking about Trump not being racist instead of muddying the lines with well Warren wasn't Native American. Even if this is true it doesn't matter to the argument. Saying the n-word without a black person around is still racist.
Just making sure people understood his defense was well we are human beings. My case is better given I actually pointed to historical context of Uncle Tom and how that is akin to the Pocahontas story but my opponent rejects that on the basis of a non-sequitur that is well we are human beings.
He valued her worth because of where her parents were from. Devaluing more qualified people because well they are not Korean. I don't really know how much simple I can make it. Yet again feigning ignorance. I hope people understand this isn't actually an argument.
Nothing in the reports suggested he knew how competent she was as a journalist. Unless you are yet again making excuses for Trump. You have no backing in the sources I provided so you are making this up.
The exchange occurred in the Oval Office last fall when a career intelligence analyst specializing in hostage policy explained to Trump the impending release of a family that had been held in Pakistan. Afterward, Trump asked her, "Where are you from," two anonymous officials told NBC News.
Making the best deal happen is the same as providing facts in an unbiased way? Yet again my opponents makes links where it is no reasonable to think so.
Non-sequitur and more of your bias showing. If it wasn't clear, I hope readers understand just how little in the form of argumentation he has given. It makes it difficult to argue when he doesn't directly address the argument and I don't see how he has made a compelling case anywhere.
From what was stated, I'll go out on a limb and trust a media over Dr.Franklin. I don't even think an official transcript would be enough for you because like here you have already made it clear you would do anything do defend racism. Calling it a joke, feigning ignorance, pandering to the crowd and some other stuff.
My opponent is defending Trump asking for an Asian-American's parents background (bearing in mind he didn't talk about the rascist joke he made)?My opponent placed in information that was in none of the data presented. He has given no links and it can't be implied we agree on that anything was reveled about her accepting or not accepting the offer. This is yet again a mix of my opponent making excuses and creating a fictional world where he brought in evidence that he used to support his claim.
Okay so calling people the n-word if it is funny is okay. I can't begin to make an argument that would please you given your reason for someone not being a race traitor can essentially be pretty much used for anything like race is not real. For the readers I would say race jokes is definitely an iffy line and it is best to avoid it. Mainly because it can harm a community when the goal of a comedian is trying to make people laugh. Given how quickly press like this can spread I think it is fair for comedians to be able to think jokes not specifically about race. Given that Trump is not a comedian he does not have the same expectation. Trump is the president of the United States who uses his platform in an ignorant way instead of behaving responsibly. He has a different expectation which is to lead but instead tries to be a comedian. He doesn't get a pass because a leader is supposed to rise above racist jokes but he just can't help himself.
Not only has my opponent not explained the difference between the two but also is pretty much defending the KKK. By not condemning the actions of Trump that is akin to the KKK his response can be used for the defense of the KKK. I'll wait when he actually decides to critique the very source I brought up. Not bringing up additional information that is not relevant nor overrides what I said unless you think painting a picture about the squad was relevant.
Note that he did not provide an argument for Trump not being racist instead simply said this just to show us why he had a 30k character limit, to regurgitate his talking points to pander to a crowd.
A steel-man of my opponents position would be that there is a thing called justified racism where Trump can say racist things if someone else is being bad. If I take what he said here my way, he didn't provide a single point of relevance when it pertains to the topic at hand. Nothing he said here or in the manifesto of Omar was relevant to Trump not being racist and his failure to show how it is relevant can be seen by what I quoted.
I clearly said reject not removing. This is a mischaracterization in order to make my point look more extreme than it is. Remove implies he is actively doing something to take it away from her. Reject means he is using his platform to deny her citizenship, you know the president of the United States is questioning an opposition of his.Note also by evidence he wants me to find that Trump said "I reject Ilhan Omar's citizenship". My opponent doesn't accept implications and if it wasn't clear already doesn't accept almost completely the same statement as evidence so even if I meet that criteria he still won't accept it. I see this as a lie.
My opponent wouldn't change his mind about Trump with that statement
he just asked it because he is virtue signalling that he cares about racism when he has shown he doesn't. His argument can deny race even exists, he has used it is just a joke bro as an argument and feign ignorance to name a few things he has done.
So KKK saying go back as a minuscule group even in its prime (2nd Klan compared to the population of the US in 1924 makes them only 19% of the population) is comparable to Trump who has currently a 41.9% approval rating while also being the president of the United States is comparable? I find this disingenuous and note that his only distinction is that he gave them an option. Not comparing the scale nor the option from a president who dislikes you heavily implies he wants you to leave but lets leave that out because that would make my side a lot more agreeable.
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.Note that Jewish people have their own word for being prejudice against them but what my opponent doesn't realize that anti-black and being racist can be levied at the same time. He refuses to give me a new definition of race instead simply says well they have their own definition so a person can't be racist for acting out their dislike for Jews. I await a definition of race or you know deny the very thing that can give your argument any credence and could've been so important to bring up at the very start of the debate.
Note I brought in an argument addressing races are defined based on data collection not because of some scientific backing but instead of actually arguing against the point my opponent just decides to give me another link to read. Essentially moving the goalposts even though what I quoted still addresses what he says. If my opponent does think there is an authority on race then he is pretty much anti-scientific since scientific racism has had any relevance and when it did have relevance in 1994 because of the Bell-Curve critiques already provided no basis between race and science.
Either my opponent uses science to support what he says or he is giving us his feelings. Whatever it maybe it is still not an argument that Trump isn't racist.
See comment:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1700/comment_links/23834
Gist:
BoP was on con to prove Donald Trump is racist, which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Con broke agreed debate structure extremely by not waiving Round 4.
There was a clear rule violation. Con did not waive round 4, thus giving him an unfair advantage(extra round) in the debate. This is poor conduct. Both made equally compelling arguments that went off topic a lot, so I don't think they can be fairly evaluated from me, especially since my personal bias is for con's position.
I am glad you didn't bother to respond to my critiques. Whatever that comes out of your mouth wasn't worth listening to when you pretty much said I called you a KKK member. If anyone actually thinks you look better in this they value lying less than swears.
Oh and where was my "vile ad hominem attacks" to Our_Boat_is_Right and RationalMadman speaking about their vote? I'll wait.
I didn't know you cared so much about a friends list. I would literally have to remove at least half of them if I cared about it. Not to mention I have thou shall not be named on my friends list. To each their own I guess.
You've previously confirmed that you pull vile ad hominem attacks against anyone who votes in favor of the other debater, based on that whom they voted for instead of on the quality of the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/andrew-yang-should-be-elected-president-for-2020). In light of this, I am not going to indulge your petulant antics, which include such accusations as anyone who doesn't vote for you must be a member of the KKK.
>> but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
Bearing in mind Dr.Franklin made no reference to culture whatsoever. His argument was this "Nothing about being Jewish or being part of a religion." which was dependent on the link you rejected. Meaning this was an appeal to the source not independent of it so if you reject the source you reject his paraphrase of the source. I can't believe you are going to get away this shit vote.
>>which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Well he can't be racist because of x explanation not basing this off of how lackluster his justification for any of this was.
>>he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
What the fuck. I have to literally read his mind and even if I reach that, I don't think it would be enough for the piece of shit Ragnar to think he is a racist. "Probably racist" is not enough? If Ragnar actually had a standard I would only think him wearing white clothes, with a white cone hat and saying exactly the same things the KKK said to even meet that bar yet it doesn't matter how trash Dr.Franklin's arguments were and I have clearly pointed it to be the case.
>>As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
Go fuck yourself. You are heavily biased and I can't believe how much I am getting fucked. I hope I get a second opinion from a vote moderator then I'll go from there.
>>So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean.
I am sorry didn't think you would miss this but you did.
"He pretty much said why isn’t this pretty Korean lady negotiating with North Korea?"
>>Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general
Oh my fucking God. Literal shit tier response. I didn't know Omar being a racist discredits Trump being a racist. Literally violence isn't violence if you were the one being violent second.
>>Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
Again shit tier response. Trump should know they have resided in America for most of their life yet he still said what he said. Meaning anyone can easily infer that they should go back to their racial country. I even used the KKK as an example yet that wasn't enough for you it was racist. He essentially said the same thing the KKK did. What the actual fuck
>>With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense.
Actually go fuck yourself. I did way more than reach the "minimale BoP" and Dr.Franklin's arguments were literal shit tier.
>>Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
There is two ways to take this. If Trump doesn't follow all that the KKK does then he isn't akin to them or if Trump doesn't physically act on it then it isn't akin to the KKK. Bearing in mind how irrelevant it is to Trump being racist. You don't need to deport people to be racist nor do you need to follow every single thing that the movement did you just did need to say racist things.
>> I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
I didn't know you didn't read his description on this debate which clearly states "Racist-a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races". By me adding the syllogism this it is an implied agreement on what a racist is. A person who shows or echoes discrimination or prejudice. I don't need support when he never disagreed with what I said.
>> Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
Neither the link nor what he said suggested that she would be a useful negotiator. From what was released all that Trump knew was that her parents were from Korea not she has ever been nor has a lot of knowledge about it. You are clearly missing what occurred in the debate if this is actually what you think Dr.Franklin did.
>> I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
I can't believe you would add such a redundant statement here. It is almost as if you are intentionally voting based on not what this debate is about whether Trump is or isn't racist. My role was not to show the positives of Trump being racist it was to show that he is racist.
>>This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race
Oh did you just miss an option like used a race-traitor as an insult to a person he didn't know was Native American or not? Wow I thought it wasn't clear how shit your vote was but this has got to be clear. I also like how you clearly missed his vacuous justification "you are a human being". I can't actually believe you are getting away with fucking me over so much on this site.
thx for the vote
As an example of the legibility issue, consider my review of the debate in comments #28 and #29. Had con written it, it would probably look like this:
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
...It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
...Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
etc.
I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
Given the existing RFDs not looking at the arguments, I am putting some extra work in to give con a fair shot at at least tying the debate...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The setup defines two pathsAs pro cannot prove a negative, the setup defines two paths for con to attain victory: Either (1) prove racially based prejudice against individuals, or (2) belief in superiority/inferiority.
1. What would deem someone a racist?
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
Con proves Trump called her a name, and shows the racial connection. Pro defends that Trump does not believe Warren to be native, and is just being an asshole. This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race. It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
I think where con was going with this is that race doesn’t exist, a point he previously said pro said to talk against... So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean. The news story was very non-specific to this incident, so this feels like a dead end even before pro’s responses. Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
Finally, something which could go somewhere toward the resolution.
This looks like pretty clear racism, ‘Speak English or Die’ type rhetoric. Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general. In this context, Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
It does of course remain highly suspect. With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense. Someone can say someone eerily similar to what a member of the KKK might say, but not be a member nor supporter of the KKK. Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
5. Jewish Voters
This point had probably the least work put into it, when it would be worthy of an expansion into a stand-alone debate.
So getting to the heart of it... Pro shows some slightly off beliefs about ethnicities (no, I don’t buy his source as a comprehensive list proving there’s only about five ethnicities, even while it used umbrella terms which imply such), but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
A problem does of course arise with how ambiguous the term Jew can be, as it’s religious, cultural, sometimes racial, etc. For it to be clear cut racism, it needs to be shown that it was contextually referring both to race, and then that the race is better or worse than other races for being that race; of which I did not spot any real attempt. This section basically turned into Red Herrings which were explored as if diving down a rabbit hole.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. BoP was on con to prove Donald Trump is racist, which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Going back to pro’s opening, I would say the problem is that while he manages to show echoes of racist talking points, he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
Note: I dislike Trump. On race, he has a history of demanding special treatment due to his Native American blood (of which he claims to have more of than whole tribes). He’s very bigoted, and scary if his words are taken literally. However, that’s my outside the debate opinion and research. Victory is for what is presented inside the debate.
Conduct:
Con made a rule violation. Comparatively, pro made some jokes about people fleeing to Canada and showed lack of knowledge on racial terms, but neither distracted from the debate. I don’t see any issue with pro responding to con’s italic text which con imaged he might write.
S&G:
The formatting could have been better. Pro did some really weird formatting to cluster responses to ideas away from each other and to the next thing he was going to later respond to, which harms legibility, but technically his spelling and grammar were fine.
As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
(in case anyone is curious, for the longest time my SOP was to not give points to either side on abortion debates, as I suspected I would have been an unfair judge...)
ok ;)
I'm awfully busy but I'll do my best to leave one.
I would love a vote
TO ALL VOTERS
RULE VIOLATION
CONDUCT OVER TO ME
" AND CON WAIVES R4"
Really?
it gets annoying
Nah
"argumentum ex silentio"
"No one is being convinced by your fancy Latin"
lmaoo
A homeland by dictionary definition is just where a person was born or where they call home.
I didn't say you or Trump were being insulting. But it very much seems like prejudiced behaviour.
homeland is not US, no homeland is the US apart from Natives
I am insulting descendents
Oh no boo hoo, asking for someone background is not insulting anyone!
The country she is from and the country she calls her homeland is the US which is why she answered New York and Manhattan first and foremost. The fact that you haven't recognised this in your own analysis of Trump's behaviour and the fact that you are insinuating that descendants of immigrants must necessarily recognise their ancestral countries as the country where they are from or their homeland is in itself prejudiced behaviour.
"That's a yikes from me"
how so
I would say that Trump isn't racist. He's the living embodiment of an internet troll. If he says something racist, it isn't because he racist but because he just doesn't care. In his mind, people who disagree with him deserve any insult he can throw at them.
Also, being racist would imply some form of loyalty to his own race, and I highly doubt Trump is loyal to anyone or thing other than himself (excepting his young son, that is.).
"Trump wanted to know where the lady was. No issue here. He didn't care about New York or Manhatten because he doesn't want to know that, not racist. he wanted to know the country she is from, the country she proudly calls her homeland. What's the issue?"
That's a yikes from me
Good luck
I agree.
yes
sure
You ready?
This is absurdly hard to prove. Trump's racism is very much implicit rather than explicit (he's the president after all) so if I have the BoP anything I say could be countered by "well, this doesn't PROVE he's racist etc."
Sure thx
You should probably clarify your definition of present time, mainly expand it. Does he need to have demonstrated racism this current minute (during which he might be sleeping, depending on when someone reads this), or how recently? ... Since he is associated with the presidency, I would probably point to that.
Failing this, his history is left fair game (including his demand for preferential treatment as a Native American ... he actually did this in I think it was 1994, a mere six years before he ran for president).
https://makeameme.org/meme/you-sir-are-77gzb1
Back into debating!