Instigator / Pro
21
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1700

Donald Trump is not currently Racist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
15
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

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

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

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.

-->
@Barney

>> 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.

-->
@Barney

>>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.

-->
@Barney

>> 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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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...)

-->
@MisterChris

ok ;)

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I'm awfully busy but I'll do my best to leave one.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@bmdrocks21
@MisterChris
@Trent0405

I would love a vote

TO ALL VOTERS

RULE VIOLATION

CONDUCT OVER TO ME

-->
@TheRealNihilist

" AND CON WAIVES R4"

Really?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

it gets annoying

-->
@dustryder

Nah

-->
@Dr.Franklin

"argumentum ex silentio"

"No one is being convinced by your fancy Latin"

lmaoo

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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.

-->
@dustryder

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!

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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.

-->
@dustryder

"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

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Good luck

-->
@Username

I agree.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

yes

-->
@Username

sure

-->
@Dr.Franklin

You ready?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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."

-->
@Barney

Sure thx

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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).

-->
@Dr.Franklin

https://makeameme.org/meme/you-sir-are-77gzb1

Back into debating!