Instigator / Pro
Points: 21

Donald Trump is not currently Racist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Dr.Franklin
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 15
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
Round 1
Published:
Waive
Published:
Thank you Dr.Franklin

What would deem someone a racist?

P1: A racist must echo racist talking points
P2: Trump does that.
Conclusion: Trump is a racist

P1
In order to find out if a label is correct on someone they must be able to meet a condition in order to be called that. In this context in order to be labelled a racist one must echo prejudice based on race.

P2
Trump echoes prejudice against people based on race. This will be seen in the later comments I make

Conclusion
It follows from what I said earlier.

Elizabeth Warren

P1: Trump called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas
P2: This is racist
Conclusion: Trump is a racist

P1
Here is a video. If your reasoning is that well Trump didn’t say it, here is another video

P2
Pocahontas is referred to a woman who was held against her will by Anglo-Saxons, used for leverage. They used the time she was captured to teach her about Christianity and English. This led to her eventually being baptized and having the name Rebecca. She was used to agree to peace between the two parties. Her reasoning behind this was that she wanted to stay with colonists “who loved her". 

If it wasn’t clear. A person was abducted, changed Religion, had “holy water” splashed on her face, changed her name and agreed to call off her family to not be worried that she was captured.

This is the equivalent of an Uncle Tom. Essentially a race traitor.
From the link above: “In short terms, Uncle Tom is labeled to persons, similar to snitch or betrayer, whose motive is driven by acceptance that doing slavery was just how the (antebellum) Southern society worked, whether the acceptance is spontaneous or coerced.”

If we change betrayer to black people to betrayer to Native Americans then we see pretty much see a racial equivalent. Slavery can be changed to the battle between the colonists and Native Americans.  

Conclusion
Well it follows.


Arguments you might make that I am going to respond to here
Well Trump didn’t know this.
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. 

Pretty Korean lady

P1: Trump said why is an American, who has family from Korea, helping Trump negotiate with North Korea
P2: This is racist
Conclusion: Trump is a racist.

P1
Trump asked "Where are you from?" 
She replied with New York.
Trump asked more specifically and she said Manhattan.
He wanted to know more and asked again where were you from. 
She answered her parents were from Korea.
He pretty much said why isn’t this pretty Korean lady negotiating with North Korea?

P2
Even though Trump knew she was an American he still called her by where her parents were from. He even tried to pressure her into speaking about her heritage so that Trump can make a joke I am guessing about a Korean women being useful in North Korean negotiations. Pretty much targeting her value based on race instead of what she has done. As far as I know she is a journalist not a negotiator so he pretty much did not care about her American status and didn’t care that she isn’t part of the United States security team. 

Conclusion
Again it follows

Arguments you might make that I am going to respond to here
Making a joke isn’t racist
A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist. 

Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries
P1: Asks Americans to go back to their country
P2: This is racist
P3: Trump is racist

P1

P2
The President of the United States targets the squad’s racial background as an attack on them. Trump should know that all of them are Americans but still tell them to go back to their country. Only one of them were born in another country and the rest were born in the US. Even with Ilhan Omar she has lived in the US for the majority of her life as in 27 years and 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. 

Conclusion
Yet again it follows. 

Arguments you might make that I am going to respond to here
It is true that their country is bad
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.

Jewish voters who support Democrats are disloyal
P1: Jews are disloyal if they support the Democrats
P2: This is racist
Conclusion: Trump is a racist

P1
"And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."- Right at the end of the video.

P2
So basically any Jewish person who doesn’t accept Israel is a race traitor. Essentially an Uncle Tom

Change betrayer of black people to the betrayer of Jews. Change slavery to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. 

Conclusion
Yet again it follows. 

Arguments you might make that I am going to respond to here
Ilhan doesn’t care about Jewish voters because of X
Maybe she is also racist doesn't mean Trump isn’t a racist. 

Disloyalty doesn’t have to be tailored to race
Israel is majority Jewish and conversation was about Israel and to Jewish people. 

Clarification

  • 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

Conclusion
I have shown that Trump is a racist. It is up to Dr.Franklin to find flaws in what I presented. Given there is a 30k character limit and he is only rebutting claims, it is only fair to award Dr.Franklin based on arguments if he is able to present a sufficient counter to all my points. 




Round 2
Published:
RESOLVED: Donald Trump is not currently Racist

Thx for the Reply

REBUTTAL

Argument 1:Elizabeth Warren

Pocahontas was a satirical comment to poke fun at Elizabeth's Warren Ridiculous claim that she was Native American. She claimed this by putting "Native American" as her race:


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}
A claim that was COMPLETELY wrong because when she took the actual DNA test, it came back to see Warren having 1/64 to 1/1,024 actual Native American heritage. She needed to be 1/8 to be part of a tribe. She later apologized for her outrageous claims and actions.{2}

So is this comment actually racist? Well no 

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. You can't be a "traitor" to something you don't even control. Second, she didn't betray Native Americans she was forced to go to England and integrate. Next, Pocahontas is simply a mirror image of what Warren does. For example, 

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}
In short, Pocahontas was Ethically Native American but did not act like one when she integrated into English Society. Warren was not Ethically Native American BUT acted like one. Of course, the sides are flipped, but it's hard to find a situation in history like what Warren is claiming as popular as Pocahontas's story.

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

Nothing to do with Race. Trump is great with Native Americans

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?

Argument 3:Pretty Korean Lady

Even though Trump knew she was an American he still called her by where her parents were from.
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?

Remember the definition-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.

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. Trump saying that she should help with relations is reasonable because the Homeland of Korea or South Korea has been repeatedly threatened by North Korea from missile tests, threats, and closing it's doors to negotiation. Having someone who has been personally affected by this mess is why Trump wants them to be a negotiator. It's like saying that someone from Syria should help with talks with Assad because it personally affects them, it has nothing to do with race. 

Pretty much targeting her value based on race instead of what she has done.
What do you mean? Trump wanted her to be a negotiator. Also, he shouldn't be forced to talk about what the women has done or accomplished. Her value was not being Korean either, what "value"

Argument 4:It's just a joke

I 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.

Argument 5:go back to your countries

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.

the president simply rejects her citizenship because she has problems with the form of governance
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

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. 

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=bad

Their 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.

Argument 7:Jewish Voters

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:
  • 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}
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.

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.

Other Points

All of these arguments are after 2010
Yep.

4 points were made
and three rebuttals

Don’t know why there is a 30k character limit when I am the only presenting arguments and my opponent will be rebutting
Why Not? Do you have an actual reason

Conclusion

I have proved that Trump is not racist, I await my opponent's defense.

Sources:

Published:
Thank you Dr.Franklin for the reply
 
Elizabeth Warren

Pocahontas was a satirical comment to poke fun at Elizabeth's Warren Ridiculous claim that she was Native American.
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.
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
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.
Second, she didn't betray Native Americans she was forced to go to England and integrate. 
This is an argumentum ex silento. You have not presented any evidence to support this but still had this conclusion.
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
Name the logical fallacy and also demonstrate how it is a 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?
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.

Pretty Korean lady

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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Having someone who has been personally affected by this mess is why Trump wants them to be a negotiator.
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. 
Argument 4:It's just a joke
 
I 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.
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. 

I have also gave an argument in the first round essentially the follow to the very thing he said here. Instead of responding to that my opponent is 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.

Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries

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.
*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. 

I might not have got every single detail correct but the phrasing is the same. Maybe X is Y. Even if this is the case, it is still irrelevant to the conversation.
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
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.
Trump never said go back to your country
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.
he is saying to be more gracious to a country that has given the squad so much.
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.
Trump also said Travel Arrangements, meaning that he never said it was a permanent thing.
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.
If you Hate America, perhaps consider leaving to help another country. Tell me how that is racist, please.
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.
Argument 6:County=bad

Their homeland is a fucking dump.
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.
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.
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? 

Jewish voters who support Democrats are disloyal

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:
  • 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}
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.
 
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.
Now I know the 1970s is a long time away from now but I just had to bring up this source. This source is relevant because it also talks about data collection. It is also a .gov link while also operating in similar areas of government if it wasn’t clear already. I found this point very helpful in supporting my side:
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.
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.   

Over to you Dr.Franklin 

Round 3
Published:
Thx Omar for continuing this debate:

REBUTTAL

Argument 1:Warren

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.
Race exists!! I never doubted that wow. it wasn't a simple joke. It was a smart comment to poke fun at somebody, and no it's based on race, As I have said, it is based on the story of Pocahontas, which happens to be Native American, See the problem here for you Omar. Nothing to do with Race.

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.  
1. Race is Real
2. 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.

My point about human beings is an ethical issue. It is so degrading to call someone a traitor to their race. 

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 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

This is an argumentum ex silento. You have not presented any evidence to support this but still had this conclusion.
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, oh and one last thing-No one is being convinced by your fancy Latin

Name the logical fallacy and also demonstrate how it is a fallacy.
1. Elizabeth Warren Is Not Native American
2. You are claiming this is racist against Native Americans by attacking a Non-Native American

Fallacies don't need names.

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.

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. 

Honestly, nothing was rebuttaled here, My argument still stands on how The story matters not the name Pocahontas, and how Omar never proved that Pocahontas was racist.

Argument 2:Korean Lady

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.
Three times where they were from is NOT RACIST, racism is a belief on prejudice, that a race is not as superior as another race. 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?

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.
He did not value her base on race. 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!

An Asian-American who has parents from Korea isn’t grounds on if the person would be useful in negotiating.
Why? It's personal, she would be the personal aide Trump needs

Even a journalist is only useful at reporting and finding news. These things do not help in negotiating with a dictator.
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.

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.
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!

Trump does not know that and he never asked from the reports. 
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

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. 
Because the lady did not accept the invitation. It had nothing to do with race, just a slight indication of something that was going on in the news based on something personal to her, NOT RACE. Trump could be a genius who plays 4-D chess, who knows. This is all and trying to make it anything else is misleading. Sure it was not serious, but it wasn't exactly a joke. They had a conversation and North Korea was brought up. 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. 

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.

arent you making the same point though?

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. 

Epic Latin word because of no evidence. I answered your claims fully. You need to rebuttal the point on why it wasn't a joke and why a joke in good taste is racist?

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.
It's the same argument tell me the difference between making a joke isn’t racist, You disagree with this claim, right, cool I rebuttaled that, but you add on to your point-

A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist. 
I rebuttaled this too in one swing, saying it depends on the joke, that's a rebuttal of both points

Again nothing rebuttaled.

Argument 3:Democrat congresswomen 

*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.
are you sick? 

it is not similar, it was not simply "go back to your country", it's more complicated as I have explained

*cough* Maybe she is also racist doesn't mean Trump isn’t a racist. 
Oh God someone get this man a doctor

I agree but it is to prove that Trump has a point why Omar hates America.

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. 

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.

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.
Why do you Trump was inferring to remove the citizenship of Americans? Do you have any evidence for this claim? No, you do not, I said more than NO too. Another claim supported without evidence

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.
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

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.
Zero rebuttals, just feelings and repeated arguments that have already been debunked.

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.
Go Back to your Country implies permanent deportation of Blacks. Trump's comment can be taken, either way, it all depends on the squad's choice as outlined in trump's comment. 

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.
Really I DID Debunk that point-

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. 
See, he was not mimicking the KKK but making an entirely different point to the squad. I detested this point and Omar, you did not Rebuttal my point. I wanted you to tell me how Trump's true message behind the point, which you labeled as "sugar-coating" and a "non-sequitur"-

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. 
Why did you not respond to those claims? Extend Argument here. Point uncontested. You need to explain why Trump's real message which I decoded was not racist, you ignored ALL OF THAT, instead, you went to your KKK point where it's CLEAR that Trump's intention with his comment was not the same as the KKK's message

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. 

1. You are biased too.
2. It is relevant to the comment because the comment in question specifically mentions countries that are run down where the squad could fix.

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 already contested that point in my rebuttal above. Your comment underneath the original prompt was just a repeat argument you have already made. The only new content I had to discuss was the bad country argument/potential rebuttal.

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? 

What was the very thing I said he would do in this situation? I did not go off-topic and my opponent has failed to show how I have and what he is claiming here is correct. 

Argument 4:Jewish Voters

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.   
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.

CONCLUSION

I have rebuttaled everything and I await my opponent's last argument. It has been a good debate, but try and rebuttal my main points, please.

SOURCES

Published:
Thank you for the reply Dr.Franklin

Elizabeth Warren

1. Race is Real
2. 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.
The reason why I had this very easy implication to make is because you said this:
First, there is no such thing as a race "traitor" you are a human being

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.

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
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. 
You have not presented any evidence on why race traitor's existed, I have argued it has not,
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. 
also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Capture was my source and I cited it
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.
1. Elizabeth Warren Is Not Native American
2. You are claiming this is racist against Native Americans by attacking a Non-Native American

Fallacies don't need names.
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. 
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.
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.

Pretty Korean lady

What's the issue?
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.
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!
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. 
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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. 
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. 
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. 
why a joke in good taste is racist?
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. 

Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries

it is not similar, it was not simply "go back to your country", it's more complicated as I have explained
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.
I agree but it is to prove that Trump has a point why Omar hates America.
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. 
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.
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. 
Why do you Trump was inferring to remove the citizenship of Americans?
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. 
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  
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.
   
Jewish voters who support Democrats are disloyal

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. 
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. 
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}
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. 

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.
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.

Conclusion

I think I did well and shown how I am correct and how my opponent is wrong. I missed points that were not relevant. I don't need to cover all his points and since he didn't give me the same credence I think I am okay doing the same. It is up to readers to see if what I missed was relevant or not and I apologize for showing how irrelevant his comments were in this round and in the prior one. If I didn't do that I would only have a 5k response instead of a 14k one. 

Over to you Dr.Franklin
Round 4
Published:
Last round so let's do this

REBUTTAL

Argument 1:Elizabeth Warren

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.

This makes no sense, you Choose to be a gardener, you choose to be a murderer, you cant chose your race, so how do you betray it?

The human being argument is an ethical argument, you still don't get it. The point is that Homo Sapien is before race. Do you agree or disagree, you make no sense and no rebuttal from you on this 

Wasn't saying Pocahontas wasn't a real story yet you still point that out for some reason.
I know, I never claimed that you claimed that it was a fake story.

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.

Again, you don't get it, I never claimed we can't organize people by race, please show me where I did that, the human being argument is an ethical argument. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed race wasn't real.

Explain the statistics to me, this is lazy debating. The statistics meant nothing because you are putting words in my mouth.

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. 
You first made the claim of a race traitor, I presented it was not real, you proceed to lie about what I said, you went off-topic

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. 
An example? really just an example, how about a definition, what constitutes a race traitor, tell me why if you are a certain race you have to follow these cultures, rules, guidelines, and traditions. You never explained ANY of that but claimed Pcohontas was a race traitor with no evidence, The historical significance of Uncle Tom is something In have never denied. Nother lie to smear me. It does have significance to slavery. But to a discussion of whether Trump is racist or not, no it does not, Uncle Tom was EXCLUEVIELY for slavery and didn't include race, it was simply someone who accepted their slavehood. 

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.
This makes no sense, I clearly cited a source, I did not lie, did you not see my sources?:

See? Why am I lying, sure you cited it first, but why does it matter, the source was unbiased and stated facts about a historical account. What's the big deal?

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. 
The insult had everything to do with Warren not being Native American. That's where the entire fight started. After, Warren claimed she was Native American. Trump wouldn't have called her Pocahontas if Warren didn't claim she was Native American. Pocahontas referred to the story, not a racial slur. Your last analogy makes no sense and is irrelevant to the debate. 



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.

For the billionth time, the human being argument was an ethical response to the claim that race "traitors" exist. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. The historical significance of Uncle Tom is only to slavery. Pocahontas was not a traitor to Native Americans because she lived a European lifestyle.

While this is very stereotypical, it's like saying a black person who lives in rural, listens to rock and is a republican. That is not a traitor. 

Argument 2:Pretty Korean Lady

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.
No, he did not value her worth. What does that even mean? What the fuck is worth in someone? She was a journalist, she reports news, she is from Korea, put them together and you reach the conclusion that someone who keeps up with news and has a personal connection to the latest event would make a good negotiator. 

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 sources you provided which was an MSNBC article, not a fantastic source. In fact, MSNBC is very biased and has proved to be overly negative and making up things to promote their Anti-Trump agenda.{1} Also, it was a personal conversation so a lot of things should be taken as a grain of salt, We don't know the background to this conversation and since MSNBC has been known to spin things, there is a serious possibility that these things were exaggerated or made up.

In fact, the journalist was qualified for the position Trump offered

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.
Last, this is not the first time where Trump has been accused of racist things he said with no first-hand proof. His Supposed shithole comments had no proof of him saying that either.{2}So really who knows.

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.
Yes, making deals include facts. When you make a deal or treaty, you need facts to back up your position.

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.
Your biased too, And it was side point, I wanted to say it even though it meant little to the original point. However, you have handled it very poorly.

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. 
This is not a rebuttal, This is an ad hominem on me claiming that I have defended racism and have pandered to the crowd. You claim that a transcript would not be enough for me, well how do you know? It never came out so what is going on, AGAIN nothing was confirmed

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. 
It was NOT a joke, how many times do I have to repeat that, Trump is a serious guy. She denied the request because she was never a negotiator, it's that simple. If she was suddenly a negotiator, it would be announced.

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. 

No, calling someone the n-word is not funny, I never said this, I claimed a fun little joke in good taste like these are fine:http://www.laughfactory.com/jokes/racist-jokes/3. Another smear attack by my opponent, this can't go on longer. Voters, PLEASE recognize this smear campaign and award the conduct to me. The rest of your point is irrelevant to the debate and talks about comedians this argument is closed and a point for me

Argument 3:Democrat Congresswomen

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.
It is not akin to the KKK, I have already explained why it is not, this means nothing, just repeating the same thing again that I have already rebuttaled. Nothing new.

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. 
Nothing here to rebuttal, just a conspiracy theory about me pandering to a crowd and kritiking my 30k character limit.

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. 
it's not justified racism if it's not racism in the first place. Trump did not make racist comments, he outlined some hateful people to America and gave them an option to better their reforms to government. You are arguing this point like it is already racist and that it can't be justified, but you should have argued that it was racist in the first place. Please explain how trying to explain the meaning of a quote off-topic an irrelevant, You have failed to prove why that is the case. 


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.
Reject and removing would be the same thing when referring to the possession of what someone has, It's like saying someone has a pet dog. They bring their pet dog when they move to another county. The pet dod was removed, the same thing as rejected in this sense. Oh, and it's like you haven't tried to make my point any more exaggerated at all. There is totally no way that my opponent has lied about me and my argument throughout the debate(sarcasm, my opponent has lied about my human being argument, claiming that I said race wasn't real or that saying the n-word can be funny)Give conduct to me.

He accepts the citizenship, you still have not provided evidence he implied that you just wrote it off as it being clear already. That's not an argument, you need evidence to claim that Trump implied to remove/reject the citizenship of the squad here. 

My opponent wouldn't change his mind about Trump with that statement
So what? Why does that matter? I didn't change my mind because I like Trump and I don't think he is racist, I should not change my mind in the middle of the debate, that would be stupid, why are you expecting me to change my mind? It is because you think you are right? You are not correct here, I have my opinion, I am going to stick with it, it's a debate. This is an absurd statement, and I can't believe that it is one of your arguments, That I didn't change my mind about something. Wow, just wow. Voters take notice. This means absolutely nothing to this debate and the fact that an argument in a debate is that my opponent didn't change his mind about something is insane.

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. 
This means nothing. Just more name-calling and the same lies about my argument like how I denied that race exists. How have I virtued signaled? How have I shown I do not care for racism? Just outrageous claims with no evidence for.

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.
      
This is not a rebuttal. This is a dodge of my argument. Your rebuttal here was claiming that I claimed that Trump is not echoing the KKK because Trump and the KKK are not on the same scale. However, I argued that Trump's comment was a question to the squad and not a direct request to leave. You have not rebuttaled this. Why? Why does the approval rating of Trump matter? Why does the size of the KKK matter? Why does any of your "rebuttal" matter? What is even going on? The distinguishment of giving them a preferable option to better suit their reformist ideas is a big deal when comparing to the KKK.

Argument 4:Jewish Voters


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. 
A definition of race was already provided and did not include Jews: 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.

That's the definition, I have already provided that definition if you wanted to, you could have included more frames of racism, but you didn't, and you accepted the debate, The fact is that hating Jews is not racist. I don't need to give you a new definition if I have already provided one. When I said against a race, it meant against a race, not a religious group. Anti-semitism is not racism. It's not that hard to explain. I shouldn't have to clarify that all these isms and discrimination words don't apply to race. I already gave the definition. 


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. 

Data collection is not a proper way of defining a race. Defining a race includes the scientific and geographic explanations on why they exist. Blacks from Africa, Asians from well Asia and Indians from India. Statistics are just statistics and don't constitute a race. 

They are multiple reasons why race exists based on a scientific level. This is a fact. While there are no genetic differences in race. There is an explanation of why they exist in the first place. Yes, they do exist, I did not argue against this. This diagram{3}-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#/media/File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png-
shows that race is heavily dependent on the concentration of the sun to skin color. The concentration of the sun in African is the greatest and the hottest place, the skin color is darker. In Mexico for example, where the concentration is near the equator but not center of the Earth, the skin color is lighter but not white. There is a direct correlation between the concentration of the sun and the distance to the center of the earth and the equator. This would explain how whites get skin cancer more than blacks{4} or how blacks get frostbite or other cold-related injury more{5}

That is the scientific explanation of why races exist. Nothing to do with racism either, the facts line up well. 

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.

No rebuttal, it's just common sense that you can only be one race, but he claims that I am giving my feelings or it is off-topic. Your entire argument that started this discussion, in particular, was off-topic.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has lied about my arguments claiming that I claimed that race isn't real, saying the n-word is a funny joke and so much more. I have debunked my opponent's arguments and this is the end of the debate. My opponent will waive and we will begin the voting stage. Thx to my opponent, it was a good debate and VOTE PRO!

SOURCES





Published:
Thank you for creating this debate Dr.Franklin

I am going to make this short.

Elizabeth Warren

He gave two arguments worth considering.

The famous "you are a human being" which can pretty much be used for any scenario but this debate specifically have Dr.Franklin say race is not real because well we are human beings. I don't find this compelling nor did he even elaborate on such an argument until it was based in ethics? Please read what he said. He didn't explain this in the last round he just dropped it without explaining how this is relevant. 

Choice is the next one. I don't know what this has go to do with it. A race traitor simply makes the claim that you specifically chose to value being disloyal to your upbringing. If it wasn't clear objecting race traitor-ing on the grounds of the person not being able to choose their race is the same grounds we can condemn the use of traitor in a more common context. You being a traitor to your country. Not every one can simply move out their country and live long enough to be considered a citizen there so the most common usage of the word would be what Dr.Franklin would be also against. Even as a person selling secrets to China or something still chose to do so even though they have no real choice on where they would be born which is clearly akin to the Pocahontas story. 

Pretty Korean Lady

He gave one argument worth considering.

Well NBC is biased and it was a personal conversation. Bearing in mind he didn't use this as an opportunity earlier on in this debate, only in the last round while also taking the skeptic approach as in even if he is right all that he has done is discredit me for using an anecdote and a biased source. My original yet untested claim what constitutes a racist person is a person who echoes racist talking points. Meaning 3 arguments is more than enough to meet the plural so even if he is right on this last minute claim he shouldn't win the debate based on argument that doesn't demonstrate how Trump is racist is wrong. 

Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries

He gave no arguments worth considering.

Jewish voters who support Democrats are disloyal

He gave one argument worth considering.

Race is scientific because some-people have darker skin therefore they should be called black. I didn't know he bridged the is ought gap because I didn't see him justify this in anyway instead said and I quote "That is the scientific explanation of why races exist" after saying "There is a direct correlation between the concentration of the sun and the distance to the center of the earth and the equator. This would explain how whites get skin cancer more than blacks{4} or how blacks get frostbite or other cold-related injury more". Now lets put this in perspective. He basically said races exist because humans vary on where they live on Earth as in people closer to the equator have darker or people furthest from the equator lighter skin. Note he pretty much said people vary in skin color but did not actually provide any scientific backing on race. I wonder why Dr.Franklin didn't bring up the definition of race in the very link he gave us. Maybe because it doesn't actually support what he says:

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society"

So what we learn from a link that Dr.Franklin gave us which was title "Race (human categorization)" that people have differences and people would like to categorize it. I repeat categorize. There is no scientific backing on why we categorize them the way we do, we just do because of various reasons and one such one is data collection and it easy to call someone black then high melanin person.

I also reject the geographical argument for lacking an explanation. He gave a source and said he would give a geographical explanation without actually giving one. I don't count a map as an explanation and if I did he has more than enough words to use that as an explanation which would have to go back to science and his science wasn't actually good.  

This is quite short for rebuttals but I should've done this a long time ago. I found very little in terms of argumentation and barely anything about Trump being racist instead what was more relevant to Dr.Franklin was critiquing the very debate he started.

Just things I want to clarify

Implication 
I don't think Dr.Franklin knows what this means but for people who are genuinely interested in what I meant about this here is what I said in a forum post which highlights implications and how it is useful.

"Implicationan occasion when you seem to suggest something without saying it directly.

Okay the occasion is that immigrants depress American wages which seems to suggest that immigration is bad. This is a clear link.

Another example:

Dumbass says Spider-man 2 is bad because Spider man is in it. The obvious take-away would be Spider-man is in 1 and 3 therefore they all must be bad as well. 

This is exactly what Bernie did.

Bernie says workers programs import immigrants that depress American wages. The obvious take-away from this is that Immigrants are not only attained through worker programs so they all must depress wages."

What we are debating about
This debate is about whether or not Trump is racist. I don't think majority of the points brought up by Dr.Franklin were relevant compared to my very 1st round. Sure I should've avoided those points in later rounds but I can't change the past.

Virtue signalling
I find this problematic. Instead of actually spending time on finding how my statements are false by using stuff available of the internet, he decides to spend the time to compile a manifesto about Ilhan Omar. Now I don't know why he was pandering nor don't know why he just can't stay on topic but I hope other people picked this out as well. 

Conclusion
The level of dishonesty on what my arguments were, awful arguments and literally feigning ignorance has got to have me as the winner. Unless it is not about who actually presented the best argument, it is about who can skirt the line of the CoC and use it for whatever means they like. Maybe they dislike me or maybe they like my opponent. Whatever it maybe debating is a popularity contest.  

I'll leave it at that.
Added:
--> @Ragnar
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.
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @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.
#34
Added:
--> @Ragnar
>> 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.
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @Ragnar
>>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.
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @Ragnar
>> 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.
Contender
#31
Added:
--> @Ragnar
thx for the vote
Instigator
#30
Added:
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.
#29
Added:
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.
#28
Added:
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.
#27
Added:
---
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.
#26
Added:
--> @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...)
#25
Added:
--> @christopher_best
ok ;)
Instigator
#24
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I'm awfully busy but I'll do my best to leave one.
#23
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right, @Trent0405, @christopher_best, @bmdrocks21
I would love a vote
Instigator
#22
Added:
TO ALL VOTERS
RULE VIOLATION
CONDUCT OVER TO ME
Instigator
#21
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con broke agreed debate structure extremely by not waiving Round 4.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.