Instigator / Pro
0
1438
rating
7
debates
14.29%
won
Topic

The Democrat Party is the Anti-Black Party

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

User_2006
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
History
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
1
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Opening Statement:

Andrew Jackson was not only the first Democrat that won the presidency, but he was also the first pro-slavery president. Yes, I know Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe all owned slaves, but they vehemently opposed it both publicly and privately and looked for ways to end it. Jackson, on the other hand, never spoke against it or tried to put America on the road to ending it. Indeed, he led in the movement to allow slave states in order to help the south keep the north in check from creating amendments that would further the extinction of slavery. So from it's cradle the Democrat Party was anti-black. At the time leading up to the Civil War and even during Democrats, both the ones in the North and South opposed any efforts by the Whigs or the Republicans from implementing policies that would stop the expansion of slavery. After the Civil War, northern Democrats opposed the 13th Amendment and later they also opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments. Democrats even sought to cover up their efforts in keeping the blacks from voting. The Democratic South established segregation laws and terrorist organizations (KKK) to marginalize black. At the same time Democrats like Margaret Sanger sought to control black families by instituting and promoting abortion mainly in black communities in order to purposefully exterminate the black population (Hillary Clinton (D) actually praised her. In the 1960s the only reason why the Civil Rights Act passed was because the Republicans overwhelmingly supported it while the Democrats were split over it. The only reason LBJ wanted the Democrats to vote for it is to have "the n****er voting Democrat for the next two hundred years" or else it might not have passed at all. Even today Democrats want to deny black school choice and keep them from getting jobs by flooding the workplace with immigrants, both legal and illegal. Where do all the police injustices happen? In Democrat run cities. Where are the blacks living in poverty despite all the welfare programs they are signed up in? In Democrat cities. Democrats have never been pro-black and the only time they use them is for cannon fodder.
Con
1. definitions

Democrat
dem·o·crat | \ ˈde-mə-ˌkrat  \
Definition of democrat

1aan adherent of democracy
bone who practices social equality
2capitalized a member of the Democratic party of the U.S.
Conclusion: The Democratic party adheres to democracy

Anti-black
Definition of antiblack

opposed to or hostile toward black people
Conclusion: The Democratic party had never adhered to the ideology of anti-black racism, thus it is not an anti-black party. 

My opponent had given examples but failed to quote or source, so I will assume it is correct but I will refute with evidence. 

How could an entire party be anti-black when majority of Black Citizens are democrats? My opponent had failed to say if the term "Democratic party" refers to which group, so I assume it is the entire party including the citizens. How could this many Black Citizens be self-hating? The truth, no brainer, they're not. 

Well, in the past the democrats could be racists, but this is as true as saying that Russia is governed by Lenin. Outdated information. Democrats were racist in the past, but now? Not even close. 


Sources:

I look forward to the next round of the debate.

Round 2
Pro
Con can waive the definition of democracy all he wants and the Democratic Party can still be totalitarian. In either case it really isn't the point of the debate.

I gave many examples of anti-black racism in the Democrat Party ever since its foundation until now and Con didn't respond to any of the accusations. Con agreed that the Democrat Party has been racist in the past, but not know. Except he didn't refute any of the reasons why I say that the Democrat Party continues to be anti-black and I mentioned several reasons why.

As far as blacks voting for Democrats, Jews voted for Hitler, did that make them self-hating? Blacks vote Democrat because they do and that is all. As Obama said, "A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas turkey."1

Dreams From My Father", page #147

Con
I am not sure what my opponent is trying to tell me, in fact, (Although I hadn't grasped Oro's style), he didn't even meet his burden of proof.

I am not trying to exploit semantics, because my opponent has the title up there, high and glorious, saying:
The Democrat Party is the Anti-Black Party[1]

The[2] being defined as:

(used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an):the book you gave me; Come into the house.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique):the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
(used with or as part of a title):the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.):the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically):The dog is a quadruped.
(used in place of a possessive pronoun, to note a part of the body or a personal belonging):He won't be able to play football until the leg mends.
Any person who has an eye of reading the argument carefully would have the implication that my opponent is proving that the Democrats are not only a part of a party that discriminates African Americans but THE party that puts Racism and White supremacy as the principle. I have disproved that as of last round, where the democratic party does not have White Supremacy or Racism as the principle.

I have almost successfully trolled Nevet's debate by misreading "THE GOAT" as "A goat"[3]. The fact is: The and A(an) makes things very different in cases, and this is one of them. My opponent must prove that the democratic party is not only an anti-black party but the anti-black party in order to fully neet his BoP. So far, my opponent had "proved" that the democratic party is anti-black, but he has not even tried to stick to his title and state that the party is THE anti-black party. 

Also, the "is[4][5]" in the title implies that it is talking about the present tense, i.e now. All his proofs that the democrats used to be racist(such as in the civil war) would not meet his burden of proof. 

I could go on and on about why the Democrat party doesn't exist and it is called the Democratic party, but don't I think that is more than enough? Voters can ignore the previous sentence because it is never meant to be an actual point. 

Just if y'all voters think I am playing dirty by meddling with semantics, evidence comes below. 

1. Obama as president

Yes, yes, yes. Ah yes, self-explanatory. If the democratic party is racist on its own, then Obama won't even be the president. 

Though, my opponent really put this in the argument:
As Obama said, "A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas turkey."1

Dreams From My Father", page #147
Obama just states the truth and that is all. However, that isn't all. According to my leisurely research, this[6] came up:

While Obama did say those words, they were not his own. In his book "Dreams from my Father," Obama was describing a conversation with a Chicago barber who remembered African Americans helping elect Chicago’s first black mayor. 
The ad creates an impression that Obama was describing the failure of Democrats, including Biden, to actually help blacks, while in reality, the passage was about a key African American election victory.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
I agree that the democrats used to be racist, but the fact Obama was president for 8 years means the democrats are less, less, and less racist each day we go. Stating this to help his argument would be the same as when Alec states that Peach cheating in canon makes her hotter, despite it is 15 years ago and cheating makes her less hot[7]. If my opponent's topic was "Democrats used to be racist", then he'd have more of an edge to win. However, the title is the title and it isn't that. 

And oh yeah, falsifying claims isn't good. If I pay Trump 5 million for him to say "I hate America", does that actually make Trump hate America? Nope.

As far as blacks voting for Democrats, Jews voted for Hitler, did that make them self-hating?
No, because they are voting themselves just because they want to live. However the Black identify themselves as Democrats because they wanted to[8]. Link down below.

Con agreed that the Democrat Party has been racist in the past, but not know.
This argument does not meet his burden of proof, specified in the title. Yes, he stated he is going to state the history in the title screen brief summary, but Me saying how good is the Toyota Supra isn't going to help me to win a debate about the Nissan GTR. I agree and I have to claim that this is no concession. 

Alright, I think this is enough for today. I wish the best of luck to my opponent in Round III. 

Sources:

However, referencing another debate here should not violate the rules because I am only using them as examples that support my argument. 
Round 3
Pro
No good campaign will begin with "We are the Anti-Black Party" for that would destroy all possibility of garnering the 85% of black voters that you get every year. But actions speak louder than words. The black communities suffer the most in America and all the black communities are located in cities and states run by Democrats whose actions have shown that the only thing they care for about the black community is their votes. They have been pounding podiums promising black communities better schools, better housing and better jobs, yet they always leave the schools, housing and jobs the same way as before; then they run for reelection and win.

In this election many blacks will vote for the man who authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which saw many blacks go to prison for long periods of time for minor offenses. During Obama's presidency, black people saw both their wealth and home ownership decline. 1

Democrats support illegal immigration which takes away jobs from and depresses the wages of blacks.2 
Democrats are mostly against school choice and voucher programs thus, leaving black children in low quality schools in their area. Even now, Joe Biden is against charter schools and does not want to see them get federal funds. This will leave blacks in the low education systems of the Democrat controlled cities.3
The Democrats get a lot of support from city police unions where most of the police brutality occurs at (Dem controlled cities). Democrats get large donations from police unions4 who are against police reform.5 Therefore, the Democrats do not take any steps to create or make police reforms in their cities and states because they depend on the economic support of the police unions in order to run for election.

There are the examples of how Democrat policies are anti-black leaving blacks in Democrat s-hole cities. Democrats are more than happy to leave their constituents in their urban plantations so long as they gve what they need most to stay in power-the black peoples vote.

Con
This argument on its own had perplexed me for up to 2 days, but luckily, I found a way to respond.

No good campaign will begin with "We are the Anti-Black Party" for that would destroy all possibility of garnering the 85% of black voters that you get every year. But actions speak louder than words.
My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof, i.e Democrats ARE THE ANTI-BLACK PARTY. My opponent has presented evidence that shows at times, Democrats are leaned towards racism. However, that never even make the democrats AN anti-black party, let alone THE. 

The black communities suffer the most in America and all the black communities are located in cities and states run by Democrats whose actions have shown that the only thing they care for about the black community is their votes.
That does not mean that Democrats are anti-black. From what I understand in the text, my opponent is trying to show that the democrats DELIBERATELY ruined the cities, which would be ridiculous enough for a claim. My opponent specified not if the cities are black-majority or not, so to my opponent, being racist and being terrible at running cities are synonymous. 

They have been pounding podiums promising black communities better schools, better housing and better jobs, yet they always leave the schools, housing and jobs the same way as before; then they run for reelection and win.
Kim Jong Un had suppressed its people for almost a decade now. People are forced to live in bad conditions but everybody still supports him. Being bad at politics does not mean racism. 

In this election many blacks will vote for the man who authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which saw many blacks go to prison for long periods of time for minor offenses. During Obama's presidency, black people saw both their wealth and home ownership decline. 1
My opponent still didn't prove why the Democrats are THE anti-black party. I get my opponent thinks that passing a law against the Black Americans probably means that this group of people is racist against them, but this isn't the case. In fact, not the government. The candidates and the mayors aren't everything. 


73 percent of Democrats said they strongly approve of the nonviolent protests, compared with just 27 percent of Republicans.
The people aren't racist. Saying a few people(less than 1%) of them are racist doesn't mean the whole picture is. My opponent had given me single-person examples or examples of a couple of people, but unless he presents evidence that the whole party is anti-black, he did not meet his burden of proof as what he proved is that some Democrats are racist, not even the majority of them. 

Democrats support illegal immigration which takes away jobs from and depresses the wages of blacks.2 
Democrats are mostly against school choice and voucher programs thus, leaving black children in low quality schools in their area. Even now, Joe Biden is against charter schools and does not want to see them get federal funds. This will leave blacks in the low education systems of the Democrat controlled cities.3
The Democrats get a lot of support from city police unions where most of the police brutality occurs at (Dem controlled cities). Democrats get large donations from police unions4 who are against police reform.5 Therefore, the Democrats do not take any steps to create or make police reforms in their cities and states because they depend on the economic support of the police unions in order to run for election.
The Democrats didn't even do anything directly pointing at that they are anti-blacks. Again, being back at running the city does not make you a racist. 

There are the examples of how Democrat policies are anti-black leaving blacks in Democrat s-hole cities. Democrats are more than happy to leave their constituents in their urban plantations so long as they gve what they need most to stay in power-the black peoples vote.
I thought my opponent's job is to prove that the democrats are supposed to be anti-black. If they get this much of a loyal Black camp at voting, then they cannot be systematically anti-black. If they wanted to stay in power and keep the Black voters in their bases, then that is not anti-black. Suppression is not Hatred. Kim Jong Un does not hate its people even if he gives bad treatments. And no, as bad as North Korea is, no one in their right mind would call Kim misanthropic or anthropophobic. 
And yes, the definition of anti-black is HATING or AGAINST black people. Suppressing them would mean that the Democrats at least wanted them. 

Conclusions:
  • My opponent did not meet his burden of proof.
  • The Evidence my opponent has given suggests that Democrats are bad at running cities, not being racist. 
  • My opponent had never given any evidence that Democrats are racist, directly.
  • Democratic people aren't racist.
  • Even if some democrats suppress black people, that is not evidence of hatred or hostility as at least they wanted them. 
I rest my case for today. 

Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
My opponent has forfeited. Vote Con. 

Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
My opponent forfeited. Vote CON.