Instigator
Points: 6

The Republican Party Is Existentially Racist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Alec
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 14
Description
The Republican Party Is Existentially Racist
Round 1
Published:
The Republican Party as it exists today is a racist institution and it embraces racism so that it can continue existing. This is the Republican circle of life. There are many reasons why the Republican Party is racist, but I will focus on only those reasons that apply today. I also want to preempt my opponents incoming arguments which will no doubt include references to the Abraham Lincoln, the abolition of slavery, and the Ku Klux Klan. I intend to talk about the Republican Party that governs the United States today (Trump Party) not the one that existed in 1865 or 1965. The Republican parties racism is an unfortunate byproduct of electoral politics and its attempt to contrast itself from the increasingly diverse but racially inclusive Democratic Party. The crux of the matter is that the GOP has embraced white identity politics and racially divisive rhetoric as a way to win elections in a country that's changing too rapidly for some white people (Trump supporters).


Didn't read this article but I like the title;


Published:
Arguments:

You should have mentioned the 21st century Republican Party is I would know what I was signing up for.  Never the less, I will do my best to answer to this debate.

"The Republican parties racism is an unfortunate byproduct of electoral politics and its attempt to contrast itself from the increasingly diverse but racially inclusive Democratic Party."  The Republicans are less racially diverse because Republicans tend to live in rural areas and rural areas tend to not receive many immigrants compared to urban areas.  If an Asian or Black Person wanted to join the GOP, no one would care.  You said you were from Guyana in a form.  Because of this, your probably not white.  If you were to join the Republican party, the GOP members would welcome you just like any other former liberal who decided to make the switch.  The thing is, non whites tend to be on the political left because they are way more likely to live in cities, where liberal ideology is more prominent then conservative ideology.

Moreover, racial diversity does not matter because racial diversity is merely skin color.  This is because we are all human beings and the amount of melanin in your skin can't change that.  A group of all white guys, when keeping everything else the same, is no better or worse then a group of latinos, a group of blacks, a group of asians, or even a group with multiple races.  As MLK said, "I have a dream, that one day we will not be judged by the character of our skin, but by the content of our character"  This means that the amount of non whites in our group is irrelevant to how good our group is.  What matters is what they get done, their hobbies/interests, their character content and other non superficial features.

Moreover, just in case an all white group is somehow a bad thing, the conservatives have plenty of minority prominent people in their ranks.  Some examples are:

  1. Kanye West(http://www.tmz.com/2018/09/30/kanye-west-snl-pro-trump-maga/)
  2. Ben Carson(https://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422)

Counter arguments:

My opponent uses Vox as a source.  However, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ states that Vox has a strong bias and their information may be incorrect and/or misleading.  Media bias states, "Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy." when referring to Vox.

My opponent also uses Splinter news as a source.  However, they too have extreme bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/splinter/ states that they have far left bias and their fact reporting is mixed.  Media bias states, the site "may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes".

Sources:

  1. https://www.thoughtco.com/does-the-gop-have-a-problem-with-minorities-2834770
  2. https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
  3. https://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422
  4. http://www.tmz.com/2018/09/30/kanye-west-snl-pro-trump-maga/
  5. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/splinter/
  6. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Round 2
Published:
I am not saying that the Republican Party is racist because it's mostly white. What makes the Republican Party racist is the style of politics that they adopt, and the messages that they send to non-white citizens. Republicans have mastered the art of dog-whistle politics which is essentially a form of coded double speak. What this means is that while a majority of white Americans hear something benign when someone like Trump speaks, other citizens that are more attuned to this style of speech hear a different message. Black Americans have an adept ear for this type of speech because it usually at their expense.
 
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trumps-closing-midterm-pitch-is-white-identity-politics.html
 
Ben Carson and Kanye West are not men of thought. I value the opinion Colin Powell more, and you should too as a 21st century Republican;
 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/08/colin_powell_i_still_see_the_dark_vein_of_racism_in_repubicans__america.html
 
Apparently everyone hates Vox on this website, I guess I'll have to stop citing them. Splinter news is the source of my debate title only, and I like that title.

Published:
“What makes the Republican Party racist is the style of politics that they adopt, and the messages that they send to non-white citizens.”  What message has been sent by mainstream Republicans that is non disputingly racist?  Trump has “said” things like “Laziness is a trait in the blacks” however, (1) denies this.  He said something similar that was an insult to Obama because Trump disagreed with one of Obama’s policies, but not actually that statement.  Trump has claimed to love Black people. He said, that he has a great relationship with the blacks.

He’s not wrong either.  Most Republican candidates get between 8 to 12 percent of the black vote.  However, (2) and (4) 2 left leaning sources(3)(5) states that he got a whopping 36% of the black vote.  So much for Trump being offensive to black people. Many Black people aren’t offended from him.

More evidence:
How are most Republicans not racist on a policy basis?  Because of their policies. There was a bill that prohibited abortions on the basis of race, gender and disability status.  Democrats on Capitol Hill(where laws are made in D.C.) opposed the bill 161-20 while Republicans supported the bill, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill(6).

The bill is here:
(7)

“Republicans have mastered the art of dog-whistle politics”  What does this mean?  Dog whistle politics might be something that is understood in Guyana but not much in the US.  But I digress.

“What this means is that while a majority of white Americans hear something benign when someone like Trump speaks, other citizens that are more attuned to this style of speech hear a different message. Black Americans have an adept ear for this type of speech because it usually at their expense. ”  Kanye West and that 36% of African Americans I mentioned earlier don’t have that ear for oppression.  However, many Euro-American democrats claim to be noticing that Donald Trump says offensive stuff. What this really is is it’s not a gap on racial lines, but on partisan ones.  The left often claims that Trump is being offensive and the Right often claims that Trump is not offensive. This is because both sides have bias. However, the Burden of proof (BoP) rests on the prosecution (in this situation, it’s the left).  

“I value the opinion Colin Powell more, and you should too as a 21st century Republican”  I don’t know who he is, so I only like him slightly due to his political affiliation.  I prefer Ben Shapiro and Hunter Avallone. I’m surprised you like a Republican person.

Sources:
  1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-laziness-is-a-trait-in-blacks/
  2. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/donald-trump-african-american-approval-rating/
  3. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chicago-sun-times/
  4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
  5. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/
  6. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299
  7. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3541

Round 3
Published:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981

Published:
Here, while conceding all other points, your main argument is they find other ways to support racism.  You say that them cutting taxes is somehow racist.  However, the conservatives tend to support cutting taxes because they believed that those that have wealth have earned it and therefore shouldn't have to lose what they worked hard for (exceptions apply).  Personally, I support a tax system that taxes bad things rather then taxing wealth.  It has nothing to do with race.

You then mention busing.  However, integration based busing is essentially the same thing as cultural appropriation, which the far left denounces and the right wishes that people would mind their business on this because it is trivial.

" byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. "  It's definitely not a part of it and although blacks get hurt worse then whites, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with income.  As I stated earlier, Republicans like low taxes because they believe that's the best way to help the economy, for people of all races.  It would be like calling Democrats racist towards Asians because Asians make more then white people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/20/why-asian-americans-arent-as-rich-as-they-seem/?utm_term=.494cda2cd43f) and Democrats want them taxed.

"Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981"  For all I know, you could be making this up.  Can you provide a link?

Source:
Round 4
Published:
I will concede that these policies affect poor people of all races but that still doesn't discount the fact that black people are most likely the victims of these policies. The quote from Lee Atwater was correct:
 
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvnmnv/corey-stewart-proves-the-republican-party-is-racist

Published:
"that still doesn't discount the fact that black people are most likely the victims of these policies. The quote from Lee Atwater was correct: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvnmnv/corey-stewart-proves-the-republican-party-is-racist".  Vice is biased and I can't access the link(https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/).  There is one more round left.  If it's not too much trouble, can you find a different link confirming the same thesis?

Source:


Round 5
Published:

This is the wikipedia entry for Lee Atwater, look at the sources of the quote and you should be able to find one that's credible enough for you.

Published:
I know you tried hard for sources, so I'll just analyze Wiki to keep it simple.  This was just one guy being racist.  It does not mean the whole party is racist.  Politicians tend to be on the extreme sides of politics, mainly because they are so passionate about it.  Just because one politician is a racist, does not mean the whole party is existentially racist or that even most politicians on the right are.  Ted Cruz isn't a racist.  Mike Pence isn't a racist.  Ben Carson isn't a racist.  It is like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of one terrorist attack.

Vote Con voters.
Added:
Can you vote for me?
Contender
#5
Added:
Hits the Right/Republican party***
#4
Added:
The only kind of diversity the left/democrats dont care about is that of intellectual diversity. This is why he gives the right/republican party with one of the worst blanket statements i've seen. See my debate with gzitman about Colin Kaepernick and youll see why he made this debate. Dont call me racist.
#3
Added:
Imagine targeting a source for their political affiliation lol.
#2
Added:
Good luck Pro.
Contender
#1
#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:
Pro concedes everything and every time Pro concedes they bring up something totally different. Dirty tactics but not enough to take conduct in my eyes. Pro keeps saying how everything that the right-wing do to attack the poor is racist because most poor people in the US are of non-white races but this is confusing correlation for causation which Con explicitly explains again and again to the extent that Pro physically says in the penultimate Round that they concede and decide to try a new tactic in the LAST ROUND which was totally different to anything before and still Con dismantled it.
#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:
Arguments to con: in debates like this, unless otherwise specified the claimant has burden of proof. In this case assessing all of pros claims, he has not met his initial burden of proof. In offering his opening and subsequent gambit, pro claims the GOP is existentially racist, but offers mostly generic blanket statement: that of “identity politics”. Without any specifics at all, and without making any arguments at all to tie the specific actions directly to racism, and above that racism based upon the existence of the party - the BOP is not met by pro. I’m very flexibile in BoP, and this decision is based on falling very far short in this regard. Even with raising Lee Atwater, pro mostly just cites this case but doesn’t use any specifics, making this simply a single anecdote / which con points out.
If pro had given multiple specific examples of actions, or provided a substantive argument concerning why the Republican parties actions explicitly merit red being called racism, this would not be the case. It’s s shame, as I don’t actually disagree much with pros debate contention.
As pro does not meet his burden of proof, con wins arguments by default.
Cons arguments were not in themselves particularly great: the crux of them was that the GOP is inclusive of other races, and that they don’t make laws that are specifically racist. These were supported by citations, these weren’t fully addressed by pro either saying that Ben Carson and Kanye aren’t big thinkers does not refute the argument that the GOP is relatively diverse, arguing that having few minorities doesn’t mean the party isn’t racist - but didn’t go to any length to establish that the lack of diversity made it racism either - pro needed to go into more detail in the refutations.
Either way, my weighting is that as Pro didn’t meet his burden of proof, 4 rounds of con posting “derp” would still have been sufficient and thus pro loses this point.
Sources: in the same vein as above, con provides citations that backed up his position, and demonstrated the points he was making, which bolstered his argument. Pros citations all failed to directly support his primary contention, the lack of such citations in part cost him the arguments portion of this debate.