Instigator / Con
1
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic

Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a racist.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
0
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1676
rating
73
debates
73.29%
won
Description
~ 860 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I continue to see this over and over again about somebody being "racist".
Well tell me how this person is being such?

Can you do it in 3 rounds or will it take 10?

If you need 15, I'll talk to Mr. Trump about legislating this website to increase its capacity for possibly stigmatizing him.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1
Con

I continue to see this over and over again about somebody being "racist".
Well tell me how this person is being such.

Can you do it in 3 rounds or will it take 10?
If you need 15, I'll talk to Mr. Trump about legislating this website to increase its capacity for possibly stigmatizing him.

Pro
Structure

This debate argument will have a structure based on Modus Ponens[1].

P1: If A is true, B is true;
P2: A is true;
C1: Thus, B is true

Plug it into this context, and we get something like this.

P1: If Trump had done racist actions, he is a racist person(TRUE);
P2: Trump had done racist actions;
C1: Thus, Trump is a racist person.

I think that it is accepted that "if someone had done racist actions, he is racist" is a true claim, so the only premise needing justification is P2. Pro bears the burden to prove that claim.

Argument: Trump's racist actions

So, uh, Con basically waived, saying stuff that had already been said. This leaves an opportunity for Pro to get the upper hand. Pro will present evidence that illustrates Donald Trump's racist actions.

Chinese virus
Trump has called COVID-19 "Chinese Virus"[2], which is racist to the Chinese. It is understandable that the US and China are enemies, but calling a virus not deliberately fabricated from China[3] a "Chinese virus" would be pretty racist. 

Elizabeth Warren
Trump has called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" in a negative light[4]. Mocking someone in the name of the natives within this land would be racist to those Native Americans.

False assumptions
Trump has called an American with Korean ancestry a "Pretty Korean lady"[5]. Reducing one's identity to their ancestry would be interpreted as racist, especially since Trump thinks that ethnicity determines career paths, which is racist in of itself.

White power
Promoting one race over others is racist. Trump tweeted, at one time, saying something among the words of "White power"[6]. That would be racist.

Muslim Ban
Trump limited Muslims in the US[7]. Limiting one's freedom because of race is racist.

Against Protesters
You know, criticizing an LGBTQ+ ally based on the very fact that he/she/they support the movement is homophobic. Now move this principle, and you have Trump criticizing one that calls for equality[8].

Wall
Trump has built a wall, and one reason for that is to remind that Latinos are not welcome[9].

Black-on-White Violence
BLM is undoubtedly a movement with the cause of bringing equality[10]. White lives matter, though, is not, because White lives already matters, and there is no need for that. It is promoting White Supremacy[11]. Trump, on the other hand, tweeted something like "Where are the protesters?[12]" Because of black-on-white violence. This is similar to "White lives matter", in which it is not helping towards equality, if not hindering. Trump is, again, promoting White Supremacy, which is racist.

Conclusions
I have proven 8 existing cases of Trump being racist. P2 is proven. Pro thus fulfills his BoP as of now.

Sources
Round 2
Con
"Trump has called COVID-19 "Chinese Virus"[2], which is racist to the Chinese. It is understandable that the US and China are enemies, but calling a virus not deliberately fabricated from China[3] a "Chinese virus" would be pretty racist. "

This isn't proof, this is your opinion.
You see it that way so you're calling it that.

Question 1: Has any "chinese" person indicated that this was "racist" towards them?

Let them speak for themselves, don't you do it.

Question 2 : If I say " This is what you call black music or a black neighborhood, black store." Is that "racist"?

Why or why not?

"Trump has called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" in a negative light[4]. Mocking someone in the name of the natives within this land would be racist to those Native Americans."

This one, you're going to have to produce a greater context. Just calling something "in a negative light" can be personal appeal. In what manner is this in a "negative" way that you see it?

Allow the "native americans" to speak for themselves. As an individual , I can only declare what's so called racist, offensive, ridiculing towards me.

"Trump has called an American with Korean ancestry a "Pretty Korean lady"[5]. Reducing one's identity to their ancestry would be interpreted as racist, especially since Trump thinks that ethnicity determines career paths, which is racist in of itself."

Your first statement is "racist" how? How does it impose belief of superiority and inferiority?

You have to prove reduction, particularly from this American's point of view and this is who's interpretation?

You have to show how Trump seen the physical/national identity of Obama or those alike that had that identity connected to the future of career life .

"Promoting one race over others is racist. Trump tweeted, at one time, saying something among the words of "White power"[6]. That would be racist."

Your interpretation doesn't make it so called racist. The correct procedure is to ask what a person means when saying anything, not flying high off what's thought to be an implication.
"Promoting one race over others", what do you mean by "promote "?

Me promoting a football team and not a basketball team is not one being superior outright hands down. Each have their unique skills in their special places .

"Trump limited Muslims in the US[7]. Limiting one's freedom because of race is racist."

Why? I understand you inserted your reason. But what was the actual reason behind it?

"You know, criticizing an LGBTQ+ ally based on the very fact that he/she/they support the movement is homophobic. Now move this principle, and you have Trump criticizing one that calls for equality[8]."

You and many others criticize me on this site .   I guess that's not "racist". I don't know now.
Are we sure we aren't conflating all of this?

When did the "LGBTQ" become a "race"?

"Trump has built a wall, and one reason for that is to remind that Latinos are not welcome[9]."

Your reason once more. Let me get the actual reason please.

"BLM is undoubtedly a movement with the cause of bringing equality[10]. White lives matter, though, is not, because White lives already matters, and there is no need for that. It is promoting White Supremacy[11]. Trump, on the other hand, tweeted something like "Where are the protesters?[12]" Because of black-on-white violence. This is similar to "White lives matter", in which it is not helping towards equality, if not hindering. Trump is, again, promoting White Supremacy, which is racist."

Well thank you for your opinion. This is clearly the way you see it which I expected. Many people do what it boils down to. In politics, you don't like someone's stance or what they said, label them a "racist", fascist, communist, socialist, Marxist, trader, manipulator, fraud, etc.

"White lives matter" is not a false statement. "Black on white " violence is not a false reality.

None of this is so called white supremacist rhetoric. You're adding these words to what somebody says where they have not said.

"*I have proven 8 existing cases of Trump being racist. P2 is proven. Pro thus fulfills his BoP as of now.
*"
You've proved your opinion . You did not explain each case with Trump's reason behind it.
Only the victim can declare they're are victimized in these cases. You may feel it's inequality that I didn't get the job as being most qualified for because I'm one gender and ALL the other unqualified applicants were the opposite gender that got the job. But myself being in that screening can only declare mistreatment and injustice.








Pro
Pre-argument

Because my opponent literally made not even a single mud-clear conclusion, this is extremely hard to tackle. Nevertheless, Con's counter can be efficiently refuted. The BoP rests on Pro: That Trump is racist.

The only thing I need to present proof of is that Trump is Racist. This is like the "Bible and interracial marriage" debate again[1], in which as long as I present any proof, I sufficiently fulfill my BoP. Con needs to prove every single example of mine wrong. This debate is actually easier for the one with the BoP.

Rebuttals

I believe I have made enough of a case in the last round, and I can simply use evidence that supports the arguments in round one to rebut Con's argument here. No new argument needed because proof prevents my previous point from even falling at all.

This isn't proof, this is your opinion. You see it that way so you're calling it that. Question 1: Has any "Chinese" person indicated that this was "racist" towards them? Let them speak for themselves, don't you do it.

Well, I am Chinese(confirmed by my profile[2]) and I find that calling the "coronavirus" the "Chinese virus" pretty unfair since the Chinese did not make it. Let's assume that I am just straight-out lying(which I am not) and my opinion doesn't matter someone's matter and that someone specifically commented on it[3]. Trump also has done other anti-Chinese policies even if the one above counts not[4].

Question 2: If I say " This is what you call black music or a black neighborhood, black store." Is that "racist"? Why or why not?

However, the Black people really made them and simply wasn't ashamed of it. For a store run by Black people, for Black people, with stuff made by Black people, and makes proud of the Black culture, it is not racist calling it that. Calling a virus that the Chinese did not make, does not represent the Chinese, and worsens the Chinese nation a Chinese virus is of a racist attitude.

This one, you're going to have to produce a greater context. Just calling something "in a negative light" can be a personal appeal. In what manner is this in a "negative" way that you see it?

Well, Con is assuming that every single unsupported claim is undeniably false. Pocahontas is in a massacre, and calling Senator Warren Pocahontas is basically saying that Senator Warren is a woman in a massacre[5], which isn't what the Native American Culture is about. Trump is using it as mockery, which is racist to the natives.

Allow the "native Americans" to speak for themselves. As an individual, I can only declare what's so-called racist, offensive, ridiculing towards me.

So this is the same logic as that "Because white supremacy affects not me and not all whites are considered that then it doesn't exist!" [6]Wait... This is the same guy?? Regardless, it is too subjective of an attitude to be considered objective logic. Just because I don't drive cars doesn't mean cars should be outlawed.

Alright, I think I can stop here. Everything else written by my opponent is already disproven by the R1 argument itself. Plain old Gish-Gallop. Vote Pro.

Conclusions
  • I shall make conclusions.
  • Pro has proven at least 3 cases of Trump's racism. Pro's case stands.
  • Con did not efficiently disprove my case.
  • Since at least one proof of Trump's racism suffices because of the title, Pro claims victory. Con needs to disprove all cases, saying that they convey no racism.
  • Con used zero sources, Keep that in mind.
Sources


Round 3
Con
"The only thing I need to present proof of is that Trump is Racist. This is like the "Bible and interracial marriage" debate again[1], in which as long as I present any proof, I sufficiently fulfill my BoP. Con needs to prove every single example of mine wrong. This debate is actually easier for the one with the BoP."

Anything you call proof is proof. Anything I present , you ignore. Why don't you question my points instead of ignoring them? When you ignore, you concede.


"Well, I am Chinese(confirmed by my profile[2]) and I find that calling the "coronavirus" the "Chinese virus" pretty unfair since the Chinese did not make it. Let's assume that I am just straight-out lying(which I am not) and my opinion doesn't matter someone's matter and that someone specifically commented on it[3]. Trump also has done other anti-Chinese policies even if the one above counts not[4]."

So this person has made a "racist " attack towards you just by saying the "chinese virus". Would it be the same kind of attack asking you, did you make "chinese" food yesterday ?

Saying "Chinese virus" has to be presupposed to meaning what you think it is.

"However, the Black people really made them and simply wasn't ashamed of it. For a store run by Black people, for Black people, with stuff made by Black people, and makes proud of the Black culture, it is not racist calling it that. Calling a virus that the Chinese did not make, does not represent the Chinese, and worsens the Chinese nation a Chinese virus is of a racist attitude."

Notice how you're DELIBERATELY placing a positive context here , a negative one there.

When I say this is an ole run down neighborhood, looks poor, no upkeep, no hard working civil unity anywhere, I'm making a very grim, nasty picture. Then to tie it all up, I say "Well this is one of those "black" neighborhoods." See I understand you may feel a certain way when somebody makes a statement, but you have to get the context they're putting it in. Not automatically attaching yours. Basically all we've discussed was association , whether "black" , "chinese", "white", these labels are used in some sort of association.

Just off that alone, need not to go on making hasty charges . Find what the connection is to understand the intention of whatever representation given.

"Well, Con is assuming that every single unsupported claim is undeniably false. Pocahontas is in a massacre, and calling Senator Warren Pocahontas is basically saying that Senator Warren is a woman in a massacre[5], which isn't what the Native American Culture is about. Trump is using it as mockery, which is racist to the natives."

What more of a honest way to truth then to finding out what a person means when using a term?

I don't know to much about the character "Pocahontas". I don't have a negative view of the character at all. You're flying off your interpretation and that's not evidence. That's visceral, personal, subjective judgment bias.

"So this is the same logic as that "Because white supremacy affects not me and not all whites are considered that then it doesn't exist!" "

"Regardless, it is too subjective of an attitude to be considered objective logic. Just because I don't drive cars doesn't mean cars should be outlawed."

It's the logic of you not being the one in a car accident or an athlete that was hurt . You're not the victim or not the one hurt so you can't speak on someone else's pain or extent of injury IF AT ALL ANY DAMAGE.

I didn't say if you didn't have a car accident, that means others don't, so to speak. I just said you weren't in the car when the vehicle got struck, the other person was. So it is your opinion speaking from your body of how that other body feels. Only that other body can testify as proof as they're are testifying directly from the pain felt in their body.

"Alright, I think I can stop here. Everything else written by my opponent is already disproven by the R1 argument itself. Plain old Gish-Gallop."

Translates to ignoring those points. I asked you to produce greater context and provide explanations behind statements made. You failed to do so.

I acknowledge that.

"Pro has proven at least 3 cases of Trump's racism. Pro's case stands."

You're opinion is proof, I understand that. I'm looking for proof that is proof so you should know.

"Con did not efficiently disprove my case."

This is by you ignoring my points and questions.
If you ignore , you concede, your points are invalidated.

"Since at least one proof of Trump's racism suffices because of the title, Pro claims victory. Con needs to disprove all cases, saying that they convey no racism."

You have to prove "racism" in these cases mentioned. You've made charges, allegations which are not the same as facts.

"Con used zero sources, Keep that in mind."

SOURCES FOR WHAT? SOURCES FOR YOUR OPINION IS YOU .

Only challenge made here was for you to prove something. You not being able to prove your case is all that's necessary.


Pro
It is of great irony that my opponent, who criticizes me for substituting opinions for sources, uses mere opinions as sources as well. I have used over 12 sources within this debate, and my opponent used zero.

Summary of Opp.

I won't waste any time typing responses to absurd and redundant claims made by my opponent that are of basically no need anyway. I will, instead, summarize points.
  1. Chinese virus ---> Chinese food is not racist, nor are black neighborhoods
  2. Trump's anti-Chinese policy ---> Nothing???
  3. Warren "Pocahontas" ---> It is an honest description
  4. Only need one response to win ---> Ignoring my opponent
You see, this is what it is. 

Rebuttals

The Chinese food and the Black Neighborhoods

Both the Chinese cuisines and the Black community share these traits:
  • The people, more or less, made them themselves.
  • The people are, more or less, proud of it or at least shares no negative feelings about it.
  • The people are never offended when being talked about it.
What does the "Chinese virus" COVID-19 have?
  • The Chinese resist them.
  • The Chinese are not proud when talked about it.
  • The Chinese think it is basic misinformation.
Here is a source that illustrates just that[1].

This label demonstrates xenophobia and xenophobia is racist[2].

Anti-Chinese policies

Con has dropped this point. Extend.
Just to say one more thing: Opinions are reliable when backed by sources, I did just that.

Pocahontas

My opponent doesn't fully understand the story of Pocahontas, yet he deliberately criticizes me for having a view. To him, any stance is an opinion, and any opinion is wrong. Either it is what it is or it is at least what is shown because my opponent's argument is basically gish gallop. Again, I recall, Trump is using "Pocahontas" as a slur(yes he did[3]), and using that as a slur is like saying "You are such a Chinese, I don't like you", which is racist. Calling someone Pocahontas as a slur is racist to Native Americans. 

Ignoring points

Because the title specifically says "present evidence", instead of "Trump is 100% Racist!", as long as I present evidence, I win. I did just that, and vote for Pro.

Sources