Instigator / Con

Mall

1492

rating

333

debates

40.69%

won

Topic

#2353

Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a racist.

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 09.14.2020 12:40PM
Last updated date: 09.25.2020 08:25PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

Intelligence_06

1731

rating

167

debates

73.05%

won

Description

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

Mall

09.15.2020 12:36PM

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.

Intelligence_06

09.15.2020 02:07PM

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

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

[2]https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-51953315

[3]https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-we-know-coronavirus-was-not-made-in-the-lab

[4]https://2020.elizabethwarren.com/pocahontas

[5]https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-pretty-korean-lady-response-2018-1

[6]https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-deletes-tweet-promoting-video-showing-supporter-yelling-white-power/

[7]https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban

[8]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41407176

[9]https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-border-wall-was-never-just-about-security-it-ncna952011

[10]https://blacklivesmatter.com/

[11]https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/white-lives-matter

[12]https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trump-tweets-videos-of-black-men-attacking-white-people-asks-where-are-the-protesters/

Round 2

Mall

09.16.2020 08:37PM

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.

Intelligence_06

09.16.2020 09:24PM

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

[1]https://www.debateart.com/debates/2179-show-that-scripture-thats-against-mixed-marriage

[2]https://www.debateart.com/participants/Intelligence_06

[3]https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/20/coronavirus-trump-chinese-virus/

[4]https://thediplomat.com/tag/trump-china-policy/

[5]https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-trump-wounded-knee-massacre-elizabeth-warren-20190114-story.html

[6]https://www.debateart.com/debates/2206-prove-that-white-supremacy-exists-as-such

Round 3

Mall

09.18.2020 12:59PM

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.

Intelligence_06

09.18.2020 08:25PM

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.

Chinese virus ---> Chinese food is not racist, nor are black neighborhoods
Trump's anti-Chinese policy ---> Nothing???
Warren "Pocahontas" ---> It is an honest description
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

[1]https://kstp.com/coronavirus/asian-americans-feel-targeted-with-chinese-virus-label-march-19-2020/5678961/

[2]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23323256.2011.11500015?needAccess=true&journalCode=rasa20

[3]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/trump-warren-pocahontas-new-hampshire

Barney

09.23.2020 06:38AM

#10

-->

@MisterChris

Absolute proof would depend on the definitions. Solipsism for example would deny that Trump can be known to exist. Some definitions of proof and racism could leave it as Donald Trump pretending to be racist to appeal to racist voters. However without any definitions outlined, we tend to default to everyday usage; to which strong evidence toward something is good enough to be considered proof.

Mall

09.19.2020 03:13PM

No proof has been presented. I understand folks have an opinion about somebody. Separate from personal impression.

Intelligence_06

09.18.2020 11:38PM

-->

@oromagi

no, seriously though. His argument in response to that is basically "Your reasons are opinions, and no opinions matters".

oromagi

09.18.2020 11:33PM

CON: Don't speak for the Chinese people- can you produce a single Chinese person who was actually offended by Trump's remarks?
PRO: Me. I am one offended Chinese person.
CON:https://youtu.be/Vrm8TV7K4zo

Theweakeredge

09.18.2020 08:55PM

-->

@Mall

Yeah..... you've been utterly demolished. All of your rebuttals were hogwash, and when you attempted to justify a claim, you misunderstood most core premises.

Death23

09.17.2020 09:46AM

https://www.debateart.com/debates/652-donald-trump-is-not-racist-change-my-mind

oromagi

09.15.2020 12:24AM

Donald Trump is the most prolific liar in history. The Washington Post has verified over 20,000 lies told an ever-increasing rate or repetition on social media. I generally won't accept Donald Trump as legitimate source of information of any kind, particularly on matters touching Trump's image and public perception.

"Glenn Kessler said in 2017 that in his job as a fact-checker for The Washington Post there was no comparison between Trump and other politicians. Kessler gave his worst rating to other politicians 15 percent to 20 percent of the time, but gave it to Trump 63 percent to 65 percent of the time. Kessler wrote that Trump was the most fact-challenged politician that he had ever encountered and lamented that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up".

The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to the Washington Post, Trump has repeated some falsehoods so many times he has effectively engaged in disinformation.

MisterChris

09.15.2020 12:03AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

At this point I don't consider anything the media has to say about Trump remotely credible. Vice versa, I don't consider much Trump has to say at all credible.

Intelligence_06

09.15.2020 12:01AM

-->

@MisterChris

The proof is so abundant that if you search up "news" you get evidence for the PRO side. I openly say this because well... it is just a big fat "ggez".

MisterChris

09.14.2020 01:01PM

I don't think there is proof... But PRO will probably win anyway

Barney

09.18.2020 08:59PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Notable improvement from con, in not skipping R1.

The point I was most curious about follow up was on the white power tweet. Which con's stock reply of "Your interpretation doesn't make it so called racist." Failed to raise it above racism by any common definition, however it was then dropped.

There was a little irony in pro pointed out the Gish Gallop, when he started it with 8 separate proofs. Still, I wholly agree with consolidating down to just three. All three were affirmed, even if not to some overwhelming degree of Trump being Literally Hitler. 1. Trump accused the pandemic of being ethnic, which clearly puts down millions of people (it can even be correct, but still furthers racism against Chinese people... I should not that the it's only racist if someone is offended standard proposed by con was insane; in this case, pro showed someone of said ethnicity being offended, which as a huge problem of such stupid arbitrary standards). I'm not even going to address the whataboutism con directed at black neighborhoods.

Sources:
12 to 0. The Warren one was overwhelming, with con defending it as con personally being uneducated somehow transforming it to not racist, when the source used explained the context for why calling people insulting cultural stereotype names is racist.

S&G:
Pro chose to make their case easy to follow with headings and subheadings, even underlining what he was responding to. Whereas con was a disorganized jumble which made contentions harder to follow through the debate.