Instigator / Con
6
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic
#2376
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.
With 4 votes and 22 points ahead, the winner is ...
Barney
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- People
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
Contender / Pro
28
1766
rating
36
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 857
/
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
Please show directly from your explanation in plenty of context that the individual is admitting to "racism".
Please have it so that we see that the POTUS is not for pure american nationalism.
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on one front, which shall be given its own section below
Burden of Proof
The resolution means I must present evidence of Donald Trump engaging in racism. There is no real counter here, as evidence is presented or not.
Definitions
The description lacked certain key definitions, so to avoid semantic issues…
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
I. Acting Racist:
Donald Trump chooses to present himself as a racist ad nauseam [1, 2]. The only credible defenses I’ve heard that he is not racist, is clearly written as satire [3].
White Power
Trump openly endorses the White Power movement, and blately seeks to appeal to them [4]. By definition, this alone confirms him as a racist by engaging in behavior that fosters the belief in racial superiority.
He is fast to condemn nearly anyone else for even imagined slights, so long as they are not white supremacists [5]. Whereas murderous neo-nazis are “very fine people” [6].
Trump even went so far as to Tweet a video of multiple of his supporters chanting “white power,” and personally called them “great people” for it [7]. His press secretary has since declared that Trump did not hear one of the individuals saying “white power,” which since multiple people in the video did it, means he did know about it when he shared it.
Science
Trump has been so racist that it is scientifically testable that he is linked to racism, at least according to both Fox News and Twitter [8].
Sources:
I shall prove my case on one front, which shall be given its own section below
- Acting Racist
The resolution means I must present evidence of Donald Trump engaging in racism. There is no real counter here, as evidence is presented or not.
I shall not seek to prove that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler, as someone may be racist, without being Literally Hitler or whatever other special pleading con may attempt.
The description lacked certain key definitions, so to avoid semantic issues…
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
- Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
- Racism is “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” also: “behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief”
- Racialism is synonymous with racism, merely abridging it to “a theory that race determines human traits and capacities”
- Racist is another form of the word racism, allowing for adjective use but may still be presented as a noun.
Donald Trump chooses to present himself as a racist ad nauseam [1, 2]. The only credible defenses I’ve heard that he is not racist, is clearly written as satire [3].
Trump openly endorses the White Power movement, and blately seeks to appeal to them [4]. By definition, this alone confirms him as a racist by engaging in behavior that fosters the belief in racial superiority.
Trump has been so racist that it is scientifically testable that he is linked to racism, at least according to both Fox News and Twitter [8].
- https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-racism-examples_n_5991dcabe4b09071f69b9261
- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/08/28/reader-mail/donald-trump-not-racist/
- https://theconversation.com/trumps-appeals-to-white-anxiety-are-not-dog-whistles-theyre-racism-146070
- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/13/16140504/trump-charlottesville-white-supremacists
- https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/politics/trump-tweet-supporters-man-chants-white-power/index.html
- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-search-racist-trumps-account
Round 2
Forfeited
Extend all.
While BoP rests with me, as proving negatives isn't really a thing, none of my points have been challenged.
- P1: If someone routinely behaves racist, they are by definition a racist.
- P2: See R1.
- C1: Therefore, Donald Trump is a racist.
Round 3
" Donald Trump chooses to present himself as a racist ad nauseam [1, 2]. The only credible defenses I’ve heard that he is not racist, is clearly written as satire [3]."
Present as a "racist " by doing what? Please state specifically and being that you know the facts, just bring them forth directly.
"Trump openly endorses the White Power movement, and blately seeks to appeal to them [4]. By definition, this alone confirms him as a racist by engaging in behavior that fosters the belief in racial superiority."
So something that has power or is powerful is by nature "racist".
That applies to the power of love, the power of God, the power of justice, power of will , etc.
This is the logic I'm getting from you.
Let me ask you, not a source, creator of a source, you, what did Mr. Trump say himself, not you, anybody else, what did he explain as to what advocating the "white" power movement means?
"He is fast to condemn nearly anyone else for even imagined slights, so long as they are not white supremacists [5]. Whereas murderous neo-nazis are “very fine people” [6]."
Did Mr. Trump say this on television or something?
"Trump even went so far as to Tweet a video of multiple of his supporters chanting “white power,” and personally called them “great people” for it "
How is this so called racist?
Just by calling people great, how so?
"His press secretary has since declared that Trump did not hear one of the individuals saying “white power,” which since multiple people in the video did it, means he did know about it when he shared it."
Your point is what?
"Trump has been so racist that it is scientifically testable that he is linked to racism, at least according to both Fox News and Twitter [8]."
By doing and saying what?
Tell me directly . If I think you're being dishonest , I'll check out the referenced citations for corrobation.
I'm mainly looking for you to make sense and you're not explaining too well.
If someone were to ask you if so and so is this and what you say is the truth, you have to be able to explain yourself. It's what you know and what you've learned yourself.
For any of the argument by repetition questions I skipped, merely see R2 for the answer: “if someone routinely behaves racist, they are by definition a racist.”
As con has requested I “just bring them forth directly.” Here’s a list from Vox [1]:
White Power
Con concedes that Trump openly endorses the White Power movement. He merely presents a non-sequitur that belief in inherent racial superiority doesn’t count as racism, despite it being such by definition.
If this was not the end of the debate, I suspect con would argue Nazi Germany did nothing racist during the Holocaust.
“That applies to the power of love, the power of God, the power of justice, power of will , etc.”
Love is not a race, God is not a race, justice is not a face, will is not a race, etc.
Black power, white power, and various other appeals to ways people racially identify themselves are racist movements due to declaring themselves better than other people, often to go as far as to deny the inherent humanity of anyone different from themselves.
“Did Mr. Trump say this on television or something?”
Yes, he publicly called murderous neo-nazis “very fine people” [6].
“Just by calling people great, how so? … Your point is what?”
Declaring people great for being openly racist, is fostering the theory that race determines human traits and capacities. Ergo, racist.
Science
Con questions what specifically he posted on Twitter to scientifically label himself racist, however this is not about one or two lone statements. He used enough key phrases and keywords also used by racists over such a long period, that he algorithmically linked himself to racism by repetition [8].
Sources:
See R1 for list, all sources this round merely point back to it.
I. Acting Racist:
Gish GallopAs con has requested I “just bring them forth directly.” Here’s a list from Vox [1]:
- 1973: “Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available”
- 1989: Launched a public campaign to disproportionately punish black crime suspects; specifically that they should be put to death for the mere accusation of crimes which do not merit the death penalty. In 2016 he stood by this, even when both DNA evidence and a confession from someone else exonerated the accused.
Con concedes that Trump openly endorses the White Power movement. He merely presents a non-sequitur that belief in inherent racial superiority doesn’t count as racism, despite it being such by definition.
Love is not a race, God is not a race, justice is not a face, will is not a race, etc.
Yes, he publicly called murderous neo-nazis “very fine people” [6].
Declaring people great for being openly racist, is fostering the theory that race determines human traits and capacities. Ergo, racist.
Con questions what specifically he posted on Twitter to scientifically label himself racist, however this is not about one or two lone statements. He used enough key phrases and keywords also used by racists over such a long period, that he algorithmically linked himself to racism by repetition [8].
See R1 for list, all sources this round merely point back to it.
The astonishing thing is that you could have this debate with the condition "PRO can only use examples of Trump's racism documented in the last 24 hours" and still have more evidence than would fit in a 10,000 character debate
> take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible
The horror of taking him at his word, rather than assuming he means the opposite of what he says... And no, not taken to be the worst context possible. I haven't even accused him of being nazi-lite, even while according to you he would say anything at all to get such racists to vote for him.
> especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.
Thank you for clarifying that he's intentionally endorsing racist beliefs to try to get racists to vote for him.
Please explain how your standard on Trump, if applied to Hitler, would allow the Literal Hitler to be racist?
> He never said they were better than any other's
They are apparently racehorses compared to others. If you don't think that's better, please bet all your money on a mule instead of a thoroughbred at the tracks. If Trump is not spouting off racist rhetoric (which at this point you've admitted he is, you just keep flip flopping on it), you have no reason to hesitate against doing this.
He also never mentioned superiority. He said "you have good genes in Minnesota." He never said they were better than any other's, he just said they were good. I overlooked that this whole time.
And so what if its true? Thank you for telling me I'm racist towards myself, lol. It's just a huge over-exaggeration. I think this just comes down to intentions. You don't like Trump, probably barely watch his speeches, and take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible. I, on the other hand, have been following him for 5 years, watched a lot of his speeches and style, and can easily tell his level of seriousness and not to take his comments in the worst context possible, especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.
> just silly pandering
By that absurd standard, Adolf Hitler himself couldn't be proven to be a racist, since he might have just been doing silly pandering to racists...
> doesn't say much about your moral character
A racist can be an upstanding citizen. That does not change the qualifier that they are a racist. Depending on the degree of their racism, I wouldn't want them in certain jobs, but again, they may still be an upstanding citizen. ... Bare in mind the accusation is just "racist" not either "Neo Nazi" or "Literally Hitler."
> Californians got lazy genes
Thank you for outing yourself as a racist, via your belief that genes (as opposed to culture) make Californians different and worse than Minnesotans.
The fact that he supposedly thinks Minnesotans are better than Californians, given I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it wasn't just silly pandering, which it was, but lets pretend it wasn't. My point being that preferring people from a particular state doesn't say much about your moral character, in fact anything. I can say people in the midwest have better genes than Californians because they are hard-workers out on the farm and Californians got lazy genes, but it has nothing to do with my moral character. I have trouble believing you actually think Trump thought that the Minnesotans at that event are actually better than other states. We might have to disagree on this one, but I think it's a very shallow accusation of racism, a term that has been thrown around like nothing and lost meaning in the recent years.
As previously stated: He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
That you or I do not believe them to be a distinct race, does not change Trump's statements that they are (and a superior one at that). While not accusing Trump of genocide, you can observe the same pattern of belief in many genocides throughout history. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples routinely intermarried, were indistinguishable to outsiders (and insiders for that matter), with the only thing marking them as separate races was... *drumroll* ...pure belief in their superior genes!
I think his point is that he designates them as a race that Ragnar himself wouldn’t apply. What that race is seems entirely beside the point because we can’t peer into Trump’s head and determine how he thinks about this particular issue, and I sincerely doubt that Trump has specified in these speeches. If you want to argue that this isn’t racism from your view because you don’t agree with Trump on this designation, then that’s fine, but Trump himself has levied both that claim and the associated one about them having superior genes. That’s a link Trump himself made very clearly, so I have a hard time understanding how that view isn’t inherently racist, given the connections he’s making rather than your own views.
And which race is that?
As previously stated: According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
You keep the dodging the question. Is Minnesota a race?
He was "casually talking" using well known racist rhetoric of eugenics, specifically identifying the people of Minnesota as inherently superior to others due to their inherited genes.
Since when was Minnesota a race? I think we both know this isn't an example of racism. Saying people have good genes isn't racist. You're taking it way too literally, he was at a rally casually talking to his base. This is a human being speaking, it's just an expression, take it with a grain of salt.
He didn't claim they were better educated than everyone else, he pointed to their genetics.
Ragnar, your really stretching it here. You know he mentioned nothing about race and was calling his audience intellectuals essentially. Minnesota is not a race, you're on a long leash here.
> So Minnesota is a race now?
According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
Also unrelated, but when I came back on here after awhile, most of the debates seemed oddly philosophical and like regarding debating itself? Lol, didn't know if that was the knew "thing," I'm used to mostly political debates.
You too! I don't really debate anymore because it turned into more of a burden than something fun, also because I like having discussions with open-minded people and not people just trying to "win" a debate. I'll keep perusing through debates and commenting with people, though!
Long time no see, Boat! Hope you can stay a while.
I'm not denying there's also physical traits.
>He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
So Minnesota is a race now?
He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
As for your belief that personality traits are genetic, if correct that would mean there are quantifiable physical differences (otherwise genetic tests would just say we'll all the same person), therefore still physical traits.
When did he ever mention race? He never said only white people in Minnesota have these superior genes, only blacks or Latinos in Minnesota have these superior genes, he said "you have good genes in Minnesota." Never mentioned race at all. You do realize genes are also personality characteristics and not just inherited physical traits?
> I don't understand how this had anything to do with race.
Calling back to the definition:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Proclaiming the people of Minnesota are better than others due to their genes and successful eugenics programs, is declaring that they are better than others due to their shared ancestry (AKA, race). It doesn't matter if it's at a state level, it's still clearly endorsing racist beliefs.
To you or I the Rwandan genocide was carried out by people of the same race; yet their belief in their racial superiority, drove them to genocide against their neighbors all the same. (this is not to say Minnesota is going to try to kill the rest of us)
> What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.
It was indeed pandering, but using racist rhetoric to do it. Hence, I call it out. If he went to Harlem and gave the same basic speech, I would likewise call that out for endorsing racism in the locals.
As for the racism definition, I think stereotyping, perceived bias, etc. doesn't make you a racist at heart. Some people say ignorant things sometimes, but it doesn't mean that they truly believe they're better just because their race is better. However, I acknowledge that saying racist things is still racist, and thus I give people the benefit of the doubt that the people are racist as a result, to some extent or another.
Death penalty- So you can concede a bit on my point, and I can concede a bit to your point that bias may play an effect. However, I just don't see any evidence evidence that his position was racist. You can say that he has a racial bias, but there's just no way to prove that.
Good genes- So, to my understanding, racehorse theory= superior genes+superior genes= more superior genes, as a basic point. I don't understand how this had anything to do with race. He was saying it about the state of Minnesota, so a superior state? Maybe he is a stateist. What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.
> I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.
Yeah, that we disagree on an issue, doesn't mean anything bad about either one of us. As I think I identified, our differing educations caused us to fall back to very different definitions of what it takes for someone/something to be a racist.