Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a "racist".
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
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
As 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.
Ragnar easily won. Here's why:
a) Ragnar fufiled BoP more than once, and mall barely did anything not only from his point of view but also refuting Ragnar's claims.
b) Ragnar used sources. Mall did not.
c) Mall forefitted.
Ignoring the forfeit, Pro still dominates this debate. He presents a number of substantial pieces of evidence to support the resolution. The responses that Con gives are largely a big "nuh-uh" rather than direct rebuttals, and even if some of them were effective, Con gives himself no ways to win this. He doesn't provide any substantial threshold for determining when someone has demonstrated their racism (he allows Pro to set both the standard for racism and the threshold he has to meet), and as he has no offense of his own to show that Trump is not a racist, he has to either disprove or mitigate everything Pro says into oblivion. These rebuttals only present niggling doubts at best; none of them outright defeat any of the points Pro presents. Pro clearly did present evidence and explain what was in said evidence, and Con's responses all trend towards either questioning the validity of his conclusions without presenting his own, or requesting that he present more facts without addressing the ones he's presented with in the first place. Sources to Pro, largely because he was the only one who presented any and they were entirely dismissed without reason.
Mall forfeits. Ragnar presents proof and mall doesn't do anything and ignores it
Unfortunate con didn't refute pro's evidence. When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove. Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
This isn't so much an issue of bias or personal views as it is an issue with how you engage with your opponent's arguments. What you should take away from this debate, and hopefully bring into your other debate with Ragnar, is that you have to interact with the arguments your opponent presents you with. Arguing that there are better ways for him to present his arguments and sources isn't going to benefit your position at all.
Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.
I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.
I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".
A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.
We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.
Thank you very much for the proper vote!
Your point here is confounding. Ragnar did provide his own analysis and conclusions regarding the content of those arguments. He does this thing called "summary" where he takes the main point of a long article, scales it down to the most relevant parts, and presents it as support for his side of the debate. Within the debate, your argument largely appeared to be that that support was insufficient to prove racism, though you never directly addressed any of those links nor did you substantially challenge the conclusions your opponent came to, despite repeatedly questioning them. Questions aren't arguments. You needed to engage with your opponent's points, challenge his basic suppositions and, yes, challenge his sources (or, at minimum, what his sources mean). If you don't do that, you can't expect to win a debate like this.
Your main problem here is your loyalty to virtue ethics.
You have decided that Trump = Good, and therefore he could murder black people in front of you while quoting Hitler about the final solution, and you'd still deny that is racist, for no reason beyond you've preemptively decided he must be good so whatever he does cannot be bad, so none of it can ever count as racism.
> Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
You either don't watch the news, or watch agenda driven fake news (which to be fair, is most major news networks).
> Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I did many times. That I had sources to back it in case there was doubt, doesn't mean I didn't get the to heart of the criticisms; such as his repeated endorsement of the white power movement, to include calling murderous neo-nazis “very fine people”; to which you requested to know where he said it, even when had already given a source for context.
> I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source.
In extreme cases of merely quoting sources without an argument I would agree (such crosses the line into plagiarism). However, sources are proof that things actually occurred. Of which aside from the dictionary, I only used a single descriptive quote about Trump's racism, and otherwise quoted him and other racists he publicly endorsed.
> You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own.
I did, many times. Trying to reason with you is like trying to draw water from a stone.
Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.
You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.
Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
Weak arguments differ from Gish Gallop. A Gish is a stronger tactic, often easy to spot due to being in list form (such as: here's 50 times Trump acted racist...). What he does is a pure argument by repetition.
He's good practice for spotting different fallacies. I just wish there were more variety, so I wouldn't be predicting which ones are inbound.
You have been on DDO so you know. Mall just went here to debate like the average DDO user. This site just serves as a filter of the more interested DDO users, and those advertisement bots and those bedsheet trolls will not care less about what this site is.
Mall's average argument is the definition of gish gallop.
You are one of the most dishonest debaters I have ever witnessed. "Where's the evidence?" Literally ignores the source number in the quote YOU provided.
1.5 hours remain for you to post an argument.
Orange man bad.
No, actually, orange man bad. No satirical irony. Orange man bad.
Error on my part . It happens comrade.
Why did you switch sides?
I'm here to prove what's opinion and disprove what's purported to be fact.
so you will present proof that Trump's a racist and if you don't CON wins?
Cool to see Mall switching sides on this one, to attempt to prove that Trump is racist.
While I could prove Trump is not by some subjective standards, I do not feel like putting the effort in.
Mr. Supermarket is now starting a new debate because someone else has defeated him using resolution-allowed reasons that he thinks is bare nonsense.