Instigator
Points: 0

The right wing is inherently more racist than the left.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 0 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 0
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
The BoP is either solely on you or is shared.  In case it is shared, I'm willing to provide my end of the BoP below.  You have yet to provide proof.

Since there is much disagreement about if the right and left are historically racist, I prefer to focus on what the Left and the right did in the 21st century.

Here's a basic argument on how the Left are the undoubtedly the racist ones in terms of policy.

They allow for race based abortions to exist within the US.  

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299(The vote to the H.R. 3541 (112th): Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3541(A basic summary of what this bill entails).

On this basis, the left claims to be against racism in all it's forms, even to the extent which they are willing to censor racists but they just happened to let this one exist.  This bill that the left supported is allowing for true racism to exist.


Round 2
Published:
First of all, it is important to understand that the left supports equality by definition whereas the right is generally about preserving or enforcing social hierarchies and cultural values.

"The terms right and left refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France.[1] As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics.[1]
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanismsecularism and civil liberties.[1] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy, but outside parliamentary politics these views are often characterized as being on the Right.
The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those "to the left" of the parliamentary left, outside official parliamentary structures (such as the sans-culottes of the French Revolution), typically represent much of the working class, poor peasantry and the unemployed. Their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists. However, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the laissez-faire policies of those representing them politically.
As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist and communist politics rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original "left". This evolution has often pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to different degrees in different countries, especially those with a history of issues with more authoritarian-left countries, such as the Soviet Unionor China under Mao Zedong.
Thus the word "Left" in American political parlance may refer to "liberalism" and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively more right-wing, or centrist overall, and "left" is more likely to refer to "socialist" or "social-democratic" positions rather than "liberal" ones."


The further left one is, the more equality they want, the further right one is, the more the opposite is true. Racism is literally impossible for a far-leftist and literally mandatory for a far-rightist because the further left one is the more radically egalitarian they are whereas the further right one is the more mono-cultural they are and the more they would separate people into different classes and social groups.

The BoP is either solely on you or is shared.  In case it is shared, I'm willing to provide my end of the BoP below.  You have yet to provide proof.
The BOP is almost always shared. I see it as a cop out in most cases to bicker about such things.

Here's a basic argument on how the Left are the undoubtedly the racist ones in terms of policy.

They allow for race based abortions to exist within the US. 
Well RM and that other guy already destroyed this argument in the comments but I will provide my additional 2 cents. Being pro abortion is generally considered left wing but there is actually no basis for that. What about it makes it inherently left wing? Pro-life is considered right wing because of the Judeo-Christian values it commonly arises from but technically you could be just as right wing with a religion that tells you to sacrifice babies to the Gods and be a literal Communist who is pro-life.
Furthermore, Hitler, who was an extreme far right winger, was pro-abortion as long as the aborted fetus wasn't Aryan.


Published:
it is important to understand that the left supports equality by definition whereas the right is generally about preserving or enforcing social hierarchies and cultural values.
Abortion is an exception to this rule. 

Another exception is the one child policy, which is far left.  Communist China which was far left, embraced the one child policy with the exception for ethnic minorities.  This is an example of racism because they are judging on the basis of ethnicity and they are giving more privileges to racial minorities.  While you are right that the right generally wants to keep things the way they are, the key word is generally and such exceptions exist.  Abortion and Immigration are 2 examples.  Trump wanting the wall is not keeping things the way they are.  You cited Wiki, which I don't think is the most reliable source for political content you can get.

Being pro abortion is generally considered left wing but there is actually no basis for that. What about it makes it inherently left wing?
Because abortions benefit women.

Racism is literally impossible for a far-leftist and literally mandatory for a far-rightist
I would consider myself far right and most far righters like Ted Cruz (who is Hispanic) don't believe in treating whites superior on the basis of race.  The far left on the other hand, supports Affirmative Action, which despite the good sounding title, makes it harder for people to get into college if they are of European or Asian decent.

Pro-life is considered right wing because of the Judeo-Christian values
While some politicians like to point out the bible, many political commentators like Ben Shapiro have cited the science on the issue(1), ignoring all religious influence.  Hunter avellone, an atheist conservative has done the same thing(2).  Me as a non Christian conservative have done the same thing.


Furthermore, Hitler, who was an extreme far right winger, was pro-abortion as long as the aborted fetus wasn't Aryan.
He had both right wing and left wing beliefs(3).  He was a nationalist, but he also was against citizens owning guns.

In conclusion:

The left is more racist then the right because the left supports Affirmative Action whereas the right supports the MLK quote, "I have a dream that one day people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

Sources:

Round 3
Published:
Abortion is an exception to this rule.  
I already explained why that's not the case. Super far-right Hitler not only supported racially selective abortion but he even aborted fully grown adults.

Another exception is the one child policy, which is far left.  Communist China which was far left, embraced the one child policy with the exception for ethnic minorities.
China is not far left, it is not even truly left. Don't get me wrong, it was taken over by a communist movement, but it never actually reached communism and it is not even socialist in it's socio-economic structure at this point in time. China is very much a capitalist country and Mao was only able to implement the first stage of Marxist socialism very briefly before bureaucracy and famine destroyed it. Nowadays china is ruled by a so-called communist party that acts just like a board of private owners of the means of production, except it has political power. There is no collective ownership of the means of production, which Marx insisted on, there is no democracy, which Marx insisted on, it has less publicly funded social programs and collective programs than America, making America slightly less capitalist than China. China has a mix of private ownership and state ownership, no collective ownership whatsoever, and is just as class-based as any other shit hole, so how exactly is it far left?

 While you are right that the right generally wants to keep things the way they are, the key word is generally and such exceptions exist.  Abortion and Immigration are 2 examples.  Trump wanting the wall is not keeping things the way they are. 
The irony is that Trump is trying to change things to be more like they used to be, which also counts as conservatism.

You cited Wiki, which I don't think is the most reliable source for political content you can get.
Don't give me that crap, you probably watch American corporate news media do you not?

Because abortions benefit women.
Lol, thanks for admitting the right is inherently sexist too, now I won't need to make a follow up debate. I mean, if "benefiting women" inherently makes something left wing, then being sexist must be inherently right wing right?

I would consider myself far right and most far righters like Ted Cruz (who is Hispanic) don't believe in treating whites superior on the basis of race.
If you and Ted cruise were far right you would either be espousing pure darwinism and anarchy or you would be a fascist, depending on if you are a libertarian or authoritarian type of right winger.

The far left on the other hand, supports Affirmative Action, which despite the good sounding title, makes it harder for people to get into college if they are of European or Asian decent.
Far left is it? I oppose affirmative action, a policy mostly but forth by soc-dem types, and I am extremely far left.
While some politicians like to point out the bible, many political commentators like Ben Shapiro have cited the science on the issue(1), ignoring all religious influence.  Hunter avellone, an atheist conservative has done the same thing(2).  Me as a non Christian conservative have done the same thing.
Haha, you do realize that their content reeks of Judeo-Christian bullshit right? Ben Shapiro (a practicing Jew) is strongly supportive of christian values and many of his views stem from a belief in God, Hunter Avellone is an atheist but also espouses a largely christianity based value structure and comes from a christian background. Also neither of them are particularly scientifically literate, so the claim that they base their arguments in science when they spew much of the same drivel as christians is a joke.

He had both right wing and left wing beliefs(3).  He was a nationalist, but he also was against citizens owning guns.
He used left wing rhetoric because he was a populist, but he put nothing that can be called left wing into actual practice. Gun rights, like abortion, is not actually inherently left or right. He actually loosened regulations for those he called Aryan but prevented the "lesser" races from possessing guns, his policies were very selective and class based in all regards.

The left is more racist then the right because the left supports Affirmative Action whereas the right supports the MLK quote, "I have a dream that one day people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
a lot of soc-dems and liberals support affirmative action, that does not mean the whole left supports it. If the whole left supports it then all right wingers are Nazis. Thank you for citing MLK, a leftist by the way.


Published:
Super far-right Hitler not only supported racially selective abortion but he even aborted fully grown adults.
Mao who is far left also killed people too whether from genocide or his one child policy.  His one child policy was racist to Han Chinese because they were only allowed 1 kid whereas ethnic minorities were allowed more.  In fact, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116810//pmc/articles/PMC1116810/1ov states, "Minorities were excluded from the policy.".  This killed more people indirectly on the basis of race then Hitler's Holocaust.  The Holocaust killed 24 million people.  Abortions due to the one child policy killed 336 million fetuses, which largely consists of people who were Han Chinese, being killed because their families were too big(2 people), whereas a Tibetan family could have had the same number of kids(2 people) and they would be fine.(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9933468/336-million-abortions-under-Chinas-one-child-policy.html).  In other words, the one child policy indirectly disproportionally harmed the Han Chinese.

so how exactly is it far left?
All of the following apply to China that are left to far left wing:

-They don't have freedom of speech at all.  People got on board with this by thinking "hate speech" was wrong.  From there, they decided that anyone who disagrees with the government and says so is committing hate speech.
-They have high taxes.  (http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp) states that anyone who makes over 80000 CNY a year is subject to a 45% tax.  80,000 CNY is about $12,000.  It is less for lower income groups.  They have progressive taxation, just like what the right tends to want to get rid of.
-They have heavy restrictions on guns(https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/china.php)
-They have state sponsored atheism.  The left is more likely to promote atheism then the right.  The bible has many right wing beliefs.  China made it illegal to practice any belief system other then atheism, Buddhism and Taoism.  The right believes in religious freedom.  The left believes in equality and is willing to sacrifice religious freedom in the name of it.

How does this tie into the claim, "The right wing is inherently more racist than the left."?  Because if China is a left wing country, then my 1st paragraph applies to them.

Lol, thanks for admitting the right is inherently sexist too
The left has policies that hurt women more then the right wing and you should make a follow up debate because I'm interested in it.  This is off topic.

Hunter Avellone is an atheist but also espouses a largely christianity based value structure and comes from a christian background.
He is an an atheist conservative.  They are rare, but they do exist.  Conservatives(with the possible exception for some of their politicians) don't make religious arguments for policy much anymore.  Hunter doesn't make religious arguments.  Ben Shapiro doesn't make religious arguments for policy.  Neither does Stephen Crowder.

a lot of soc-dems and liberals support affirmative action, that does not mean the whole left supports it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/22/public-strongly-backs-affirmative-action-programs-on-campus/ states that 78% of Democrats support Affirmative action.  A majority of the left supports it.

Sources:

Added:
Initial thoughts on this one:
Key definitions should really be in the debate description, along with which country's standard for left/right are to be measured for racism.
I'll defend Wikipedia as a source. About 10 years ago it was not trustworthy (at least to an academic level), but any controversial topics now get protected from the general public.
The bulk of sources should not be saved for the final round (it happens, even to me), as they cannot be responded to, so are of much lower value than they otherwise would be.
The comment section is not the debate itself, as much as it is a discussion of it. Borrowing arguments from it can be useful (reword them), they can technically be used as a source (copy the link from the comment number), but it's best to avoid just saying that someone happened somewhere in them.
Affirmative Action is a poor term for Positive Discrimination.
#11
Added:
--> @Type1
RatMan, he don’t mind.
#10
Added:
--> @oromagi
Don't make fun of RM or the aliens will get you and push you off the edge of flat earth.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
here, have a kleenex. yeah, take two, it's fine
#8
Added:
--> @dustryder
Well said, I almost burst with ecstasy at the excellence of that post.
#7
Added:
--> @Alec
The PRENDA act was blocked because you can't actually tell when someone is performing or wishes to perform a discriminative abortion. Realistically, there's no way to tell if such a crime is to be committed, or can be recognized. You would have to make wild guesses, largely upon the receivers race, which is extremely racist in itself.
Thus, such a law can only restrict the abortion rights of minortities. Finally, there are no studies which conclusively show that women undergo race-selective abortive procedures in the first place
#6
Added:
And yes, I'd have that view whether or not I was an a botched abortion or accident in a prolife nation. I do not use my own existence to bias my outlook.
#5
Added:
--> @Alec
I actually do support that, you should only be alive at the mercy of your ancestors, but that being said the issue is about complete inability to prove.
#4
Added:
Liberal Logic:
A pregnant women says the N word: Hate speech. Racism. Must be banned. Speaker must be punished.
A pregnant women kills an unborn fetus because they are black: Their body, their choice. This racism is okay.
Contender
#3
Added:
I'm sure the US gov has their ways of finding out if the abortion was race based or not. How do they catch people who commit other crimes? The bill didn't pass to begin with because of the democrats in office.
Contender
#2
Added:
How can you prove that they aborted the foetus due to its scanned gender or predicted race? Stupid law to pass.
#1
No votes yet