Points: 36

Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 8 votes the winner is ...
Death23
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 52
Description
Voters will vote on the arguments and voting criteria like any other debate. Whether my mind is changed or not has no effect on the voting.
Racism is a pretty agreed upon term- "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."
So thinking that you are superior to another race.
That is the main definition, but another one could be prejudice or discrimination of another race.
Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.
I will give a general overview of the debate in round 1, and then Con will start off the arguments. Con will then waive the last round.
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
I interpret a forfeited first round as an indication that my opponent does not intend to debate the topic. I don't generate debate content in such a situation.
Round 2
Published:
Sorry I was on vacation oof oh well.

Basically death has to prove he is racist. Good luck.
Published:
Facts:
 
On July 16th, 1968 a complaint was filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York; Specifically, that Fred Trump (Donald Trump's father) refused to rent an apartment to a man because he was black.
 
A hearing on the complaint was held on October 31st, 1968, before the commission, at which time testimony and evidence were received. The commission found that respondent Fred Trump engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
 
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0055.pdf
 
On October 15th, 1973, the Nixon administration's then acting Attorney General Elliot Richardson filed a complaint on behalf of the United States against Donald Trump, et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, inter alia, alleged the following:
 
1. Trump Management Inc. was a New York corporation doing business in the Eastern District of New York, managing and operating numerous apartment buildings, totaling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area and elsewhere. (These facts were not denied in the Trump's answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
 
2. Donald Trump was president of Trump Management Inc. and was responsible for the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. (This fact was not denied in the Trumps' answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
 
3. Donald Trump, et al, through his actions and those of his agents and employees, discriminated against persons because of race in the operation of the apartment buildings, among other ways, by:
 
a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate for the rental of dwellings with persons because of race and color.
 
b) Requiring different terms and conditions with respect to the rental of dwellings because of race and color.
 
c) Making and causing to be made statements with respect to the rental of dwellings which indicate a preference, limitation and discrimination based on race and color.
 
d) Representing to persons because of race and color that dwellings are not available for inspection and rental when such dwellings are in fact so available.
 
A copy of this complaint is available for download in PDF format here: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0005.pdf
 
The allegations contained within the complaint were preceded and supported by an FBI investigation in to the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. The FBI records for that investigation are available for download here:
 
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company
 
The records of that investigation include evidence of discriminatory practices. Some evidence of discriminatory practices are from those of "testers" - People who pose as prospective tenants and inquire as to the cost and availability of apartments. For example, a black tester may inquire as to the availability of an apartment and then a white tester may inquire as to availability soon thereafter. Other evidence supporting the allegations of the complaint include statements from employees and former employees of Trump Management Inc.
 
The following are some examples of this evidence:
 
(Excerpt from statement to FBI from a former employee of Trump Management)
 
            I was employed by Trump Management Corporation from February, 1970 to May, 1971 as a Doorman at 2650 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York. This building is also known as Ocean Terrance.
            While employed in this capacity, I was supervised by an individual known to me as [REDACTED] who was employed by Trump Management Corporation as superintendent at 2650 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York.
            [REDACTED] told me that if a black person came to 2650 Ocean Parkway and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is, [REDACTED] was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment.
 
Pages 34, 35 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
 
(Another excerpt from statement to FBI by former employee of Trump Management)
 
            I [...] was employed by Trump Management Corporation during the middle two weeks of December, 1973. I was employed as a rental supervisor by Fred Trump. My job was in part to determine the rental problems involved with buildings at Tysens Park, Staten Island.
            [...] I asked Fred Trump what his policy was regarding minorities and he said it was absolutely against the law to discriminate. At a later time during my two weeks at Tysens Park, Fred Trump told me not to rent to blacks. He also wanted me to get rid of the blacks that were in the building by telling them cheap housing was available for them at only $500 down payment, which Trump would offer to pay himself. Trump didn't tell me where this housing was located. He advised me not to rent to persons on welfare.
[...] black. On Thursday August 17, 1972 [redacted] at approximately 11:30 AM. I told him that I was interested [illegible] apartment or a one bed room apartment, both of which were advertised in the New York Times of August 17, 1972. He told me that the night before [illegible] a party, and that at that time someone else had signed the agreement to rent the apartment. I asked him about the studio apartment, and he told me [illegible] was a lot of junk in it and that they had no keys to that apartment. I ask him [illegible] that an ad could appear in the New York Times stating that an apartment was available when in fact it was not. He told me that if I had [illegible] party, that I could have had the apartment. I asked him if he could at least show me the type of apartment he was talking about, and he said he could not. We then exchanged telephone numbers and I left.
[...] and I am white. On Thursday August 17, 1972 I visited [redacted] a building owned and operated by Fred C. Trump, with [redacted] The New York Times that morning ran an ad for various apartments in this building available for rent. Twenty minutes after [redacted] was told by the superintendent that these apartments had already been rented or could not be seen that day, I entered the renting office and was told by the superintendent's assistant that the apartments were all available and that I could see them. He took me upstairs and showed me the one bedroom apartment for $235, which was vacant, and offered to show me the studio apartments. I said that I did not have time. He said that I could fill out the application for the one bedroom apartment right away if I liked. I said that I did not have time to do so but that I would come back later and departed.
 
Page 24 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
 
 
Contemporary Interview:
 
On September 29th, 2016, NPR did an interview of one of the testers, Sheila Morse. The following excerpts are from the transcript of that interview -
 
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=495955920
 
SHEILA MORSE: He went in. He met with the superintendent, and the superintendent said, I'm very sorry, but the apartment is rented. It's gone. So the gentleman said to him, well, why is the sign out? I still see a sign that says apartment for rent. And the superintendent said, oh, I guess I forgot to take it down. And that was that.
 
SIEGEL: You, as a tester, then were sent in to inquire about an apartment in the very same building.
 
MORSE: Exactly, yes.
 
SIEGEL: What did they tell you?
 
MORSE: Oh, they greeted me with open arms and showed me every aspect of the apartment.
 
SIEGEL: Sheila Morse says she reported back to the Human Rights Commission and then returned to the apartment building in Brooklyn. After she was offered a lease, the man who had tried to rent the apartment and the city Human Rights Commissioner entered the office. And the three of them confronted the building superintendent.
 
MORSE: He said, well, I'm only doing what my boss told me to do. I am not allowed to rent to black tenants. So the commissioner said, OK, can you take us to your boss? And he said, yeah, I guess I can.
 
And then we went to the boss, and it was an office building in Coney Island. And when we got there, there was a great big sign that said Trump Management, and it was Donald Trump and Fred Trump, his father.
 
 
Other evidence:
 
The federal complaint against Trump was settled with a "consent decree". The settlement required Trump Management to implement various measures designed to end discriminatory practices at the Trump properties.
 
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf
 
The decree began on 07/01/1975. At that time there were a total of 641 black tenants within the Trump properties. On 05/01/1977, nearly two years later, there were then 968 black tenants, an increase of approximately 51%.
 
Page 3 of https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0040.pdf
 
 
Argument:
 
The available evidence indicates that it is more probable than not that Donald Trump, by his acts and omissions as President of Trump Management Inc., discriminated against black people in housing. The statements from the testers and former employees show that black people were discriminated against at the Trump properties. Donald was president of Trump Management and was the son of the apparent owner, Fred Trump. In this capacity, it is more likely than not that Donald was involved in the day to day operations of Trump Management. Donald likely had a hand in implementing the will of his father, which apparently included discriminating against minorities. The interview of Sheila Morse shows that Donald was regarded as one of the bosses.
 
Relating this to the resolution -
 
The debate description provides as follows:
 
That is the main definition, but another one could be prejudice or discrimination of another race.
 
Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.
 
The evidence here indicates that Trump has done racist things. Specifically, that Trump has discriminated against blacks in housing. That is a racist thing.

Round 3
Published:
My opponent's argument revolves around Trump discriminating against blacks in housing 50 years ago.


The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.  The claims of Fred Trump's and Donald's racism started in 1968 into the 70's, starting 4 years ranging to a decade past the Civil Rights Act.  Blacks were still discriminated against in this time, as many people disregarded the act passed and still practiced racism as a normal, cultural thing to do.  People didn't just change their perspective's of race after the act was passed.

Many of the things my opponent outlines may be true, the most shaky of them accusations from "testers."  These accusations can not be proven, however, they very well could be true, or false.  That is up to perception.

With all this said, Death has pointed out one specific incident having occurred 50 years ago.  The point of this debate is to prove Donald Trump is a racist, not was.  With a period directly after the Civil Rights Act, people can change in 50 years.  Trump was pretty young at the time.

The evidence here indicates that Trump has done racist things.
While that may be true, you have to prove Donald Trump is a racist today, as the title of the debate is referring to present tense.  

Conclusion:

My opponent has not proven that Trump is racist today, and is using evidence from 50 years ago alleging Trump "was"racist.  Death has the BoP to show Mr. Trump is racist, or still racist, in the present day, which would likely require fairly recent evidence of racism of Trump.

Trump has also openly said he is not racist, and has denounced groups like the KKK.

He also has support from blacks, such as Kanye West, Formal NFL black wide receivers, and Candace Owens.

Published:
No resolution has been specified in this debate. The rules require that I am to accept the definitions and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things. That is the goalpost. I have accepted the definitions and the housing discrimination case is a clear, credible and substantial example of racism practiced by Trump that Pro has failed to disprove. The rules did not specify that the racist things had to be recent. This is Pro trying to move the goalposts.

Pro's evidence of Trump not being racist is not convincing. Black people endorsing Trump does not make it more or less likely that Trump is racist. There's no connection there. Trump is the POTUS. He will have supporters of all races regardless. Pro's other evidence - Trump condemning racist groups - Obviously, Trump has a reason to lie about these things. Trump is a politician now and he must distance himself from racist groups for political reasons rather than personal ones.
Round 4
Published:
The only one trying to move the goal posts here is con.  The point of the debate and clearly written is to prove that Trump is racist, not was racist.

While the BoP was on death to prove racist things he has said or done, it also has to prove that Trump is racist, and evidence from 50 years ago after the Civil Rights Act is not substantial evidence that Trump is racist.  People can change over 50 years, believe it or not.

Lynne Parton, a former party planner for the Trump org. said "as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way she would work for an individual who was racist."  He has also hired black people throughout his life, he chose a black person, Omarosa, who also worked in the White House, to win the apprentice.  

I ask voters...Why would a racist do that?

Con can respond only to that last paragraph and strictly nothing else, as it is a new argument.  Per debate rules, he may not respond to my other points or tell voters anything/conclude anything of his whole debate.

Conclusion:

Con has not provided substantial evidence that Trump is a racist.
Published:
I'm sorry but it was not clearly written that I had any responsibility to do anything beyond accepting [the given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things." I didn't sign up for doing more than that. While it is true that debate titles are sometimes resolutions, it's not always like that. In this case, the debate title was "Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my mind". In the debate description it was written that "Whether [Pro's] mind is changed or not has no effect on the voting", which guided me away from the conclusion that the debate title was the resolution. Nowhere in the debate description was it written that I had the burden to prove that Trump is racist. It was written that I had to "accept the given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things." I did that.
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
poopoo bad boy
Contender
#71
Added:
--> @IsaiahDude543
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Isaiahdude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Both arguments were convincing but pro was better
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
#70
Added:
--> @blamonkey
Thanks for the vote. I also viewed Donald's subordination to Fred as a mitigating factor in the housing discrimination case. You're the first person to bring that up. Kudos.
Contender
#69
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
#68
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
You said I "didn't address it".
I said "doubt it would get taken down" because your point is false.
My point logically follows and is not biased.
So I don't see how it would be taken down.
#67
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Glad to know your bias.
Instigator
#66
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Doubt it would get taken down.
#65
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Still did not adress it. reported.
Instigator
#64
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
I'll bring the vote back up. Just have to confirm something.
#63
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
What about the rule break by con in the final round? He was supposed to waive.
Instigator
#62
Added:
Yay :D
#61
Added:
--> @Speedrace
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. Borderline votes are, by default, considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
#60
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
#59
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Uh?
#58
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
#57
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro never offered an offense. Pro forfeited the first two rounds and then complained that con was misinterpreting thesis. Con gave solid evidence of Trumps racist past. Although I tend to agree with Pro that such a claim should be backed by recent evidence, Pro had 4 opportunities to argue for excluding old evidence before bringing it up in R3. Only one side in this debate made evidence based claims. Arguments to Con. Pro used no sources- sources to Con. Conduct for forfeit
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Kiss my goddamn ass.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The BOP was on Con to provide an instance in which, according to the rules: "Trump has said or done racist things." "Things" is vague, but it is clear that Pro wants Con to rove that Trump did something which proves his allegiance to white supremacy, or is prejudiced toward another race. While Pro's objection to testers is noted, he never explicitly gives me proof suggesting bias in the experiment conducted with the testers. Moreover, Con offers interviews with previous employees of Trump Management Incorporated which adds validity to Con's claims. Even if the bias in unintentional, old, or outdated, the rules of the debate only ask Con to show "prejudice or discrimination of another race." A strategy which Pro easily could have capitalized on is attributing the racist policy to Fred Trump. Perhaps Pro could contend the charges against the group as well, since the only evidence supporting the theory that Donald Trump is a part of the racist policies is conjecture as he "was on of the bosses," and "likely had a hand in implementing the will of his father." Instead, Pro asserts that black people support Trump. This is true, but it doesn't prove that Donald Trump isn't racist, or hasn't discriminated against minority groups. Con points out this discrepancy. Unfortunately, Con didn't adhere completely to the rules as he didn't waive the last round, so I give the conduct point to Pro. The forfeit at the beginning of the debate made me seriously think about keeping the conduct point a tie. However, the forfeit didn't seriously impede the debate since Con was supposed to go first to begin with.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The instigator forfeited the first Round. Which meant the debate was cut even shorter by only 2 Rounds from 3. Since there is a rule of waiving 1 Round shared by both opponents it is already cut down to 3 Rounds but since the instigator did forfeit and the contender did not give a response in Round 1. The debate was 2 Rounds which is the fault of the instigator.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument point
Pro offered no main argument other than to point out that BoP was on Con.
Con said;

"On July 16th, 1968 a complaint was filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York; Specifically, that Fred Trump (Donald Trump's father) refused to rent an apartment to a man because he was black.

A hearing on the complaint was held on October 31st, 1968, before the commission, at which time testimony and evidence were received. The commission found that respondent Fred Trump engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0055.pdf

On October 15th, 1973, the Nixon administration's then acting Attorney General Elliot Richardson filed a complaint on behalf of the United States against Donald Trump, et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, inter alia, alleged the following:

1. Trump Management Inc. was a New York corporation doing business in the Eastern District of New York, managing and operating numerous apartment buildings, totaling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area and elsewhere. (These facts were not denied in the Trump's answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )

2. Donald Trump was president of Trump Management Inc. and was responsible for the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. (This fact was not denied in the Trumps' answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )

3. Donald Trump, et al, through his actions and those of his agents and employees, discriminated against persons because of race in the operation of the apartment buildings, among other ways, by:"
Con shows evidence that formal charges were brought up against trump, but I see nothing about a guilty verdict. Let's read on.
As his arguments pile up, Con shows that there is a consistent pattern that is in line with the agreed upon definition of racism for this debate. Because of the sheer amount of evidence of racist behavior, Con establishes a solid base case, let's see if Pro does anything to negate it.
Pro replies by saying that the civil rights act hadn't kicked in yet, but this is not sufficient because the legal guilt and innocence is not part of the resolution. Pro even admits to the incident cited by Con being true, a fatal concession. The rest of the debate is largely semantics and doesn't change the resolution at all. Argument point to Con.
Condcut to Con for the first round forfeit by pro.
All others tied.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments:
Con only provided one piece of evidence that Trump was racist. This was extremely disappointing to me, as there are many examples. However, I'm not the one debating.
Pro clearly said in the description "provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things." "Things" is plural, and Con only provided one. That's the first red flag. Secondly, Pro easily beat down the one example Con gave by saying that we're discussing if Trump IS racist, not WAS. Him pointing out that the example that Con gave was 50 years old was completely valid. Had Con given both recent and old examples, it would have been fine, but that was not the case.
This is why I'm giving the point to Pro.
Conduct:
Pro forfeited. That's bad conduct.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.”
Pro clearly states the rules of the debate are that con must show that Trump has done racist things. The racist things con mentions are clearly uncontested by pro, and pro simply attempts to backpeddle on the rules of tbe debage by changing the goalposts.
I am sympathetic to one debater changing or challenging the rules during a debate in the following scenarios:
- it can be shown that there is a clear harm to either debater if the rules are accepted as is (IE: the rule makes the debate logically unwinnable)
- the rule is obviously being applied in a way opposite or contrary to the way a regular person would interpret the rules. (IE: the rule is being used in a way contrary to its intent) and thus needs to be clarified.
If neither of these things are true here - pro does not show that the rules were misinterpreted, or that the interpretation of the rules makes the debate resolution unfair - I am forced to judge the debate on how a regular person would interpret the rules.
I am of the view con must show that Trump has done racist things to negate the resolution as per the stipulated rules. He has done this, by citing an extensively sourced example of Trumps racial discrimination in the 1960//70s. Pro does not contest these things happened, nor that Trump was responsible - merely that they don’t count. As shown above - these do count according to pros own rules. Pros only response is to present a short list of all the not racist things Trump has done, even if true - this doesn’t negate that Trump has done racist things - which is the condition for victory as specified by the rules.
While con didn’t waive the final round as stipulated - pro effectively forfeited two rounds - then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round.
The forfeits here are much more series than cons final round clarification (he made no new arguments), and the attempt to argue con should be held to a different set of r
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct: Pro moved the goal post, in his description he defines the goal post as
"provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things."
- Which implies that he HAS done racist things. Which implies that the time period doesn't matter. However than later on Pro moves the goal post by stating,
"My opponent has not proven that Trump is racist today, and is using evidence from 50 years ago"
This is a moving of the goal post since previously Pro used a general tense but is now claiming that the goal is to prove Trump has been racist recently. This is an obvious moving of the goal post which Pro spouted multiple times throughout the debate.
Moving of the goal post in and of itself, is poor conduct on pro's part.