Instigator / Pro
15
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#740

Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

I will pretty much waive the first round and con will start the arguments off. BoP will be on con to prove that Trump IS racist, in present day.

-->
@Trent0405

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie

>Reason for Decision: I think some people are being tough on pro, he made good arguments and corrected many inaccuracies in Cons statements. I was even thinking about giving the reliable sources mark for Pro. Great debate and equally good arguments on both sides.

>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************

"Four or five moments. That's all it takes to be a [racist]. People think you wake up a [racist], brush your teeth a [racist], ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]. But now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."

-->
@TheAtheist

RFD:

Arguments:
A lot of Con’s arguments were just allegations, with no proof to back them up, such as the incident with the Korean analyst.

Con claimed that Trump is racist because he called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Trump was obviously joking about her obsession with her Native American heritage, and that she was actually lying about it. Warren is not Native American.
Con claimed that Trump was racist because he wanted to ban people based on religion.
Con also shifted the burden of proof on pro, stating that Pro has to present evidence to doubt his allegations about the Korean analyst.
Overall, Pro managed to debunk all of Con’s arguments except for “White supremacists are good people”.
Sources:
Con provided opinion articles and sources from biased news sites. He also only provided tweet sources when asked by Pro.

-->
@TheAtheist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments

>Reason for Decision: see above.

>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient.

While pro covers the main arguments - he does not assess the counter arguments, or provide weighting these arguments against each other. Sources were also insufficiently explained.

To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

For sources: 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.

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheAtheist

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: TheAtheist // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments

RFD: Pro debunked all of Con’s arguments.

Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.

---Initial thoughts toward voting---

BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.

Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).

Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.

C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).

C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).

C3

Bump
u
m
p

-->
@Dr.Franklin

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.

>Reason for Decision: Con used arguments that were allegation such as point 1, wasn't racist-point 2, failed to meet the burden of proof like point 5 and 8, and last forgot to include the context in the last two points. NOT GOOD

>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.

The presents an incomplete consideration of the main arguments, does not assess or weigh counter arguments, or provide any explanation of weighting - thus this vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@Speedrace

¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

-->
@Dr.Franklin

>:)

-->
@Speedrace

nope

-->
@Dr.Franklin

That was an example, if it was the only one then I wouldn’t call him racist, however, with the other ones then it is

-->
@Speedrace

"Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee."

A LOT of people did, if you are racist for doing that than ATLEAST half the country is racist.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You were saying?

-->
@Ramshutu

That’s dedication lol, thanks dude

So what I’m left with, is Trump retweeting white nationalists for no good reasons. Unfairly characterizing Mexican immigrants, unfairly using derogatory language about a Hispanic miss universe competitor he didn’t like, and asking why a Korean staff member didn’t work on North Korea issues.

I feel this all establishes a clear pattern of racial prejudice that pro cannot account for, there remain too many unanswered questions in too many cases to take pros side. Pros defence was stilted, and gave the impression of Kettle logic, with a multitude of justifications as to why each individual party of the overall onslaught was acceptable.

Worse, many of the arguments I’ve given to pro here are granted under an acceptable benefit of the doubt, with pro winning individual points not because he absolved Trump, but that there was sufficient doubt not to give it to con.

Overall, I am forced to now conclude whether I side with pro or con with regards whether this behaviour is racist or simply unbridled prejudice : your inconsiderate Grandpa, or a white supremacist. The dealbreaker here was the white supremacist tweets - as a result of these I am forced to concluded there is genuine racial animus by the arguments con presented over and above simple prejudice.

As a result: arguments to con.

What im left with, is cons statement that Trump singling our a black person at a rally was racist, and asking “what do you have to lose”, to the black community. I feel these were a bit of a reach, while it’s true the latter could be construed as an overgeneralization, I don’t feel it’s enough on its own.

So, for the big one: the wall.

Con points out what Trump said about Mexicans, and illegal immigrants. The portrayal and context appears clearly talking about “Most”, with the “some I presume”, indicating the idea that he felt there were probably some good individuals present; there is little other way I can take this, and pro encouraging me to believe Trump didn’t mean what he said here is particularly bad.

What con went on to do, is argue that Illegal immigrants bring very low levels of crime - intimating that pros portrayal is massively inaccurate too. Pro even appears to concede it was not true, and trump used Mexicans to mean South American illegal immigration in general.

Con goes into explain the issues with drugs, that smugglers are mostly American, and to point out the absurdity of pros claims about any levels of crime being bad - the whole point was the misportrayal of Mexicans. However, pro appears to have pulled con away from this argument into a discussion about crime reduction, ignoring trumps wholesale misrepresentation of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Pro never addresses this point, after implicitly conceding it was a misrepresentation by agreeing with the figures that show Trump was wrong in his portrayal.

What con didn’t do, was any contrast: Pro gave me substantial reason to show me Trump was grossly overgeneralizing Mexican immigration, but not specifically a great reason why it was specific due to race. Though this is implicit.

Finally, the final point is pros objection to Trump being racist based on various non racist actions. I feel con very much hit the nail on the head with his murderer example.

This, and the issue with the policy adviser being asked if they should work on North Korea, were sourced articles - simply denying their validity is not enough: so I have to consider these as valid arguments.

I have to dismiss the footballers, and Muslim ban as counting for pro.

For white supremacists: con points out that Trump has repeatedly shared white supremacist posts, and highlights a multitude of examples. Pro demands specific tweets, and con generally obliges. Pros response here seems not to deny the retweets, but to argue that Trump can retweet prominent white nationalists accounts 6 times, or 5 times and “not know” they were. Pro also makes an excuse about the behaviour and motivation of one example - claiming it was the probable reason for the tweet was to fight islamaphobia or to expose.

Pros counters here feel a woefull mismatch of excuses and con appeared to very much have the upper hand - con argues that this is more than once or twice, and is a pattern; and most of what pro can offer is weak denials, and counter examples. I have to award this point to con, on these grounds: I can’t see how it’s reasonable to be retweeting white nationalist like this multiple times - and con simply did not do enough to even come close to mitigating this point.

With regards to the unite the right rally. I feel con does just enough here. By pointing out the full context of the quote it paints a portrait of a misquote. I don’t think this is necessarily true - but con did not point out any key mischaracterizations Trump made. Nor whether there is any racial connotations by minimizing one side as he did. That’s where con could have won this point, but pro did well to simply muddy the water enough.

So imo, this debate is a bit of a mess. The definitions are wishy washy, and neither side really engages in a systematic attempt to justify why actions as a whole makes the conclusion that Trump is it is not a racist justified or not.

Cons primary problem here is three fold: There was the selecting of a hugely restrictive definition of racism, there was the repeated assertion that a given action is racist without clear justification, and no broad argument about actions as a whole.

In my opinion, it is not enough for con to simply state that calling Warren Pocahontas is racist. Simply stating attacking football players for kneeling is racist is not enough on its own, either without a clear focus on the racial identity and a clearer outline of why the actions single out African Americans intentionally on the grounds of race. An argument is there to be made - but wasn’t here.

Similarly, con focused on the resulting Muslim ban - rather than the initial campaign language, the first couple of iterations, and any of the multitude of associated evidence about the choice of countries- massively eroded this point.

This allows pro to portray the actions as reasonable based on events and so with no clear description of what makes these actions specifically racist - the actions may be reasonable. I don’t believe pro is necessarily correct on any of these points - but without any detailed argument on what makes these acts specifically racist, I can’t assume they are.

Con recovers somewhat in the final rounds - a bit - pointing out the issue of miss housekeeping, that it is a racial slur due to the connotations and stigma of hispanics working as cleaners. Pros only real argument against this was such a slur was directed at the woman because he didn’t like her, and to deny across the board that these examples even happened - I don’t find this a compelling rebuttal at all.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per our standards.
***********************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

wut lol

I don’t see what the purpose of that was, but ok, LOL

Bump
u
m
p

Pls vote

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

lol

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: See Pinkfreud08's vote

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************

-->
@Speedrace

do wut

-->
@Ramshutu

O i'm on fire rn

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

52 days left.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Y u do dat

-->
@Speedrace

wait there's 54 days left lmao i was thinking of another debate now i should stop stressing haha im dumb

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I know lol, we’ll seeeeeeeeeeeee >:)

-->
@Speedrace

Even though he is leftist, he is a pretty fair voter, and it's the only chance I have.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Please, like he’d vote for you

Plus Ralph can just vote again :D

-->
@Speedrace

maybe 1 more coming...

-->
@Ramshutu

You haven't voted on this debate. 2 days left!

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

One vote is all I need haha :P

-->
@Speedrace

lol ur not getting away w/ that xD

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I noticed that too, weeeeeeeelp

-->
@David
@bsh1

Wrick just copied and pasted pinkfreuds vote. I reported it.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

" And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. "

- Well again you provided no analysis as to WHY these sources are bias, all you did was call them liberal which isn't a good argument. By this logic, I could just call you bias since you're conservative.

- Also a point you STILL haven't addressed is Con rebuttal to you calling these sources bias since he NEVER used the source for their opinion but rather for their statistics. Even if the sources were " bias " it's irrelevant.

" I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. "

- Aside from the fact you did a poor attempt at sarcasm, that's not the only issue I have with it.

- Since you STILL never addressed the claims made by your opponent and instead opted out to make a joke.

The bottom line is once again you fail to understand my vote and are instead pulling red herrings and dodging the arguments made. You also haven’t addressed and given proper evidence for your poorly constructed claims that I’m an SJW and Bias.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

" These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on."

- Since you have neglected to explain how your opponent took you out of context on these points, I will ignore them

" Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling."

- You've provided no analysis of this point so again I will ignore it.

The bottom line is I shouldn't have to look at the debate or analysis it myself, it's your job to do so. I saw no point in the debate where he took you out of context or insulted you. Regarding the racist thing, you still haven't provided a defended yourself against him calling you racist.

" I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. "

- Who care's if he called you racist? Again you called me an SJW, you call people libtards, and you call sources bias. You are one of the last people to complain about poor conduct when you do the exact same in debates and in comment sections.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling.

"Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed."

I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. They paraphrase what in their opinion Trump meant, and also take things out of context. Not poor conduct.
My opponent claimed someone was bribed, not me. I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. I made actual arguments on the things I claimed they were bribed. He started that. Not me. You should change your vote on that. Can't even pay attention to the debate.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee.

Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.

Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists.

Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."

Once, Trump pointed to an attendee at a rally and said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”

These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

“ You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)”

First of all, I did not find any point in the debate where he directly took you out of context at all. If you do find a point where he did that then please tell me so I can alter my vote.

Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed.

The bottom line is you obviously have little understanding of my vote, pull red herrings, and make baseless and absurd accusations.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

" You don't even address this."

- I didn't address your argument because it didn't make any sense at all. This is because you are pulling an obvious red herring, Con's main argument wasn't about the wall, it was on how Trump is making poorly constructed conclusions on crime and is assuming that illegals are bringing in lots of crime when in reality the native population creates more crime. An argument you failed to address in a logical manor since regardless of the illegal to legal population, Trump is STILL making an unfounded claim against immigrants in the country.

" It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)"

- If you feel that way, than report my vote and we can let the mods handle it. If the mods believe I did misunderstand your entire argument then I will alter my vote.

- Let's say for a second I did “ misunderstand “ your points, this still doesn’t prove that i’m bias in
any way.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

" You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting."

- That is a baseless accusation and since you have provided no evidence to prove that I will ignore it.

" He wasn't making an assumption."

- yes he was, he literally stated that the majority of blacks should vote for him when they're in poverty. This is an obvious prejudicial statement to make against blacks whether it's true or not. This is as if I went to the USSR and and called people there communists indiscriminately, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant since it’s still a discriminatory statement.

" He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point."

- He stated that SOME are good people. Implying that he believes the MAJORITY are bad people.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Your second vote point was...

"" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals "

Trump was addressing specifically the people he was talking about(violent criminals) and pointing out the problem with illegal immigration. Saying some doesn't imply a majority, the violent criminals are obviously some as well. He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point.

The final example and borderline is this one in your vote...

and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."

You don't even do an explanation for this. I did respond to this by saying "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished."
You don't even address this.

It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's argument's, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)

-->
@Pinkfreud08

You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting.

You only had 2 relevant points that awarded Con argument points which were.....

"One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out."

He wasn't making an assumption. Statistically, the single motherhood rate for blacks is the highest ever at 72%, Blacks account for the majority of crime and murder despite them being 13% of the population, the unemployment rate for blacks is the highest among all groups (which Trump has gotten down to record numbers), 58% of their youth is unemployed, the poverty rate is at 20%, highest among all major races, the lowest sat score benchmark percentage at 20%,etc.

Now Trump was saying some of these things are affected by democratic policies, specifically economically(because he is a business man), and he has shown that he is doing good for black people by the lowest unemployment rates and booming economy for blacks. Blacks are statistically worse at things than other races. Trump was making a pitch to try something new in Trump, being a business man and not your typical president(not even a politician). Claiming this is racist is very opinionated and not clear and cut.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Since you are unable to back up your poorly constructed hypothesis and accusation against my character, I would like to ask of you to please refrain from making such absurd and baseless accusations in the future.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Let's say that I state that some white people are good people.

In this context, I would be implying that since some are good, this means the rest must be bad.