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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/740?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=155

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Spelling and Grammar:

- Both had good spelling and grammar so it is a tie.

Reliable Sources:

- Both provided good and reasonable sources to back up their claims.

Conduct:

- Both had good conduct overall

Convincing Arguments:

- Pro was very dishonest in this point when he stated,

" 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 and Con pointed this out in statements such as,

" The percentage matters a lot. If you're giving money out to homeless people and there's a 1% chance that they'll spend it on drugs instead of food or something, does that mean you shouldn't give out money altogether? No! That's absurd. However, if it was a 99% chance, then that would be a good decision."

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."

Nextly Pro stated,

" So this is not just remarked towards Mexicans."

Con than argued,

" That doesn't matter. They're non-white."

- This is a very valid point since the debate is not on whether or not Trump is racist again Mexicans, this is on racism in general.

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.

Pro also misrepresented Con's point regarding his analogy on giving black people jobs by stating,

" The difference from a murderer is that they are convicted and it is proven. These "racist" claims are up for debate and I have debunked pretty much all of them."

To which Con responded with,

" You completely missed the point of that analogy. My point is that doing one good deed towards black people doesn't automatically excuse someone from being racist."

- This is obviously true since Con wasn't exactly making a claim, he was simply making an analogy and debunking the giving jobs to a minoritys argument. Very plainly Pro completely missed the point of Con's argument.

All of that aside, arguably the biggest reason I feel Pro completely lost the debate was on the " biased" sources argument. Pro stated,

" Maybe find a central source than, like I suggested saying "unbiased."

To which Con replied expertly by stating,

" That's completely unnecessary. I'm not taking an opinion from them, I'm taking the proof of the claims that I'm making."

- Pro very obviously doesn't understand that even if the sources Con used were " bias", Con wasn't using them for their opinion but rather for the statistics and data.

- This point completely makes Pro's argument regarding the sources fall apart.

Another point in the debate which absoulutely destroyed pro's credibility was with their response to Con's point being,

" As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.
Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."

- To which Pro made a very baseless and downright absurd accusation with little to no evidence nor analysis by stating,

"Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."

- What's really ironic about this is that Pro seems to always talk about how Con is just making assumptions while Pro is doing the EXACT same thing.

- Pro, however, did this NOT once but TWICE in the debate with another accusation similar to this regarding the " pretty Korean lady" claim. To which Pro stated,

" The officials got paid off to say that."

- This is yet another absurd and baseless accusation made by Pro.

To conclude, it is obvious to anyone who reads this debate that Con has provided substantial evidence to believe that Trump is a racist as Pro throughout this entire debate relied on making baseless accusations and overall had little understanding of con's arguments.

All of this said I award Convincing arguments to pro.