Instigator / Pro
Points: 18

Donald Trump Is Racist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Speedrace
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 11
Description
Racist: showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
I will be using the reasons stated in my previous debate on this topic.
Round 1
Published:
*For voters, in the description, I said I'd be using the points I used in my previous debate on this topic.*

Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."

Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy.

Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."

Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals."

Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.

Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets.

When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

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 racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building.

Now, of course, doing just one of these things does not instantly make you racist. However, the pattern of doing racist things multiple times over does. All of these show exactly that pattern.

Sources:

Published:
'Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."'

'Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals."'
Please don’t forget that in this same speech he said, “…and some I assume are good people.” I admit this is not the most eloquent of statements, but I also believe he was speaking the truth about the massive issues entering our country via our southern border. Drugs, human trafficking are massive concerns, as is the reported rape numbers associated with the illegal immigration.

'Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets.'
Being a nationalist is not a bad thing. Despite the definition the left is trying to fix to the term, nationalist is defined as “a person devoted to nationalism.” “a member of a political group advocating or fighting for national independence, a strong national government, etc.” Nationalism is defined as “spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. Devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism.” How is being a nationalist (putting the USA first) racism?

'When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”'
When did stating facts become racism? Our inner cities are crime ridden. The ethnic makeup of most of those communities are black and Hispanic and those good people are living in hell when they experience such great risk of being shot during a drive-by. The criminals in those communities prey on their own, as well as outsiders. They are also living in poverty, the schools in those areas are far below those in more affluent areas, and the jobs issue was also accurate. How is this racist. Perhaps it is because when you look into the majority of those communities they are controlled politically by the Democratic party and making Donald Trump racist is easier than working to fulfill your political promises.

"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Trump stated that there were very fine people on both sides of the conflict. In context, it showed his effort to acknowledge the rights of both people there for peaceful protest and not that he was saying the violent supremacists were fine people. That was a twist the media gave the comment.

"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Donald Trump said in his 1987 book that he didn't rent to welfare cases, white or black.

Why trump is not racist:
His economy has lowered the black unemployment to the lowest level in history.
By being tough on illegal immigration he is saving jobs for blacks to participate in.

Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington, two University of Pennsylvania sociologists, have been conducting a running study that measures the racial attitudes of 2,500 randomly selected Americans since 2008. In their most recent report, the academics admit they expected to see an increase in racist opinions among the group, stating, “Normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters.” What they found is a decrease in racism under Trump: Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then after 2016 it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.
Round 2
Published:
Miss Housekeeping

My opponent does not respond to this at all. I'll ask him to do so in the next round. He also did not respond to my point on the Korean-American employee, Elizabeth Warren, banning Muslims and implying that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.

Calling Mexicans Names

Saying that "some" are good people implies that he believes that most are bad people. However, jumping to that conclusion solely based on race is racist.

Did you know that 80% of drug smugglers are Americans? [1] So there's one lie. Whites account for 71% of all rapes in America (even though they're only 63% of America), while Latinos are only 9%, even though they're 17% of the population. [2] That's two lies. I could not find statistics on human trafficking, but I will point out that my opponent has given none to prove his point either.

So, with all of that said, all of these unfounded claims Trump is making are based solely on the fact that these people are Mexicans, which is racist.

Retweeted White Nationalists

My opponent uses the definition of "nationalist," but he should be using the definition of "white nationalist," which is "one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation." [3] So, while being a nationalist isn't racist, being a white nationalist is.

Black Voters

Generalizing an entire demographic and assuming their social and/or economic status based purely off of their skin color is racist. Also, Trump only gave statistics for the black youth unemployment, not his other claims, which itself is wrong (it may have been correct at the time, but I'm not sure). [4]

Fine People On Both Sides

My opponent says that Trump calling saying both sides have "very fine people" is just acknowledging their right to protest. For comparison, if a murderer is arrested, do the police have to call him/her a "very fine person" in order to read said murderer his/her Miranda rights? No, that's absurd. Likewise, calling someone "very fine" has no correlation with their rights. I can call a murderer a monster and still give him/her his/her Miranda rights.

Racially Discriminating Against Black People In Apartments

Trump's word is trumped (pun intended) by the actual facts that were organized. They show racism in his apartment renting practices.

Lowering Black Unemployment

The claim that Trump had any effect on this is wrong. The percentage has been falling at the same rate for years, and since it never went up when Trump was elected, that means he had no effect on it. [5]

Less Racism

This is a post-hoc fallacy. You can't say that Trump caused less racism just because he was elected when it decreased. Does this report say why people experienced less racism? Also, 2,500 is not that many.

Finally, even if Trump DID cause this, that has no reflection on him being racist or not.

Sources

Published:
Miss Housekeeping, Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Lying Ted, Little Michael Bloomberg, Da Nang Dick, Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, Low Energy Jeb, Boot-Edge-Edge, Crooked Hillary, Leakin' Lyin' James Comey. Most of the people he calls names are actually white. All you have is one Latino? I just think he likes making up nicknames which is going to make this Democratic race very entertaining.

"Saying that "some" are good people implies that he believes that most are bad people."
What he is talking about are those who come across the border. Not the Mexicans on the other side. I would actually say that anyone crossing into our country is a bad person because they have broken the law. Just like I would call a home invader a bad person for breaking into my house.

What specifically did Trump retweet?

Facts are facts. Most blacks, unfortunately, live in Democratic run cities that do not offer blacks better job opportunities. However, we are seeing black unemployment go down so more opportunities are being created and should lift them out of poverty if they start leaving the inner cities. I would say the Democratic party is racist because they keep the majority of blacks on their urban plantations.

I want to say that Trump said there were "some very nice people on both sides", not all. Some of the protesters were only protesting the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue not for a white supremacist rally. Others were protesting in favor of the tearing down of the statue. But, then you had white supremacists and Antifa in the mix and both of them started the riot.

One would think that under a racist president the unemployment of blacks would have skyrocketed by now not gone lower.

When anti-semetic Hitler became leader in Germany he made Germany more anti-semetic not less. If Trump would have been racist America should be more racist, not less. The study found that America was more racist under a black president than under Trump.




Round 3
Published:
Miss Housekeeping, Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Lying Ted, Little Michael Bloomberg, Da Nang Dick, Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, Low Energy Jeb, Boot-Edge-Edge, Crooked Hillary, Leakin' Lyin' James Comey. Most of the people he calls names are actually white. All you have is one Latino? I just think he likes making up nicknames which is going to make this Democratic race very entertaining.
First of all, she was a contestant in a beauty pageant, not a contestant in the Democratic race. Second, unlike a lot of those nicknames, that nickname deals specifically with the stereotype of Hispanic women being labeled as home-keepers, so using that against a Hispanic woman is blatantly racist.

What he is talking about are those who come across the border. Not the Mexicans on the other side.
That’s a claim with no evidence. The quote said “Mexicans,” not “people crossing the border.”

I would actually say that anyone crossing into our country is a bad person because they have broken the law. Just like I would call a home invader a bad person for breaking into my house.
Breaking one law does not make you a bad person. If you speed, even once, does that make you a bad person? Obviously not. It all depends on the law and the context of the situation as well. Many of these people are running from the horrors of their own country. If you had to break into someone’s house or car to get away from another person who was chasing you and trying to kill you, does that make you a bad person?

What specifically did Trump retweet?
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Facts are facts. Most blacks, unfortunately, live in Democratic run cities that do not offer blacks better job opportunities. However, we are seeing black unemployment go down so more opportunities are being created and should lift them out of poverty if they start leaving the inner cities.
My opponent doesn’t provide any sources for his claims and doesn’t even mention Trump in this paragraph.

I would say the Democratic party is racist because they keep the majority of blacks on their urban plantations.
The Democratic Party being racist or not is irrelevant to this debate.

I want to say that Trump said there were "some very nice people on both sides", not all. Some of the protesters were only protesting the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue not for a white supremacist rally. Others were protesting in favor of the tearing down of the statue. But, then you had white supremacists and Antifa in the mix and both of them started the riot.
Trump said “both sides.” The question is what are those sides? “Both” indicates two of them. From the context, we can look and see it’s white nationalists and those trying to take it down.

One would think that under a racist president the unemployment of blacks would have skyrocketed by now not gone lower.
Well, unless you’re racist, I’m not sure how you’d know that. Racism is not exactly a textbook practice.

When anti-semetic Hitler became leader in Germany he made Germany more anti-semetic not less.
Hitler’s whole goal was to enact policies to put down Jews. Trump’s goal isn’t to eradicate non-white minorities (at least not yet). Another huge difference is that Hitler was very charismatic and respected. Trump is hardly either of those things.

If Trump would have been racist America should be more racist, not less.
You’ve provided no evidence for that claim. To counter, I’ll have an evidence-less rebuttal as well! What if Trump being racist causes people to look at themselves and try to be less racist because they don’t want to be like him?

The study found that America was more racist under a black president than under Trump.
Hmmmmmmm, I wonder why? Maybe because the president was black in a white majority country?

My opponent still didn't respond to my arguments on the Korean-American employee, Elizabeth Warren, banning Muslims and implying that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism. He also dropped the point on discriminating against black apartment renters.

Sources




Published:
"Trump said “both sides.” The question is what are those sides? “Both” indicates two of them. From the context, we can look and see it’s white nationalists and those trying to take it down."

Let me give you what he said at the presser: "Trump said “both sides. “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” ... “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” ... “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

I don't get how calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas is racist. If anything Warren is a racist for trying to get better job positions by using her small percentage of Indian blood. I have more Native American blood than she does.

Trump didn't ban Muslims from the US. Where are the mass deportations? What he did was ban visas from countries in the Middle East that sponsor terror and chant "Death to America". If you ask me I don't want those people in our country.

white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.

I don't know where you got that from.

The first retweet doesn't show any favor of white supremacists. Yes, he retweeted something that they posted, but it had to do with Jeb Bush not with any black person.
I don't even know who Neil Turner is, but I will assume that he is a white supremacist or racist. I just want to let you know that Jason Kessler, the one who organized the Charlottesville rally was an Obama supporter and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about Obama and his friend Farakhan. All I am trying to say is that presidents will have bad people support them. Trump didn't retweet anything racist. So if you are trying to say he is guilty by association, then Obama must be an anti-Semite for his friendship with Lois Farakhan. At least Trump wasn't personal friends with any of these left-wing neo-nazis.

"My opponent doesn’t provide any sources for his claims and doesn’t even mention Trump in this paragraph."
My opponent obviously lives in a bubble. Most blacks do live in the inner cities. How many are living in middle-of-nowhere North Dakota? I have been to Gary, IN and southside Chicago where there are hundreds of thousands of blacks. And sadly for them they live in the crummiest part of town. Are their mayors capitalist republicans or social Democrats. You tell me.

"He also dropped the point on discriminating against black apartment renters."
That is because I am done with it. Trump said himself that it wasn't to keep out blacks, but welfare people. Unfortunately welfare people don't keep their places really clean. I know by experience. If you can't counter my argument that is your problem, not mine.
Round 4
Published:
Let me give you what he said at the presser: "Trump said “both sides. “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” ... “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” ... “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
At first look, this can seem to exonerate Trump completely. However, let's break it down.

First of all, Trump's word is completely biased, and him saying that racism is evil does not stop him from being racist. The only important part of this quote is where he says that he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis.

The thing is, the entire event was organized as a white supremacist rally. It was called Unite the Right, and it had been planned for months before actually occurring. It was literally organized by white supremacists such as Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. Here is an image that shows EXACTLY that with the purging of Jews.



This isn't a joke (unfortunately), and it is very real. It was clear to the protesters that this was NOT really about the statue, but a lot more about race.

This is a quote from Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee."

However, the night before was when people literally chanted "the Jews will not replace us." And Trump called that group of people "very fine people." [1]

I don't get how calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas is racist. If anything Warren is a racist for trying to get better job positions by using her small percentage of Indian blood. I have more Native American blood than she does.
Pocahontas is clearly a Native American slur. Whether Warren is racist or not is irrelevant because we are talking about Trump here.

Trump didn't ban Muslims from the US. Where are the mass deportations? What he did was ban visas from countries in the Middle East that sponsor terror and chant "Death to America". If you ask me I don't want those people in our country.
If you would read what I said, I said he tried to ban Muslims from the US. Americans literally commit twice as many terror attacks as Muslims do. [2] Why isn't Trump focusing on that instead? That is clearly racial bias.

I said: white supremacists were morally equivalent to twhe people resisting racism.

I don't know where you got that from.
From the sources that I posted in the first round.

The first retweet doesn't show any favor of white supremacists. Yes, he retweeted something that they posted, but it had to do with Jeb Bush not with any black person.
I don't even know who Neil Turner is, but I will assume that he is a white supremacist or racist. I just want to let you know that Jason Kessler, the one who organized the Charlottesville rally was an Obama supporter and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about Obama and his friend Farakhan. All I am trying to say is that presidents will have bad people support them. Trump didn't retweet anything racist. So if you are trying to say he is guilty by association, then Obama must be an anti-Semite for his friendship with Lois Farakhan. At least Trump wasn't personal friends with any of these left-wing neo-nazis.
Again, Obama being an anti-semite is irrelevant, but your point about association is correct. If Trump retweeted white supremacists, he would have been alerted by his staff not to show an alliance to them and their values. That's simply how politics works. However, Trump decided to CONTINUE re-tweeting these people. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, thrice is a habit.

And, about Jason Kessler, you wouldn't say a murderer isn't a murderer if he helps an old woman across the street, would you? Likewise, Kessler isn't exonerated just because he aligned with a black president.

"My opponent doesn’t provide any sources for his claims and doesn’t even mention Trump in this paragraph."
My opponent obviously lives in a bubble. Most blacks do live in the inner cities. How many are living in middle-of-nowhere North Dakota? I have been to Gary, IN and southside Chicago where there are hundreds of thousands of blacks. And sadly for them they live in the crummiest part of town. Are their mayors capitalist republicans or social Democrats. You tell me.
My point was that none of these "facts" have anything to do with Trump being racist or not. My opponent is attempting to call Democrats racist, but that is completely irrelevant.

"He also dropped the point on discriminating against black apartment renters."
That is because I am done with it. Trump said himself that it wasn't to keep out blacks, but welfare people. Unfortunately welfare people don't keep their places really clean. I know by experience. If you can't counter my argument that is your problem, not mine.
Ah ha! So he instructed his employees to refuse all black people by assuming all black people were on welfare? That's RACIST and prejudiced. And, again, the actual reports on this subject trumps (pun intended) Trump's word, because his word will ONLY ever defend himself. I said this in my previous round.

To conclude, my opponent once again dropped many points, such as the one on Trump's effect on unemployment rates and the one on Trump and lower rates of racism in America. He still has not responded to my point on the Korean-American employee. I will ask voters to disregard any argument about the latter because I won't have any opportunity to defend my own (or at least take it with a grain of salt). Please vote Pro!

Sources

Published:
The thing is, the entire event was organized as a white supremacist rally.
This is true. However, you are forgetting that there were also counter protesters. Also not all those on the side for not taking the statue down were white supremacists. So Trump was talking about both sides there being good people. Those in favor of tearing the statue down and those against.

Trump calling Warren Pocahontas was deriding her. An actual descendant of Pocahontas actually supported Trump in calling Warren Pocahontas and the Cherokees were furious at her not Trump.

Yes, he tried to ban people from Muslim countries that sponsor terrorism. How is that racist? Sounds to me like he is protecting the country. Also he has never tried to deport legal Muslim immigrants. You would think he would since he is "racist" against them. Actually last time I checked Muslim isn't a race, but a religion.

"Again, Obama being an anti-semite is irrelevant, but your point about association is correct. If Trump retweeted white supremacists, he would have been alerted by his staff not to show an alliance to them and their values. That's simply how politics works. However, Trump decided to CONTINUE re-tweeting these people. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, thrice is a habit."
Maybe, unlike you apparently. he doesn't consult his staff when he posts things on Twitter and perhaps others don't want to tell him what he should and should'nt post on Twitter.

Trump didn't discriminate against blacks. He didn't even mention blacks. He said he didn't want welfare people in his apartments whether they were white or black.
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************
#71
Added:
--> @Speedrace
LOL the reported vote just hurt you more XD
#70
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported:Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E_AbjebQThhPKsDDkHDkuSTuT4oqrXPkx-X4Tjb6u30/edit?usp=sharing
Reason for mod action: While arguments are fine, the conduct point isn't. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. 
 Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
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
*******************************************************************
#69
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
Good job to both debaters. Interesting debate.
#68
Added:
--> @dustryder
I lost my voting privileges and I am trying to get them back by posting 3 good RFDs.
#67
Added:
--> @Alec
If you think your vote is sufficient, then just post it. There's little harm in trying and rejection is the first step to success. If you stick to the CoC however, you'll be fine
Going by the CoC, for conduct, you haven't explained why Speedrace's conduct was excessive. For sources, you haven't explained how the sources have impacted the debate.
#66
Added:
--> @Alec
Lol hardly but whatever
Instigator
#65
Added:
--> @Speedrace
It's close.
#64
Added:
--> @Alec
How is saying "unless you're racist" calling someone racist? It's not...
Instigator
#63
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Conduct point: General Grant.
Pro called Con a racist in , "Well, unless you’re racist, I’m not sure how you’d know that." in Round 3. This is poor conduct.
Sources: Speedrace
Pro cites many times in the debate, although most if not all of them were biased. He also cites twitter, which sows Trump saying what he said. Con only cites once and it's Stephen Crowder.
Spelling and Arguments: Tied.
Is this a good RFD?
#62
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Quit whining, the white supremacist one wouldnt change my mind on that point anyway.
#61
Added:
TO WHOEVER'S JUDGING THE VOTE
First of all, I didn't drop a single point. I literally mentioned all of my points in every single round.
For the implying white supremacist one, I said MULTIPLE times that it was in my source. He ignored that completely.
And I think the other ones are obvious...he seems to be interpolating his opinion in rather than evaluating what happened in the debate.
Instigator
#60
Added:
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
#59
Added:
--> @dustryder
Ok YoU GoT mE!
#58
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
But there would be no violence or conflict from either side if America were a white anglo ethnostate. Checkmate
#57
#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:
So, let’s start with the charlottsville rally.
While this goes back and forth. At the end, pro is able to provide evidence that the “rally” Trump was referring to was not simply protesting the statue being removed, but was a white supremacist rally. While con simply denied this, pro sources this claim.
Given who Trump was referring to, and that he appeared to be specifically referencing a night when alt right protesters were shouting Jews will not replace us, this seems fairly clear cut.
This clarification makes the nature of the full quote more ambiguous - was he simply down playing the white supremacism and Neo Nazis in the crowd? This seems to clearly cast down on cons interpretation, and I have to side with con.
In terms of retweeting white nationalists - pro offered clear cut evidence of the present repeatedly retweeting white nationalists. In so doing, pro indicates a pattern of association and support. I find cons defence severely lacking here, he does not offer much of at all to downplay the significance or explain how this could occur without tacit support - with groups that trump should know better than to retweet. I have to side with pro here too.
Pro offers specific, but old example of racist actions taken by trump in his apartments, while not much space is dedicated this seems fairly clear cut - that Trump instructed employees not to allow black individuals - his source shows this was specifically black individuals, not just people on welfare. Con drops this point, thus this goes to pro too.
For Mexicans are rapists, in cons favour was that Trump appeared to be referencing illegal immigrants, what is in pros favour was that he showed almost everything that was said, by Trump. Con appears to drop all of these points. This leaves me with Trump talking about Mexican immigrants, grossly exaggerated. This isn’t wholly to pro, but mostly.
Muslim ban: not much space was dedicated to this, but pro argued trump banned Muslims despite Americans commiting more terrorist acts: this implies a cleat animus towards Muslims - though pro didn’t fully hash out why he believes Muslim has a racial component. So this doesn’t go to pro.
On cons side, con argues that racism isn’t increasing, that Trump isn’t harming blacks: pro gives a good explanation of relevance here: the argument is that Trump is a racist personally, rather than like Hitler, where he was racist in terms of policy - the two are not the same.
Claims about Obama’s or democrats being racist may or may not be true - but don’t effect the resolution.
Other than this there were a few smaller minor claims that were worth little mention as the big claims validate the resolution on their own even if I were to accept or reject the rest.
Because of the clear pattern of behaviour on multiple fronts that were shown by pro - pro clearly demonstrate a pattern of racism and so arguments go to pro.
Sources: these also go to pro. Pros main claims were backed up by sources, vox for unite the right clearly showed his position was accurate and undermined cons counter - con claim what pro was saying was untrue despite it being validated by this source.
The racist apartment offering tore apart cons counter claim that Trump wasn’t racist by demonstrating that action was being taken against blacks - not specifically those on welfare.
These two sources fundamentally undermined cons only counter argument, and clearly bolstered the warrant of pros argument substantially. Con offered minimal sourcing, on largely redundant points (such as stats about racial economic benefits), so largely had no effect on his overall warrant.
#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:
Basic rule of debating: Don’t make someone else’s case for them!
S&G: tie
Leans in pro’s favor, but not by enough to take the point. The big thing I would say (to con) here is organization was lacking; I should not have had to dig with CTRL+F to find if argument lines were continued.
Sources: PRO
I hate to say this was by magnitude, but the lack of counter evidence (a single propaganda source in the final round doesn’t count) made it unquestionably in favor of pro. Trump’s white genocide support tweet was the biggest damning one which could not be out argued. R1 sources were just spammed in there at the end, so were not given any weight.
Arguments: PRO
Below I’ve reviewed the different argument segments. Pro showed that Trump is more racist than not, whereas con proved that not every case where Trump seems to be acting racist is necessary due to racist intent... Had the dropped points been argued even to the level of being tied, the issue could have been confused enough to deny pro Burden of Proof; but such did not occur.
So were I con, I would have reorganized pro’s points into categories (such as nicknames and actual actions, or by racial groups), then rewritten it into logical rules of inference such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, to then intercede against the flow of logic.
1. Miss Housekeeping: pro
Dropped.
2. Korean-American intelligence analyst: pro
Dropped.
3. Elizabeth Warren: PRO
Dropped. ... Then rebounded with con trying to prove Trump is superior for his greater amount of Native American blood, for which the Cherokees apparently support him.
4. Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.": PRO
Con disputed this by saying some are good people, and used the idea that Trump’s fear is generally correct even if the magnitude of it gets misquoted by omission (that would still be racism, but okay...). Pro points out that this leaves a racist belief that the majority are to be feared, then used statistics to further prove the irrationality of the fear. Con counters that anyone (legal or not? I’m forgiving the missing qualifier, but be careful of that) who crosses the border is a bad person...
5. ban on all Muslims: pro
Dropped. ... Somehow came back near the end because Trump failed... Con held off his best point for the final round (when it could no longer be responded to), that Muslim could be defined by religion wholly separate from race; which had it been earlier in the debate could have given him this point (assuming it was then not countered by pro).
6. white nationalist tweets: PRO
I agree with con on the definitions, except for the fact that they came with the “white” qualifier. Bernie Sanders is technically a nationalist, just not a white nationalist. Pro explained this at length when requested, then linked the tweets (never ask someone to give you a source unless you know you can beat it...). When you retreat something from someone named Genocide, you are making an active informed decision to advertise (thus promote) their cause.
Attempting to move the goalpost to other people, is so common that it’s boring. Start a debate about Obama and Clinton if you like, but when discussing Trump the comparisons only hurt him.
This somehow ended on a note that we should pity him for people trying to suppress his freedom of speech...
7. black voters: CON
Some context could have shifted this, but... If pointing to statistics when speaking of problems made someone racist, pro would be damned due to point 4. On this, Trump targeted them as a voting group, and used race, but did not indicate any superiority or inferiority by race rather than opportunity. Sleezy sure, but con showed that this was not proof. ... Trying to prove the democratic party is racist with this point, is getting off the topic (make a debate on it).
8. supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting: pro
Dropped.
9. “some very fine people" among white supremacists: CON
Con counters that the media removed context. After awhile pro makes a solid point about Trump supporting some antisemitism from the night before... I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may not have known (this debate is about if he’s racist, not if he’s a buffoon).
10. discriminated against black people in his apartment building: CON
Con countered this with suggesting it was about if an applicant listed welfare as an income source, not race, and the race was never proven. I hate nit-picking, but this point became about evidence, which was mentioned but not provided (it may have been to another point, such as the R1 source spamming, but was not tied directly to this one).
#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:
I will break down the arguments from each allegation speedrace made in the 1st round, I require a few proofs that Trump is racist, not one or two--
"Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
Con claims Trump always likes to use nicknames and this can be grouped into the other ones. Pro responds by saying this deals with specific stereotyping of Latinos being housekeepers. Con does not respond back and this point is dropped by both contestants throughout the debate. Stereotyping is not necessarily the same thing as racism, so this is not a clear and cut example for me.
"Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy."
Con drops this entire point even though Pro pressed him each round to do so. Since their is no debate on this point, I can't judge an argument point on it. Repeatedly dropped points will perhaps effect the conduct point.
"Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas.""
Con contends that Trump was justified because Warren barely has any Indian blood. He seems to contest the overall truth of Warren's claim, which pro weekly responds and says "Calling someone Pocahontas is clearly a racial slur." Con also provides evidence that a N.A. supported Trump and he held an event for them. This is not good proof that Trump is racist.
"Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.""
Trump's quote was "Mexican's are not sending their finest people." Con claims he said this because of the criminals they bring across. Pro brings up stats on racial crime, but whether Trump knew stats or not is irrelevant. This is not a clear and cut example or racism either.
"Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States."
As con points out, Trump was trying to stop terror attacks and people immigrating into the U.S. He also points out that Muslim isn't even a race but religion, so this point is invalid.
"Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets."
Con brings up his retweets had nothing to do with white supremacy. The rest are hypothetical arguments about Trump's staff alerting him or not alerting him. I can't take this as credible especially since you can't know if Trump knew he was retweeting White supremacists.
"When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”"
Con responds by claiming pure truth to his claims, but pro misses the point as he claims Trump said that purely off of race. He also claims Trump never cited all his stats, but this is not enough as you do not always provide sources for your claims, especially in a rally environment. This is not enough to prove Trump's racism, either.
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
Good job to both debaters. Interesting debate.