Are blacks the worst debaters

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 161
--> @Tejretics
Freedom of debate. Freedom to argue offensive and controversial opinions. Freedom to dive straight into danger zones and cultural taboos. Etc.
My question was more specific than “why is racism not banned?”. It was: “why are personal attacks banned but racism not?”. Because personal attacks can also be justified—you can say “three reasons why [insert username] is an idiot.” So if the standard is freedom to argue offensive opinions and freedom of debate, why are personal attacks not allowed? 

To be clear, I’m not arguing that personal attacks should be allowed. My point is, if the standard is harm, and if we as a community accept the principle that personal attacks shouldn’t be allowed, there’s no clear distinction between explicit racism and a personal attack. 
I think post #133 addresses this reasonably well.
--> @TheRealNihilist
Moderators of the site.
You missed the point. My point is there is no consensus on what is hate speech, or even if hate speech exists.

What separates calling a black person the n-word from forcing them to call you master?
It depends on whether or not the user who said it is joking.

Who is to state there is a God or isn't?
This is a red herring.

You state these questions yet you don't question them when it comes to other contexts. It almost like you are inconsistent in your views. Where are these questions levied at Religion and Republicans?
And this is an ad hominem.

Like shouting fire in a crowded theater. What is your point?
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater puts public safety at risk. Calling someone a "nigger" does not. Your comparison is invalid.

Why should that right be valued over someone use words to negatively impact people's lives
You make it sound like these people are going to melt like snowflakes if someone is a jerk to them. People are jerks all the time. Should we ban the use of the word "fucker" to describe another person too?

Are you against the entire legal system?
No. Where did you get that from? In fact, the legal system protects a person's right their own beliefs.

A criminal doesn't commit a crime if they don't believe in what they are doing. 
That assumes they are a criminal in the first place. Just because someone believes black people are inferior doesn't mean that they're going to start lynching black people. A person could believe something absolutely horrible but still seek legal means to acheive their goals.
--> @Mharman
There is a consensus of what hate speech is, but racists etc will dislike it.
--> @Mharman
You missed the point. My point is there is no consensus on what is hate speech, or even if hate speech exists.
No consensus in Christianity given there are so many sects. Have you got better criticism?
It depends on whether or not the user who said it is joking.
So you expect a moderator to understand a person is joking without them saying it? You know there is of course a better way of doing things like state it is satirical and make sure it goes in the lines of what is acceptable. That is it. Wylted did neither. 
This is a red herring.
Demonstrate to me how me saying "Who is to state there is a God or isn't?" is a red herring? 
And this is an ad hominem.
Ad hominem: typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Yes I did but earlier I already gave you a response.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater puts public safety at risk. Calling someone a "nigger" does not. Your comparison is invalid.
Shouting fire causes harm to people. Call someone the n-word also causes harm. Do you disagree?
Should we ban the use of the word "fucker" to describe another person too?
If it carried the same impact as the n-word then yes but it doesn't.
No. Where did you get that from? In fact, the legal system protects a person's right their own beliefs.
Just in America and in most cases. Across the world it is not the case. You also neglected to mention the other things the government is responsible for like protecting and managing the well being of their citizens. There is no point having freedom of speech when you are too busy being violently or verbally oppressed is there?
That assumes they are a criminal in the first place.
That statement was made after the fact.
Just because someone believes black people are inferior doesn't mean that they're going to start lynching black people. A person could believe something absolutely horrible but still seek legal means to acheive their goals.
So we should give white nationalists a platform because they might not want to kill black people just you know get gullible people to join their group and make them act like the soldier carrying out their bidding? 
I agree with what Omar just said, severely.
--> @RationalMadman
We already know you are basically Hitler and if you ever came to power you would eliminate freedom of speech like Omar is advocating for. I also assume given your similarities to elliot Rodgers that you would also arbitrarily designate some people as your villains and some as victims and you would exterminate your villains. For Hitler it was the Jews he classified as bullies and exterminated them to save the German people who he viewed as victims. I wonder who your villains and victims will be, supreme gentleman.
You need psychiatric help.

Yes, your personality is identical to elliot rodgers and I need help. Way to project
No it isn't. I am pro gun control and pro-therapy for victims of bullying. I do not need to actually defend myself here, you have a baseless claim that is the equivalent of defamation and if we went to the courts with this, I wouldn't be put in an asylum as a Rodgers but you would, as a white nationalist shooter in the making who needs serious fucking help. 
Just read his stuff and replace the word women with DDO elite and you will find  yourself agreeing with everything Rodgers says.

Besides that I would be coi ed a terrorist not a white nationalist shooter, because I would be smart enough to target power brokers such as billionaires and HIGH PROFILE Politicians who are obviously out to destroy the United States even worse than it already has been. May e figure out which ones targeted Epstein before he could squeal on them and target them first

As I said, it's blatant to anyone (be they law enforcement or site mod) that I am not the threat to society here or IRL, you are to both. I have nothing to defend, keep talking.