Kritiks are often done without meaning to, and they're not always invalid or cheap. In your case, you did not cherry-pick the definitions, you included multiple for each word. Still, seeing the work put in, I didn't want to just vote based on a definition without giving proper focus on the exchange (as much as definitions can't be outright dismissed either).
As previously stated: He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
That you or I do not believe them to be a distinct race, does not change Trump's statements that they are (and a superior one at that). While not accusing Trump of genocide, you can observe the same pattern of belief in many genocides throughout history. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples routinely intermarried, were indistinguishable to outsiders (and insiders for that matter), with the only thing marking them as separate races was... *drumroll* ...pure belief in their superior genes!
> . I feel like that's like saying don't vote for Trump because of his ____ plan. And you go on to describe the ______ plan of another candidate who says they're Donald Trump.
I think this analogy may have a mistake in listing Trump twice, instead of Trump and "not Trump"
Neatly, I think it was back during McCain vs Obama, there was a series of street interviews where their stances were switched; sadly Democrats hated Democratic policies if they were said to come from a Republican candidate and loved Republican ones when they were said to come from a Democratic candidate, and vice versa.
As previously stated: According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
He was "casually talking" using well known racist rhetoric of eugenics, specifically identifying the people of Minnesota as inherently superior to others due to their inherited genes.
According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
As for your belief that personality traits are genetic, if correct that would mean there are quantifiable physical differences (otherwise genetic tests would just say we'll all the same person), therefore still physical traits.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BearMan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision:
Magira is an alt of somebody
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Pro being an alt of someone, doesn't seem to factor into the debate itself when it comes to voting.
This being a rap battle, it's not normally regulated. However, in an extreme case of not voting based on debate content, as a moderator I feel a need to step in...
@Intelligence
"Conduct: Con. Pro is the alt of someone who is banned. That is poor conduct!"
Were this not a choose winner, that conduct penalty would call your vote into question. However, your vote is otherwise fine.
@bear
"Magira is an alt of somebody"
That was your entire RFD. Which did not even consider what transpired inside the debate. As such, it is sadly stricken. You may of course revote if you so choose, and this being a simple misunderstanding isn't getting put into the logs.
> I don't understand how this had anything to do with race.
Calling back to the definition:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Proclaiming the people of Minnesota are better than others due to their genes and successful eugenics programs, is declaring that they are better than others due to their shared ancestry (AKA, race). It doesn't matter if it's at a state level, it's still clearly endorsing racist beliefs.
To you or I the Rwandan genocide was carried out by people of the same race; yet their belief in their racial superiority, drove them to genocide against their neighbors all the same. (this is not to say Minnesota is going to try to kill the rest of us)
> What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.
It was indeed pandering, but using racist rhetoric to do it. Hence, I call it out. If he went to Harlem and gave the same basic speech, I would likewise call that out for endorsing racism in the locals.
> I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.
Yeah, that we disagree on an issue, doesn't mean anything bad about either one of us. As I think I identified, our differing educations caused us to fall back to very different definitions of what it takes for someone/something to be a racist.
> I thought was saying it in disdain,
You know, it could have been.
Inside a debate, I would be like: 'RAWL! We must assume the worst!'
Outside a debate, I lack the bias of needing everything to align with the thesis.
> the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist
I think we can trust golf-cart-guy at his word, in publicly declaring himself to be a racist, he is most likely a racist.
If only saying that due to the heat of the moment, that still identifies his instincts on the matter... Granted, there are other cases where I defend the accused, such as some kid in the wrong hat who nervously smiled when people were loud and in his face (had he started chanting white power, or sieg heiling, I would consider the denouncements to be justified).
> Joe Biden
There's pretty good evidence that he's a racist. However, I suspect part of where our disagreement comes from is over the meaning of that term. What does racist mean to you?
To me, being a racist doesn't mean a nazi armband appears on you and you start yelling in German: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2sxxxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGn3l_RHQA
To me racism ties to the definitions within English:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Racism is “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” also: “behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief”
> people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person
While I agree, extreme cases like this show behavior/attitudes that reflect and foster the belief in race making a difference to what crime was committed. It doesn't need to intend to be that, to do exactly that. This is further backed by Trump being extremely well educated, outright first in his class. This removes the ignorance excuse.
> "You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." -Donald Trump
That he believes these phrases, doesn't defend that they are not blatantly racist. He publicly declared the people of Minnesota are inherently superior to other people on account of their ancestry. This very directly fosters the belief in people being inherently better than others on account of their ancestry.
I rewatched the video, and should correct myself. One old guy drives and chanting "white power" repeatedly, and another to the right holding a sign replies "yeah, there you go, white power"
This could be said to be a single statement, even from multiple mouths. That the vehicles in question were golf carts, to me indicates that the other drivers nearby knew their company and stuck with it in solidarity with that message. I hope unlike Mall, you can at least agree the subjects of the video who Trump called "great people" were overt racists?
While your defense that he had no clue what he was sharing, does indicate some bad things about Trump, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that it's factual (as in not intentionally racist since he doesn't know what he shares and endorses)...
On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
"DPIC is not aware of any case in the United States in which a white man has been executed for raping, but not killing, a black woman or child. While the rape of a white woman was a capital offense in all of the Slave States, no whites convicted of rape are known to have been executed under these statutes. In most Slave States, the attempted rape of a white woman also was a capital offense for blacks, but not whites."
> I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."
One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"
> There clearly has to be intent.
Please glance at the sequel to this debate focused on Hitler. There ends up being blind denial that Hitler was racist. We can take from the extreme example, that even if someone does not mean for their actions to be racist, they can be. ... Another example comes from the black power movement, which routinely insist they are too racially superior to be capable of racism; which shows obvious racist beliefs, even while intending to be anti-racist.
> "But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
Very good point on that one! Yeah, I can readily admit I missed that line (I do suggest pulling out single lines like that, instead of whole interviews). Not that I needed to in this debate, since my opponent didn't know about that missing context and instead merely denied that endorsing neo-nazis (in this case one of them having just commited first degree murder) could in any way count as racism.
> The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant.
That would be like denying someone is sexist just because they oppose women's suffrage. Supporting such a sexist law against them voting due to it being historical, would still be sexist. Similarly, supporting uneven criminal punishments along racial lines, while not absolute proof, is quite clearly evidence of a bias.
> If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white
As someone fast to remind me of context, please keep the context in mind. If he was doing the housing stuff against whites, and various other cues, then sure, he'd be racist against whites. As is, the hypothetical of him likewise calling for the death penalty for say Brock Turner, would be evidence of him being fair on this issue (I don't follow his Twitter, so maybe he did and I missed it...).
As is, there is a history of racism related to uneven punishment for that crime, to which he fed into. ... Said history of uneven punishments for that crime, also shows that racism need not be intentional, when the racist results are so easily quantifiable (this is not to say Trump caused this problem, but again, he fed into it).
You might enjoy reading this one. It is basically a continuation to a previous one to which you were commenting. While setting a very clear and simple standard for racism (between the common English definitions, and the Ryan Reynolds speech), it also highlights some paths to avoid going down.
> This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power."
Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant. Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist, but by racist actions, to include any which even accidently foster the belief. ... As an example of accidents, consider a different crime: Sexual assault. Someone may not mean to commit sexual assault when they walk up to random strangers and start grabbing them by the junk (which Trump openly endorses), but it remains that crime even without intent for it to be.
> he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind
I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it and related excuses for how he would never want to insult without evidence or whatever, when he habitually goes on weird rants against all reason (such as attacking John McCain's war record, the whole birther thing which he has brought back against Harris, etc.). Each day of not retracting that endorsement, was quite clearly supporting racist beliefs, which again, is by definition racism itself.
> label the KKK as a terrorist organization.
I'll give full credit there. I can say long overdue, but that delay is perhaps worse for every modern president which failed to do that before him.
This however does not prove he is not racist. It does strongly suggest he is not overwhelming foaming at the mouth with racism.
> so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today,
"alleged"? While I outright agree with your point that people can change, denying there was anything to change, ends up harming the credibility of the defense when things were so open and shut back then.
> Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated.
It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.
> He called for bringing back the death penalty
Going to quote a source: "Historically, the use of the death penalty for rape has been a Southern phenomenon that has been applied overwhelmingly against black defendants, and overwhelmingly in cases involving charges of raping a white woman" https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?
> I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present
I did not exclusively use distant past actions, I have used very recent ones as well.
> I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?
For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."
> I also think his actions speak much louder than his words
Old history, but the discriminatory housing stuff, combined with launching a public campaign calling for the death penalty for black suspects for a crime that our court systems does not give out that penalty for. He has a history of some really bad actions toward black people in particular. ... Which isn't to deny if he's doing good things for the economy now, or if various liberal politicians treat black people worse than he.
If you want to concede, we can have the debate technically move forward with that in place. It's just be labeled a concession so neither of us needs to worry about argument strength, and voters at the end would vote based on that rather than who was more convincing.
Otherwise a moderator can delete it (which sadly loses the comment section and what you've written as arguments). My preference is for the first option, but again, I'm fine with either.
I would be fine with canceling this one if you want to. Otherwise be prepared for some comedy, along with a good explanation on logical validity vs. soundness.
Either way, on here or on the forums I would be happy to coach you to strengthen your argument and craft a better resolution. A lot of the debates I do are largely just trying to teach people on how to improve.
As I said near the start: "I shall not seek to prove that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler, as someone may be racist, without being Literally Hitler"
I think Trump is generally bigoted, and that at times crosses over into racism. However, I don't think he's a raging neo-nazi or anything that bad (I'm one of those weird centrists, who can dislike someone without hating them, or like someone without thinking they can walk on water).
> When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove.
Some of it certainly. If delving into my sources, much of that (hence I cherry picked what I quoted). I do however have a hard time imagining a sound defense that his endorsement of the white power movement is not by definition racist.
> Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
Echo chambers become a problem on both sides. But yes, it is indeed a problem on the left.
"Divine Command Theory does not make Mario’s behavior ethical, as it is merely denying his own autonomy. If he has no control over his own actions, it begs the question if we do as well, and if we don’t there is no reason we should consider not judging him as we might be being commanded to do so and have no choice but judge him as such. Whereas if it is just him being controlled, than attempting to pass all blame for what he did to some great god commanding him from above as if a child playing a video game, would only in the smallest sense excuse his actions, while dooming him for the safety of all. This is much like not blaming a rabid dog, even while it must be put down. From either viewpoint, we should judge Mario, and take measures against him to protect ourselves from him."
The biggest weakness to your case was taking the pills and going down the rabbit hole. Your case centered on Utilitarianism, and you let con steer the debate way off topic (thankfully, your introduction was good enough to win the day; that said, I've seen voters who would treat the point as gone because you did not continuously extend it).
Your main problem here is your loyalty to virtue ethics.
You have decided that Trump = Good, and therefore he could murder black people in front of you while quoting Hitler about the final solution, and you'd still deny that is racist, for no reason beyond you've preemptively decided he must be good so whatever he does cannot be bad, so none of it can ever count as racism.
> Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
You either don't watch the news, or watch agenda driven fake news (which to be fair, is most major news networks).
> Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I did many times. That I had sources to back it in case there was doubt, doesn't mean I didn't get the to heart of the criticisms; such as his repeated endorsement of the white power movement, to include calling murderous neo-nazis “very fine people”; to which you requested to know where he said it, even when had already given a source for context.
> I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source.
In extreme cases of merely quoting sources without an argument I would agree (such crosses the line into plagiarism). However, sources are proof that things actually occurred. Of which aside from the dictionary, I only used a single descriptive quote about Trump's racism, and otherwise quoted him and other racists he publicly endorsed.
> You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own.
I did, many times. Trying to reason with you is like trying to draw water from a stone.
Absolute proof would depend on the definitions. Solipsism for example would deny that Trump can be known to exist. Some definitions of proof and racism could leave it as Donald Trump pretending to be racist to appeal to racist voters. However without any definitions outlined, we tend to default to everyday usage; to which strong evidence toward something is good enough to be considered proof.
Weak arguments differ from Gish Gallop. A Gish is a stronger tactic, often easy to spot due to being in list form (such as: here's 50 times Trump acted racist...). What he does is a pure argument by repetition.
Kritiks are often done without meaning to, and they're not always invalid or cheap. In your case, you did not cherry-pick the definitions, you included multiple for each word. Still, seeing the work put in, I didn't want to just vote based on a definition without giving proper focus on the exchange (as much as definitions can't be outright dismissed either).
As previously stated: He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
That you or I do not believe them to be a distinct race, does not change Trump's statements that they are (and a superior one at that). While not accusing Trump of genocide, you can observe the same pattern of belief in many genocides throughout history. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples routinely intermarried, were indistinguishable to outsiders (and insiders for that matter), with the only thing marking them as separate races was... *drumroll* ...pure belief in their superior genes!
> . I feel like that's like saying don't vote for Trump because of his ____ plan. And you go on to describe the ______ plan of another candidate who says they're Donald Trump.
I think this analogy may have a mistake in listing Trump twice, instead of Trump and "not Trump"
Neatly, I think it was back during McCain vs Obama, there was a series of street interviews where their stances were switched; sadly Democrats hated Democratic policies if they were said to come from a Republican candidate and loved Republican ones when they were said to come from a Democratic candidate, and vice versa.
It's in the debate tab. I further make it really easy by putting preplies under the same headings as the things you addressed.
As previously stated: According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
He was "casually talking" using well known racist rhetoric of eugenics, specifically identifying the people of Minnesota as inherently superior to others due to their inherited genes.
He didn't claim they were better educated than everyone else, he pointed to their genetics.
> So Minnesota is a race now?
According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.
He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
As for your belief that personality traits are genetic, if correct that would mean there are quantifiable physical differences (otherwise genetic tests would just say we'll all the same person), therefore still physical traits.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BearMan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision:
Magira is an alt of somebody
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Pro being an alt of someone, doesn't seem to factor into the debate itself when it comes to voting.
This being a rap battle, it's not normally regulated. However, in an extreme case of not voting based on debate content, as a moderator I feel a need to step in...
@Intelligence
"Conduct: Con. Pro is the alt of someone who is banned. That is poor conduct!"
Were this not a choose winner, that conduct penalty would call your vote into question. However, your vote is otherwise fine.
@bear
"Magira is an alt of somebody"
That was your entire RFD. Which did not even consider what transpired inside the debate. As such, it is sadly stricken. You may of course revote if you so choose, and this being a simple misunderstanding isn't getting put into the logs.
> I don't understand how this had anything to do with race.
Calling back to the definition:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Proclaiming the people of Minnesota are better than others due to their genes and successful eugenics programs, is declaring that they are better than others due to their shared ancestry (AKA, race). It doesn't matter if it's at a state level, it's still clearly endorsing racist beliefs.
To you or I the Rwandan genocide was carried out by people of the same race; yet their belief in their racial superiority, drove them to genocide against their neighbors all the same. (this is not to say Minnesota is going to try to kill the rest of us)
> What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.
It was indeed pandering, but using racist rhetoric to do it. Hence, I call it out. If he went to Harlem and gave the same basic speech, I would likewise call that out for endorsing racism in the locals.
> I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.
Yeah, that we disagree on an issue, doesn't mean anything bad about either one of us. As I think I identified, our differing educations caused us to fall back to very different definitions of what it takes for someone/something to be a racist.
> I thought was saying it in disdain,
You know, it could have been.
Inside a debate, I would be like: 'RAWL! We must assume the worst!'
Outside a debate, I lack the bias of needing everything to align with the thesis.
> the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist
I think we can trust golf-cart-guy at his word, in publicly declaring himself to be a racist, he is most likely a racist.
If only saying that due to the heat of the moment, that still identifies his instincts on the matter... Granted, there are other cases where I defend the accused, such as some kid in the wrong hat who nervously smiled when people were loud and in his face (had he started chanting white power, or sieg heiling, I would consider the denouncements to be justified).
> Joe Biden
There's pretty good evidence that he's a racist. However, I suspect part of where our disagreement comes from is over the meaning of that term. What does racist mean to you?
To me, being a racist doesn't mean a nazi armband appears on you and you start yelling in German: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2sxxxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGn3l_RHQA
To me racism ties to the definitions within English:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Racism is “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” also: “behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief”
> people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person
While I agree, extreme cases like this show behavior/attitudes that reflect and foster the belief in race making a difference to what crime was committed. It doesn't need to intend to be that, to do exactly that. This is further backed by Trump being extremely well educated, outright first in his class. This removes the ignorance excuse.
> "You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." -Donald Trump
That he believes these phrases, doesn't defend that they are not blatantly racist. He publicly declared the people of Minnesota are inherently superior to other people on account of their ancestry. This very directly fosters the belief in people being inherently better than others on account of their ancestry.
I've pissed people off by pointing out the definition of terrorism, and how it relates to claims of eternal torture.
What is your opinion of Trump's eugenics speech in Minnesota?
I rewatched the video, and should correct myself. One old guy drives and chanting "white power" repeatedly, and another to the right holding a sign replies "yeah, there you go, white power"
This could be said to be a single statement, even from multiple mouths. That the vehicles in question were golf carts, to me indicates that the other drivers nearby knew their company and stuck with it in solidarity with that message. I hope unlike Mall, you can at least agree the subjects of the video who Trump called "great people" were overt racists?
While your defense that he had no clue what he was sharing, does indicate some bad things about Trump, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that it's factual (as in not intentionally racist since he doesn't know what he shares and endorses)...
On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
"DPIC is not aware of any case in the United States in which a white man has been executed for raping, but not killing, a black woman or child. While the rape of a white woman was a capital offense in all of the Slave States, no whites convicted of rape are known to have been executed under these statutes. In most Slave States, the attempted rape of a white woman also was a capital offense for blacks, but not whites."
> I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."
One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"
> There clearly has to be intent.
Please glance at the sequel to this debate focused on Hitler. There ends up being blind denial that Hitler was racist. We can take from the extreme example, that even if someone does not mean for their actions to be racist, they can be. ... Another example comes from the black power movement, which routinely insist they are too racially superior to be capable of racism; which shows obvious racist beliefs, even while intending to be anti-racist.
> "But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
Very good point on that one! Yeah, I can readily admit I missed that line (I do suggest pulling out single lines like that, instead of whole interviews). Not that I needed to in this debate, since my opponent didn't know about that missing context and instead merely denied that endorsing neo-nazis (in this case one of them having just commited first degree murder) could in any way count as racism.
> The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant.
That would be like denying someone is sexist just because they oppose women's suffrage. Supporting such a sexist law against them voting due to it being historical, would still be sexist. Similarly, supporting uneven criminal punishments along racial lines, while not absolute proof, is quite clearly evidence of a bias.
> If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white
As someone fast to remind me of context, please keep the context in mind. If he was doing the housing stuff against whites, and various other cues, then sure, he'd be racist against whites. As is, the hypothetical of him likewise calling for the death penalty for say Brock Turner, would be evidence of him being fair on this issue (I don't follow his Twitter, so maybe he did and I missed it...).
As is, there is a history of racism related to uneven punishment for that crime, to which he fed into. ... Said history of uneven punishments for that crime, also shows that racism need not be intentional, when the racist results are so easily quantifiable (this is not to say Trump caused this problem, but again, he fed into it).
By the way, thank you for voting.
I of course love the final line of your vote:
> And finally... "Mr. Hitler"... really?
You might enjoy reading this one. It is basically a continuation to a previous one to which you were commenting. While setting a very clear and simple standard for racism (between the common English definitions, and the Ryan Reynolds speech), it also highlights some paths to avoid going down.
> This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power."
Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant. Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist, but by racist actions, to include any which even accidently foster the belief. ... As an example of accidents, consider a different crime: Sexual assault. Someone may not mean to commit sexual assault when they walk up to random strangers and start grabbing them by the junk (which Trump openly endorses), but it remains that crime even without intent for it to be.
> he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind
I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it and related excuses for how he would never want to insult without evidence or whatever, when he habitually goes on weird rants against all reason (such as attacking John McCain's war record, the whole birther thing which he has brought back against Harris, etc.). Each day of not retracting that endorsement, was quite clearly supporting racist beliefs, which again, is by definition racism itself.
> label the KKK as a terrorist organization.
I'll give full credit there. I can say long overdue, but that delay is perhaps worse for every modern president which failed to do that before him.
This however does not prove he is not racist. It does strongly suggest he is not overwhelming foaming at the mouth with racism.
> so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today,
"alleged"? While I outright agree with your point that people can change, denying there was anything to change, ends up harming the credibility of the defense when things were so open and shut back then.
> Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated.
It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.
> He called for bringing back the death penalty
Going to quote a source: "Historically, the use of the death penalty for rape has been a Southern phenomenon that has been applied overwhelmingly against black defendants, and overwhelmingly in cases involving charges of raping a white woman" https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?
> I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present
I did not exclusively use distant past actions, I have used very recent ones as well.
Thank you both for voting!
This debate definitely needs a definition for religion in the description to be pre-agreed with acceptable of the debate challenge.
This makes me think of the recent debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152-thbt-the-roman-catholic-church-is-christian
I have to take a friend to the airport, so out of time. I'll respond to your points in R2.
> I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?
For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."
> I also think his actions speak much louder than his words
Old history, but the discriminatory housing stuff, combined with launching a public campaign calling for the death penalty for black suspects for a crime that our court systems does not give out that penalty for. He has a history of some really bad actions toward black people in particular. ... Which isn't to deny if he's doing good things for the economy now, or if various liberal politicians treat black people worse than he.
If you want to concede, we can have the debate technically move forward with that in place. It's just be labeled a concession so neither of us needs to worry about argument strength, and voters at the end would vote based on that rather than who was more convincing.
Otherwise a moderator can delete it (which sadly loses the comment section and what you've written as arguments). My preference is for the first option, but again, I'm fine with either.
Good post. In fact, great post!
My draft does not get into dogs but it actually contains cat abortions as a point (it weirdly does morality relate to human abortion opposition).
I would be fine with canceling this one if you want to. Otherwise be prepared for some comedy, along with a good explanation on logical validity vs. soundness.
Either way, on here or on the forums I would be happy to coach you to strengthen your argument and craft a better resolution. A lot of the debates I do are largely just trying to teach people on how to improve.
> would appeal to anyone if he thought they would vote for him.
True.
> akin to saying a sewer is clean because it isn't dusty.
Well said!
haha! Yeah, that sounds about right. Still, by seeking to appeal to white racists, he fits most definitions of racist by any measurement.
As I said near the start: "I shall not seek to prove that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler, as someone may be racist, without being Literally Hitler"
I think Trump is generally bigoted, and that at times crosses over into racism. However, I don't think he's a raging neo-nazi or anything that bad (I'm one of those weird centrists, who can dislike someone without hating them, or like someone without thinking they can walk on water).
> When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove.
Some of it certainly. If delving into my sources, much of that (hence I cherry picked what I quoted). I do however have a hard time imagining a sound defense that his endorsement of the white power movement is not by definition racist.
> Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
Echo chambers become a problem on both sides. But yes, it is indeed a problem on the left.
I hope I'm not that nitpicky... But thematically, my argument is pretty much iron clad for similar reasons.
I hope you all enjoyed the debate.
Of course, vote please.
"Divine Command Theory does not make Mario’s behavior ethical, as it is merely denying his own autonomy. If he has no control over his own actions, it begs the question if we do as well, and if we don’t there is no reason we should consider not judging him as we might be being commanded to do so and have no choice but judge him as such. Whereas if it is just him being controlled, than attempting to pass all blame for what he did to some great god commanding him from above as if a child playing a video game, would only in the smallest sense excuse his actions, while dooming him for the safety of all. This is much like not blaming a rabid dog, even while it must be put down. From either viewpoint, we should judge Mario, and take measures against him to protect ourselves from him."
Thanks guys. Trying to not comment much, but this comment section is too good to not read!
90 minutes remain for you to post your final argument.
Thank you very much for the proper vote!
The biggest weakness to your case was taking the pills and going down the rabbit hole. Your case centered on Utilitarianism, and you let con steer the debate way off topic (thankfully, your introduction was good enough to win the day; that said, I've seen voters who would treat the point as gone because you did not continuously extend it).
Someone spoke your name into the ice box three times...
Welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy your stay. Please me know if you have any questions.
Arguably the fastest way to unlock voting, is by playing a game of Mafia on the forums.
Your main problem here is your loyalty to virtue ethics.
You have decided that Trump = Good, and therefore he could murder black people in front of you while quoting Hitler about the final solution, and you'd still deny that is racist, for no reason beyond you've preemptively decided he must be good so whatever he does cannot be bad, so none of it can ever count as racism.
> Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
You either don't watch the news, or watch agenda driven fake news (which to be fair, is most major news networks).
> Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I did many times. That I had sources to back it in case there was doubt, doesn't mean I didn't get the to heart of the criticisms; such as his repeated endorsement of the white power movement, to include calling murderous neo-nazis “very fine people”; to which you requested to know where he said it, even when had already given a source for context.
> I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source.
In extreme cases of merely quoting sources without an argument I would agree (such crosses the line into plagiarism). However, sources are proof that things actually occurred. Of which aside from the dictionary, I only used a single descriptive quote about Trump's racism, and otherwise quoted him and other racists he publicly endorsed.
> You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own.
I did, many times. Trying to reason with you is like trying to draw water from a stone.
The benefit of video debates need not be shown, they are a logical exception to the scope.
That said, leaving the ability to create single round debates in place, opens a can of worms.
Absolute proof would depend on the definitions. Solipsism for example would deny that Trump can be known to exist. Some definitions of proof and racism could leave it as Donald Trump pretending to be racist to appeal to racist voters. However without any definitions outlined, we tend to default to everyday usage; to which strong evidence toward something is good enough to be considered proof.
Weak arguments differ from Gish Gallop. A Gish is a stronger tactic, often easy to spot due to being in list form (such as: here's 50 times Trump acted racist...). What he does is a pure argument by repetition.
He's good practice for spotting different fallacies. I just wish there were more variety, so I wouldn't be predicting which ones are inbound.
And by comparison to the "particular Bible verse" you would use, which parts of the documentary did you use?
1.5 hours remain for you to post an argument.