Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a "racist".

Unfortunate con didn't refute pro's evidence. When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove. Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!

This isn't so much an issue of bias or personal views as it is an issue with how you engage with your opponent's arguments. What you should take away from this debate, and hopefully bring into your other debate with Ragnar, is that you have to interact with the arguments your opponent presents you with. Arguing that there are better ways for him to present his arguments and sources isn't going to benefit your position at all.

Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.

I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.

I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".

A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.

We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.

Thank you very much for the proper vote!

Your point here is confounding. Ragnar did provide his own analysis and conclusions regarding the content of those arguments. He does this thing called "summary" where he takes the main point of a long article, scales it down to the most relevant parts, and presents it as support for his side of the debate. Within the debate, your argument largely appeared to be that that support was insufficient to prove racism, though you never directly addressed any of those links nor did you substantially challenge the conclusions your opponent came to, despite repeatedly questioning them. Questions aren't arguments. You needed to engage with your opponent's points, challenge his basic suppositions and, yes, challenge his sources (or, at minimum, what his sources mean). If you don't do that, you can't expect to win a debate like this.

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.

Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. 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 question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.

You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.

Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?

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.

You have been on DDO so you know. Mall just went here to debate like the average DDO user. This site just serves as a filter of the more interested DDO users, and those advertisement bots and those bedsheet trolls will not care less about what this site is.

Mall's average argument is the definition of gish gallop.

You are one of the most dishonest debaters I have ever witnessed. "Where's the evidence?" Literally ignores the source number in the quote YOU provided.

1.5 hours remain for you to post an argument.

Orange man bad.

No, actually, orange man bad. No satirical irony. Orange man bad.

Error on my part . It happens comrade.

Why did you switch sides?

I'm here to prove what's opinion and disprove what's purported to be fact.

so you will present proof that Trump's a racist and if you don't CON wins?

Cool to see Mall switching sides on this one, to attempt to prove that Trump is racist.

While I could prove Trump is not by some subjective standards, I do not feel like putting the effort in.

Mr. Supermarket is now starting a new debate because someone else has defeated him using resolution-allowed reasons that he thinks is bare nonsense.