Instigator / Pro
7
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#2397
Present proof that Adolf Hitler was a "racist"
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
This was inspired by the denial of Trump being racist:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2376-present-proof-that-donald-j-trump-is-a-racist
By such a standard, likewise Hitler would be incapable of racism.
DEFINITIONS
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
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”
Racialism is synonymous with racism, merely abridging it to “a theory that race determines human traits and capacities”
Racist is another form of the word racism, allowing for adjective use but may still be presented as a noun.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
This may seem a strange debate topic given such overwhelming support for the affirmative within the zeitgeist, that it is essentially a priori knowledge [1]. However, in contrasting Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, there is common denial that these things could make someone a racist, so I shall seek to show that they do indeed.
I shall not seek to prove that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler, as someone may be racist, without being Literally Hitler. I may however attempt to prove that Adolf Hitler was Literally Hitler…
Burden of Proof
The resolution means I must present evidence that Adolf Hitler engaged in sufficient racism to be fairly identified as a racist. Con must cast sufficient doubt on such evidence leading to said conclusion.
I. What Makes A Racist?
As stated by Ryan Reynolds:
“Four or five moments!That's all it takes to be a [racist].People think you wake up a [racist]…Brush your teeth a [racist]…Ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]…But, no, being a [racist] takes only a few moments! Few moments… Doing the ugly stuff no one else will do.”
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Hitler has been so extremely evilly racist so many times [2], that the common logical fallacy identified by Godwin’s Law of Reductio ad Hitlerum is literally named for him [3]. While he did murder people for other bigoted reasons than racism, racism was his guiding light; which resulted in him being directly responsible for the death of 67-78% of all European Jews, in support of his belief in an Aryan race (which is a truly absurd set of beliefs, but what identifies racism is vileness rather than validity).
II. Racist Rhetoric:
Eugenics
Both Hitler and Trump make use of rhetoric advocating gene theory. Expert analysis reveals that they are indistinguishable [4]:
“You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
While Minnesota is not a location within Germany, he is accusing Minnesotans of believing in eugenic theory in the same way as Nazi Germany, such that they view themselves to be racially superior to others. Hitler likewise used the same racist rhetoric [5], to justify forced sterilizations; for which the Trump administration chooses to mirror them [6].
Leaders are ultimately responsible for the actions of their administration done in their name. It does not matter that they personally did not carry out the unethical surgeries.
White Power
Trump openly endorses the White Power movement, and blatantly seeks to appeal to them [7]. He proclaims murderous neo-nazis to be “very fine people” [8], and alternately “great people” for driving around chanting “White Power!” at each other [9].
These people are advocating for an Aryan ethnostate, as direct call backs to Hitler’s ideology [10] which would be antithetical to American values (such as building yourself up, rather than magically being better than other people based on being inbred enough to maintain royal blood and related bleeding disorders). Trump of course harkens back to this more directly, by repeatedly accusing opponents of not being white enough to serve in the United States government as if such were a requirement [11, 12].
III. Defenses of Racism:
Virtue Ethics
The defense of both men usually rests on the flawed reasoning of virtue ethics, that because someone is a moral exemplar, all their actions are therefore righteous. In determining the righteousness of actions based on if a declared moral exemplar does it, is the actual flip side to an Ad Hominem attack. This is seen commonly with athletes, such as ‘it’s not rape if Mike Tyson did it.’ This standard is flawed to the point of pure idiocy, to which engaging in would risk a society where the first time someone makes a mistake or does right; all their future actions are judged by that alone.
The reality is of course that people are a mixed bag. Generally bad people sometimes do good things, and generally good people sometimes do bad things. The good and the bad have no impact on the morality of the other actions.
Too Racially Superior
Another all too common defense of racism, is that the alleged racist is in fact too racially superior to be racist. Yes, people actually declare that fictional characters like Erik Killmonger and Magento can’t be racist for this reason.
Even if genetics allowed someone to command metal with their mind, such that they were correct in being better than other people, it would only verify their commitment to racism, which is again defined as: “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.”
Sources:
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/a-priori-knowledge
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_of_evil
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazi_analogies
- https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1307784059167227904
- https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics#section_4
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/forced-sterilization-accusations-ice-facility-fit-trumps-poor-treatment
- https://theconversation.com/trumps-appeals-to-white-anxiety-are-not-dog-whistles-theyre-racism-146070
- https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/politics/trump-tweet-supporters-man-chants-white-power/index.html
- https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/white-power-el-paso-reagan-trump/
- https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1294033658068770820
- https://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas
Con
#2
"“You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
While Minnesota is not a location within Germany, he is accusing Minnesotans of believing in eugenic theory in the same way as Nazi Germany, such that they view themselves to be racially superior to others. Hitler likewise used the same racist rhetoric [5], to justify forced sterilizations; for which the Trump administration chooses to mirror them [6]."
Good genes, what's wrong with that?
Why aren't we sterilized? I don't know anybody that's received a sterilization .
This is how all this propaganda starts.
"I Trump openly endorses the White Power movement, and blatantly seeks to appeal to them [7]. He proclaims murderous neo-nazis to be “very fine people” [8], and alternately “great people” for driving around chanting “White Power!” at each other [9]."
Why don't I hear this on the news now? Has it been forgotten or forgiven?
What's the deal ?
"Leaders are ultimately responsible for the actions of their administration done in their name. It does not matter that they personally did not carry out the unethical surgeries."
The hitman is responsible for their action. But yes, the person that paid the hitman off can be charged with their involvement.
If I ran an organization and some members went rogue, you can't say it's of any power and blame to me .
People use that same argument against "black lives matter" organization. Some gone exteme with the chant " What do we want? Dead Pigs. When do we want them ? Now. Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!". People say all of the organization is corrupt based on a heinous small bunch. Many argue, that's not so .
"These people are advocating for an Aryan ethnostate, as direct call backs to Hitler’s ideology [10] which would be antithetical to American values (such as building yourself up, rather than magically being better than other people based on being inbred enough to maintain royal blood and related bleeding disorders). Trump of course harkens back to this more directly, by repeatedly accusing opponents of not being white enough to serve in the United States government as if such were a requirement [11, 12]. "
"These people", what people? Why was all this left out of the last Trump rally/campaign?
Was there a secret meeting or something?
"The reality is of course that people are a mixed bag. Generally bad people sometimes do good things, and generally good people sometimes do bad things. The good and the bad have no impact on the morality of the other actions."
A lot of this doesn't logically follow and we've been taught this in our cultivation. We accept without questioning, looking at the language.
Basically a "good" or "bad" person is determined by a numbers game.
Exactly how much is "sometimes"? Who determines that?
As long as a person has one less period of time or moment of doing something bad compared to another, we determine that "good" person from the "bad" person based on a smaller time of wrongdoing under their belt.
Does it work the same way with a person that a few times in their life, has murdered, slaughtered families and children in let's say a 3 year time frame versus a person that committed robbery and theft of silverware or pencils over the timespan of 45 years?
How can good come from bad and vice versa?
Genes, traits, one can be superior to the other. One person overall superior to another is problematic however.
I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist". This appears to be an opportunity put together to take more shots at Mr. Trump.
Now what you have to do is take what you're saying to fit the reality I'm in. I've asked several questions to explain and make sense out of things .
Round 2
Pro
#3
“I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist"”
I just can’t… Calling the literal Adolf Hitler, chancellor of germany, architect of the holocaust, etc., “Mr. Hitler” as if he were some nice friendly neighbor like Mr. Rogers… I’m dead! 💀💀💀
I. What Makes A Racist?:
As stated by Ryan Reynolds (correcting a small typo from last round):
“Four or five moments!That's all it takes to be a [racist].People think you wake up a [racist]…Brush your teeth a [racist]…Ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]…But, no, being a [racist] takes only a few moments! A few moments… doing the ugly stuff no one else will do.”
Reductio ad Hitlerum
I’ve literally presented unchallenged evidence that Adolf Hitler (AKA “Mr. Hitler”) was in fact Literally Hitler!
II. Racist Rhetoric
Eugenics — Minnesota
Con does not challenge Trump’s and Hitler’s indistinguishable use of rhetoric in support of eugenics. Instead of refuting it, he asked: “what's wrong with that?” No matter how much he asserts racism isn’t bad, that would never change it away from being racism (it of course is bad, but getting into that is scope creep).
Eugenics — Sterilizations
Con defends forced sterilizations with a why not question (“Why aren't we sterilized?”), before denying they occur because he doesn’t personally know any victims (“I don't know anybody that's received a sterilization”). Neither of which challenges the comparison of Trump to Mr. Hitler, or my evidence of these self-evidently evil and racist things happening (even if it’s not to anyone con personally knows). Further, to quote holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller [1]:
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out —Because I was not a communist.Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
In gist: To safeguard yourself, you must oppose evil even when it’s being inflicted by someone you like upon someone you don’t care about or don’t even know. Interestingly Niemöller initially supported Hitler before seeing the damage as more and more groups were persecuted [1].
Eugenics — Leaders
Con defends that it actually does matter that Trump and Hitler did not personally carry out the surgeries, implying that those people who did those bad things in those administrations “went rogue”; which ignores that when presented with information on what was happening, they continued to write the paycheck to those people (for which con used a hitman analogy to concede they “can be charged with their involvement”), instead of firing them when human rights violations were first noticed at their respective concentration camps.
White Power — Endorsements
Con denies it occured due to it not being on the news program he watches. Which ignores that I used such evidence as videos of Trump and Trump’s own Twitter. … At this point, con’s repeatedly been shown the evidence, but closes his eyes and plugs his ears to it.
White Power — Ethnostate
Con plays dumb, pretending that if it occured it must have been a “secret meeting”; which wholly ignores the very public sources I used, to include Trump’s own Twitter and various broadcast interviews, as exemplified by Trump claiming Harris legally can’t become vice president of the United States due to not being white [2]:
“I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements”
This of course links by obvious comparison to the ethnostate of Nazi Germany, with racial laws enforcing who can do what [3], and Trump insisting we have similar laws in the United States to prevent non-whites from serving in government. … That Trump is wrong, does not change his belief in and endorsements of racism.
III. Defenses of Racism:
Virtue Ethics
Con does a confusing critique, which fails to call back to Trump or Hitler, so I’m not going to reply to it.
Too Racially Superior
Con insists “Genes, traits, one can be superior to the other.”
Which missed the mark in that being irrelevant to if something is or is not racist. Someone can love racism such they they think it should be celebrated, and think that the United States should become Nazi Germany 2.0, etc.; but none of that in any way denies the inherent racism of those beliefs.
“I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist"”
I know I opened the round by mocking this, but to reply to it within its proper place in the argument structure: See above for contentions I. and II.
Con seems to be making a Discourse Kritik [4] that he dislikes that the word racism has negative associations, which poisons the well against such fine racists as “Mr. Hitler” and Trump. However, those negative associations chiefly comes from racists like Hitler and Trump.
“This appears to be an opportunity put together to take more shots at Mr. Trump.”
Of course! As stated in the description: “This was inspired by the denial of Trump being racist”
It also gave the opportunity to defend Trump against comparisons to Hitler, or defend poor “Mr. Hitler” from comparisons to the orange menace that is Trump.
I do at least give con credit for consistency, in that the same foundational assertion of senseless denial was used to defend Hitler as it was for Trump.
“Now what you have to do is take what you're saying to fit the reality I'm in.”
The reality you’re in, of denied reality, is not something to which sane people need to fit their words.
Sources:
Con
#4
"Con does not challenge Trump’s and Hitler’s indistinguishable use of rhetoric in support of eugenics. Instead of refuting it, he asked: “what's wrong with that?” No matter how much he asserts racism isn’t bad, that would never change it away from being racism (it of course is bad, but getting into that is scope creep)."
See I have to ask questions as your points are so unclear. What is eugenics supposed to mean and how is it unjust discriminatory mistreatment?
Couples that avoid certain gene pairing due to common hereditary downsides, is that eugenics? What is supposed to be prejudice about that?
"Con defends forced sterilizations with a why not question (“Why aren't we sterilized?”), before denying they occur because he doesn’t personally know any victims (“I don't know anybody that's received a sterilization”). Neither of which challenges the comparison of Trump to Mr. Hitler, or my evidence of these self-evidently evil and racist things happening (even if it’s not to anyone con personally knows). Further, to quote holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller [1]:"
Excuse me but this is a very poor job in attempt to convince us something exists.
Like trying to prove God with "Oh here's the evidence I see." Why don't I see it?
When you're trying to say that something is a reality , you ought to be able to help in pointing to that something that would be all around you and I. This is particularly in the mainstream. The news, talk shows, youtube, presidential campaigns including the "I'm so and so and I approve this message."
"Con defends that it actually does matter that Trump and Hitler did not personally carry out the surgeries, implying that those people who did those bad things in those administrations “went rogue”; which ignores that when presented with information on what was happening, they continued to write the paycheck to those people (for which con used a hitman analogy to concede they “can be charged with their involvement”), instead of firing them when human rights violations were first noticed at their respective concentration camps."
You must support locking up parents that had children that grew up to be criminals. After all, they were their first LEADERS, they take full responsibility.
Locking up police chiefs and commissioners that are non-criminal as they were head of departments that had corrupt cops.
"Con denies it occured due to it not being on the news program he watches. Which ignores that I used such evidence as videos of Trump and Trump’s own Twitter. … At this point, con’s repeatedly been shown the evidence, but closes his eyes and plugs his ears to it."
I never used the words "I deny". Don't STRAWMAN your way out of this.
You will have to prove social media accounts aren't hacked and you'll have to answer my question. We can see you're ignoring the question. Everything you and your so called sources are claiming will have to give an explanation on why this isn't on the news everywhere.
Also, also, explain why this isn't a disqualification in the presidential race.
"Con plays dumb, pretending that if it occured it must have been a “secret meeting”; which wholly ignores the very public sources I used, to include Trump’s own Twitter and various broadcast interviews, as exemplified by Trump claiming Harris legally can’t become vice president of the United States due to not being white [2]:
“I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements” "
I must be dumb because the reality you're talking about doesn't exist to a fool. I can't understand or must be too slow to figure why isn't all of this as heinous as can be, be a disqualification out of the presidential race.
How can my ears be plugged when I don't hear what you're talking about the news each morning?
Everything you're handing is personal bias.
Doesn't meet what requirements?
Why just give me an incomplete statement like that. Do I just assume something like you did ?
"This of course links by obvious comparison to the ethnostate of Nazi Germany, with racial laws enforcing who can do what [3], and Trump insisting we have similar laws in the United States to prevent non-whites from serving in government. … That Trump is wrong, does not change his belief in and endorsements of racism."
I understand you don't give examples directly in your argument. I guess I just wait until we are an ethnostate to prove what you're saying aren't just feelings.
"The reality you’re in, of denied reality, is not something to which sane people need to fit their words."
Tell me why don't I hear this on the news each day what "racist " Trump did lately?
How is this denying reality? You're denying to explain this. All I'm getting is feelings, no context, no examples you can explain. You want the sources to explain for you . It must be if you try to argue them on your own, it'll all just fall apart.
This was a fail anyway.
You can admit you just have a huge distaste for non-liberal, non-politically correct folks. That's what all this is about.
I never said but you say I said Mr. Trump and Mr. Hitler are not racist so called.
I'm a neutral person for you to convince me of something and you failed twice. You gave me your feelings and one feeling of triviality over a title such as "Mr".
Nothing to warrant much of a response over.
You don't like the person, just don't vote. That goes for all Americans as well as this site we're debating on.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I went back and checked, and I could just copy-paste my RFD from Con's last debate and have it apply just as well here. I can't fault either side for consistency, but Con, if you're losing your debates with tactics like these, you might want to change things up a bit. This just makes it look like you don't care.
However, as this is a debate that finished without forfeits and as I'd like to provide some feedback, I'll endeavor to provide a unique RFD.
Pro largely sets up a pretty simple argument, building his case on some pretty simple standards for what makes a racist, how rhetoric reflects racist tendencies, and how the defenses of racism simply don't hold up. It's a straightforward case with obvious links that require direct attacks. Without directly addressing those links, Pro's argument automatically wins this debate, because his burden of proof is simply show that there is evidence that Adolf Hitler was racist. Everything else, including distractions about Donald Trump.
Con's response is largely to pose questions. Those questions introduce some doubt, but they only weakly mitigate Pro's arguments, even if I buy the points Con is making outright. They are still supporting Pro's case, and Con doesn't give me reason to believe that they do not rise to the level of proof. Instead, he seems more focused on presenting doubt that there's anything wrong with these actions. I could buy that someone is racist and that there's nothing wrong with that, so I don't understand why this line of argument does anything for Con's side. The rest is largely about questioning guilt by association (which only tells me that he might not be a racist, not that he isn't), lack of other evidence (which only works if you address the evidence you've been presented with, which Con ignores), and trying to call attention to vagaries in Pro's points (none of which are integral to Pro's arguments, and all of which seem more focused on semantics than actual analysis). Con's case, once again, lacks any substance and fails to introduce any substantial doubts in Pro's arguments. All he accomplishes is showing that there are some potential problems, but since most of his doubts are introduced as questions and the remainder fail to fully mitigate or turn arguments from Pro, they don't do anything to shift the debate in his favor.
Arguments go to Pro, along with sources, as Pro was the only one to present them and Con leaves them all unaddressed.
Just two other things I need to say:
Con, if you don't understand points as clear as the ones made in this debate and that's why you need to ask questions, then you really need to take the time to understand what the debate is about. Debates are not discussions, and introducing niggling doubts is not powerful in any context. Know what you have to do to succeed and go along that path. Understand your opponent's arguments or not, you won't get anywhere giving these kinds of responses in any debate.
And finally... "Mr. Hitler"... really?
You call it denial. I call it not proving anything . So even steven.
That you are either denying the holocaust, or denying that it is evidence to suggest racism, is very informative about you.
I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence. Maybe next time, same place, same channel, I'll stay tuned.
It's in the debate tab. I further make it really easy by putting preplies under the same headings as the things you addressed.
It's a no brainer. How can you argue a point when you don't see where the rebuttal is?
Who taught you guys to make an argument even when you don't know where to make it at?
That conventional mind, it's the darnest thing.
Side note: The disclaimer in each debate I'm in covers what win/lose is really all about.
A separation between that and an echo chamber.
Alright, then you’ll keep losing debates like this the same way. If you’re good with that, then hey, I won’t stop you.
Remember guys, you make have to continue with the questions until understanding is reached. If you don't reach it, you'll have to stay in the question mode. That's just the way that is.
What is your opinion of Trump's eugenics speech in Minnesota?
By the way, thank you for voting.
I of course love the final line of your vote:
> And finally... "Mr. Hitler"... really?
Questioning basic suppositions we make in debate is fine, but there’s a format for doing that and it’s not just putting out a series of questions. Questions alone do nothing for you in a debate. You need to take your view that your opponent is making fundamentally flawed assumptions and use it to challenge their mindset directly, rather than just pose questions. It’s called a Kritik, and it’s a lot more involved than what you’ve been trying to do. If you’re really this focused on challenging your opponent’s assumptions rather than responding directly to their arguments, I urge you to read up on the tactic. Here’s a pretty basic rundown: https://mbhsdebate.wixsite.com/debate/kritik
For those of you saying what's with all the questions, it goes back to what I offer in every debate challenge.
In order to argue, I have to ask for an explanation, clarity and focus. I have to know what the other is talking about. See I don't assume anything, try to get an implication out of something, etc.
I don't know why folks expect me to interact blindly as I'm to be not sure of what is being said.
Just the way of common sense.
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.
Seriously, dude, if you're going to learn anything from these two debates learn this: questions aren't arguments. You don't give yourself offense by introducing doubt, and no matter how well phrased a question is, it's not going to accomplish anything more than minor mitigation. It's a debate. Present arguments.
Mall: why are we still here? Just to survive?
Thanks guys. Trying to not comment much, but this comment section is too good to not read!
Actually no. We are not talking about reductio ad Hitlerum, because we are talking about Hitler himself, not something Hitler has done to imply that others that has done this is racist.
reducto ad Hitlerum
And, though I don't want to get into it too deeply so as not to influence the debaters, the view that being Jewish is a race was a central part of Hitler's efforts. You can argue that being anti-semetic isn't inherently racist, but Hitler's own efforts to classify Jews in this manner simply sets him (and, unfortunately, many others) apart from what should be basic knowledge.
Also, keep in mind our distinctions in race are very arbitrary.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism
"Other forms of bigotry, intolerance, and xenophobia, such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, are often considered to be rooted in racism.
The word racist can be used as a noun meaning a racist person or as an adjective meaning “of or promoting racism,” as in racist ideology or racist comments.
What is race?
To fully define racism, we have to define race. Throughout history, the word race has commonly been used to refer to a classification of humans based on various physical characteristics, especially skin color, facial form, and eye shape. But sorting people into such races is truly arbitrary—they’re not based on meaningful scientific differences (like, for example, those used to determine legitimate scientific classifications such as species and genus)."
I see what you're saying. Racism is a loosely defined term.
What something is "technically defined as" in social science has nothing to do with how it is USED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx
According to Oxford: "Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism
I mean, again a religion is not a race. Hitler didn't really care about the race of the Jewish people, he just wanted them to be rid of because of his sick agenda.
Its not out of the question that he worshiped the Aryan "race" more than any other races, and seeked to destroy all the others.
Alright, but the question of whether his views on Jews also make him racist is also relevant.
I never said that Hitler wasn't racist. The debate is fine as is.
I agree that being Jewish isn’t a race. That being said, there are Jewish groups that are racially distinct from others. Ashkenazi and Sephardi are two such subsets, and they are racial groups. So it’s important to distinguish them from Judaism as a whole, but the debate is still relevant.
Where? All the sources I found agreed with my definition. (For context: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=racism&t=opera&ia=definition)
Ok. Oxford says the opposite:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Wikipedia finds:
"While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination."
Have to disagree:"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"
but he still stimulates white supremacy though.
Racism encompasses hatred of ethnic groups
Being Jewish isn't a race
We'll see.
Using my school's way of speaking: I can present proof that Adolf Hitler is racist.
Pro just needs to present evidence and justify them. Again, I think those are plenty.
I think
PRO is arguing that Hitler was NOT racist as a joke.
I think I agree with Pro. I don't know how Con can even win.
I'll humor you. I'm not here to disprove or prove anything except proving whether your statements hold up .