Instigator / Pro
36
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#652
Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 8 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
Death23
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
52
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description
Voters will vote on the arguments and voting criteria like any other debate. Whether my mind is changed or not has no effect on the voting.
Racism is a pretty agreed upon term- "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."
So thinking that you are superior to another race.
That is the main definition, but another one could be prejudice or discrimination of another race.
Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.
I will give a general overview of the debate in round 1, and then Con will start off the arguments. Con will then waive the last round.
Round 1
Forfeited
I interpret a forfeited first round as an indication that my opponent does not intend to debate the topic. I don't
generate debate content in such a situation.
Round 2
Sorry I was on vacation oof oh well.
Basically death has to prove he is racist. Good luck.
Facts:
On July 16th, 1968 a complaint was filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York; Specifically, that Fred Trump (Donald Trump's father) refused to rent an apartment to a man because he was black.
A hearing on the complaint was held on October 31st, 1968, before the commission, at which time testimony and evidence were received. The commission found that respondent Fred Trump engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0055.pdf
On October 15th, 1973, the Nixon administration's then acting Attorney General Elliot Richardson filed a complaint on behalf of the United States against Donald Trump, et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, inter alia, alleged the following:
1. Trump Management Inc. was a New York corporation doing business in the Eastern District of New York, managing and operating numerous apartment buildings, totaling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area and elsewhere. (These facts were not denied in the Trump's answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
2. Donald Trump was president of Trump Management Inc. and was responsible for the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. (This fact was not denied in the Trumps' answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
3. Donald Trump, et al, through his actions and those of his agents and employees, discriminated against persons because of race in the operation of the apartment buildings, among other ways, by:
a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate for the rental of dwellings with persons because of race and color.
b) Requiring different terms and conditions with respect to the rental of dwellings because of race and color.
c) Making and causing to be made statements with respect to the rental of dwellings which indicate a preference, limitation and discrimination based on race and color.
d) Representing to persons because of race and color that dwellings are not available for inspection and rental when such dwellings are in fact so available.
A copy of this complaint is available for download in PDF format here: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0005.pdf
The allegations contained within the complaint were preceded and supported by an FBI investigation in to the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. The FBI records for that investigation are available for download here:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company
The records of that investigation include evidence of discriminatory practices. Some evidence of discriminatory practices are from those of "testers" - People who pose as prospective tenants and inquire as to the cost and availability of apartments. For example, a black tester may inquire as to the availability of an apartment and then a white tester may inquire as to availability soon thereafter. Other evidence supporting the allegations of the complaint include statements from employees and former employees of Trump Management Inc.
The following are some examples of this evidence:
(Excerpt from statement to FBI from a former employee of Trump Management)
On July 16th, 1968 a complaint was filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York; Specifically, that Fred Trump (Donald Trump's father) refused to rent an apartment to a man because he was black.
A hearing on the complaint was held on October 31st, 1968, before the commission, at which time testimony and evidence were received. The commission found that respondent Fred Trump engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0055.pdf
On October 15th, 1973, the Nixon administration's then acting Attorney General Elliot Richardson filed a complaint on behalf of the United States against Donald Trump, et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, inter alia, alleged the following:
1. Trump Management Inc. was a New York corporation doing business in the Eastern District of New York, managing and operating numerous apartment buildings, totaling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area and elsewhere. (These facts were not denied in the Trump's answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
2. Donald Trump was president of Trump Management Inc. and was responsible for the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. (This fact was not denied in the Trumps' answer to the complaint - https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0018.pdf )
3. Donald Trump, et al, through his actions and those of his agents and employees, discriminated against persons because of race in the operation of the apartment buildings, among other ways, by:
a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate for the rental of dwellings with persons because of race and color.
b) Requiring different terms and conditions with respect to the rental of dwellings because of race and color.
c) Making and causing to be made statements with respect to the rental of dwellings which indicate a preference, limitation and discrimination based on race and color.
d) Representing to persons because of race and color that dwellings are not available for inspection and rental when such dwellings are in fact so available.
A copy of this complaint is available for download in PDF format here: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0005.pdf
The allegations contained within the complaint were preceded and supported by an FBI investigation in to the policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. The FBI records for that investigation are available for download here:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company
The records of that investigation include evidence of discriminatory practices. Some evidence of discriminatory practices are from those of "testers" - People who pose as prospective tenants and inquire as to the cost and availability of apartments. For example, a black tester may inquire as to the availability of an apartment and then a white tester may inquire as to availability soon thereafter. Other evidence supporting the allegations of the complaint include statements from employees and former employees of Trump Management Inc.
The following are some examples of this evidence:
(Excerpt from statement to FBI from a former employee of Trump Management)
I was employed by Trump Management Corporation from February, 1970 to May, 1971 as a Doorman at 2650 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York. This building is also known as Ocean Terrance.
While employed in this capacity, I was supervised by an individual known to me as [REDACTED] who was employed by Trump Management Corporation as superintendent at 2650 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York.
[REDACTED] told me that if a black person came to 2650 Ocean Parkway and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is, [REDACTED] was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment.
Pages 34, 35 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
(Another excerpt from statement to FBI by former employee of Trump Management)
I [...] was employed by Trump Management Corporation during the middle two weeks of December, 1973. I was employed as a rental supervisor by Fred Trump. My job was in part to determine the rental problems involved with buildings at Tysens Park, Staten Island.
[...] I asked Fred Trump what his policy was regarding minorities and he said it was absolutely against the law to discriminate. At a later time during my two weeks at Tysens Park, Fred Trump told me not to rent to blacks. He also wanted me to get rid of the blacks that were in the building by telling them cheap housing was available for them at only $500 down payment, which Trump would offer to pay himself. Trump didn't tell me where this housing was located. He advised me not to rent to persons on welfare.
Pages 37 and 38 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
(Excerpt from a statement from a black tester)
[...] black. On Thursday August 17, 1972 [redacted] at approximately 11:30 AM. I told him that I was interested [illegible] apartment or a one bed room apartment, both of which were advertised in the New York Times of August 17, 1972. He told me that the night before [illegible] a party, and that at that time someone else had signed the agreement to rent the apartment. I asked him about the studio apartment, and he told me [illegible] was a lot of junk in it and that they had no keys to that apartment. I ask him [illegible] that an ad could appear in the New York Times stating that an apartment was available when in fact it was not. He told me that if I had [illegible] party, that I could have had the apartment. I asked him if he could at least show me the type of apartment he was talking about, and he said he could not. We then exchanged telephone numbers and I left.
Page 23 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
(Excerpt from a statement from a white tester)
[...] and I am white. On Thursday August 17, 1972 I visited [redacted] a building owned and operated by Fred C. Trump, with [redacted] The New York Times that morning ran an ad for various apartments in this building available for rent. Twenty minutes after [redacted] was told by the superintendent that these apartments had already been rented or could not be seen that day, I entered the renting office and was told by the superintendent's assistant that the apartments were all available and that I could see them. He took me upstairs and showed me the one bedroom apartment for $235, which was vacant, and offered to show me the studio apartments. I said that I did not have time. He said that I could fill out the application for the one bedroom apartment right away if I liked. I said that I did not have time to do so but that I would come back later and departed.
Page 24 from:
https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company/Trump%20Management%20Company%20Part%2001%20of%2008/at_download/file
Contemporary Interview:
On September 29th, 2016, NPR did an interview of one of the testers, Sheila Morse. The following excerpts are from the transcript of that interview -
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=495955920
SHEILA MORSE: He went in. He met with the superintendent, and the superintendent said, I'm very sorry, but the apartment is rented. It's gone. So the gentleman said to him, well, why is the sign out? I still see a sign that says apartment for rent. And the superintendent said, oh, I guess I forgot to take it down. And that was that.
SIEGEL: You, as a tester, then were sent in to inquire about an apartment in the very same building.
MORSE: Exactly, yes.
SIEGEL: What did they tell you?
MORSE: Oh, they greeted me with open arms and showed me every aspect of the apartment.
SIEGEL: Sheila Morse says she reported back to the Human Rights Commission and then returned to the apartment building in Brooklyn. After she was offered a lease, the man who had tried to rent the apartment and the city Human Rights Commissioner entered the office. And the three of them confronted the building superintendent.
MORSE: He said, well, I'm only doing what my boss told me to do. I am not allowed to rent to black tenants. So the commissioner said, OK, can you take us to your boss? And he said, yeah, I guess I can.
And then we went to the boss, and it was an office building in Coney Island. And when we got there, there was a great big sign that said Trump Management, and it was Donald Trump and Fred Trump, his father.
Other evidence:
The federal complaint against Trump was settled with a "consent decree". The settlement required Trump Management to implement various measures designed to end discriminatory practices at the Trump properties.
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf
The decree began on 07/01/1975. At that time there were a total of 641 black tenants within the Trump properties. On 05/01/1977, nearly two years later, there were then 968 black tenants, an increase of approximately 51%.
Page 3 of https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0040.pdf
Argument:
The available evidence indicates that it is more probable than not that Donald Trump, by his acts and omissions as President of Trump Management Inc., discriminated against black people in housing. The statements from the testers and former employees show that black people were discriminated against at the Trump properties. Donald was president of Trump Management and was the son of the apparent owner, Fred Trump. In this capacity, it is more likely than not that Donald was involved in the day to day operations of Trump Management. Donald likely had a hand in implementing the will of his father, which apparently included discriminating against minorities. The interview of Sheila Morse shows that Donald was regarded as one of the bosses.
Relating this to the resolution -
The debate description provides as follows:
That is the main definition, but another one could be prejudice or discrimination of another race.
Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.
The evidence here indicates that Trump has done racist things.
Specifically, that Trump has discriminated against blacks in housing. That is a
racist thing.
Round 3
My opponent's argument revolves around Trump discriminating against blacks in housing 50 years ago.
The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The claims of Fred Trump's and Donald's racism started in 1968 into the 70's, starting 4 years ranging to a decade past the Civil Rights Act. Blacks were still discriminated against in this time, as many people disregarded the act passed and still practiced racism as a normal, cultural thing to do. People didn't just change their perspective's of race after the act was passed.
Many of the things my opponent outlines may be true, the most shaky of them accusations from "testers." These accusations can not be proven, however, they very well could be true, or false. That is up to perception.
With all this said, Death has pointed out one specific incident having occurred 50 years ago. The point of this debate is to prove Donald Trump is a racist, not was. With a period directly after the Civil Rights Act, people can change in 50 years. Trump was pretty young at the time.
The evidence here indicates that Trump has done racist things.
While that may be true, you have to prove Donald Trump is a racist today, as the title of the debate is referring to present tense.
Conclusion:
My opponent has not proven that Trump is racist today, and is using evidence from 50 years ago alleging Trump "was"racist. Death has the BoP to show Mr. Trump is racist, or still racist, in the present day, which would likely require fairly recent evidence of racism of Trump.
Trump has also openly said he is not racist, and has denounced groups like the KKK.
He also has support from blacks, such as Kanye West, Formal NFL black wide receivers, and Candace Owens.
No resolution has been specified in this debate. The rules require that I am to accept the definitions and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things. That is the goalpost. I have accepted the definitions and the housing discrimination case is a clear, credible and substantial example of racism practiced by Trump that Pro has failed to disprove. The rules did not specify that the racist things had to be recent. This is Pro trying to move the goalposts.
Pro's evidence of Trump not being racist is not convincing. Black people endorsing Trump does not make it more or less likely that Trump is racist. There's no connection there. Trump is the POTUS. He will have supporters of all races regardless. Pro's other evidence - Trump condemning racist groups - Obviously, Trump has a reason to lie about these things. Trump is a politician now and he must distance himself from racist groups for political reasons rather than personal ones.
Round 4
The only one trying to move the goal posts here is con. The point of the debate and clearly written is to prove that Trump is racist, not was racist.
While the BoP was on death to prove racist things he has said or done, it also has to prove that Trump is racist, and evidence from 50 years ago after the Civil Rights Act is not substantial evidence that Trump is racist. People can change over 50 years, believe it or not.
Lynne Parton, a former party planner for the Trump org. said "as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way she would work for an individual who was racist." He has also hired black people throughout his life, he chose a black person, Omarosa, who also worked in the White House, to win the apprentice.
I ask voters...Why would a racist do that?
Con can respond only to that last paragraph and strictly nothing else, as it is a new argument. Per debate rules, he may not respond to my other points or tell voters anything/conclude anything of his whole debate.
Conclusion:
Con has not provided substantial evidence that Trump is a racist.
I'm sorry but it was
not clearly written that I had any responsibility to do anything beyond
accepting [the given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said
or done racist things." I didn't sign up for doing more than that. While
it is true that debate titles are sometimes resolutions, it's not always like
that. In this case, the debate title was "Donald Trump is NOT Racist:
Change my mind". In the debate description it was written that "Whether
[Pro's] mind is changed or not has no effect on the voting", which guided
me away from the conclusion that the debate title was the resolution. Nowhere
in the debate description was it written that I had the burden to prove that
Trump is racist. It was written that I had to "accept the given definitions
of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things." I
did that.
poopoo bad boy
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Isaiahdude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Both arguments were convincing but pro was better
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Thanks for the vote. I also viewed Donald's subordination to Fred as a mitigating factor in the housing discrimination case. You're the first person to bring that up. Kudos.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
You said I "didn't address it".
I said "doubt it would get taken down" because your point is false.
My point logically follows and is not biased.
So I don't see how it would be taken down.
Glad to know your bias.
Doubt it would get taken down.
Still did not adress it. reported.
I'll bring the vote back up. Just have to confirm something.
What about the rule break by con in the final round? He was supposed to waive.
Yay :D
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. Borderline votes are, by default, considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Uh?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
I will not disclose who reported what.
Nm lol wrong debTe
Who tried to report my vote?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
I actually respect that you can vote and have a fair opinion on debates without(for the most part) incorporating your own liberal beliefs.
Ok lol, I think that it’ll be fine :)
I consider this RFD insufficient on args and conduct. Review desired.
The reason that I'm not going to do that is that he didn't use the last round to argue his point. He was discussing the rules. Forfeiting trumps that (pun absolutely intended).
Would you mind deleting and re-casting your vote? I would like you to change the conduct point to a tie, because although I forfeited, con posted in the last round, which was against the rules..."I will give a general overview of the debate in round 1, and then Con will start off the arguments. Con will then waive the last round."
I also gave a reminder in my final round that no conclusions or final assessment be made, but he did anyway. I'm telling you this because I will report it if you don't change it, so I would appreciate it, thx.
Look at pinkfreud's vote. He claims I had poor conduct because "I moved the goalpost," but whether he WAS racist or IS racist is what we were debating the rules over.
Enforcement of voting standards appears to have become more strict. Perhaps a little bit more details addressing Virt's concerns and I think Virt would be OK with your vote and it could be reposted I hope.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: This turned into a semantic argument of "Was a racist" or "Is a racist" then a shift of blame on the burden of proof. Con provided better conduct in regards to faithfulness to debate, they both had equal grammar and spelling, con uses sources to verify the incidents of trumps racism.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below for more info
*******************************************************************
“Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.”
Pro clearly states the rules of the debate are that con must show that Trump has done racist things. The racist things con mentions are clearly uncontested by pro, and pro simply attempts to backpeddle on the rules of tbe debage by changing the goalposts.
I am sympathetic to one debater changing or challenging the rules during a debate in the following scenarios:
- it can be shown that there is a clear harm to either debater if the rules are accepted as is (IE: the rule makes the debate logically unwinnable)
- the rule is obviously being applied in a way opposite or contrary to the way a regular person would interpret the rules. (IE: the rule is being used in a way contrary to its intent) and thus needs to be clarified.
If neither of these things are true here - pro does not show that the rules were misinterpreted, or that the interpretation of the rules makes the debate resolution unfair - I am forced to judge the debate on how a regular person would interpret the rules.
In this case. I am of the view con must show that Trump has done racist things to negate the resolution as per the stipulated rules. He has done this, and it and as not contested by pro.
While con didn’t waive the final round as stipulated - pro effectively forfeited two rounds - then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round.
The forfeits here are much more series than cons final round clarification (he made no new arguments), and the attempt to argue con should be held to a different set of rules constitutes a serious breach of conduct worthy of a conduct penalty.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for conduct and arguments
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. The conduct point is fine, but with regards to the argument point, I want to see more detailed discussion about the specific arguments that con made and pro's response.
*******************************************************************
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
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).
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
Take a look at the most recent voter. He does not sufficiently explain anything and does not meet voting standards.
Vote looks ok to me
I would consider:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/652?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=30
As a specific clarification of the conduct point on my vote, and would prefer it to be considered as such. It’s saying the same things, and explaining the same vote to fully elaborate on what I was saying about the allocation
Thanks for taking the time to work it up as always.
I mean, you're really going the extra mile with the post-RFD explanation. For me to do that would strain my credulity beyond the breaking point because I have difficulty trusting that others have the will or the ability to recognize their mistakes. I hardly ever see it happen.
We really cannot take anything that happens in the comments into our decision (except in certain, egregious cases). Our ruling needs to be based on the vote isolation.
What makes you Think I’m not jaded.
I tell you want, If you can give me a convincing reason why not waiving the final round (but using it to clarify that you were changing the rules), is so bad a conduct violation that it overrides your forfeit, you changing the rules, and you not fully providing your opening round - OR if you can fix ANY debate where I have awarded even conduct when one side has forfeited that you feel the non forfeiting side did something less bad than Death23,
I’ll ask virtuous to remove my vote myself, and tie conduct. Otherwise, my conduct vote stands.
How can you not be jaded after all the voting you've done lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3XJ-UDdzI
I listed all the infractions in both sides. You forfeited a round, didn’t post the opening, and waited 2 1/2 days before posting a dismissive start and attempted to change the rules. Your opponent claified that you were trying to change the rules in the final round instead of waiving.
His single minor violation was not sufficient to override your two major - and one minor violation.
I’m not quite sure how you feel accurately comparing what both sides objectively did is asserting “my opinion”, or how detailing infractions on both sides - and comparing the two to determine which was more serious and major is “cherry picking”, but clearly my RfD does not match either of the regular definitions of either of those two things.
You appear to be simply objecting to me categorizing your second post as an “effective forfeit”; whilst ignoring that I pointed out you forfeited round 1, and tried to change the rules - both of which are major violations.
This is like arguing to should be found innocent of all two counts of 1st degree murder and one count of 2nd degree murder, because the last count was 3rd degree murder.
"You didn’t offer anything at all other than a dismissive throw away line 2 1/2 days after pros opening- and added nothing - which is nearly as bad."
This is completely your opinion, which you infer too often in voting. Again, I've already proved you wrong on this last comment, which I said "general overview." Again, this is extremely cherry picked and disingenuous.
So you still would doc me a point if we both broke the rules once each? Me- poor conduct for forfeit Death- explicitly breaking the rules expressed in the description. This should be a tie at the least, if not a point for me since he actually claimed something I was unable to respond to in the final round, where as the forfeit did not affect the debate as their were no arguments made. Yeah, this is definitely deserving of a report.
Bsh I want to make sure virt reads these as well...because he probably won't get the reason or context why I am reporting it.
I’ll handle it tomorrow.
If I make unreasonable arguments then you will have an opportunity to say why those arguments are unreasonable. You must relinquish control and put your faith in the voters to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. That is the nature of debate.
I see you've reported it, so it will be reviewed, most likely by Virt.
Basically what I'm saying is don't use that argument unless it is blatantly true like that example you suggested.
Of course, I would not make that argument. Examples in recent years would be enough evidence to prove it. I am not going to be strict on how far to go back, just keep it reasonable. I am talking about more subjectiveness, for example using the argument multiple allegations of racism prove more likely than not that he is racist. That is shaky ground. If we stick to specific examples and argue those, that would be fine.
Generally my case would be evidence of examples of racism, but I don't see cause to restrict the type of evidence I give or to restrict the arguments that I make. For example, Trump could be a changed man and this change could have happened within the past 24 hours. Therefore I have not 100% proven that Trump is racist in the present unless I show that Trump is doing something racist at this very moment. My response to that argument would be that it is unlikely that Trump has changed so recently, and that because we are using the "more likely than not standard" the doubt raised by that argument is insufficient.
OK, but don't use the "more likely than not" argument too much. Try to stick to specific examples of racism.