Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Pro never offered an offense. Pro forfeited the first two rounds and then complained that con was misinterpreting thesis. Con gave solid evidence of Trumps racist past. Although I tend to agree with Pro that such a claim should be backed by recent evidence, Pro had 4 opportunities to argue for excluding old evidence before bringing it up in R3. Only one side in this debate made evidence based claims. Arguments to Con. Pro used no sources- sources to Con. Conduct for forfeit
Kiss my goddamn ass.
The BOP was on Con to provide an instance in which, according to the rules: "Trump has said or done racist things." "Things" is vague, but it is clear that Pro wants Con to rove that Trump did something which proves his allegiance to white supremacy, or is prejudiced toward another race. While Pro's objection to testers is noted, he never explicitly gives me proof suggesting bias in the experiment conducted with the testers. Moreover, Con offers interviews with previous employees of Trump Management Incorporated which adds validity to Con's claims. Even if the bias in unintentional, old, or outdated, the rules of the debate only ask Con to show "prejudice or discrimination of another race." A strategy which Pro easily could have capitalized on is attributing the racist policy to Fred Trump. Perhaps Pro could contend the charges against the group as well, since the only evidence supporting the theory that Donald Trump is a part of the racist policies is conjecture as he "was on of the bosses," and "likely had a hand in implementing the will of his father." Instead, Pro asserts that black people support Trump. This is true, but it doesn't prove that Donald Trump isn't racist, or hasn't discriminated against minority groups. Con points out this discrepancy. Unfortunately, Con didn't adhere completely to the rules as he didn't waive the last round, so I give the conduct point to Pro. The forfeit at the beginning of the debate made me seriously think about keeping the conduct point a tie. However, the forfeit didn't seriously impede the debate since Con was supposed to go first to begin with.
The instigator forfeited the first Round. Which meant the debate was cut even shorter by only 2 Rounds from 3. Since there is a rule of waiving 1 Round shared by both opponents it is already cut down to 3 Rounds but since the instigator did forfeit and the contender did not give a response in Round 1. The debate was 2 Rounds which is the fault of the instigator.
Argument point
Pro offered no main argument other than to point out that BoP was on Con.
Con said;
"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:"
Con shows evidence that formal charges were brought up against trump, but I see nothing about a guilty verdict. Let's read on.
As his arguments pile up, Con shows that there is a consistent pattern that is in line with the agreed upon definition of racism for this debate. Because of the sheer amount of evidence of racist behavior, Con establishes a solid base case, let's see if Pro does anything to negate it.
Pro replies by saying that the civil rights act hadn't kicked in yet, but this is not sufficient because the legal guilt and innocence is not part of the resolution. Pro even admits to the incident cited by Con being true, a fatal concession. The rest of the debate is largely semantics and doesn't change the resolution at all. Argument point to Con.
Condcut to Con for the first round forfeit by pro.
All others tied.
Arguments:
Con only provided one piece of evidence that Trump was racist. This was extremely disappointing to me, as there are many examples. However, I'm not the one debating.
Pro clearly said in the description "provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things." "Things" is plural, and Con only provided one. That's the first red flag. Secondly, Pro easily beat down the one example Con gave by saying that we're discussing if Trump IS racist, not WAS. Him pointing out that the example that Con gave was 50 years old was completely valid. Had Con given both recent and old examples, it would have been fine, but that was not the case.
This is why I'm giving the point to Pro.
Conduct:
Pro forfeited. That's bad conduct.
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.
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, by citing an extensively sourced example of Trumps racial discrimination in the 1960//70s. Pro does not contest these things happened, nor that Trump was responsible - merely that they don’t count. As shown above - these do count according to pros own rules. Pros only response is to present a short list of all the not racist things Trump has done, even if true - this doesn’t negate that Trump has done racist things - which is the condition for victory as specified by the rules.
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 r
Conduct: Pro moved the goal post, in his description he defines the goal post as
"provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things."
- Which implies that he HAS done racist things. Which implies that the time period doesn't matter. However than later on Pro moves the goal post by stating,
"My opponent has not proven that Trump is racist today, and is using evidence from 50 years ago"
This is a moving of the goal post since previously Pro used a general tense but is now claiming that the goal is to prove Trump has been racist recently. This is an obvious moving of the goal post which Pro spouted multiple times throughout the debate.
Moving of the goal post in and of itself, is poor conduct on pro's part.
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.