Instigator / Pro
15
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#740
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
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Speedrace
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description
I will pretty much waive the first round and con will start the arguments off. BoP will be on con to prove that Trump IS racist, in present day.
Round 1
Pro
#1
This debate is concerned over whether President Donald Trump is racist or not. Con will have to present evidence in broadly recent years of racism, in which case if it is within recent years it would prove more likely than not Trump is a racist. Looking forward to the debate, con may start the arguments off.
Racism-- The idea that one is superior to another race, discrimination or prejudice against another race that would imply superiority to that race.
Con
#2
Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."
Once, Trump pointed to an attendee at a rally and said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”
Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals."
Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.
Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets.
When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee.
Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.
Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists.
Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks to con for responding, I have actually debunked claims in a previous debate on DDO with the same NY Times article. So here goes my rebuttals.
Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
I have looked at your cited article and have found no source they put to that claim. If you could cite your sources that would be great.
Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy.
Again there is no source listed so I have no idea where this was derived on. If you could give separate sources for the ones where sources are not listed, that could give me a sense of context.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."
He did this as a joke because he thought she was lying about her heritage and refused to do a DNA test. He turned out to be right. Warren is 1/1024 native american. So, this is in invalid example of racism.
Once, Trump pointed to an attendee at a rally and said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”
This is completely great. You should look at the context and the actual video the NYT provided. Trump was applauding him saying "are you the greatest!" and tells a story about how great this black guy was because he slugged people who were wearing KKK hats. Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist.
Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals."
Again, you need to look at context. His statement was "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This is true. There are many illegals smuggling drugs. They indisputably bring crime. Some are rapists. But this last part is key "Some are good people." He was not referring to all Mexicans as these things, he was referring to some ILLEGALS as these things.
Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.
Specifically, 5 countries in the middle east that had large Muslim and Islam populations. He didn't want radical Islamic terrorist attacks happening, which Islam is known for, and he was trying to fix the border problem as there were too many people coming through.
Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets.
Can you cite some of these tweets? Even if he did, it depends what the tweet was about. Could be completely unrelated to race.
When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
He even cited a statistic. "What do you have to lose?" He is saying this because Obama, a black, hadn't fixed the problem, so Trump was saying to vote for him and you might just fix the problems. What is racist about this?
Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee.
Yes and what is your point? How is this racist? He attacked them because he believed they were disrespecting the flag, country, and all of the military people. Taking a knee had never had before, so it was quite a shock to Mr. President, as it was to many people.
Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists.
Trump said “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me." You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.” There were different sides of that protest, and Trump clarified by saying these comments. And the "implied" is very subjective and came from a left-wing source in Vox.
Some Proof Against the Racism of Trump
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?
Sources
Con used left wing biased sources in an opinion article from the NY Times, as well as a very left-wing source in Vox. These biased sources can often de-contextualize the topic and make somewhat bias conclusions, or "implications" in their writing, some of which I have debunked in my arguments. I challenge pro to provide more unbiased sourcing in the future, as cite sources that the NYT or Vox does not.
Conclusion
I have proved that Trump is not racist, and have debunked many claims made by my opponent in reference to Trump's "racism."
Thanks for everybody's time. Back to you con.
Con
#4
I have looked at your cited article and have found no source they put to that claim. If you could cite your sources that would be great.
[1]
Again there is no source listed so I have no idea where this was derived on. If you could give separate sources for the ones where sources are not listed, that could give me a sense of context.
[2]
He did this as a joke because he thought she was lying about her heritage and refused to do a DNA test. He turned out to be right. Warren is 1/1024 native american. So, this is in invalid example of racism.
Actually, it is not. He made that statement before she took the DNA test. Even so, calling someone Pocahontas is a clear sign of racism.
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
This is completely great. You should look at the context and the actual video the NYT provided. Trump was applauding him saying "are you the greatest!" and tells a story about how great this black guy was because he slugged people who were wearing KKK hats. Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist.
That's incorrect. The person who he was talking about was not the person in the audience. Calling someone "my" African-American is clearly racist because it refers to slavery and the owning of black people.
Again, you need to look at context. His statement was "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."This is true. There are many illegals smuggling drugs. They indisputably bring crime. Some are rapists. But this last part is key "Some are good people." He was not referring to all Mexicans as these things, he was referring to some ILLEGALS as these things.
There are 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the US. 105,140 of those are convicted criminals. [1] That's literally less than 1% of the unauthorized immigrants. In fact, some of those charges include very minor things like traffic violations, so the number of actually dangerous criminals is much less. So, because of that, this is clearly a racist and prejudiced statement.
Specifically, 5 countries in the middle east that had large Muslim and Islam populations. He didn't want radical Islamic terrorist attacks happening, which Islam is known for, and he was trying to fix the border problem as there were too many people coming through.
That is not a reason to ban all Muslims. In fact, white and right-wing supporters did almost twice as many terrorist attacks as Muslims between 2008 and 2016. [4] So we should ban white people now too? This is a clear racist and prejudiced action.
Can you cite some of these tweets? Even if he did, it depends what the tweet was about. Could be completely unrelated to race.
It doesn't matter if it is related to race or not. Retweeting anybody shows that you support what they stand for. They stand for white nationalism, and Trump retweeting them shows that he supports that as well.
Tweets:
- @whitegenocidetm – Trump retweeted a joke this user made about Jeb Bush
- @neilturner_ – This user also referenced white genocide in his profile. Trump retweeted this user 6 times.
- @keksec_org – This user was retweeted by the president 5 times. A list of their archived offensive tweets can be seen here
- Jayda Fransen – Fransen is a British user who is well known for making hoax videos of Muslims attacking whites.
[5]
He even cited a statistic. "What do you have to lose?" He is saying this because Obama, a black, hadn't fixed the problem, so Trump was saying to vote for him and you might just fix the problems. What is racist about this?
That statistic isn't even correct. Trump never said that he was going to fix that problem, you're interpolating that into the statement to save it. This is another prejudiced statement against black people.
Yes and what is your point? How is this racist? He attacked them because he believed they were disrespecting the flag, country, and all of the military people. Taking a knee had never had before, so it was quite a shock to Mr. President, as it was to many people.
So instead of making unfounded claims, he should have researched it more to see why they took a knee. But he chose to make a statement about them without knowing anything about the situation or why they were doing that. That's racist and prejudiced.
Trump said “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me." You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.” There were different sides of that protest, and Trump clarified by saying these comments.
Where is his proof that there were many other people in that group besides neo-Nazis and white nationalists? And where has he condemned neo-Nazis? And even if he has, that has nothing to do with
And the "implied" is very subjective and came from a left-wing source in Vox.
It isn't even close to subjective. It is quite clear. He said that both sides - white nationalists and black protesters - were equally responsible for the violence that happened in Charlottesville. That's racist and a supporting comment for white nationalists.
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?
So if a murderer goes around and kills 100 people in cold blood, but he helps an old lady across the street, suddenly he's acquitted? Racists can hire black people, it's not difficult. NASA did it, just watch Hidden Figures.
Con used left wing biased sources in an opinion article from the NY Times, as well as a very left-wing source in Vox. These biased sources can often de-contextualize the topic and make somewhat bias conclusions, or "implications" in their writing, some of which I have debunked in my arguments.
I was not taking the opinion from those articles, and I was not appealing to authority. All I was doing was providing a source for the actions Trump committed. This has nothing to do with the bias of either of those sources.
I challenge pro to provide more unbiased sourcing in the future, as cite sources that the NYT or Vox does not.
Left-wing sources are the only sources that will report on Trump's racism. Right-wing sources will not.
Sources
Round 3
Pro
#5
Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
First off, this was an allegation, the title of your article said it. Could be true, could be not true. I generally stay away from allegations. Second, in your article it says Trump said "She's the worst we've ever had...She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem." How does this have to do with race? Just because she happens to be Hispanic that's what motivated the comments? His reasons were completely unrelated to race, he said it looked bad for them because she gained a lot of weight.
Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy.
"Trump turned to an adviser in the room and seemed to suggest her ethnicity should determine her career path, asking why the "pretty Korean lady" isn't negotiating with North Korea on his administration's behalf, the officials said." So an allegation. These officials didn't want to reveal their identity and decided to remain anonymous, which in my opinion is a little suspicious. And does Trump mean that the pretty Korean lady should be working for Kim Jong Un, supporting his regime, or does he mean he thinks she should be working on North Korea policy, fixing the problem of North Korea?
Actually, it is not. He made that statement before she took the DNA test. Even so, calling someone Pocahontas is a clear sign of racism.
Trump said "Her mother says she has high cheekbones, that's her only evidence." This suggests that Trump obviously didn't believe Pocahontas about her "heritage" because she had no evidence to show for it. “Let's say I'm debating Pocahontas, right? I promise you I'll do this. I will take – you know those little kits they sell on television for $2. Learn your heritage,” Trump said. “And we will say, I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test so that it shows you're an Indian.” Clearly this isn't racist because Trump offered her $1M. All of this has to do with the validity of her claims, not because he is racist.
That's incorrect. The person who he was talking about was not the person in the audience. Calling someone "my" African-American is clearly racist because it refers to slavery and the owning of black people.
Again, out of context. You just implied and jumped to the conclusion he was referring to owning black people and slavery, which is absurd. Trump said "Oh look at my African-American over here, look at him! Are you the greatest? Do you know what I'm talking about? (In reference to the story he was telling about)"
This is the exact opposite of racist. He is praising these black guys for punching people with KKK hats and saying how great they are. I think you know that this example is complete bogus.
There are 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the US. 105,140 of those are convicted criminals. [1] That's literally less than 1% of the unauthorized immigrants. In fact, some of those charges include very minor things like traffic violations, so the number of actually dangerous criminals is much less. So, because of that, this is clearly a racist and prejudiced statement.
In Texas in 2015, the rate of convictions per 100,000 illegal immigrants was 16 percent lower below that of native-born Americans. (https://www.cato.org/blog/murder-mollie-tibbetts-illegal-immigrant-crime-facts) It doesn't matter what percentage of illegals commit crimes, it matters they quantity and if they do it at all. When in comparison to natives, illegals are less likely to commit crime, but crime is crime regardless. 105,000 criminals is a lot, and just adds to the crime problem in our country. Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals. You also left out the drug smuggling part, and it is inevitable that a big part of illegal immigration is cartels smuggling drugs into America. Trump is right to say some are smuggling drugs. There is nothing racist about saying illegal immigration adds unneeded crime into our country. Trump also said after that "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting." He also said "It’s coming from all over South and Latin America." So this is not just remarked towards Mexicans.
The travel ban said "these countries remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory." Keep in mind this was only a temporary ban and the Supreme Court even upheld it. I don't think 5 people on the supreme court are racist.
@whitegenocidetm – Trump retweeted a joke this user made about Jeb Bush
- @neilturner_ – This user also referenced white genocide in his profile. Trump retweeted this user 6 times.
- @keksec_org – This user was retweeted by the president 5 times. A list of their archived offensive tweets can be seen here
- Jayda Fransen – Fransen is a British user who is well known for making hoax videos of Muslims attacking whites
First one- I saw that one it was actually hilarious because low-energy Jeb is doo-doo haha
Haven't heard about the other ones, so can you please cite the actual links to the tweets?
It doesn't matter if it is related to race or not. Retweeting anybody shows that you support what they stand for. They stand for white nationalism, and Trump retweeting them shows that he supports that as well.
If I retweet Planned Parenthood saying "remember to wash your hand before you eat!" it doesn't mean I support abortion and the killing of babies. If I retweet a socialist about something completely unrelated to socialism,that does not mean I support socialism.
That statistic isn't even correct. Trump never said that he was going to fix that problem, you're interpolating that into the statement to save it. This is another prejudiced statement against black people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-jasg-_E5M This is the context surrounding the statement. He was actually supporting Blacks and asking for their vote "if they want to see a better future." Also, "look at how much Black communities have suffered under democratic control." He was showing how he woukd be the guy for Blacks, and whether He was right about it or not, he wanted to give blacks a good life. So no, I'm not interpolating the statement, you are the one who didn't do enough research to find the right context.
So instead of making unfounded claims, he should have researched it more to see why they took a knee. But he chose to make a statement about them without knowing anything about the situation or why they were doing that. That's racist and prejudiced.
He knew they were doing it to protest perceived "racial injustice". He did not agree with this though, and like I said, he thought, and most Americans think, that it was disrespectful to the National Anthem, our whole country, the flag, pride for our country, and to all the military people fighting for our freedom. Many people believe that racial injustice is made up, and whether that is true or not, it is an opinion, and was Trump's opinion. To attack a different opinion and call it racist is troubling.
Where is his proof that there were many other people in that group besides neo-Nazis and white nationalists? And where has he condemned neo-Nazis? And even if he has, that has nothing to do with
There were people on both sides of the argument surrounding the Rob. E Lee statue, here is an article that explain it https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html
In response to my argument in which I stated "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," My opponent responded by saying
So if a murderer goes around and kills 100 people in cold blood, but he helps an old lady across the street, suddenly he's acquitted? Racists can hire black people, it's not difficult. NASA did it, just watch Hidden Figures.
The difference from a murderer is that they are convicted and it is proven. These "racist" claims are up for debate and I have debunked pretty much all of them. I state again "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 also CHOSE a black person to win a million dollars out of all the contestants.
I was not taking the opinion from those articles, and I was not appealing to authority. All I was doing was providing a source for the actions Trump committed. This has nothing to do with the bias of either of those sources.
In some cases you took those words, assumptions, and perceived conclusions from the articles and cited it as evidence for racism.
Left-wing sources are the only sources that will report on Trump's racism. Right-wing sources will not.
Maybe find a central source than, like I suggested saying "unbiased."
Conclusion
I have again debunked my opponent's counter evidence and debunked con's claims that Trump is a racist.
Back over to you, con.
Con
#6
First off, this was an allegation, the title of your article said it. Could be true, could be not true. I generally stay away from allegations.
Unless you can provide reasonable evidence to cast away the testimony, it counts.
Second, in your article it says Trump said "She's the worst we've ever had...She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem." How does this have to do with race? Just because she happens to be Hispanic that's what motivated the comments? His reasons were completely unrelated to race, he said it looked bad for them because she gained a lot of weight.
I never mentioned the weight comment even once. I was specifically referring to when he called her "Miss Housekeeping."
"Trump turned to an adviser in the room and seemed to suggest her ethnicity should determine her career path, asking why the "pretty Korean lady" isn't negotiating with North Korea on his administration's behalf, the officials said." So an allegation.
Can you give reasonable evidence to doubt the testimony?
These officials didn't want to reveal their identity and decided to remain anonymous, which in my opinion is a little suspicious.
That's because they didn't want to be targeted. This happens a lot and it is not surprising when it does.
And does Trump mean that the pretty Korean lady should be working for Kim Jong Un, supporting his regime, or does he mean he thinks she should be working on North Korea policy, fixing the problem of North Korea?
Policy.
Trump said "Her mother says she has high cheekbones, that's her only evidence." This suggests that Trump obviously didn't believe Pocahontas about her "heritage" because she had no evidence to show for it.
His unbelief in her heritage is no reason to start calling her "Pocahontas."
“Let's say I'm debating Pocahontas, right? I promise you I'll do this. I will take – you know those little kits they sell on television for $2. Learn your heritage,” Trump said. “And we will say, I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test so that it shows you're an Indian.” Clearly this isn't racist because Trump offered her $1M. All of this has to do with the validity of her claims, not because he is racist.
First of all, Trump lied and never donated the $1 million dollars. However, that's irrelevant. Secondly, it is racist because identifying someone of a certain group as "one person" from that group is racist. That's like calling every black woman "Harriet Tubman."
Again, out of context. You just implied and jumped to the conclusion he was referring to owning black people and slavery, which is absurd. Trump said "Oh look at my African-American over here, look at him! Are you the greatest? Do you know what I'm talking about? (In reference to the story he was telling about)"This is the exact opposite of racist. He is praising these black guys for punching people with KKK hats and saying how great they are. I think you know that this example is complete bogus.
As I said, the man in the audience was not the man in the story he told. And again, saying "my" to black people has always had that connotation, and what's more, he's again lumping the man into the group of "African-Americans" instead of referring to him as an individual.
In Texas in 2015, the rate of convictions per 100,000 illegal immigrants was 16 percent lower below that of native-born Americans.
This proves my point! Thanks!
It doesn't matter what percentage of illegals commit crimes, it matters they quantity and if they do it at all.
The percentage matters a lot. If you're giving money out to homeless people and there's a 1% chance that they'll spend it on drugs instead of food or something, does that mean you shouldn't give out money altogether? No! That's absurd. However, if it was a 99% chance, then that would be a good decision.
When in comparison to natives, illegals are less likely to commit crime, but crime is crime regardless. 105,000 criminals is a lot, and just adds to the crime problem in our country. Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals.
If crime is crime regardless, why isn't Trump trying to stop babies from being born? As you showed just now, natives commit more crimes than immigrants. Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't.
My point is that he's treating the immigrants differently. That's racism.
You also left out the drug smuggling part, and it is inevitable that a big part of illegal immigration is cartels smuggling drugs into America. Trump is right to say some are smuggling drugs. There is nothing racist about saying illegal immigration adds unneeded crime into our country.
80% of drug smugglers are American citizens. [1] That's the first strike. Most drugs enter through legal ports of entry, so stopping immigration won't stop drugs. [2] That's the second strike. Again, Trump doesn't try to stop birth, which is where MORE crime comes from, as you said. That's discrimination, which is racist. Strike three, he's out!
Trump also said after that "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting." He also said "It’s coming from all over South and Latin America." So this is not just remarked towards Mexicans.
That doesn't matter. They're non-white.
The travel ban said "these countries remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory." Keep in mind this was only a temporary ban and the Supreme Court even upheld it. I don't think 5 people on the supreme court are racist.
First of all, that has nothing to do with Trump. Second of all, where's your source for that?
Haven't heard about the other ones, so can you please cite the actual links to the tweets?
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Respectively.
If I retweet Planned Parenthood saying "remember to wash your hand before you eat!" it doesn't mean I support abortion and the killing of babies. If I retweet a socialist about something completely unrelated to socialism,that does not mean I support socialism.
It does, actually. That's why you must watch who you follow. However, even if what you say is true, Trump has done it more than 10 times. If it was once or twice, sure, we might be able to let that slide, but more than 10 times shows a clear alliance between the values of the two parties. You don't affiliate with those who directly contrast you.
This is the context surrounding the statement. He was actually supporting Blacks and asking for their vote "if they want to see a better future." Also, "look at how much Black communities have suffered under democratic control." He was showing how he woukd be the guy for Blacks, and whether He was right about it or not, he wanted to give blacks a good life.
He was being prejudiced by saying how the effects he described affected all black people. That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race.
So no, I'm not interpolating the statement, you are the one who didn't do enough research to find the right context.
If you have to "find the right context," you're doing something wrong. There is no "right context," there is the context, just one.
He knew they were doing it to protest perceived "racial injustice". He did not agree with this though, and like I said, he thought, and most Americans think, that it was disrespectful to the National Anthem, our whole country, the flag, pride for our country, and to all the military people fighting for our freedom. Many people believe that racial injustice is made up, and whether that is true or not, it is an opinion, and was Trump's opinion. To attack a different opinion and call it racist is troubling.
Now you're using argumentum ad populum. Just because a view is popular doesn't mean it isn't racist. It could be my opinion that your face is ugly because you were born X race. That's my opinion, so does that mean I'm not being racist? No, I'm still being racist even though it's my opinion. Likewise, Trump's opinion can just as easily be racist.
There were people on both sides of the argument surrounding the Rob. E Lee statue, here is an article that explain
He said among the white supremacists, not among the people surrounding the statue. That's two completely different groups.
In response to my argument in which I stated "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,"
So she could either be getting paid off or she's just ignorant. Also, being racist doesn't mean that you can never treat the object of your racism nice.
The difference from a murderer is that they are convicted and it is proven. These "racist" claims are up for debate and I have debunked pretty much all of them.
You completely missed the point of that analogy. My point is that doing one good deed towards black people doesn't automatically excuse someone from being racist.
He also CHOSE a black person to win a million dollars out of all the contestants.
That's not proof of anything. Racists don't necessarily have to be racist every single second of their lives.
In some cases you took those words, assumptions, and perceived conclusions from the articles and cited it as evidence for racism.
That is incorrect. All that I was doing was citing sources that proved that the actions I said actually happened.
Maybe find a central source than, like I suggested saying "unbiased."
That's completely unnecessary. I'm not taking an opinion from them, I'm taking the proof of the claims that I'm making.
Sources:
Round 4
Pro
#7
Miss Housekeeping
This particular one was an allegation and can not be proven. She also won in 1996, which is over 23 years ago. I did say fairly recent evidence and that I would be pretty lenient, but this would not measure up to that. If the allegations are true, it seemed like Trump disliked her a lot, and all together this would not be a fair and clear example of how Trump overall thinks Whites are better than Venezuelan's, because it was directed at one person.
Pretty Korean Lady
Allegations are not provable. If you yourself say that he was directing it at the girl to fix north Korea's policy, what is racist to suggest the radical regime of N.K. should be fixed? How does this prove Trump thinks whites are superior to Korean's?
His unbelief in her heritage is no reason to start calling her "Pocahontas."First of all, Trump lied and never donated the $1 million dollars. However, that's irrelevant. Secondly, it is racist because identifying someone of a certain group as "one person" from that group is racist. That's like calling every black woman "Harriet Tubman."
Trump never lied because the tests proved she wasn't a Native American, and Trump made the condition it would be in debate. The difference here is Trump could make fun of Pocahontas because she's not Indian, so therefore Pocahontas is not in that "group" because she is a fake Indian.
As I said, the man in the audience was not the man in the story he told. And again, saying "my" to black people has always had that connotation, and what's more, he's again lumping the man into the group of "African-Americans" instead of referring to him as an individual.
I understand he wasn't the person in the story. Trump asked him if he knew what he was talking about. The context just does not back you up, I'm sorry. Again, he called him "great" and was referencing a story in which he praised some black guys for slugging KKK members. Everything about that context is anti-racist and has no weight to back up your claim that a pronoun my" could be racist. He described the man as black because he didn't know his name or anything, and also because he was making a point he was black in reference to the story he was telling. It would be the same as saying "look at my supporter" but instead he made it a point to announce he was black. Whether it has that connotation or not, Trump was not using it in such a manner, and no context of the situation backs your claim up.
If crime is crime regardless, why isn't Trump trying to stop babies from being born? As you showed just now, natives commit more crimes than immigrants. Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't.My point is that he's treating the immigrants differently. That's racism.
Are you referencing abortion? I'm so confused when you brought that up. While the bigger source of crime is in the U.S., Trump does not have control over some states and cities laws. He did pass a bi-partisan Criminal Justice Reform. However, Trump has a lot of control over building a wall and stopping illegal immigrants from coming. Trump is trying to stop crime, no matter what the percentage. Treating illegal immigrants differently is not racist because they are illegal. He is not treating them differently from the criminal aspect, however, as he didn't compare or say illegal crime more than crime in our country. Solutions to smaller problems are still good if it reduces crime.
80% of drug smugglers are American citizens. [1] That's the first strike. Most drugs enter through legal ports of entry, so stopping immigration won't stop drugs. [2] That's the second strike. Again, Trump doesn't try to stop birth, which is where MORE crime comes from, as you said. That's discrimination, which is racist.
First, we are not talking about American citizens. Second, he just wants the wall in addition to all the technology and securing ports of entry and fixing the problem there as well. It will stop the other percentage of drugs, just because something is a minority percentage does not mean it can be stopped. Those stats also do not cover the many smugglers that have not been caught due to the open borders. Third, I have no idea what birth or babies has to do with any of this. That's three strikes, you're out!
Strike three, he's out!
I don't know why you thought this would be clever 😂
[In reference to travel ban] First of all, that has nothing to do with Trump. Second of all, where's your source for that?
What do you mean. Trump did the travel ban. If 5 people on the supreme court upheld the ban, are they also racist? It's a serious question because they are backing up Trump's order, so please don't avoid it. Here is my source- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403
**Retweets**
Some of those accounts have been banned so I do not know what they have said. For the retweet of the Muslim guy, he could have been tweeting it to expose or fight back against Islamophobia. Plus, most of these you would have no idea they are White Supremacists by their names. I assume Trump does not look at all their tweets before retweeting it, but instead retweeting stuff that appeals to him, like the Jeb Bush one. It is not provable he is racist by these, especially because you use your opinion in this quote
[He quoted me saying "If I retweet Planned Parenthood saying "remember to wash your hand before you eat!" it doesn't mean I support abortion and the killing of babies. If I retweet a socialist about something completely unrelated to socialism,that does not mean I support socialism."]Speedrace then says in response "It does, actually. That's why you must watch who you follow. However, even if what you say is true, Trump has done it more than 10 times. If it was once or twice, sure, we might be able to let that slide, but more than 10 times shows a clear alliance between the values of the two parties. You don't affiliate with those who directly contrast you."
So my opponent is very bias in this statement, saying that if you repeat something said by someone that has nothing to do with their beliefs, it actually does mean you align with their beliefs. This is confirmation bias used by my opponent on Trump. So by my opponent's logic, since he believes Trump is racist, and I repeat something Trump says or in this case retweet it(which I have done) then I am a racist?! That does not add up though, because I am strictly not racist by a man of morality and Christianity. This argument by my opponent is flawed, and this opinion based matter on my opponent's side does not prove Trump is racist because he is implementing his own opinion into the matter(confirmation bias). You also have not shown 10 tweets.
He was being prejudiced by saying how the effects he described affected all black people. That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race.
He never said all black people. He was referring to some black communities in general which have statistically suffered under Democratic control. Whether what he said about the economic status of some black communities is true or not, it is an opinion that many people share, and does not mean you think you are superior to blacks as people. Once again by the nature of the context behind this statement, it does not prove Trump is racist. Why would he offer a better future for blacks if he is racist, and why is the economy at record highs, unemployment rates, etc. for blacks?
[In reference to the kneeling in NFL] Now you're using argumentum ad populum. Just because a view is popular doesn't mean it isn't racist. It could be my opinion that your face is ugly because you were born X race. That's my opinion, so does that mean I'm not being racist? No, I'm still being racist even though it's my opinion. Likewise, Trump's opinion can just as easily be racist.
You did not respond to the substance of what I said, and your opinion on this is very subjective. Like I said, people didn't like they protested during the anthem, when they could have done it any other time where people didn't think it was disrespectful. It has to do with the anthem and disrespecting multiple things. I think it is disrespectful, so therefore you are calling me racist, when I am not. It is a political issue that has both sides to it, not just an opinion that resorts to the race card.
[Char., VA statue protest incident] He said among the white supremacists, not among the people surrounding the statue. That's two completely different groups.
You didn't read my source I cited (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html). Specifically in the same press conference and answer, Trump said "Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” In a follow up question he said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” In a response directly after the protests happened, Trump said “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Further more proof he is not racist. Again, my opponent fails to have context of the situation.
So she could either be getting paid off or she's just ignorant. Also, being racist doesn't mean that you can never treat the object of your racism nice.
Engaging with conspiracies that she is paid off is ridiculous and completely unprovable, as well as the throw-away attack of "she's just ignorant." Both are anti-intellectual.
You completely missed the point of that analogy. My point is that doing one good deed towards black people doesn't automatically excuse someone from being racist.
You are actually missing my point, which is, you are assuming Trump is racist in this quote, but all of these racist claims you have made against Trump are debatable and not clear and cut racism.
That's not proof of anything. Racists don't necessarily have to be racist every single second of their lives.
If you are genuinely a White Supremacist and racist against a bunch of races, it wouldn't make sense to hand an extremely large sum of one million dollars to a race you discriminate against.
Conclusion
I have proven that Trump is not a racist, and proven that the opponent often does not have context or objective facts on his side.
My opponent has also indirectly called me racist on multiple occasions(Go to NFL kneeling, Tweeting), which is poor conduct.
Back to con for his final arguments and rebuttals.
Con
#8
This particular one was an allegation and can not be proven.
As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.
She also won in 1996, which is over 23 years ago. I did say fairly recent evidence and that I would be pretty lenient, but this would not measure up to that.
That's incorrect. My opponent specifically said "broadly recent years." This fits perfectly fine into that.
If the allegations are true, it seemed like Trump disliked her a lot, and all together this would not be a fair and clear example of how Trump overall thinks Whites are better than Venezuelan's, because it was directed at one person.
Yes, it is. Trump made comments against her that are associated with the social stigma of Hispanics being servants and housekeepers, and this is clearly a slur against her.
Allegations are not provable.
Again, you've given no reason not to believe the testimonies.
If you yourself say that he was directing it at the girl to fix north Korea's policy, what is racist to suggest the radical regime of N.K. should be fixed? How does this prove Trump thinks whites are superior to Korean's?
He was saying that North Koreans can only be useful for North Korean related things, unlike white's who can be useful for a range of things. That's racist.
Trump never lied because the tests proved she wasn't a Native American, and Trump made the condition it would be in debate.
As I said, him giving the million dollars or not is irrelevant.
The difference here is Trump could make fun of Pocahontas because she's not Indian, so therefore Pocahontas is not in that "group" because she is a fake Indian.
First of all, you just admitted that calling a Native American "Pocahontas" is racist. Secondly, he made that joke BEFORE she took the DNA test, so as you just admitted, he was being racist.
I understand he wasn't the person in the story. Trump asked him if he knew what he was talking about. The context just does not back you up, I'm sorry. Again, he called him "great" and was referencing a story in which he praised some black guys for slugging KKK members. Everything about that context is anti-racist and has no weight to back up your claim that a pronoun my" could be racist. He described the man as black because he didn't know his name or anything, and also because he was making a point he was black in reference to the story he was telling. It would be the same as saying "look at my supporter" but instead he made it a point to announce he was black. Whether it has that connotation or not, Trump was not using it in such a manner, and no context of the situation backs your claim up.
First of all, "my" has and has always had that connotation. Secondly, the man he spoke to received loads of hate and negative comments because of this. [1] Again, that's racist.
Are you referencing abortion? I'm so confused when you brought that up.
No, I'm referencing the native populations. Why is it ok for Trump to ignore the criminals being born in our own country but to stop an even SMALLER amount of criminals from elsewhere? That's racist.
While the bigger source of crime is in the U.S., Trump does not have control over some states and cities laws.
He doesn't have control over the border wall, yet he still chooses to fight for that instead of more pressing issues.
He did pass a bi-partisan Criminal Justice Reform.
So why didn't he do a similar thing for immigrants instead of deporting them? That's racism right there.
However, Trump has a lot of control over building a wall and stopping illegal immigrants from coming. Trump is trying to stop crime, no matter what the percentage. Treating illegal immigrants differently is not racist because they are illegal. He is not treating them differently from the criminal aspect, however, as he didn't compare or say illegal crime more than crime in our country. Solutions to smaller problems are still good if it reduces crime.
So spending $7 billion on a very small amount of crime is better than investing that money to stop the bigger source of crime? Again, that's racist. He's using different policies for immigrants and their SMALLER amount of crime than he is for natives and their BIGGER amount of crime.
First, we are not talking about American citizens.
He focuses on immigrants and accusing them of their SMALLER amount of crimes and treats the Americans who commit MORE of the SAME crime differently. That's racist.
Second, he just wants the wall in addition to all the technology and securing ports of entry and fixing the problem there as well. It will stop the other percentage of drugs, just because something is a minority percentage does not mean it can be stopped. Those stats also do not cover the many smugglers that have not been caught due to the open borders.
Again, he's ignoring the bigger problem of American criminals, which is bigger than this one, and focusing on these people even though he has a BIGGER problem at hand. That's racist.
Third, I have no idea what birth or babies has to do with any of this. That's three strikes, you're out!
He's ignoring the source of crime from natives to focus on the one from immigrants, which is smaller. That's racist.
I don't know why you thought this would be clever 😂
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
What do you mean. Trump did the travel ban. If 5 people on the supreme court upheld the ban, are they also racist? It's a serious question because they are backing up Trump's order, so please don't avoid it.
Oh, I was confused because you didn't quote me, so I had no idea why you were randomly bringing up the travel ban.
You're making an appeal to authority here. Just because it was upheld by the Supreme Court doesn't mean it was racist. The countries that were targeted are all 90%-99% Muslim. That's clearly racist, given that MORE terrorist attacks are carried out by Americans.
Some of those accounts have been banned so I do not know what they have said. For the retweet of the Muslim guy, he could have been tweeting it to expose or fight back against Islamophobia.
"Could have" is not an argument. Now you're just making random excuses.
Plus, most of these you would have no idea they are White Supremacists by their names.
Firstly, they were well-known to be white supremacists. Secondly, their bios on Twitter clearly showed how they were white supremacists. Even if Trump didn't know the FIRST time, he would've been told. However, he retweeted many of them MULTIPLE times in a row.
I assume Trump does not look at all their tweets before retweeting it, but instead retweeting stuff that appeals to him, like the Jeb Bush one.
An assumption is a horrible argument. What are you basing this assumption off of? Why should we believe that this assumption is valid?
It is not provable he is racist by these, especially because you use your opinion in this quote
Yes, it most certainly is. He clearly aligns with their values.
So my opponent is very bias in this statement, saying that if you repeat something said by someone that has nothing to do with their beliefs, it actually does mean you align with their beliefs. This is confirmation bias used by my opponent on Trump. So by my opponent's logic, since he believes Trump is racist, and I repeat something Trump says or in this case retweet it(which I have done) then I am a racist?!
I never said that. What I said was that retweeting someone MULTIPLE times who has clear defined beliefs is aligning with those beliefs. You retweeting Trump shows that you align with his political and Republican beliefs.
That does not add up though, because I am strictly not racist by a man of morality and Christianity.
First of all, there are plenty of moral and Christian men who are racist (I'm not saying you are).
This argument by my opponent is flawed, and this opinion based matter on my opponent's side does not prove Trump is racist because he is implementing his own opinion into the matter(confirmation bias). You also have not shown 10 tweets.
I did show 10 tweets. The links I have contained them. In fact, I believe they contained even more than just 10 tweets.
He never said all black people.
He said "you." In the vernacular language, this means either one person or everyone in a particular group. He obviously wasn't talking to just one person, so this must mean ALL black people. Had he said "some" black people, it would have been fine, but he did not.
He was referring to some black communities in general which have statistically suffered under Democratic control.
Where's your proof of these statistics?
Whether what he said about the economic status of some black communities is true or not, it is an opinion that many people share, and does not mean you think you are superior to blacks as people. Once again by the nature of the context behind this statement, it does not prove Trump is racist. Why would he offer a better future for blacks if he is racist, and why is the economy at record highs, unemployment rates, etc. for blacks?
It is racist, because assuming someone's social status is low because of their skin color is racist. He would offer a better future for them because he wanted their vote. Where's your proof fo these record highs and unemployment rates that you claim for black people?
You did not respond to the substance of what I said, and your opinion on this is very subjective. Like I said, people didn't like they protested during the anthem, when they could have done it any other time where people didn't think it was disrespectful. It has to do with the anthem and disrespecting multiple things. I think it is disrespectful, so therefore you are calling me racist, when I am not. It is a political issue that has both sides to it, not just an opinion that resorts to the race card.
It's not about whether it's disrespectful or not; it's the fact that Trump attacked them. That's racist.
You didn't read my source I cited (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html). Specifically in the same press conference and answer, Trump said "Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” In a follow up question he said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” In a response directly after the protests happened, Trump said “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Further more proof he is not racist. Again, my opponent fails to have context of the situation.
The quote literally says "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." On BOTH sides. That's calling white supremacists "fine people."
Engaging with conspiracies that she is paid off is ridiculous and completely unprovable, as well as the throw-away attack of "she's just ignorant." Both are anti-intellectual.4
I was not engaging in conspiracies. I was simply offering a possible solution.
You are actually missing my point, which is, you are assuming Trump is racist in this quote, but all of these racist claims you have made against Trump are debatable and not clear and cut racism.
What I said here has nothing to do with a quote. I was saying that Trump can be nice to black people sometimes and still be racist.
If you are genuinely a White Supremacist and racist against a bunch of races, it wouldn't make sense to hand an extremely large sum of one million dollars to a race you discriminate against.
Racism doesn't make sense, yet it happens. Being racist doesn't mean that you have to do racist things 24/7.
Sources:
Round 5
Pro
#9
As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.[Mrs. Housekeeping]That's incorrect. My opponent specifically said "broadly recent years." This fits perfectly fine into that.
Trump never addressed this allegation, only the "Mrs. piggy" one. I'm sorry, but the BoP isn't to prove the allegation is not true, the BoP is to prove the allegation is true. Since it can't be proved, this is not clear and cut evidence Trump is racist.
23 years ago is not broadly recent. I even said in the comments "Lets say 10 years ago, but I won't be too picky." Speedrace commented to me after I posted that comment. This is 2x that amount of years. Since this is extremely borderline, and is an allegation directed towards one person, more evidence is required to prove Trump is racist. All of my opponent's other claims of Trump being racist are perfectly fine and in broadly recent years, so let's examine those.
Again, you've given no reason not to believe the testimonies.
Again, you have to prove allegations, not me proving they are not true. If an allegation of a crime is made by someone towards me, it is there job to prove that it is true, not mine to prove it didn't happen.
He was saying that North Koreans can only be useful for North Korean related things, unlike white's who can be useful for a range of things. That's racist.
He never said that, you are paraphrasing. This was an allegation and not provable. There is nothing racist about saying she should try and fix N.K.'s radical regime. Substantial evidence that can be proven should be taken into account, not allegations that Trump hasn't responded to.
First of all, you just admitted that calling a Native American "Pocahontas" is racist. Secondly, he made that joke BEFORE she took the DNA test, so as you just admitted, he was being racist.
First, depends on what tone and context you use it in. Second, as I said before, Trump called her Pocahontas because he was making fun of her not being able to prove she was, and that her only evidence is she has "high cheekbones." Look at the source I quoted before. She refused to take a DNA test originally, so Trump, like many others, thought she was obviously lying when she looks no where near Indian.
Trump had a white house event honoring native American veterans (http://time.com/5038410/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas-2/), which is anti-racist, and made the same Pocahontas claim in reference to her lying about her heritage. It was the lack of evidence and alleged lying that Trump mocked here. I never admitted Trump was racist. Nice spin.
First of all, "my" has and has always had that connotation. Secondly, the man he spoke to received loads of hate and negative comments because of this. [1] Again, that's racist.
Once again, my opponent did not respond to the context around that in which I said " Trump asked him if he knew what he was talking about. The context just does not back you up, I'm sorry. Again, he called him "great" and was referencing a story in which he praised some black guys for slugging KKK members. Everything about that context is anti-racist and has no weight to back up your claim that a pronoun my" could be racist. He described the man as black because he didn't know his name or anything, and also because he was making a point he was black in reference to the story he was telling. It would be the same as saying "look at my supporter" but instead he made it a point to announce he was black. Whether it has that connotation or not, Trump was not using it in such a manner, and no context of the situation backs your claim up." along with other context the previous rounds. Secondly, that has little to do with the matter. He received hate because people thought he was a Trump supporter, which has nothing to do with the comments. The context is the complete opposite of my opponent's claims. He provides also no proof that "my" has that connotation, especially when he is called the "greatest," and tells a story about how great blacks are.
I'm referencing the native populations. Why is it ok for Trump to ignore the criminals being born in our own country but to stop an even SMALLER amount of criminals from elsewhere? That's racist.
How do we know that they are criminals when they are born? This comment does not make any sense and my opponent does not elaborate on it.
He doesn't have control over the border wall, yet he still chooses to fight for that instead of more pressing issues.
He had control to try and persuade congress, and he has control to conduct a National Emergency, which he already has done.
So why didn't he do a similar thing for immigrants instead of deporting them? That's racism right there.
Either they were criminals or he deported some because they were ILLEGAL. They broke the law and did not come in the right way. It has to do with our laws in place that you have to come legally and not cut the line, not some bogus racism claim.
So spending $7 billion on a very small amount of crime is better than investing that money to stop the bigger source of crime? Again, that's racist. He's using different policies for immigrants and their SMALLER amount of crime than he is for natives and their BIGGER amount of crime.
You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished.
He focuses on immigrants and accusing them of their SMALLER amount of crimes and treats the Americans who commit MORE of the SAME crime differently. That's racist.
Every immigrant who comes illegally is by default committing a crime without the approval of an immigration officer. He focuses on illegal immigration because it is against federal law to enter illegally, and he is simply trying to enforce those laws.
You're making an appeal to authority here. Just because it was upheld by the Supreme Court doesn't mean it was racist. The countries that were targeted are all 90%-99% Muslim. That's clearly racist, given that MORE terrorist attacks are carried out by Americans.
So my opponent is saying 5 supreme court judges are racist. Glad to know. Second, like I quoted before, which my opponent didn't respond to, the travel ban statement said "these countries remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory." It was to prevent Islamic terrorism, and while more terrorist attacks are by whites, you can't stop those as effectively as you can at the border, by screening them BEFORE they become U.S. citizens. Trump has said it is because of the radical Islamic attacks, not just because he feels like banning ordinary Muslims, whether he was aware of the statistics or not.
Tweets
"Could have" is not an argument. Now you're just making random excuses.
It is not an excuse, but a probable explanation of it.
Firstly, they were well-known to be white supremacists. Secondly, their bios on Twitter clearly showed how they were white supremacists. Even if Trump didn't know the FIRST time, he would've been told. However, he retweeted many of them MULTIPLE times in a row.
I didn't know white supremacists were well known. I'm pretty sure they are no where near celebrities. Second, you can't even see their bios because most of the accounts are suspended. Even so, you are assuming people look at everyone's bios before they retweet them.
"Would have" is not an argument. Now your just making random excuses.
An assumption is a horrible argument. What are you basing this assumption off of? Why should we believe that this assumption is valid?
Why should we believe he does look at all their tweets before he posts? Why should I believe that assumption is valid, on top of the many allegations you assume are valid that you noted previously in the debate about "Mrs. Housekeeping and pretty Korean lady?"
I never said that. What I said was that retweeting someone MULTIPLE times who has clear defined beliefs is aligning with those beliefs. You retweeting Trump shows that you align with his political and Republican beliefs.
You did say that. Since you believe Trump is clearly racist, and I have retweeted Trump multiple times, is you saying I'm a racist because because I have retweeted someone multiple times who is "clearly racist." Your logic, not mine.
He said "you." In the vernacular language, this means either one person or everyone in a particular group. He obviously wasn't talking to just one person, so this must mean ALL black people. Had he said "some" black people, it would have been fine, but he did not.
You are arguing over what pronouns mean. He said "Look how much african-american communities have suffered under democratic control. To THOSE I say, what do you have to lose?" Directly before the "you" he said "those", which is referring to some of the communities that have suffered. Again, Speedrace fails to look at the context.
It is racist, because assuming someone's social status is low because of their skin color is racist. He would offer a better future for them because he wanted their vote. Where's your proof for these record highs and unemployment rates that you claim for black people?
He never assumed that, he was arguing against democratic policies which made some black communities worse. He actually said "Hillary thinks of blacks only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future." In May and November of 2018, the unemployment rate hit 5.9%, the lowest ever among blacks.(https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/black-unemployment-rate-falls-to-5point9percent-ties-record-low-hit-this-year.html)
It's not about whether it's disrespectful or not; it's the fact that Trump attacked them. That's racist.[NFL kneeling]
So if you attack someone just because they are black it is suddenly racist?? Trump has attacks people of all different kinds, it is because of the substance which they are doing, not because of their race and identity politics which Liberals like to play. Trump recently attacked Rob Mueller because of how he wrote the report, is he also racist against whites just because Mueller is white? This is a poor argument.
The quote literally says "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." On BOTH sides. That's calling white supremacists "fine people."This was in response to my previous rebuttal, "You didn't read my source I cited (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html). Specifically in the same press conference and answer, Trump said "Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” In a follow up question he said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” In a response directly after the protests happened, Trump said “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Further more proof he is not racist. Again, my opponent fails to have context of the situation."
Can my opponent read the quotes he said? In the same exact comment, he says "You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He specifically says this as one of the "sides" in the group. He was clearly referring to the confederate monument debate. Directly after in a clarification he said specifically “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” My opponent is having a hard time comprehending this, along with the other comment from Trump after the incident “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” My opponent does not have any context whatsoever to support his side. There is no way to spin this.
I was not engaging in conspiracies. I was simply offering a possible solution.This was in response to Lynne Parton, a former party planner for the Trump org. saying "as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way she would work for an individual who was racist."
My opponent previously said "So she could either be getting paid off or she's just ignorant." Is this how one should debate, and then double down on it. Hold on, I'm going to revise my statements about the allegations made towards Trump.
As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.
Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping".
"Trump turned to an adviser in the room and seemed to suggest her ethnicity should determine her career path, asking why the "pretty Korean lady" isn't negotiating with North Korea on his administration's behalf, the officials said."
The officials got paid off to say that.
Conclusion
I have debunked the claims that Trump is racist by providing reasonable to evidence to rebut the claims and providing context around some of the situations.
Per the rules my opponent will waive the final round. Speedrace agreed to in the comments when I commented "you will waive the last round, are you accepting of this rule?"
He replied "I agree." (I forgot to put it in the debate description)
Therefore, Speedrace may only respond to my new argument I put.
"Trump had a white house event honoring native American veterans (http://time.com/5038410/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas-2/), which is anti-racist"
He may strictly only reply to this one thing, not the Pocahontas, not anything else. No conclusions or any other messages shall be written other than this. Violation will result in a loss of conduct point.
I have enjoyed this debate and I thank my con for participating in it, it was a fun one. Vote Pro!
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:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/740?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=155
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:
Kiss my goddamn ass.
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:
Spelling and Grammar:
- Both had good spelling and grammar so it is a tie.
Reliable Sources:
- Both provided good and reasonable sources to back up their claims.
Conduct:
- Both had good conduct overall
Convincing Arguments:
- Pro was very dishonest in this point when he stated,
" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals and Con pointed this out in statements such as,
" The percentage matters a lot. If you're giving money out to homeless people and there's a 1% chance that they'll spend it on drugs instead of food or something, does that mean you shouldn't give out money altogether? No! That's absurd. However, if it was a 99% chance, then that would be a good decision."
and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."
Nextly Pro stated,
" So this is not just remarked towards Mexicans."
Con than argued,
" That doesn't matter. They're non-white."
- This is a very valid point since the debate is not on whether or not Trump is racist again Mexicans, this is on racism in general.
One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out.
Pro also misrepresented Con's point regarding his analogy on giving black people jobs by stating,
" The difference from a murderer is that they are convicted and it is proven. These "racist" claims are up for debate and I have debunked pretty much all of them."
To which Con responded with,
" You completely missed the point of that analogy. My point is that doing one good deed towards black people doesn't automatically excuse someone from being racist."
- This is obviously true since Con wasn't exactly making a claim, he was simply making an analogy and debunking the giving jobs to a minoritys argument. Very plainly Pro completely missed the point of Con's argument.
All of that aside, arguably the biggest reason I feel Pro completely lost the debate was on the " biased" sources argument. Pro stated,
" Maybe find a central source than, like I suggested saying "unbiased."
To which Con replied expertly by stating,
" That's completely unnecessary. I'm not taking an opinion from them, I'm taking the proof of the claims that I'm making."
- Pro very obviously doesn't understand that even if the sources Con used were " bias", Con wasn't using them for their opinion but rather for the statistics and data.
- This point completely makes Pro's argument regarding the sources fall apart.
Another point in the debate which absoulutely destroyed pro's credibility was with their response to Con's point being,
" As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.
Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."
- To which Pro made a very baseless and downright absurd accusation with little to no evidence nor analysis by stating,
"Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."
- What's really ironic about this is that Pro seems to always talk about how Con is just making assumptions while Pro is doing the EXACT same thing.
- Pro, however, did this NOT once but TWICE in the debate with another accusation similar to this regarding the " pretty Korean lady" claim. To which Pro stated,
" The officials got paid off to say that."
- This is yet another absurd and baseless accusation made by Pro.
To conclude, it is obvious to anyone who reads this debate that Con has provided substantial evidence to believe that Trump is a racist as Pro throughout this entire debate relied on making baseless accusations and overall had little understanding of con's arguments.
All of this said I award Convincing arguments to pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: I think some people are being tough on pro, he made good arguments and corrected many inaccuracies in Cons statements. I was even thinking about giving the reliable sources mark for Pro. Great debate and equally good arguments on both sides.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
"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 now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."
RFD:
Arguments:
A lot of Con’s arguments were just allegations, with no proof to back them up, such as the incident with the Korean analyst.
Con claimed that Trump is racist because he called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Trump was obviously joking about her obsession with her Native American heritage, and that she was actually lying about it. Warren is not Native American.
Con claimed that Trump was racist because he wanted to ban people based on religion.
Con also shifted the burden of proof on pro, stating that Pro has to present evidence to doubt his allegations about the Korean analyst.
Overall, Pro managed to debunk all of Con’s arguments except for “White supremacists are good people”.
Sources:
Con provided opinion articles and sources from biased news sites. He also only provided tweet sources when asked by Pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments
>Reason for Decision: see above.
>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient.
While pro covers the main arguments - he does not assess the counter arguments, or provide weighting these arguments against each other. Sources were also insufficiently explained.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) 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.
For sources: 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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: TheAtheist // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Pro debunked all of Con’s arguments.
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.
---Initial thoughts toward voting---
BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.
Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).
Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.
C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).
C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).
C3
Bump
u
m
p
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con used arguments that were allegation such as point 1, wasn't racist-point 2, failed to meet the burden of proof like point 5 and 8, and last forgot to include the context in the last two points. NOT GOOD
>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.
The presents an incomplete consideration of the main arguments, does not assess or weigh counter arguments, or provide any explanation of weighting - thus this vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
>:)
nope
That was an example, if it was the only one then I wouldn’t call him racist, however, with the other ones then it is
"Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee."
A LOT of people did, if you are racist for doing that than ATLEAST half the country is racist.
You were saying?
That’s dedication lol, thanks dude
So what I’m left with, is Trump retweeting white nationalists for no good reasons. Unfairly characterizing Mexican immigrants, unfairly using derogatory language about a Hispanic miss universe competitor he didn’t like, and asking why a Korean staff member didn’t work on North Korea issues.
I feel this all establishes a clear pattern of racial prejudice that pro cannot account for, there remain too many unanswered questions in too many cases to take pros side. Pros defence was stilted, and gave the impression of Kettle logic, with a multitude of justifications as to why each individual party of the overall onslaught was acceptable.
Worse, many of the arguments I’ve given to pro here are granted under an acceptable benefit of the doubt, with pro winning individual points not because he absolved Trump, but that there was sufficient doubt not to give it to con.
Overall, I am forced to now conclude whether I side with pro or con with regards whether this behaviour is racist or simply unbridled prejudice : your inconsiderate Grandpa, or a white supremacist. The dealbreaker here was the white supremacist tweets - as a result of these I am forced to concluded there is genuine racial animus by the arguments con presented over and above simple prejudice.
As a result: arguments to con.
What im left with, is cons statement that Trump singling our a black person at a rally was racist, and asking “what do you have to lose”, to the black community. I feel these were a bit of a reach, while it’s true the latter could be construed as an overgeneralization, I don’t feel it’s enough on its own.
So, for the big one: the wall.
Con points out what Trump said about Mexicans, and illegal immigrants. The portrayal and context appears clearly talking about “Most”, with the “some I presume”, indicating the idea that he felt there were probably some good individuals present; there is little other way I can take this, and pro encouraging me to believe Trump didn’t mean what he said here is particularly bad.
What con went on to do, is argue that Illegal immigrants bring very low levels of crime - intimating that pros portrayal is massively inaccurate too. Pro even appears to concede it was not true, and trump used Mexicans to mean South American illegal immigration in general.
Con goes into explain the issues with drugs, that smugglers are mostly American, and to point out the absurdity of pros claims about any levels of crime being bad - the whole point was the misportrayal of Mexicans. However, pro appears to have pulled con away from this argument into a discussion about crime reduction, ignoring trumps wholesale misrepresentation of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Pro never addresses this point, after implicitly conceding it was a misrepresentation by agreeing with the figures that show Trump was wrong in his portrayal.
What con didn’t do, was any contrast: Pro gave me substantial reason to show me Trump was grossly overgeneralizing Mexican immigration, but not specifically a great reason why it was specific due to race. Though this is implicit.
Finally, the final point is pros objection to Trump being racist based on various non racist actions. I feel con very much hit the nail on the head with his murderer example.
This, and the issue with the policy adviser being asked if they should work on North Korea, were sourced articles - simply denying their validity is not enough: so I have to consider these as valid arguments.
I have to dismiss the footballers, and Muslim ban as counting for pro.
For white supremacists: con points out that Trump has repeatedly shared white supremacist posts, and highlights a multitude of examples. Pro demands specific tweets, and con generally obliges. Pros response here seems not to deny the retweets, but to argue that Trump can retweet prominent white nationalists accounts 6 times, or 5 times and “not know” they were. Pro also makes an excuse about the behaviour and motivation of one example - claiming it was the probable reason for the tweet was to fight islamaphobia or to expose.
Pros counters here feel a woefull mismatch of excuses and con appeared to very much have the upper hand - con argues that this is more than once or twice, and is a pattern; and most of what pro can offer is weak denials, and counter examples. I have to award this point to con, on these grounds: I can’t see how it’s reasonable to be retweeting white nationalist like this multiple times - and con simply did not do enough to even come close to mitigating this point.
With regards to the unite the right rally. I feel con does just enough here. By pointing out the full context of the quote it paints a portrait of a misquote. I don’t think this is necessarily true - but con did not point out any key mischaracterizations Trump made. Nor whether there is any racial connotations by minimizing one side as he did. That’s where con could have won this point, but pro did well to simply muddy the water enough.
So imo, this debate is a bit of a mess. The definitions are wishy washy, and neither side really engages in a systematic attempt to justify why actions as a whole makes the conclusion that Trump is it is not a racist justified or not.
Cons primary problem here is three fold: There was the selecting of a hugely restrictive definition of racism, there was the repeated assertion that a given action is racist without clear justification, and no broad argument about actions as a whole.
In my opinion, it is not enough for con to simply state that calling Warren Pocahontas is racist. Simply stating attacking football players for kneeling is racist is not enough on its own, either without a clear focus on the racial identity and a clearer outline of why the actions single out African Americans intentionally on the grounds of race. An argument is there to be made - but wasn’t here.
Similarly, con focused on the resulting Muslim ban - rather than the initial campaign language, the first couple of iterations, and any of the multitude of associated evidence about the choice of countries- massively eroded this point.
This allows pro to portray the actions as reasonable based on events and so with no clear description of what makes these actions specifically racist - the actions may be reasonable. I don’t believe pro is necessarily correct on any of these points - but without any detailed argument on what makes these acts specifically racist, I can’t assume they are.
Con recovers somewhat in the final rounds - a bit - pointing out the issue of miss housekeeping, that it is a racial slur due to the connotations and stigma of hispanics working as cleaners. Pros only real argument against this was such a slur was directed at the woman because he didn’t like her, and to deny across the board that these examples even happened - I don’t find this a compelling rebuttal at all.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per our standards.
***********************************************************************
wut lol
I don’t see what the purpose of that was, but ok, LOL
Bump
u
m
p
Pls vote
lol
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See Pinkfreud08's vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************
do wut
O i'm on fire rn
52 days left.
Y u do dat
wait there's 54 days left lmao i was thinking of another debate now i should stop stressing haha im dumb
I know lol, we’ll seeeeeeeeeeeee >:)
Even though he is leftist, he is a pretty fair voter, and it's the only chance I have.
Please, like he’d vote for you
Plus Ralph can just vote again :D
maybe 1 more coming...
You haven't voted on this debate. 2 days left!
One vote is all I need haha :P
lol ur not getting away w/ that xD
I noticed that too, weeeeeeeelp
Wrick just copied and pasted pinkfreuds vote. I reported it.
" And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. "
- Well again you provided no analysis as to WHY these sources are bias, all you did was call them liberal which isn't a good argument. By this logic, I could just call you bias since you're conservative.
- Also a point you STILL haven't addressed is Con rebuttal to you calling these sources bias since he NEVER used the source for their opinion but rather for their statistics. Even if the sources were " bias " it's irrelevant.
" I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. "
- Aside from the fact you did a poor attempt at sarcasm, that's not the only issue I have with it.
- Since you STILL never addressed the claims made by your opponent and instead opted out to make a joke.
The bottom line is once again you fail to understand my vote and are instead pulling red herrings and dodging the arguments made. You also haven’t addressed and given proper evidence for your poorly constructed claims that I’m an SJW and Bias.
" These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on."
- Since you have neglected to explain how your opponent took you out of context on these points, I will ignore them
" Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling."
- You've provided no analysis of this point so again I will ignore it.
The bottom line is I shouldn't have to look at the debate or analysis it myself, it's your job to do so. I saw no point in the debate where he took you out of context or insulted you. Regarding the racist thing, you still haven't provided a defended yourself against him calling you racist.
" I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. "
- Who care's if he called you racist? Again you called me an SJW, you call people libtards, and you call sources bias. You are one of the last people to complain about poor conduct when you do the exact same in debates and in comment sections.
Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling.
"Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed."
I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. They paraphrase what in their opinion Trump meant, and also take things out of context. Not poor conduct.
My opponent claimed someone was bribed, not me. I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. I made actual arguments on the things I claimed they were bribed. He started that. Not me. You should change your vote on that. Can't even pay attention to the debate.
Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee.
Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.
Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."
Once, Trump pointed to an attendee at a rally and said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”
These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on.
“ You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)”
First of all, I did not find any point in the debate where he directly took you out of context at all. If you do find a point where he did that then please tell me so I can alter my vote.
Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed.
The bottom line is you obviously have little understanding of my vote, pull red herrings, and make baseless and absurd accusations.
" You don't even address this."
- I didn't address your argument because it didn't make any sense at all. This is because you are pulling an obvious red herring, Con's main argument wasn't about the wall, it was on how Trump is making poorly constructed conclusions on crime and is assuming that illegals are bringing in lots of crime when in reality the native population creates more crime. An argument you failed to address in a logical manor since regardless of the illegal to legal population, Trump is STILL making an unfounded claim against immigrants in the country.
" It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)"
- If you feel that way, than report my vote and we can let the mods handle it. If the mods believe I did misunderstand your entire argument then I will alter my vote.
- Let's say for a second I did “ misunderstand “ your points, this still doesn’t prove that i’m bias in
any way.
" You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting."
- That is a baseless accusation and since you have provided no evidence to prove that I will ignore it.
" He wasn't making an assumption."
- yes he was, he literally stated that the majority of blacks should vote for him when they're in poverty. This is an obvious prejudicial statement to make against blacks whether it's true or not. This is as if I went to the USSR and and called people there communists indiscriminately, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant since it’s still a discriminatory statement.
" He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point."
- He stated that SOME are good people. Implying that he believes the MAJORITY are bad people.
Your second vote point was...
"" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals "
Trump was addressing specifically the people he was talking about(violent criminals) and pointing out the problem with illegal immigration. Saying some doesn't imply a majority, the violent criminals are obviously some as well. He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point.
The final example and borderline is this one in your vote...
and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."
You don't even do an explanation for this. I did respond to this by saying "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished."
You don't even address this.
It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's argument's, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)
You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting.
You only had 2 relevant points that awarded Con argument points which were.....
"One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out."
He wasn't making an assumption. Statistically, the single motherhood rate for blacks is the highest ever at 72%, Blacks account for the majority of crime and murder despite them being 13% of the population, the unemployment rate for blacks is the highest among all groups (which Trump has gotten down to record numbers), 58% of their youth is unemployed, the poverty rate is at 20%, highest among all major races, the lowest sat score benchmark percentage at 20%,etc.
Now Trump was saying some of these things are affected by democratic policies, specifically economically(because he is a business man), and he has shown that he is doing good for black people by the lowest unemployment rates and booming economy for blacks. Blacks are statistically worse at things than other races. Trump was making a pitch to try something new in Trump, being a business man and not your typical president(not even a politician). Claiming this is racist is very opinionated and not clear and cut.
Since you are unable to back up your poorly constructed hypothesis and accusation against my character, I would like to ask of you to please refrain from making such absurd and baseless accusations in the future.
Let's say that I state that some white people are good people.
In this context, I would be implying that since some are good, this means the rest must be bad.