Donald Trump Is Racist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Racist: showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
I will be using the reasons stated in my previous debate on this topic.
Miss Housekeeping, Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Lying Ted, Little Michael Bloomberg, Da Nang Dick, Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, Low Energy Jeb, Boot-Edge-Edge, Crooked Hillary, Leakin' Lyin' James Comey. Most of the people he calls names are actually white. All you have is one Latino? I just think he likes making up nicknames which is going to make this Democratic race very entertaining.
What he is talking about are those who come across the border. Not the Mexicans on the other side.
I would actually say that anyone crossing into our country is a bad person because they have broken the law. Just like I would call a home invader a bad person for breaking into my house.
What specifically did Trump retweet?
Facts are facts. Most blacks, unfortunately, live in Democratic run cities that do not offer blacks better job opportunities. However, we are seeing black unemployment go down so more opportunities are being created and should lift them out of poverty if they start leaving the inner cities.
I would say the Democratic party is racist because they keep the majority of blacks on their urban plantations.
I want to say that Trump said there were "some very nice people on both sides", not all. Some of the protesters were only protesting the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue not for a white supremacist rally. Others were protesting in favor of the tearing down of the statue. But, then you had white supremacists and Antifa in the mix and both of them started the riot.
One would think that under a racist president the unemployment of blacks would have skyrocketed by now not gone lower.
When anti-semetic Hitler became leader in Germany he made Germany more anti-semetic not less.
If Trump would have been racist America should be more racist, not less.
The study found that America was more racist under a black president than under Trump.
Let me give you what he said at the presser: "Trump said “both sides. “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.” ... “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” ... “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.”
I don't get how calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas is racist. If anything Warren is a racist for trying to get better job positions by using her small percentage of Indian blood. I have more Native American blood than she does.
Trump didn't ban Muslims from the US. Where are the mass deportations? What he did was ban visas from countries in the Middle East that sponsor terror and chant "Death to America". If you ask me I don't want those people in our country.
I said: white supremacists were morally equivalent to twhe people resisting racism.I don't know where you got that from.
The first retweet doesn't show any favor of white supremacists. Yes, he retweeted something that they posted, but it had to do with Jeb Bush not with any black person.I don't even know who Neil Turner is, but I will assume that he is a white supremacist or racist. I just want to let you know that Jason Kessler, the one who organized the Charlottesville rally was an Obama supporter and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about Obama and his friend Farakhan. All I am trying to say is that presidents will have bad people support them. Trump didn't retweet anything racist. So if you are trying to say he is guilty by association, then Obama must be an anti-Semite for his friendship with Lois Farakhan. At least Trump wasn't personal friends with any of these left-wing neo-nazis.
"My opponent doesn’t provide any sources for his claims and doesn’t even mention Trump in this paragraph."My opponent obviously lives in a bubble. Most blacks do live in the inner cities. How many are living in middle-of-nowhere North Dakota? I have been to Gary, IN and southside Chicago where there are hundreds of thousands of blacks. And sadly for them they live in the crummiest part of town. Are their mayors capitalist republicans or social Democrats. You tell me.
"He also dropped the point on discriminating against black apartment renters."That is because I am done with it. Trump said himself that it wasn't to keep out blacks, but welfare people. Unfortunately welfare people don't keep their places really clean. I know by experience. If you can't counter my argument that is your problem, not mine.
So, let’s start with the charlottsville rally.
While this goes back and forth. At the end, pro is able to provide evidence that the “rally” Trump was referring to was not simply protesting the statue being removed, but was a white supremacist rally. While con simply denied this, pro sources this claim.
Given who Trump was referring to, and that he appeared to be specifically referencing a night when alt right protesters were shouting Jews will not replace us, this seems fairly clear cut.
This clarification makes the nature of the full quote more ambiguous - was he simply down playing the white supremacism and Neo Nazis in the crowd? This seems to clearly cast down on cons interpretation, and I have to side with con.
In terms of retweeting white nationalists - pro offered clear cut evidence of the present repeatedly retweeting white nationalists. In so doing, pro indicates a pattern of association and support. I find cons defence severely lacking here, he does not offer much of at all to downplay the significance or explain how this could occur without tacit support - with groups that trump should know better than to retweet. I have to side with pro here too.
Pro offers specific, but old example of racist actions taken by trump in his apartments, while not much space is dedicated this seems fairly clear cut - that Trump instructed employees not to allow black individuals - his source shows this was specifically black individuals, not just people on welfare. Con drops this point, thus this goes to pro too.
For Mexicans are rapists, in cons favour was that Trump appeared to be referencing illegal immigrants, what is in pros favour was that he showed almost everything that was said, by Trump. Con appears to drop all of these points. This leaves me with Trump talking about Mexican immigrants, grossly exaggerated. This isn’t wholly to pro, but mostly.
Muslim ban: not much space was dedicated to this, but pro argued trump banned Muslims despite Americans commiting more terrorist acts: this implies a cleat animus towards Muslims - though pro didn’t fully hash out why he believes Muslim has a racial component. So this doesn’t go to pro.
On cons side, con argues that racism isn’t increasing, that Trump isn’t harming blacks: pro gives a good explanation of relevance here: the argument is that Trump is a racist personally, rather than like Hitler, where he was racist in terms of policy - the two are not the same.
Claims about Obama’s or democrats being racist may or may not be true - but don’t effect the resolution.
Other than this there were a few smaller minor claims that were worth little mention as the big claims validate the resolution on their own even if I were to accept or reject the rest.
Because of the clear pattern of behaviour on multiple fronts that were shown by pro - pro clearly demonstrate a pattern of racism and so arguments go to pro.
Sources: these also go to pro. Pros main claims were backed up by sources, vox for unite the right clearly showed his position was accurate and undermined cons counter - con claim what pro was saying was untrue despite it being validated by this source.
The racist apartment offering tore apart cons counter claim that Trump wasn’t racist by demonstrating that action was being taken against blacks - not specifically those on welfare.
These two sources fundamentally undermined cons only counter argument, and clearly bolstered the warrant of pros argument substantially. Con offered minimal sourcing, on largely redundant points (such as stats about racial economic benefits), so largely had no effect on his overall warrant.
Basic rule of debating: Don’t make someone else’s case for them!
S&G: tie
Leans in pro’s favor, but not by enough to take the point. The big thing I would say (to con) here is organization was lacking; I should not have had to dig with CTRL+F to find if argument lines were continued.
Sources: PRO
I hate to say this was by magnitude, but the lack of counter evidence (a single propaganda source in the final round doesn’t count) made it unquestionably in favor of pro. Trump’s white genocide support tweet was the biggest damning one which could not be out argued. R1 sources were just spammed in there at the end, so were not given any weight.
Arguments: PRO
Below I’ve reviewed the different argument segments. Pro showed that Trump is more racist than not, whereas con proved that not every case where Trump seems to be acting racist is necessary due to racist intent... Had the dropped points been argued even to the level of being tied, the issue could have been confused enough to deny pro Burden of Proof; but such did not occur.
So were I con, I would have reorganized pro’s points into categories (such as nicknames and actual actions, or by racial groups), then rewritten it into logical rules of inference such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, to then intercede against the flow of logic.
1. Miss Housekeeping: pro
Dropped.
2. Korean-American intelligence analyst: pro
Dropped.
3. Elizabeth Warren: PRO
Dropped. ... Then rebounded with con trying to prove Trump is superior for his greater amount of Native American blood, for which the Cherokees apparently support him.
4. Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.": PRO
Con disputed this by saying some are good people, and used the idea that Trump’s fear is generally correct even if the magnitude of it gets misquoted by omission (that would still be racism, but okay...). Pro points out that this leaves a racist belief that the majority are to be feared, then used statistics to further prove the irrationality of the fear. Con counters that anyone (legal or not? I’m forgiving the missing qualifier, but be careful of that) who crosses the border is a bad person...
5. ban on all Muslims: pro
Dropped. ... Somehow came back near the end because Trump failed... Con held off his best point for the final round (when it could no longer be responded to), that Muslim could be defined by religion wholly separate from race; which had it been earlier in the debate could have given him this point (assuming it was then not countered by pro).
6. white nationalist tweets: PRO
I agree with con on the definitions, except for the fact that they came with the “white” qualifier. Bernie Sanders is technically a nationalist, just not a white nationalist. Pro explained this at length when requested, then linked the tweets (never ask someone to give you a source unless you know you can beat it...). When you retreat something from someone named Genocide, you are making an active informed decision to advertise (thus promote) their cause.
Attempting to move the goalpost to other people, is so common that it’s boring. Start a debate about Obama and Clinton if you like, but when discussing Trump the comparisons only hurt him.
This somehow ended on a note that we should pity him for people trying to suppress his freedom of speech...
7. black voters: CON
Some context could have shifted this, but... If pointing to statistics when speaking of problems made someone racist, pro would be damned due to point 4. On this, Trump targeted them as a voting group, and used race, but did not indicate any superiority or inferiority by race rather than opportunity. Sleezy sure, but con showed that this was not proof. ... Trying to prove the democratic party is racist with this point, is getting off the topic (make a debate on it).
8. supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting: pro
Dropped.
9. “some very fine people" among white supremacists: CON
Con counters that the media removed context. After awhile pro makes a solid point about Trump supporting some antisemitism from the night before... I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may not have known (this debate is about if he’s racist, not if he’s a buffoon).
10. discriminated against black people in his apartment building: CON
Con countered this with suggesting it was about if an applicant listed welfare as an income source, not race, and the race was never proven. I hate nit-picking, but this point became about evidence, which was mentioned but not provided (it may have been to another point, such as the R1 source spamming, but was not tied directly to this one).
I will break down the arguments from each allegation speedrace made in the 1st round, I require a few proofs that Trump is racist, not one or two--
"Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
Con claims Trump always likes to use nicknames and this can be grouped into the other ones. Pro responds by saying this deals with specific stereotyping of Latinos being housekeepers. Con does not respond back and this point is dropped by both contestants throughout the debate. Stereotyping is not necessarily the same thing as racism, so this is not a clear and cut example for me.
"Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy."
Con drops this entire point even though Pro pressed him each round to do so. Since their is no debate on this point, I can't judge an argument point on it. Repeatedly dropped points will perhaps effect the conduct point.
"Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas.""
Con contends that Trump was justified because Warren barely has any Indian blood. He seems to contest the overall truth of Warren's claim, which pro weekly responds and says "Calling someone Pocahontas is clearly a racial slur." Con also provides evidence that a N.A. supported Trump and he held an event for them. This is not good proof that Trump is racist.
"Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.""
Trump's quote was "Mexican's are not sending their finest people." Con claims he said this because of the criminals they bring across. Pro brings up stats on racial crime, but whether Trump knew stats or not is irrelevant. This is not a clear and cut example or racism either.
"Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States."
As con points out, Trump was trying to stop terror attacks and people immigrating into the U.S. He also points out that Muslim isn't even a race but religion, so this point is invalid.
"Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets."
Con brings up his retweets had nothing to do with white supremacy. The rest are hypothetical arguments about Trump's staff alerting him or not alerting him. I can't take this as credible especially since you can't know if Trump knew he was retweeting White supremacists.
"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?”"
Con responds by claiming pure truth to his claims, but pro misses the point as he claims Trump said that purely off of race. He also claims Trump never cited all his stats, but this is not enough as you do not always provide sources for your claims, especially in a rally environment. This is not enough to prove Trump's racism, either.
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
Good job to both debaters. Interesting debate.
But, again, if there were, and they voted for you, wouldn’t they still be biased?
There are literally no conservatives that vote on this site.
And conservatives don’t?
Well, why can't a black person work for a racist?
That article does nothing. He is not racist. If he was, why would Ben Carson accept?
The point of that particular article is to highlight a particularly common usage of the underlying fallacy. However the underlying fallacy stays the same and is applicable in this case.
"The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning."
That does nothing. It's not a friend, its appointing a serious member of Trumps cabin.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
If Trump is racist, why would he hire a black person in his cabinet.(Ben Carson)
most liberals on this site that vote have inherent bias
Oh, so now all liberals are “dumb voter”s?
Everyone on this site that votes is liberal.
Pinkfreud isnt my goto gy when it comes to voting critique.
And is Ramshutu also a "dumb voter?" And if you're right, then why isn't everyone else on this website flocking to vote for you?
Precisely!
I think a rematch on the same topic would've been interesting to see actually. In the sense of how you are both able to improve, develop and refine your arguments after receiving the feedback from Ramshutu and Pinkfreud from the previous debate
Pinkfreud is a dumb voter. Votes don't exactly prove who was right. Most of your points have nothing to do with race. The one who is closed-minded is the one who doesn't even research the meaning behind stuff.
Yet I'm the one with all the votes, so who's close-minded now? If you win a debate on that subject then I'll switch to your side. How about that?
Boat was the instigator in Speed's previous debate on this topic, so it would probably just be a repeat or extension of the same points.
Speedrace has no logic whatsoever in most of his points, so I will pass. I don't debate with closed-minded people.
Interested in debating this with speedrace?