Bill O'Reilly is more than likely a racist.
This debate is open to anyone interesting in taking the Con position.
I will be arguing the thesis:
Bill O'Reilly is more than likely a racist.
And the Con will argue the contrary, that Bill O'Reilly is definitely not a racist.
Burden of proof is shared.
Round 1: Acceptance and Definitions
Round 2: Opening arguments, (Con's opening arguments may consist of rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments.
Bill O'Reilly: That one obtuse host of the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel.
More than likely: Meaning very likely to be.
Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another (and in this case, we can assume Bill believes the white race to be superior.)
I'm willing to be a little flexible with the rules and details, and if you have any suggestions please mention so in the comments or feel free to message me.
Despite my abrupt approach to this debate and the possibility of a brusque opponent, I still hope to have a good civil debate! :)
I will however, not debate that "Bill O'Reilly is definitely not a racist", as this is not the contrary to your thesis. The contrary to your thesis, "Bill O'Reilly is more than likely a racist" is 'Bill O'Reilly is more than likely not a racist'. I will debate the contrary as I have stated here and hope that this is accepted by you.
I will share the BOP more than happily, agree with your rounds and agree with your definitions.
To make this clear, I am not representing or defending O'Reilly, but simply arguing against the thesis.
I will also debate in a fashion unknown to O'Reilly, not obtuse nor brusque and will conduct the debate in a civil manner.
Once again, kind regards for this opportunity, I am looking forward to your arguments.
~~“the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries.” 
~~In a segment about black athletes suing over the minimum academic standards for college admission, O’Reilly commented: “Look, you know as well as I do most of these kids come out and they can’t speak English.” (February 9, 2000)
~~And on several occasions, Bill has been found using the slur "wetback," when refering to Mexicans living in the US, legal or not. 
Kind Regards for your agreement, I will proceed with my Opening Statement, as well as Rebuttals.
I will be debating that Bill O'Reilly more than likely is not a racist and will be the Con position in this debate.
While Bill O'Reilly may be rude, obnoxious and not well mannered when it comes to talking with his guests or blurring out his, mostly idiotic opinion, I by no means would say that O'Reilly can be considered a racist. I like watching some of his programs, simply because of the fact as to how seemingly easily he gets beaten in debate, but never backs down, yet I still have to see where O'Reilly has made a racial slur or an act of racism that actually was fully intentional and meant. And actually Racist.
First of all I want so say, yes O'Reilly makes some really stupid comments. But quite often, his comments are actually quite sound. However, he is very disliked. And as such, people easily jump in to call him a racist. And because he often talks about racial issues, this is very easy for people to do.
In fact, in one of his current 'issues' about left wing media painting the US to be a nation run by white supremacy, which O'Reilly tries to disprove, he states that "The real racism is looking away from what is really harming black Americans". I would say he is correct in saying that. Further more, O'Reilly advocates the healing process of white-black relationship. In fact, here (https://www.youtube.com...) he is talking to the daughter of former US Shadow Senator and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, a man who used to work for Martin Luther King, Jr. and is asking her why her father and other black rights advocates do not state that they want justice for all, whether black or white, and if this would not help the healing process immensely. Would a racist state these kind of things? A racist would not state that black poverty is an issue, they would ignore it.
https://www.youtube.com... Here we have O'Reilly mocking white supremacist David Duke, former 'Grand Wizard' of the KKK. Why would O'Reilly do that, if he had 'similar' views to him, as Duke most definitely is racist. That makes no sense..
Here O'Reilly states that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, most certainly not a statement heard often by media nowadays. https://www.youtube.com... , but O'Reilly does state that Muslim nations need to take criticism for how they are acting about the 'ISIL' crisis and such. People who misunderstand what he says, will call him a racist. And that's exactly the problem.
I will now conduct some rebuttals as to Pros claims:
The hubcaps comment, while seemingly very shocking, when I tried to find a correlation between blacks and stealing hubcaps I could not find it. I could find black bears stealing hubcaps, but not people. Seemingly all races steal hubcaps, especially teens seem to do it, more out of fun though. So how is this racist? On the other hand, when I looked up 'fried chicken meme' or 'watermelon meme', it was all African Americans. Also, this 'joke' does not imply a superiority of whites over blacks and as such, as to definition of racist, does not make O'Reilly racist.
As for the most unattractive women statement, to make this clear, Islam is not a race! Also, his sexual attraction has nothing to do with whether he is a racist or not. A homosexual male is not attracted to females, does that make him a racist? A black women does not think Asian men are attractive, does that make her a racist? This is his personal opinion, he also included a 'probably' and although this is a extremely stupid statement, it is not racist.
The athletes, well, O'Reilly is partly correct with that. I would say it is an overstatement that they can't speak English, but most certainly the sports admissions do not have a high academic standard. These people attend because of sport, not academic. Watch Forrest Gump, though a movie, the same thing. However, stating a fact does not make one racist. If I state that 67% of black children grow up in single parent families, mostly with their mothers, and as such grow up in more or less dysfunctional families, does this make me racist? No, I am merely stating a fact.
As for the 'wetbacks', lets put this into context. "We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes--they're not going to do what they're doing now, all right, so people aren't going to die in the desert."
Seemingly what he wanted to say was 'coyotes', as he stated 'the coyotes' afterwards. Now, Coyotaje is the term referring to the practice of people smuggling across the US-Mexican Border, while the 'coyotes' are the people smugglers. O'Reilly, on this instance was talking about the practice of people smuggling and how the people smugglers bring the people they smuggle into unnecessary danger. I don't see how this is racist. Furthermore, 'racial' slurs such as 'wetback' do not imply a racial superiority, or how do they? As such, and as to the definition of 'racist' by Pro, anyone using the term 'wetback' would as such not be racist.
O'Reilly may be stupid, however him being called a racist has more to do with misunderstandings and the fact that he is extremely disliked, and what way is easier to safely slander and individual than to simply call them racist. If I state that whites are more 'intelligent' than blacks I will be called a racist. If I know state that this is because of education, illiteracy in African countries and such, am I still a racist then or not, merely because I added facts.
The problem is that this is the case with O'Reilly. Though he makes a lot of stupid arguments, many are sound if you analyse them. However, most people will not do that, especially not when they dislike the person and will simply stick by calling them racist. Now, if you add this up with some of O'Reilly's 'greater' moments, surely you can understand why many people perceive him as racist. However, that does not mean that he actually is.
Con thus stands by the opinion that Bill O'Reilly is more than likely not a racist, as there simply is no proof as to O'Reilly stating that the 'white race' is superior to any other race. O'Reilly is very disliked and as such he often gets called a racist, without actually analysing what he actually said and meant.
Kind Regards to Pro, I am looking forward to the final round!
CentristX forfeited this round.
I am a little disappointed to see Pro forfeit the final round.
However, without further ado I will post my conclusion of the debate, as there are no needs for rebuttals as I already have conducted them in the previous round and pro, as to their forfeit neither proved nor disproved said rebuttals and arguments.
The arguments posted by pro were easily negated by Con, as well as through Pros own definition of the word 'racist', being defined as ' a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another' by Pro. According to this definition none of the statements claimed to have been said by Bill O'Reilly as stated by Pro actually imply any sort of racial superiority of white individuals such as O'Reilly over individuals of any other race. Or any other race being superior to any other one. As such Pro has not provided evidence of any racist statement, activity or context connected with Bill O'Reilly. Thus there is no evidence to dub O'Reilly a racist nor to claim that he 'more than likely is a racist'. Pros arguments simply did not have anything to do with racism.
As Con I however, according to debate rules, have a Burden of Proof to fulfil. I did this by providing evidence of Bill O'Reilly promoting the equality of White and Black individuals, which is the exact opposite to racism as defined by Pro, as equality negates superiority, as well O'Reilly mocking a White Supremacist, which would make no logical sense if O'Reilly was racist or shared similar beliefs. These two arguments provide evidence as to my standpoint, that 'Bill O'Reilly more than likely is not a racist'.
The final stand is that Pro did not provide any actual evidence to prove O'Reilly being a racist while Con provided 2 pieces of evidence to prove that he is not. Thus the arguments are standing at 0 (Pro) to 2 (Con). Also Con provided evidence that O'Reilly's statements used by Pro were taken out of context, as well as them not being connected to racism in any way.
Thus I, as Con, have to stand by my original thesis, that Bill O'Reilly more than likely is not a racist.
Kind regards to Pro for the debate and their arguments, as well as all Readers and Voters
Have a nice day!