The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sillydebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Donald Trump is not a racist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 263 times Debate No: 96250
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

Hillary For Prison
sillydebater

Con

I accept and look forward to a good debate with Pro.

On December 7, 2015, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".[1] By singling out Muslims, the policy is discriminatory against Muslims.

The United Nations officially recognizes discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism. [2]

Argument
Premise 1 - Donald Trump campaigned to discriminate against Muslims
Premise 2 - Discrimination against Muslims is internationally recognized as a form of racism

Conclusion 1 - Donald Trump campaigned using racism
Conclusion 2 - Donald Trump is a racist.

1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com......
2. http://www.un.org...... (Point 17)
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Islam is not a race, Trump cannot be racist against Muslims.
sillydebater

Con

Before I respond, my links did not paste correctly in round 1. Here they are:

1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
2. http://www.un.org...

Pro states that Trump cannot be racist against Muslims because Islam is not a race. However, Pro does not give any arguments as to why that statement true. I will argue that Pro's statement is false.

I agree that Islam is a religion, not a race. Therefore it is impossible for someone to be racist against Islam. However, Muslims are not a religion; they are people. And the United Nations has formally recognized discrimination against Muslims as one of the "contemporary forms of racism". [2 above]

Because discrimination against Muslims is internationally accepted as a form of racism, someone who discriminates against Muslims is racist. Therefore, Trump can be racist against Muslims, and Pro's argument is false.

Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

This is just an appeal to authority, it doesn't really matter what the UN says, Islam is still not a race. The UN can say that Israel is the aggressor and the sky is redall they want- it doesn't make it the truth. Islam is literally defined as a religion:
"the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah."
Again, Islam is still not a race, the UN doesn't get to control reality and deny objectivism, this isn't 1984, they don't get to do that. The Party doesn't define reality.
sillydebater

Con

In round 3 pro argued that Islam is not a race, it is a religion. I have already agreed with this point and have no contention of it. My argument is not based on discrimination against the religion of the Muslims. My argument is based on the discrimination against the Muslim people. Pro has yet to show my argument is invalid.

It is important to cite the U.N. to show international acceptance of word definitions. The meaning of a word in a language is set by the world that uses it. To me, racism could mean one thing, while to my opponent it could mean something else. The only way to know whose definition is correct is to compare it against the rest of the users of that language. Whoever's definition is closer to that of the broader community is correct. This is how language morphs and changes over time.

In this case, the international community, consisting of 193 member states [3], and representing an overwhelming majority of the world's population, has defined racism to include discrimination against Muslims. Because this definition has received such international endorsement, it is a valid definition and stands up in an argument.

As an aside, I have to admit that Pro's line of argument so far has been rather concerning. Instead of defending Donald's actions and arguing that he does not discriminate against Muslims, Pro is arguing the point on semantic grounds. Pro appears to be conceding the fact that Donald discriminates against Muslims. Even if Pro's semantic arguments were valid, Donald's actions remain just as condemnable as being racist.


3. http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Racism has always been defined as discriminating against people on account of their race, and despite what the U.N. says, Islam is still not a race, Muslims are still a religious group not a racial group, and Donald Trump is still not discriminating against Muslims. If the majority decide that the sky is red and the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't matter, the sky is still blue and the moon is still made of rock., it doesn't matter what the U.N. says.
Another point, Trump advocated for the shutdsown of Muslims entering the country on account of their ideologies, so even if my opponent is right, Trump would be "discriminating" against the Muslim ideology, and NOT the Muslim "race." And rightly so, because Islam is indeed a sick ideology, save the Korranites they're great guys.
sillydebater

Con

There are several issues with my opponents reasoning that I would like to point out.

1) Pro states that "Racism has always been defined as discriminating against people on account of their race ... despite what the U.N. says"

There are two issues with this statement:

i) Pro provides no evidence to support this argument.
ii) Pro does not say who the authoritative source is that made that definition, not to mention why that source would have more authority than a coalition of 193 world state representatives.

2) Pro states "If the majority decide that the sky is red and the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't matter, the sky is still blue and the moon is still made of rock".

Pro's argument is only valid if word meanings are constant. However, time has proven that they are variable. For example, if you said to an English-speaker 300 years ago that the word "gay" refers to homosexuality they would have disagreed with you just as much as if you called the sky red. The word "gay" didn't start referring to homosexuality until the 1970's [4], yet it is now an accepted definition of the word because the majority of English speakers accept it as such. 300 years from now, if English-speakers decide to use the word "cheese" to refer to what we now call "moon rocks", then that will be an accepted definition of "cheese", and the statement "the moon is made of cheese" will change from false to true.

3) Pro states that Donald is "discriminating against the Muslim ideology, and NOT the Muslim 'race'".

Ideas make an ideology. People make a race.

Donald Trump's statement on preventing Muslim immigration proposes a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". [1 above] The policy does not speak of banning an ideology. To do so would be to ban any Islamic texts, teachings, or symbols. (This would, of course, still be discrimination, and one may argue even worse).

What Donald's policy does ban is people. Muslim people. All Muslim people, regardless of how strong or how radical their beliefs are. Donald's policy discriminates against a race.

And just so there is no confusion, Merriam-Webster defines race as "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics" [5]

Muslims are a race.

4) Pro argues that religious groups can't be racial groups.

Judaism is a religion. It is not a race. However, anti-Semitism is a widely and commonly accepted form of racism. [2 above]

5) Regardless of any arguments I have given, Pro has not proven the debate objective

The topic of this debate is "Donald Trump is not a racist". Pro holds the burden of proof, and must, through sound and valid argument, prove that Donald is not a racist. I do not need to prove that Trump is a racist (for that is not the subject of debate), but instead just need to show that Pro has not proven Trump is not a racist.

Even if it were impossible for someone to be racist against Muslims, Pro has not proven that Trump is not racist against other peoples, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc... Until Pro proves that Donald is not racist at all, Pro has not proven Pro's point, and has not fulfilled the minimum requirement for Pro to succeed at this debate.

4. http://www.etymonline.com...
5. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Let me first point out that the actual definition of race is not as my opponent claims it is: {1}
"a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"
"an actually or potentially inter breeding group within a species"
"a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits"
So, right, anyway- Anti-Semitism isn't a form of Racism either since "Jew" isn't a race, there are Black Jews (Beta Israel), Middle Eastern Jews (Sephartic), European Jews (Askhenazi), even Native American Jews and Chinese Jews.

Second of all, what the UN says does not represent the definition used by the majority of people, that can be represented by what the dictionary says, and as I have shown from above, race is still defined as a group of people from a certain genetic stock, sharing certain physical features.

Third of all my opponent cites the UN website and say that they define Islamamophobia as a form of racism, the issue is he cited the UN's home page, nowhere in which does it say that Muslims are a race. It's like me challenging him to a debate that the moon is made of cheese because Barrack Obama says so, and citing whitehouse.gov as a source, but never actually citing here Barrack Obama said that.

{1}. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

sillydebater

Con

First, I would like to point out that at the start of Round 2, I mentioned that my links did not paste properly in Round 1, and offered new links. Using the links from round 2, you will see that they refer to specific documentation showing that the UN has accepted discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism.

UN rulings aside, Pro seems intent that it is the dictionary that provides the ultimate definition of words. The dictionary citation Pro used was exactly the same as mine. From that page, Pro has quoted definitions 2a, 3a and 3c, but has omitted 2b which states:

"A class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"

Pro's own citation offers a definition of Race that includes Muslims, through their shared interests, habits and characteristics. Ignoring the citation does not make it any less applicable.

Because the definition of Race includes Muslims, discrimination against Muslims is racism. Trump ran on a policy that discriminates against Muslims, therefore he has campaigned using a racist policy. Donald Trump is racist.

---

Again, I would like to point out that even if you disagree with my conclusion, Pro has still not proven that Donald Trump is not a racist. If the debate topic were 'Donald Trump is Racist', and I were Pro, then the onus would be on me to prove that he is racist. However, this debate is about proving that he is not racist, and thus the burden of proof is on Pro to prove he is not.

Instead of offering arguments and evidence to prove the debate topic, Pro has spent this entire debate simply rebutting my arguments. Even if you agree that Donald Trump is not racist against Muslims, there has been no proof offered that he is not racist against any other race. This debate ends without any proof that Donald Trump is not a racist, so Pro has failed.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FuzzyCatPotato// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro had to prove that Trump was positively not a racist. Since Pro's own definitions and the ones provided by Con allow for Trump to be considered a racist, I must vote Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G, or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific arguments made by both sides or evaluate how each side's arguments affect the burdens of the two debaters. The voter appears to lean towards the latter, but never examines specific points made by either debater, merely asserting that the definitions somehow make it imposible for Pro to meet his burden. It should be clear why Pro has the BoP if that's the case, and why those definitions make it impossible to meet that BoP.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.