The Instigator
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

If you don't vote for Obama, you are racist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-16
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 14 votes the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,642 times Debate No: 20903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (14)

 

1dustpelt

Con

Round one is for acceptance only.
Rules:
Forfeit, you lose.
No trolling, spamming, etc.

I will argue against the statement that, "If you don't vote for Obama, you are racist." My opponent will argue for it.
FourTrouble

Pro

Alright, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
1dustpelt

Con

Ok, I know this is kind of ridiculous, but I was bored. This will be a fun debate.
1. Someone can not vote for Obama because of political views, not racism, thus someone can not vote for Obama and not be racist.

Okay, my opponent's turn.
FourTrouble

Pro

Thank you, Con, for this debate. It is an interesting debate because, to be honest, it is a very one-sided debate. Most people probably think Pro never had a chance. When I read the resolution, I immediately thought the reverse: Con had no chance.

To explain why, here is my argument: everyone is a racist, therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist.

To elaborate, I am saying that, whether you think you are a racist, or you think you are not racist, either way, you are still a racist subconsciously. Whether someone provides racism as a reason for their choices, or does not provide racism as a reason for their choices, it does not change the fact that that person is a racist. Racism, in many people, is unconscious, but this does not change the fact that everyone is a racist.

As you can see, then, the debate is a non-starter. Whether you vote for Obama, or do not vote for Obama, you are a racist.

Now let me turn to Con's argument, and just pick at it, for the fun of it.

Con's argument implies that someone cannot choose to not´┐Ż vote for Obama because of racism. Why not? Many people choose to not vote for Obama for precisely that reason. Nothing inherent in the notion of "racism" prevents someone from using that as a reason to not vote for Obama. Thus, Con's reasoning is flawed.

Furthermore, Con distinguishes between "political views" and "racism," and suggests that the two are exclusive. To this I say, how so? Racism, in certain situations, is a political view, and therefore, Con's argument, again, is flawed.

In sum, basing your reasons to not vote for Obama on "political" reasons in now way excludes the possibility that you are a racist. In fact, because everyone is, by necessity, a racist, you are a racist regardless the reasons you provide for casting your vote in one way or another.

Therefore, if you do not vote for Obama, you are a racist, not because not voting for Obama made you a racist, but because you had no choice in the matter -- you are a racist whether you vote or not.
Debate Round No. 2
1dustpelt

Con

Hi, thank you for arguing.
Let me address my opponent's points.

"Everyone is a racist, therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist."
I don't agree with that. There are some non-racist people.
Definition of racism:


noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There are people who do not agree with racism, thus, not everyone is a racist.


"Con's argument implies that someone cannot choose to not vote for Obama because of racism. Why not? Many people choose to not vote for Obama for precisely that reason. Nothing inherent in the notion of "racism" prevents someone from using that as a reason to not vote for Obama. Thus, Con's reasoning is flawed."
I did not mean that someone cannot choose not to vote for Obama because of racism. What I meant is that someone can not-vote for Obama because of other reasons. What I meant in my previous argument by the words, "Can not" is that someone can not-vote for Obama and vote for someone else, not someone cannot vote for Obama. If I meant that they cannot vote for Obama, I would have not separated the "can" and the "not". Thus, PRO misunderstood my argument.

"Therefore, if you do not vote for Obama, you are a racist, not because not voting for Obama made you a racist, but because you had no choice in the matter -- you are a racist whether you vote or not."
Your statement that "Everyone is racist no matter what" is not true, hence the definition above. Someone can disagree with racism, thus, they are not racist.

It is true that someone can not-vote for Obama because they are racist, but what makes the title untrue is that someone can also not-vote for Obama because of another reason, like a political reason.

I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.
FourTrouble

Pro

Con provides 3 definitions of racism, but does not designate which one is being referred to. I will do that for Con: definition 1 and 3 are being used, and it is the subtle distinction in the two definitions that will make my case for me.

Con writes, "There are people who do not agree with racism, thus, not everyone is a racist."

As I already stated in the previous round, just because someone does not agree with racism does not mean they are not a racist. The beliefs a person holds are not changed by whether they agree with those beliefs or not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Using the definitions Con provides: first definition is racism as a "belief," third definition is racism as "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." The two are not mutually exclusive.

An obvious example is homosexuality. A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to the same-sex. That said, a homosexual can disagree with homosexuality, arguing that it is immoral or unnatural. This disagreement with the doctrine of homosexuality would not change the fact that the person is a homosexual.

Likewise, a racist can be against racism while still being a racist. I will delve further into this counter-intuitive phenomenon—that someone can disagree with a belief while still holding that belief—later in the round. Before doing so, I want to address Con's weak attempts to negate my refutations.

Con admits imprecision and ambiguity to the previous argument, specifically in the use of the construction "can not." That's all fine and good, I don't really care if Con is imprecise or ambiguous, if anything it only hurts the argument Con is trying to make.

Second, Con writes, "What I meant is that someone can not-vote for Obama because of other reasons. What I meant in my previous argument by the words, "Can not" is that someone can not-vote for Obama and vote for someone else, not someone cannot vote for Obama. If I meant that they cannot vote for Obama, I would have not separated the "can" and the "not". Thus, PRO misunderstood my argument."

At no point did I argue that Con stated "someone cannot vote for Obama." If Con and our readers were to inspect my argument, it would become evident that I did not misrepresent or misunderstand Con's argument. Let me reiterate, at no point in the previous round did I say that Con "meant that they cannot vote for Obama."

My argument had nothing to do with an inability to vote for Obama. I do not care whether someone can or cannot vote for Obama; the entire issue is irrelevant, both for Con's argument and for my argument. Con thinks I misunderstood his argument, when in fact, Con has misunderstood my argument. Somewhat ironic, I would say.

So: Con's only real argument is that "someone can disagree with racism, thus, they are not racist." I addressed this already: whether you disagree with something or not does not change whether you hold the belief you disagree with or not. Someone can disagree with "racism," this does not mean that they are not a racist. There are many people who are racist even though they recognize, theoretically, that racism is bad.

What I am saying is that racism, as a "belief," is thoroughly embedded subconsciously, and therefore, whether we agree with racism or not, we are nevertheless racists.

Before continuing, I hope that this point is clear, for both Con and our readers.

Con has provided no evidence that everyone is not a racist. What Con has done is invoke a definition of "racism" as a "belief." That is why Con provided the definitions: to affirm that racism is a belief, and then argue that because racism is a belief, someone can disagree or agree with this belief.

To be honest, I agree with Con's premise completely. It is a sound premise. It is true that because racism is a belief, someone can disagree or agree with this belief.

The problem with Con's argument, then, is not the premise, but the reasoning and conclusion that Con draws from this premise. Con erroneously concludes that because someone can disagree with a belief, it means that person does not hold that belief.

I argue that it does not follow from the premise that someone can disagree with a belief, that that person no longer holds that belief.

I already gave as example the example of homosexuality. Someone can disagree with homosexuality, the belief that the same-sex is sexually attractive, yet nonetheless the person can be a homosexual in the sense that they are sexually attracted to the same-sex, and therefore, believe subconsciously that the same-sex is attractive.

An example of a case where someone disagrees with racism and yet firmly holds that belief (i.e., they are racist) should suffice.

In the book, "Blink: the power of thinking without thinking" (the title says it all, does it not?), Malcolm Gladwell writes about the "Implicit Association Test," developed at Harvard. The test (which you can find online) discovered that 80% of people who prior to the test stated they were against racism, had pro-white associations and negative-black associations.

The result suggests two things. One, that disagreeing with a belief does not mean that same belief is not firmly embedded subconsciously. And, second, following from the first conclusion, it is clear that a lot more people are racist than think they are. In fact, that many people who think they are against racism are in fact racists.

As for my argument that "everyone is a racist," it is clear that at least 80% of people are pro-white. Nonetheless, to be thorough, I will provide further evidence that EVERYONE is racist, either consciously or subconsciously.

Raymond B. Cattell, an important evolutionary psychologist and Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus at University of Illinois, has argued that racism is natural, innate, an evolutionarily instilled drive. Cattell's argument is that racism is an innate drive, not unlike the innate sex drive. [1]

In a recent conference, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and social theorists gathered to discuss a "gene for racism." [2]

Moreover, in a recent study in the "British Journal of Social Psychology," it was determined that "everyone was a little bit racist" [3]. The use of a quantitative degree here, "little bit," is irrelevant for this debate, as the debate is whether you are or are not, and being a "little bit" is being racist.

Conclusion:

Con did not show that disagreeing with a belief means someone cannot hold that belief. I, on the other hand, not only gave arguments to demonstrate that someone can disagree with a belief while still holding that belief, I also gave examples (from the Implicit Association Test) of people who were shown to disagree with "racism" yet were shown to be "racist." Thus, I have negated Con's arguments.

Furthermore, in negating Con's arguments, my claim that "everyone is a racist" stands. To buffer it, I provided new evidence, from evolutionary psychology and biology, to suggest that EVERYONE is indeed a racist.

Thus, the result is clear: everyone is a racist, so therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist.

Vote Pro.

[1] http://www.euvolution.com...
[2] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...
[3] http://www.cos.gatech.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AdamDeben 4 years ago
AdamDeben
It's ironic how you said no trolling, 1dustpelt.
Posted by cloudbox0 5 years ago
cloudbox0
gee fu** john mcain that white sh** GO BLACK POWER!!!
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
@Dustpelt - Flagrantly bad conduct to continue the debate in the comments after it is over.
Posted by RandomName 5 years ago
RandomName
I'm pretty sure if you don't vote for Obama, that just means you don't want him to be president.
Posted by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
Also, just saying, the debate is over, not sure why you are continuing it in the comments. I assume that anything said in these commends has no effect on decisions about who won or lost the debate. To continuously say "vote con" here in comments is somewhat against decorum, in my opinion. Not sure if there is, but there should be a rule about it, something to make sure comments are considered apart from the debate, not as part of it.
Posted by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
1dustpelt, I just want to point one thing out, because your inability to read properly is just too disturbing to leave unattended. When I write --

"Con's argument implies that someone cannot choose to not vote for Obama because of racism. Why not? Many people choose to not vote for Obama for precisely that reason. Nothing inherent in the notion of "racism" prevents someone from using that as a reason to not vote for Obama. Thus, Con's reasoning is flawed."

-- it does not say or imply at any point that "someone cannot vote for Obama." That is, I do not say anything about an inability to vote for Obama. What I say is that the CHOICE someone makes to not vote for Obama can be racism.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
I should have made more rounds to clarify my argument against PRO. However, I have listed reasons to vote CON in the comments below.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
My debate sources:
dictionary.com

PRO's arguments are flawed unless you change the definition of racism. (Read below comments)
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
PRO's argument is that discrimination is racism. This is not true.

noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Racism always involves OTHER RACES, while discrimination can be with any group. For example, discrimination against homosexuals is NOT RACISM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANOTHER RACE. It is discrimination, but not racism. Therefore, PRO's argument is flawed.

Vote CON.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
PRO, you also claim that everyone is racist, but you did not justify your argument.

"To elaborate, I am saying that, whether you think you are a racist, or you think you are not racist, either way, you are still a racist subconsciously. Whether someone provides racism as a reason for their choices, or does not provide racism as a reason for their choices, it does not change the fact that that person is a racist. Racism, in many people, is unconscious, but this does not change the fact that everyone is a racist."

You said that everyone is a racist, but you did not justify that "everyone is a racist".

You used an example of a homosexual. Someone can discriminate a homosexual, but this is not being racist because the definition(dictionary.com) states:

noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There are people who do not agree with racism, thus, not everyone is a racist.

All of the definitions involved discrimination against OTHER RACES. Therefore, discrimination against homosexuals is discrimination and is wrong, but it is NOT RACISM BECAUSE RACISM INVOLVES OTHER RACES. Therefore PRO's argument is flawed. Vote CON.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: just going with sources...
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave the debate a nice spin with his argument. My opinion: if you make a debate resolution that isn't debatable (such as what Con appeared to be doing) you lose. Pros semantic argument was justified and convincing.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 5 years ago
Mak-zie
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: It is absurd to say that "all people are racist," it's just a weak argument on Pro's part. But Con did not use any sources, so that goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by flash7221 5 years ago
flash7221
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to prove that "everyone is a racist" and finagled his way around the obvious intent of the dabte
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins the semantic argument even though I disagree with the notion that "everyone is racist."
Vote Placed by tudaloo 5 years ago
tudaloo
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I share the same opinion of Double R
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Fourtrouble had an interesting concept, but he never backed up the idea that everyone's a little bit racist. It came down to this: "Con has provided no evidence that everyone is not a racist". Though PRO gave reasons that there are people who didn't vote for Obama because of racism, he never gave any inherent reason, nor removed the possibility of people not being racist.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sory pro I herd the rrace card get played way to often that and I can't understand what your convaing
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
1dustpeltFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not buying Pro's semantic argument. The resolution is clear enough that not voting for Obama betrays racist intent. But Pro would have us believe that someone who votes for Ralph Nader or the Green party candidate betrays racist intent even though its subconscious. Con's R2 argument is unrefuted. if the semantic argument is allowed then it is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, and Con provided no proof, only his assertion.