The Instigator
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Michael Savage is a bigot

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 3 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,329 times Debate No: 29114
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Pro

I suppose I have the B.O.P. In this scenario

Bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I have the utmost confidence that the reactionary talk radio host Dr.Michael Savage is indeed what most rational people would consider a bigot.

Here are my main reasons why I've drawn this conclusion..
1. He wrote a book titled "Liberalism Is a mental disorder".
Really? If writing an entire book to describe in detail how you not only disagree with an entire political ideology at its face value, but reduce said ideology as a "mental disorder", IS NOT an act of BIGOTRY, than I must say I'm at a loss.

2. The idea of a woman being married to another woman "makes him want to puke". He believes that gay parents by virtue of just being gay are conducting child abuse. He infers families that have gay parents are "fake families".
Source:

3. The frequent cut-offs of the people who call into his shows that disagree with him only amplify his intolerance of second opinions. In this clip, a caller states "I think you're bordering on racism on this issue.." and is than immediately cut off by childish noises and insults.

4. Michael Savage has once said that Arabs (referring to Arabs in nations in the Mideast) "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity...... It's the only thing can probably turn them into human beings.
http://mediamatters.org...

5. Due to his viciousness to those that disagree with him, he was banned from an entire country! That's right, the United Kingdom banned Michael Savage from entering their country. :)
http://www.wnd.com...

I look forward toward continuing this debate, good luck whoever may be nice enough to defend this sad, sad, little man...
Citrakayah

Con

A Note: I have taken this debate in the belief that such an individual as Michael Savage can have no real defense here, and thus must rely on people mocking him.


I agree that Michael Savage is a sad little man.

I agree that he hates.

I do not agree that he is a bigot.

My argument is simple. Michael Savage cannot be a bigot because he is what he hates. For instance:
1. Michael Savage is gay. A repressed gay, perhaps, or perhaps he is actually bisexual, but he is attracted to men. He was photographed swimming naked with Allen Ginsberg and reportedly expressed a desire to take photographs of him in a provactive manner.[1]
2. His name used to be Michael Weiner. Coincidence? I think not.[1]
3. Michael Savage was originally an ethnobotanist working in Fuji and was married in the rainforest.[2]
4. Michael Savage, while not Muslim, was born Jewish.

I propose that rather than being an actual bigot, Michael Savage, who was abused by his homophobic father[1], suffered in part a mid-life crisis that caused him to become self-hating. Why, I do not know. But it seems like a valid alternative to the possibility of him being a bigot who flipped from being in love with Allen Ginsberg to calling him slime.


1. http://www.sfweekly.com...
2. Toxic Talk
Debate Round No. 1
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Pro

I must admit I did NOT foresee this argument coming.

My opponent's contention is that instead of Michael Savage being a legitimate bigot, he is in fact a repressed self-loathing homosexual. Indeed that would explain a lot about Savages clothing, tone and general attitude towards the gay community as a whole. But I must ask, while that may explain his disgusting views towards gay people, where does the hatred against other minority groups come from?

Remember, the debate topic isn't just "Michael Savage is bigoted towards gay people."
We're here to debate whether the man is simply a bigot or not. Surely you can't say the man is a repressed Arab from the middle east or a self loathing illegal immigrant can you?
Citrakayah

Con

Ah, but note that he says 'Christianity'. He thinks that the only way to make Arabic individuals worth anything is by converting them to Christianity. And nears as I can tell, he's Jewish. So if he views Christians as superior, and he isn't a Christian, then he might better classified under 'self-hating Jew' than 'bigot'. And since he is most certainly not partial to Judaism to the exclusion of Christians, this is another reason to view him as not a bigot.[1]

Similarly, Michael Savage's tone reveals what appears to be a nativist bias. But Michael Savage is a second-generation immigrant, with his parents from Russia--the land of 'dirty commies'.

1. http://www.tabletmag.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Pro

Perhaps it's in the nature of bigotry to be self loathing? Can we blur the line between of what constitutes a bigot and that of someone who is merely just person who hates himself?

I must ask my opponent how he would define legititamate bigotry in specific. My contention is that bigots as my earliar definition stated : "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ", may possibly just be the product of in part of the very self hatred Con has suggested.

References on the topic..
1. http://jewishquarterly.org...
2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
3. http://www.getesteem.com...
Citrakayah

Con

Personally, I would define bigot as a very strong hatred. But, as I believe that in a debate such as this one, the devil is in the details, as they say, and Pro's definition specified that the group be one's own. If Michael Savage is not actually what he is prejudiced towards, according to Pro's definition he is not a bigot, and that is the definition we are using for this argument.

According to Pro's definition, bigotry can't be self-loathing, at least not due to membership in a group. If I'm prejudiced towards bisexual people, and I am bisexual, I cannot, according to Pro's definition, be bigoted towards them in favor of heterosexual, asexual, pansexual, or homosexual individuals, because I'm not being partial to my own group.
Debate Round No. 3
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Pro

JohnJohnSHTOOKAH forfeited this round.
Citrakayah

Con

Extend arguments.

My thanks to my opponent for the fascinating debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JohnJohnSHTOOKAH 4 years ago
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Sorry about the forfeit, just in the process of moving back in my dorm and lost track of time.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
wow con i never though about it that way....
Posted by Crito 4 years ago
Crito
John,

Could you define tolerance?
Posted by JohnJohnSHTOOKAH 4 years ago
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
The man has a rather popular talk radio show. I thought it wouldn't of been difficult to find one of his listieners on this website.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
who cares?
it seems to me you have presented a position that 99.99% of people agree with some of which i am sure even listen to his show. it a free country. try a more controversial post.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: LOLOLOLOLOLOL OH SH*T I DID NOT SEE THAT ONE CUMMING!
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition came back to bite him: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Con argued Savage is not a member of the groups he considered superior, and thus is not a bigot! Pro's forfeits in the face of stronger arguments :p *** Note: I do not know Michael Savage, and my vote is not a reflection of any personal beliefs towards him.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHCitrakayahTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro on this debate and think Pro could have rebutted Con's arguments. An argument could have been made that, even if Michael Savage is gay, he can still hate other gay people which meets the definition of "bigot." Pro conceded R1 arguments to Con and then forfeited. Pro also had better sources, but Pro forfeited.