The Instigator
VocMusTcrMaloy
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

"Race Traitor" is a Fallacy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 11 votes the winner is...
VocMusTcrMaloy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,864 times Debate No: 17707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (11)

 

VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

Resolved: The term "Race Traitor" is a fallacy.

Note to the reader: This is a 3 round debate designed to be a quick read for voters. Voting on this debate will take very little of your time.

Definition of Terms:

Race:
1. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, some being "Asian," "White," "African-American," "Native-American," "Latino," etc. characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics:(modified from Dictionary.com)

Traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (Webster's Dictionary)

Fallacy 1 : a false or mistaken idea
2 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
(Webster's Dictionary)

Organization of Debate

Round 1 Acceptance ONLY

Round 2 Opening Arguements/Rebuttals

Round 3 Rebuttals/Conclusions
Calvincambridge

Con

I gladly accept sir.
Debate Round No. 1
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro




First of all, I would like to thank my opponent, Calvincambridge for accepting this challenge. I look forward to hearing his views on this subject.

Opening Argument:

I shall prove that the term "race traitor" is a fallacy according to the definitions in Round 1.

First of all, a traitor is "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty." In order to prove that one is a traitor, one has to prove that one has a duty to his/her race. This is where the idea of a racial traitor falls apart. To say that being born "White" obligates one to the "White" race is a matter of opinion rather than of verifiable fact. The subjective nature of obligation to one's race makes the term "race traitor" a fallacy or, " an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference."



Examples of Traitors:

Two names almost synonymous with the term traitor are 1. Judas and 2. Benedict Arnold.

Both these men betrayed the trust of persons to whom they were bound by obligation or duty. In both cases the traitors were committed to the persons whom they betrayed. Commitment to a cause or to a person or group of persons is voluntary.

Webster defines commitment:
1 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date
b : something pledged
c : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>


The key here is the word "agreement." An agreement involves the will of the person who is making the commitment. Our two traitors listed above both agreed to their relationship to the persons or causes to which they were committed. "Commitment" to race does not exist, because such a commitment is not automatically agreed upon by each member of a race by virtue of birth. One's race is determined at birth, not at some point when one makes decisions about one's self.



Analogy


Suppose a group of children decided to play a game. The group divides up into those with light colored hair and those with dark colored hair. Suppose some of the members of the group did not want to play the game, but rather wanted to watch the game. Then suppose one of the dark-haired girls who was not playing the game was cheering for the light-haired team because she had many friends on that team. The girl did not commit to the game or to her hair-color group; therefore, she could not be a traitor to her hair-color group. As a matter of fact, if she were to cheer for her hair color group, she would rather be a traitor to her friends!



Racism is a game played by some members of society, not by all. Those of us who are not playing the game are not betraying our respective races by fraternizing with the "enemy." One's enemies are not automatically determined by one's physical characteristics received at birth, but rather by personal relationships with people. Such designations are the impositions of society which are not morally binding.

Calvincambridge

Con

1. I'm not racist.
2. Defenition 3 proves my point you feel emotionally compelled

This debate is solely debating black/white miscongeneation

You are born with a culture if one interracially dates he will slowely lose his culture.


Debate Round No. 2
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

Rebuttals:

My Opponent: Defenition 3 proves my point you feel emotionally compelled

My Reply: How is one commited to one's "race" through emotional compulsion? Who is doing the compelling except for racists? Could someone not also feel emotionally compelled in the direction of multi-racial and multi-cultural friendships?

My Opponent: This debate is solely debating black/white miscongeneation

My Reply: The resolution is about how the term "race traitor" is a fallacy. Black/White miscegenation may or may not play into the picture; however, we have a resolution to prove or disprove.

My Opponent: You are born with a culture if one interracially dates he will slowely lose his culture.

My Reply:
1. Lose his culture? This is the 21st century. Television, movies and now the internet have made the "losing culture" debate irrelevant. The youth of today listen to the same artists, and watch the same T. V. and movies, no matter what continent they live on. One online dating site boasts on a television advertisement that one in five dating relationships begin online, indicating a shift of the hub of our global culture to the internet. We are quickly becoming a planet of ONE culture, rather than of diverse cultures as my generation has known in the past.

2. Is losing one's culture really something undesirable? Immigration to other parts of the planet for the sake of employment or education is very common. That shows that for many people, employment and education are more important than culture.

One interesting trend is the shift in East Indian culture. There are a number of new movies that have come out which tell how Indian youth are tired of being forced to choose engineering and medicine as career paths, rather than expressive/artistic careers such as music, visual arts and drama. Is this cultural shift really a bad thing?

There are a number of cultures that need modification or complete replacement. The African-American culture is a slave culture. All previous culture among African-Americans was beaten out of them when they arrived in the U. S. The slave culture teaches inferiority and failure and must be (as it currently is to some extent for many African-Americans) completely replaced with a more positive culture. The European-American culture of the U. S. South needs to lose it's version of the slave culture, "White" supremacy, for a number of reasons. The Irish and Middle Eastern hate/terror cultures need to be changed.

Conclusion:
I would like to remind the voter of the resolution and definition of terms that my opponent agreed to:

Resolution: The term, "race traitor" is a fallacy.


Definition of Terms:

Race: 1. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, some being "Asian," "White," "African-American," "Native-American," "Latino," etc. characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics:(modified from Dictionary.com)

Traitor 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (Webster's Dictionary)

Fallacy 1 : a false or mistaken idea
2 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
(Webster's Dictionary)

I would also like to remind the voters of my opening argument:

I shall prove that the term "race traitor" is a fallacy according to the definitions in Round 1.First of all, a traitor is "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty." In order to prove that one is a traitor, one has to prove that one has a duty to his/her race. This is where the idea of a racial traitor falls apart. To say that being born "White" obligates one to the "White" race is a matter of opinion rather than of verifiable fact. The subjective nature of obligation to one's race makes the term "race traitor" a fallacy or, " an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference."


According to my definitions, I have proven my resolution. My opponent has given a very weak opening argument and no rebuttals to my opening argument. Should he give any further arguments in his final round, I ask that the voter not count his arguments, as I will not be able to answer any of those arguments.

Thank you for reading this debate!
Calvincambridge

Con

Cultural Differences, are real. Culture includes certain characteristics that are specific in different regions, but there's more to Culture than physical characteristics. There is food, clothing, spiritual beliefs and rituals, family ties, how their societies are stratified. Even resources that are available within a society are not always available to people of other races and culture, because Society is Stratified. Social Mobility is becoming more common today just like in the early days of globalization. People are exposed to many different cultures, many different levels of stratification, and therefore, they lose sense of their own original culture. They adopt cultural characteristics of the new cultures that they experience, and thus become more like cultures they don't belong to, and less like the one's they came from. This isn't about inter-racial friendships, its about inter-racial dating and marriage. Losing one's culture prevents that culture from being passed down, thus eliminating it in the next generation. Therefore, losing one's culture robs the next generation of knowing where they actually came from.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by boozepond 6 years ago
boozepond
I think "Traitor" already define a boundary. Betraying who or what is depending on that boundary.
The Race is Not a important factor now. But, what about a nation? Can you think same way about your nation traitor? What about a class? Can you erase all boundaries? /

Even through , "Race traitor" is meaningless. We cannot deny word "Race traitor". Because, actual problems are still based by that word. "Race" is still powerful word in the public. If we should know really meaning which is known by the public, we can solve any problem. /
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Seeker4Truth
I'm looking for someone who disagrees with you to debate.
Posted by Seeker4Truth 6 years ago
Seeker4Truth
Even given your 'new' definition of race, it seems to me that what I said earlier still stands: it is too broad; would make us all 'race traitors', and, ipso facto, 'race traitor' would become meaningless and, therefore, a fallacy.

For example, the First World War (1914-18) was largely European, fought amongst people from one of the same 'traditional divisions of humankind', which, given your definitions, would make nearly all those involved in it 'race traitors'. Then again, who hasn't 'betrayed another person's [of their own race] trust ...'?

My point is, that it appears to me - given your definition of terms - there is no debate here!

Reading through the various definitions of race that have been given in this thread so far, it occurred to me that a topic for debate could very well be, 'Is the Term 'RACE' a Fallacy?'!!!
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
F-16 This term is sometimes directed to someone who marries, dates or has friendships that are interracial.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I considered debating this but I seem to agree more than disagree with Maloy's opinions. The topic upon further reflection, I only have a vague idea what it means but I am rooting for Maloy to going against a bigot. Good luck.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Gotcha.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
I know you are thinking about it, but don't take it innomen. I want to debate a racist!
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
I think if the thrust of your argument/resolution is truly that it's foolish to be loyal to a race, that would make sense, but a fallacy....dunno.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
OK, I have modified my definition of "race." I agree with the notion that the dictionary definition I used was obsolete and needed to be changed.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
There is a problem with your definition of race. "Mongoloid" and "Negro" are not races. They are offensive terms used by racist 16th and 17th century European historians to classify all of mankind. If I were to even consider taking this, the term "race" needs to be defined explicitly. Also most modern sociologists agree that race is a sociological as opposed to a biological concept and what people called "race" generally refers to various ethnic groups like German Americans, Irish Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans etc (at least in the US).
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 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 didn't really say anything.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 6 years ago
DetectableNinja
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con used ad hom, saying that Pro was merely emotionally charged. S/G was obvious. Arguments: Pro argued effectively, Con argued extremely ineffectively--sounded more like rambling. Sources: While neither used argumentative sources, Pro DID use dictionary definitions.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro actually provided discussed the topic whereas Con just attacked Pro and said that Pro felt emotionally compelled? Arguments: Pro was the only one who provided reasonable arguments. Con hardly wrote 3 lines before the final round (which of course Pro could not respond to). In my opinion, this shows poor etiquette. Sources: Tied because while Pro gave some sources and Con gave none, Pro only gave dictionary definitions. He provided no sources to corroborate his argument.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I normally try to write a full RFD but what is the point, Pro put forth a good argument. Utterly ignored by an illiterate who rambled on about tripe.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a very articulate reason why people owe no obligation to their race. Con argued that culture was important, and that culture would be lost with race traitors. This analysis was asserted at first, and should have come out earlier in round 2. Pro's reply was weak - asserting a homogenous culture and the desirability of this. All Con needed to show to win was why keeping your own culture was so good, or better yet, why cultures are incompatible and thus cannot be homogeneous. Aff win.
Vote Placed by QT 6 years ago
QT
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several excellent arguments. However, Con did not adequately refute any of them.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 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 said almost nothing. Arguments not answered. Spelling "miscongeneation" etc. Is that like Miss Congeniality?
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Clear arguments from Pro, most of which Con didn't respond too. Con makes the case for inter-racial breeding having a negative impact on culture, but doesn't explain how culture is necessarilly tied to race
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Interesting debate
Vote Placed by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
VocMusTcrMaloyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Need I give reason to this ballot? Con might as well have forfeited each round.