The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
75 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 16 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,782 times Debate No: 9710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (16)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

A campaign by Leftists accusing Limbaugh with charges of racism was a success. They succeeded in getting him kicked out of the investor group that is planning to make a bid for the St. Louis Rams.

The important evidence against Limbaugh comprised his alleged comments praising Martin Luther King's assassin, his comment "Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark," and finally that he made disparaging remarks about the NAACP. All of these accusations were false. The first two were apparently fabricated by a left-wing blogger named Hooberman and the last by a columnist for the Kansas City Star. (http://www.foxnews.com... ... Oct 15). Some of the comments were repeated, without a source, in Wikipedia. MSNBC and CNN featured them heavily, again without providing a source. http://newsbusters.org...

Limbaugh once criticized sports commentators for being easy on quarterback Donovan McNabb because, Limbaugh claimed, they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. That was years ago, so clearly it didn't play any role in the NFL investors decision. Moreover, that comment was about race, but it was not directed against McNabb because of is race. By comparison, some have commented that Obama got a boost in the last election because of his race. That is another example of a comment about the role of race in contemporary society, but it is not an irrational criticism based upon race; in other words, it isn't racist.

Commentators and critics should be universally condemned for lying and for repeating unverified accusations against Limbaugh. The resolution is affirmed.
Danielle

Con

Introduction:

To slander somebody means to create malicious, false and defamatory statements, with the most important word here being false. I propose that Rush Limbaugh wasn't slandered in regard to the issue of his bidding for the St. Louis Rams. This is because R.L. has absolutely made racist statements in the past, thus nobody was creating false rumors or lying about his alleged racism as implied by the resolution. It's no secret that he's been condemned as a racist for several years now, and I submit that he can be considered to have made racist statements.

Quotes:

[1] Look, let me put it to you this way -- The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Here Limbaugh associates professional black athletes with criminals and gang members. Is there really any way to justify this statement? Sure, you could easily say that he was referring to the violence on the field; however, it's no coincidence that the NFL is composed of 78% African Americans, and the Bloods and the Crips are primarily black as well. He was drawing a comparison between black people and violence. Period.

[2] The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

"Limbaugh is saying that an organization with a storied tradition of representing the positive black people for change in their communities are criminals and rioters. An organization that has been represented by intelligent professional African Americans, that has played a part in the Civil Rights movement, and continues to be an intelligent, concerned voice for the African American community is degraded to common criminals," says one source on the issue.

[3] They're 12 percent of the population (black people). Who the hell cares?

Democracies are designed to protect the rights of the minority, first of all. Nevertheless, this is a very unnecessary statement, in which RL claims not to care about the opinions or wants of the African American minority.

[4] Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

This is a really old so-called joke, in which black people are made fun of for having different shaped noses than white people. Rush Limbaugh is a grown man and a professional, and as such, he has no business making these kinds of offensive comments to callers who phone in to contribute to his show.

[5] I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve.

Pro himself brought up this quote/issue, to which I'd have to disagree with his claim that this quote is irrelevant because it was made years ago (2003). Even if the quote is 6 years old, it can still have an impact on his reputation and career. Pro adds, "By comparison, some have commented that Obama got a boost in the last election because of his race." True, but people who make these comments don't say that Obama's race is the only reason he won the election, do they? Even so, people don't brag about Obama's achievements while he's in office by attributing them or his success to his race.

[6] Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American' has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than 1% of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.' Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro' using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who is now the President of the United States.

Conclusion:

The NFL requires a 3/4 majority approval of a new owner applicant by the existing owners. That rule exists for a reason. So, if the people don't want him as an owner, tough luck. They have the right to vote nay upon his application for any reason they see fit. The problem here is that RL supporters maintain that RL was being rejected because of his politics and manipulated quotes. The reality is that people can reject him on whatever they want or feel about RL, and further, he did make very specific offensive quotes which he has admitted to saying. Having your words misinterpreted is a risk of anyone in the public eye; hell, he does it to others all the time. Now he's paying for it, and claiming that he didn't really make several of the quotes that have been attributed to him on channels like CNN. Since then, CNN has publicly apologized for citing several unsourced quotes apparently made by RL. However, the reality is that the other cited quotes are legitimate.

Famous commentators share my sentiments --> Dan Lebowitz, executive director of the Center for Sports and Society at Northeastern University, asks this: Do you bring in someone who has made racist statements to own a team that's largely made up of players the owner has made slurring statements about? Michael Smerconish continues, "There's an argument that says the very principles Rush espouses -- the free market -- are what did him in... This IS the free market. These are private businessmen who made a decision about what was in the best business interest of their thriving venture." Al Sharpton adds, ""It's remarkable in that he was denied by other powerful whites. At the end of the day, his own peers said, 'You are a liability.' Even the rich and powerful do not want to be identified with racism."

Sources:

[1] http://www.cbssports.com...
[2] http://www.fair.org...
[3] http://www.commondreams.org...
[4] http://www.fair.org...
[5] http://www.laweekly.com...
[6] http://newsone.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

1. The debate is about whether Limbaugh was slandered. The evidence is that multiple quotations were fabricated and then irresponsibly repeated by Limbaugh-hating news outlets and commentators. Con did not question that the quotations were false or that they were maliciously repeated. Moreover, it was those specific quotations that led to his being dropped by investors, not some other stuff that critics dug up later. Con did not dispute that either. Therefore, Limbaugh was indeed slandered and the resolution is affirmed.

2. Con argues that even though Limbaugh was slandered, we shouldn't worry about it because Limbaugh really is a racist. The evidence comprises quotations lifted from left-wing blobs and we sites. Con gives no primary sources: no dates or places, no references to transcripts, recordings, or even people who claimed to have heard them. Since we know that leftist web sites are not above total fabrication in the case of Limbaugh, we don't know which of the quotations are accurate and which are fabricated. The context of quotations is extremely important, and none of Con's references provides any of the context.

Because Con is attempting to make a counter case that Limbaugh is a racist, and because we know evidence is often fabricated, Con should provide references to reliable source material, and, most importantly, the context in which the statement was made. I did my best to track down the sources, and in some cases I found relevant material, which I will discuss, but most of the time there is nothing I could find but isolated unreferenced repetition on leftist sites.

Turning to con's quotes:

Quote [1]. Limbaugh was complaining about excessive violence in the NFL, referring to incidents of players attacking each other between plays. He was trying make the distinction between the controlled violence of the sport and the uncontrolled violence between plays. He sarcastically compared the uncontrolled violence to "Bloods vs. Crips." That's an overwrought comparison, but it has nothing to do with racism. If one wants to make a comparison to street gangs, there are not many choices of gangs having names known to the public. How many people know the racial composition of gangs? I didn't. Looking it up, Wikipedia says that the Bloods are a predominantly black gang, but it doesn't say what the Crips are. Point is, you have to do research and then see the world as being entirely about race to make the association. Liberals do that, Conservatives don't.

There is a common joke: "We went to a fight last night, and a hockey game broke out." Most hockey players are white, so is that joke therefore an expression of racial hatred by which white people are being characterized as violent? I think not. But if you have a preconception that everything is about race, you could interpret it that way.

Quote [2] I could not find the context of the quote about the NAACP, nor could I verify its truth. In general, Limbaugh has been highly critical of the NAACP for putting liberal ideology ahead of the interests of black people. For example, the school voucher program in Washington was of great benefit to under privileged black citizens, but the NAACP stuck to the liberal agenda of opposing it. Consequently, I am supposing that Limbaugh was providing sarcastic criticism of the NAACP's lack of positive alternatives for black youth. However, if Con will provide the full context, I will be able to better figure out what is going on.

Quote [3] It's impossible to analyze this quote without the context. Clearly there are some things related to 12% of the population that we should care about, and other things we should not care about. What was he referring to?

Quote [4] The quotation is from 1971, when Limbaugh was 20 years old and doing sports radio. It was 13 years before he started as political commentator. The remark is intemperate and inexcusable. Twenty-year-olds do sometimes say intemperate and inexcusable things -- although,of course, I never did. It doesn't prove he is or was a racist. It proves he was running off at the mouth.

Quote [5] The point of the McNabb controversy being ten years ago is that clearly it was know by the invstors group beor ethey invited him to join, so it wasn't the issue. I said the quote was about race, but not racist. Con should respond to that.

No, people do not claim that Obama won solely because of race. Similarly, Limbaugh did not say that McNabb was a bad quarterback; Limbaugh only claimed that he got a boost from some commentators.

Quote [6] Limbaugh is obviously being sarcastic, but I need the full context to analyze it.

"The song mocks David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt" [7] It is not critical of black people at all. It is critical of the white liberal guilt complex.

3. There is ample evidence that Limbaugh is not a racist. A racist is a person who condemns on the grounds of race. A racist is a person who thinks race is more important than almost anything else, and holds race to be the paramount factor in judging an individual. Limbaugh is not in that category.

On a talk show, the call screener determines who gets through to talk to the host. Limbaugh's long-time call screener and close friend is James Golden (a.k.a Bo Snerdley), an African-American [1]. One of Limbaugh's most frequent and popular guest hosts is black professor of economics Walter Washington [1,2]. Thomas Sowell, the African-American professor from Stanford, is a frequent guest and much lauded by Limbaugh. Sowell praises Limbaugh. [3]

Another close friend of Limbaugh's is the Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., an African-American, who said "My wife and I have listened to Rush for over two decades, and we have never heard Rush make a racist statement. If we had, we would have stopped listening," Jackson says. "This is strictly about liberal hatred of a conservative commentator." [4]

Black columnist and performer Lloyd Marcus [5] said, "I have been a faithful Rush Limbaugh radio show listener for almost 20 years. I have never heard Rush make one racist comment. As a matter of fact, I am a black man who has been inspired and encouraged by Rush on numerous occasions." [6]

Limbaugh strongly defended Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during the confirmation hearings.

It is not possible that a person who systematically faults people on grounds of race would show this pattern of friendship, respect, and trust for black people.

4. Con claims "Famous commentators share my sentiments" The *famous* commentators are Dan Lebowitz, Michael Smerconish, and Al Sharpton. At least Sharpton is somewhat famous, but all are left-wing political hacks. Sharpton is completely discredited as a race baiter. [8]

Far more relevant are people like Tony Dungy, the highly regarded black football coach, "We don't have any minority ownership in the NFL right now, and I think, you know, that just strikes me as the same thing, because of the way this guy looks, because of the way he sounds, because of his political bent, that he shouldn't be allowed to own a team, .." [9] Dungy correctly perceives that Limbaugh is being slandered because of his political beliefs.

The resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://economics.gmu.edu...
[3] http://jewishworldreview.com...
[4] http://www.jenniferleclaire.org...
[5] http://www.lloydmarcus.com...
[6] http://www.americanthinker.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://online.wsj.com...
[9] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com...
Danielle

Con

1. Again, RL wasn't slandered, because RL has absolutely made racist statements in the past, thus nobody was lying about his alleged racism as implied by the resolution. Yes, the media reported some quotes that have yet to be accurately sourced. However, as I've said in R1, the media has already apologized and retracted those statements. The statements that Limbaugh DID make and are validly sourced can and do depict him as a racist.

Pro cannot say that the "evidence" reports multiple quotations were fabricated. The dispute over several quotes is the fact that nobody can source them specifically. That is not to say that there is evidence that RL never said them, but instead that there is no evidence that he did say them. People will have to listen to thousands of hours of recorded RL talk radio - which I'm guessing won't happen soon - in order to be "evidence" that he didn't say those things.

2. Pro argues that I have not provided any decent sources, because my presentations have come from leftist blogs and other liberal sites. Well, is CBS Sports a liberal site? Is LA Weekly a leftist blog? The blog that I did source quoted and cited ESPN, and noted this quote: "There can be no excuse for such statements. Mr. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants, but ABC and ESPN have no obligation to sponsor such hateful and ignorant speech. Mr. Limbaugh should be fired immediately." When a respected, retired general condemns the statement of a sportscaster, you know he's gone too far.

Additionally, if Rush Limbaugh made these statements on his talk radio show, I would like for Pro to please detail how he expects me to cite specific clips and one-line verbal statements online. The reality is that these statements were made by Limbaugh (many of which he has admitted), so for Pro to suggest that they be discarded simply because of how I've cited them online is absurd. There is no realistic way to cite comments that Limbaugh has made on his talk show over the decades he's been around; the reality is that he DID make these statements, and my sources have written about it (including fair.org, which is NOT a biased liberal blog, but in fact a national media watch group which has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship). If Pro has found any of my specifically cited sources to be fabrications as he said he did, then he is obligated to present the evidence instead of just merely making false accusations.

[ Quotes ]

1. Pro says that Limbaugh's Bloods and Crips reference was him merely complaining about excessive violence in the NFL. First, why is Pro's interpretation of Limbaugh's statements any more valid than mine? The fact is that Pro has no more knowledge of what Limbaugh meant than I do, so we can only look to the context of what Limbaugh said in order to try and extract his intention. Surely Pro can say that Limbaugh later on clarified what he meant by that statement; however, obviously RL isn't going to come right out and admit that he made a racist comment.

If Limbaugh's intention was really to discuss NFL violence, then why didn't he just say that? Why did he liken it to well known street gangs that are predominantly black? I suspect that because these gangs are predominantly black the same way that the NFL is predominantly black, that he was making a joke about what it looked like on the field. Regardless, that is a very specific statement that could easily be considered offensive by some, and thus despite Limbaugh's intention, it was still an inappropriate comment which can definitely be considered racist.

Also, Pro's hockey quote fails to be an adequate comparison to what Limbaugh said. Rush didn't say that a fight between the Bloods and the Crips resembled an NFL game, the way a fight in Pro's joke resembled a hockey game. Instead, it was the other way around. Now when referring to the violence of a predominantly white hockey game, would Rush Limbaugh have made the comment, "Man - it looks like the Bloods and the Crips out there?" I highly suspect that the answer would be no (because it wouldn't make a connection and thus not be 'funny').

2. Pro said that he could not find the context of the quote about the NAACP. Again, these quotes were taken from RL's talk radio show, which would be nearly impossible to quote in their full context here online. Instead, when RL made these quotes over time, they were taken and reported on in various sources in the media including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Detroit Free Press, the Washington Post, etc. In fact, this statement (and the others that Limbaugh is now denying) have been around for years, including in a well known book. It wasn't until they may have cost him his bid for the Rams that he is suddenly denying that he's ever said them. Could it be because these statements are now in the public eye? No. They've been posted on my cited sources and the subject of much controversy for years.

Sports commentator Jason Whitlock writes, "Limbaugh doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters... You can argue the comments are presented out of context and were meant as jokes. Then I'd argue that Limbaugh needs to get on the comedy-club circuit and out of the business of attempting to influence presidential politics."

Pro writes, "In general, Limbaugh has been highly critical of the NAACP for putting liberal ideology ahead of the interests of black people. For example, the school voucher program in Washington was of great benefit to under privileged black citizens, but the NAACP stuck to the liberal agenda of opposing it." The truth is that the NAACP has always been opposed to voucher programs based on the premise that these programs use public funds to support private education. They see voucher programs as hastening the abandonment of public schools while leaving behind the majority of low-income students of color. This may be a conflict of opinion as most liberal/conservative battles are; however, it's ridiculous to suggest that the NAACP is acting specifically to hurt black people, and Rush's statement against this organization was unwarranted.

Pro continues, "If Con will provide the full context, I will be able to better figure out what is going on." This implies that Pro intends on defending Rush, despite the true intent or content of his quotes.

3. It's appalling for Pro to suggest that because blacks are composed of only 12% of the population, that their issues should not be heard (regardless of what the issues were). We don't dismiss issues that are made by white people because they're a majority of the population. Of course many "black issues" are nonsense the same way that many "white issues" are nonsense. The point is that Rush specifically stated that black issues shouldn't be heard.

4. Pro excuses RL's blatantly racist quote because it was made in 1971. Sure RL could have matured since then, and should be forgiven if he's apologetic. However, you can't force people (NFL players, coaches, administration, etc.) to be comfortable after Rush made that statement publicly, and continued to make questionable statements all throughout his career.

5. The idea that NFL commentators play up McNabb's success because of his race is ridiculous. In a league that's composed of over 70% African Americans, why would they be using his race to exaggerate one's success? That's completely illogical.

6. Pro says that RL is "obviously being sarcastic" when he makes fun of Obama. Last year Limbaugh referred to Obama as "the little black man-child." When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate - the first black woman ever elected to that body - Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's Jeffersons when he mentioned her. Sarcastic? Perhaps. Still majorly offensive? You bet!

As far as Pro's insistence that RL isn't a racist, I'm out of characters for now, but will address every one of Pro's matters in R3.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

Slander is "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report" http://dictionary.reference.com.... Slander remains slander if it is later admitted and apologized for. (Few of the slandering organizations actually apologized, they made the lame excuse that the false quotations "could not be sourced." Would, "Claims that Obama was a child molester could not be sourced." fly? I hope not.) Slander remains slander if the person falsely accused may be rightly accused of something else. The three false quotations were in regard to praising James Earl Ray, citing advantages of slavery, and certain statements about the NAACP. Those false statements were the proximate cause of Limbaugh being dropped from the NFL investment group, not the McNabb controversy or anything prior to that. The statements were malicious, false, and defamatory and that is all that is required for them to be slander.

Con proposes that malicious statements that cannot be supported by evidence ought to be deemed true, or at least not false, unless they can be conclusively proved false. This is the doctrine of being guilty until proven innocent. Con approvingly quotes the notion that "the benefit of the doubt should not be extended .. " Under this doctrine, a right-wing blogger could assert, "Obama said he wants a Marxist future for America." and it would have to stand without benefit of doubt. That's absurd!

Con's principle of presumptive guilt is nonsense because the burden of proof of misdeeds always belongs to the accuser. Every claim must either be proven or otherwise dismissed. If we do not dismiss the unproven, virtually any fabricated statement would stand. It is a practical impossibility to document every word a person has said in their entire life in order to prove that they didn't say something.

In the the case of Limbaugh's radio show, the audio transcript of ever show is posted on his web site, and large segments are posted as written transcripts. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com... Con acknowledged the transcripts exist, but claimed that it as the job of Limbaugh defenders to go through them and prove he *didn't* make the alleged statements. No, it is the accusers job to find the offending statements. In the previous round I cited two Limbaugh listeners, both black, who claimed to listen faithfully and to have never heard anything racist. That's what Con wanted.

I said it would also suffice if someone reputable said they heard the show, gave the date, and provided the quote with the context with which it was said. If there was no tape, evaluation of the evidence would depend upon the credibility of the witness who claimed to hear it. Quotes given out of context are extremely suspicious, because they are self-evident of an agenda in which the person quoted is supposed to be found at fault based upon a single sentence. Out-of-context quotations are self-evidently biased. So clearly Con's sources are biased.

If an accuser cannot even cite the time and place of the alleged statement, then it ought not be used.

1. Con wants to know why her racist interpretation of Limbaugh should not be honored above my non-racist interpretation. One reason is that Con is accusing Limbaugh of being a racist, and therefore has the burden to show that her interpretation is the correct one. The context of the remark would either support or deny her interpretation, and if it cannot provided, the accusation is unsupported.

My interpretation is based upon Limbaugh's explanation of his remark, http://video.aol.co.uk... (go to the 2:45 point in the video). Limbaugh's remark was occasioned by a game being lost by a "taunting" penalty between plays. This shows the importance of context.

Con muses, "would Rush Limbaugh have made the comment [for a hockey fight] ... I highly suspect that the answer would be no ..." Con fantasizes about Limbaugh, then holds him guilty for actions in the fantasy. (Can we all apply the same principle to those we dislike?) Since Limbaugh's original remark was occasioned by a taunting penalty, it is reasonable to suppose he would have made it with respect to a hockey penalty that cost a game.

My larger point was that person with a racist way of viewing the world can interpret many things as being about race when they are not. Con didn't dispute that.

2. Con claims, "Again, these quotes were taken from RL's talk radio show, which would be nearly impossible to quote in their full context here online." Why would they be able to quote on line? Con admits the transcripts are available. Moreover, if they were reported at the time they were made, why are there no dates, no times, and no individuals who claim specifically when they heard them? Why is there no context? We ought to have something like "Yesterday on his show, Limbaugh was discussing the taunting penalty that cost the game with the Patriots, and he said that sometimes it ..." That is not asking a lot, but it is apparently too much for ideologues with an agenda.

Con confirms that the NAACP upholds the liberal principle of opposing vouchers above the acute interests of black students in Washington DC who benefited substantially from a voucher program. Demonstrations in support of the DC voucher program were made by black parents, who according to con's logic must have been racist for opposing the NAACP. Con believes that liberal ideology should be upheld regardless of who it hurts, the faith-conquers-all approach, but it is nonetheless legitimate, and not racist, for Limbaugh to express a different viewpoint.

3. As far as I can determine the quotation is a fabrication. I can find no source on the net, let alone context. However, assuming it is true, Con is unable to suggest what aspect of minority interests Limbaugh said we shouldn't care about. Should we take up arms and march on Washington if blacks own very few Chinese restaurants? No, it doesn't matter. Other things do matter. So what was the subject?

4. I said that Limbaugh's 1971 quote was "intemperate and inexcusable." Con then claimed that I excused it. My claim was that intemperate remarks by twenty year olds should not brand people as life-long racists. If con takes the contrary position, she should assert that all remarks made at age twenty should be held to accountability as if they were made in later years.

At the time, Limbaugh was on a "shock jock" sports call in show, in the style of Howard Stern, and the caller was speaking incomprehensibly. Limbaugh has since said he regrets the comment.

5. Apparently, Con does not understand that even though 70% of the players in the NFL are black, a much lower percentage of quarterbacks have been black. Consequently, it is perfectly logical to want a black quarterback to do well. In any case, Limbaugh's comments were disparaging of commentators, not blacks.

6. Ah, more quotes without sources or context. Writing fiction is fun!

I offered substantial evidence that Limbaugh did not behave as a racist. He has key staff, colleagues, friends, and supporters from the black community. He vigorously supports black conservatives. Limbaugh cares about his conservative principles, not a person's race. Con did not respond, so I will not be able to rebut the new arguments she makes. It's Con's responsibility to fit her argument into the space provided.

The Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live asked "Could it be Satan?" in response to every event she didn't like. Con asks "Could it be racism?" with the same voice. Only if you see Satan or racism, respectively, everywhere. It's a product of the observer, not the event. It's about political correctness requiring that true statements cannot be made if they could possibly be misinterpreted by PC ideologues.

Limbaugh was maliciously defamed. The resolution is affirmed.
Danielle

Con

Given Pro's last round response, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of him starting this debate was. If all he was trying to prove was that certain racist comments allegedly spoken by Rush Limbaugh have not been sourced, then clearly no debate was even necessary. I can't prove that Rush Limbaugh made those 3 specific statements any more than CNN could. Did Pro really expect that kind of specific argument from Con? I have to wonder what would make him assume that there are young sleuths here on DDO who could investigate every single one of Rush's on-air talk radio segments (thousands upon thousands of hours of radio) or his decades in the public eye and therefore provide a sufficient Con rebuttal according to Pro's terms.

Considering the recent controversy -- not to mention Roy's reputation as being a formidable debater -- I didn't expect him to create such a one-sided debate (it's manipulative because no "debate" can even occur ~ You either source it or you can't). I figured this debate was about Rush's comments being the reason that Limbaugh was not able to make a big for the St. Louis Rams, and I've argued it from that perspective. For that reason, despite the outcome, I'll continue debating it as such.

Now in regard to being considered guilty until proven innocent, what I actually said about Limbaugh was that he does not get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters, considering all of the controversy he's sparked over the years in which people have depicted his statements (those to which he's admitted to saying) as being blatantly racist, i.e. the bone-in-nose comment. Yes, the U.S. government upholds a just innocent until proven guilty policy; however, not every organization in the U.S. operates under those stipulations... especially private ones. So, basically I was defending the NFL's right to deny Limbaugh a bid for whatever reason they so chose. And, moreover, I believe that their concerns about his racists comments were justified, which I explained at length in the previous rounds.

Moving on, Pro writes that it is the accusers job of presenting evidence via transcripts of RL's radio show that he's made specific racist comments. First of all, I didn't say anything in the last round about existing transcripts so I have no idea what Pro is talking about. However even assuming that these transcripts exist (the site Pro sourced does not include ALL of Rush' segments from ALL of Rush's shows), the thing is that nobody knows for sure whether he made those comments on the radio, or some other point that he was running his mouth. It's true that he shouldn't be accused of things without any proof; however, his reputation as a racist and the way the players would have responded is why Rush didn't get a bid -- not those 3 specific comments, or his politics as he's claimed. So while perhaps 3 quotes weren't sourced (or maybe not even spoken), there are plenty of other remarks that people could have made their decision to label him as a racist upon, which is why I argued that he wasn't slandered.

Additionally, Pro notes that in the last round, he cited 2 black listeners who like and support Rush as proof that he's not a racist. Well good for them! That proves nothing, as those are Conservative listeners and that's what Rush's show is about - Conservative politics, not racism. Just because some black people like Rush is hardly any evidence in his favor. And regarding Rush not getting a big based on his politics, well, it's fair to assume that a vast majority if not all NFL owners are Republican, so I highly doubt that's the case.

To clarify, I agree with Pro that it was wrong for people to take Rush's other quotes out of context, which is why I avoided listing those in my original response upon further investigation of the context in which he said certain things. Pro saying that "clearly my sources are biased" is a joke. You'll notice that he simply made this accusation without responding to my argument that sources such as ESPN or more frustratingly FAIR - a watch dog media bias group - are NOT biased sources. So, Pro making this claim without any evidence and just saying it - or citing specially how and where they were biased - therefore makes him just as guilty of slander as the media that he's trying to condemn.

Next Pro writes, "Demonstrations in support of the DC voucher program were made by black parents, who according to con's logic must have been racist for opposing the NAACP. Con believes that liberal ideology should be upheld regardless of who it hurts." First of all, I'm not a liberal, so Roy's attempting to poison the well and discrediting my point based on this misconception. Pro completely and undoubtedly straw manned my point here; what I did was explain why the NAACP generally opposed school vouchers -- I did NOT say that those who did were racist!!!

Pro continues to say that Rush's alleged comment about not listening to 12% of the population was insignificant, because we don't know which 12% Rush may have been referring to. That's irrelevant. Like I said in the previous rounds, we live in a democracy which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, whomever those minorities might be. Sure, it's possible that he was talking about owners of Chinese restaurants, but as I said, it's not completely outlandish for Rush to be accused of bringing up issues of race on his program.

On August 21, 2007, Limbaugh said, "Democrats want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur. There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them?" [1] I mean, this is a perfectly cited source - with audio - for Pro. I've got a newsflash: Some liberals don't want to go into Darfur to secure the black vote. Some people actually care about human rights and what's going on over there. To say that Democrats support our military helping out because the people in Darfur are BLACK is ridiculous and offensive.

Now, regarding Rush playing the Movin On Up theme song from the Jeffersons, you'll notice that Pro didn't respond to this disrespectful act but merely claims that it didn't happen... despite the fact that I cited a source claiming the contrary, and the fact that there are audio records of this. Nevertheless, I'll conclude my argument with two final points: First, Pro writes, "The Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live asked "Could it be Satan?" in response to every event she didn't like. Con asks "Could it be racism?" with the same voice." Again, Pro's trying to depict me as some PC-obsessed flaming liberal out to attack Rush like the rest of the media. That is not me, and that has never been my intention.

Like I said, this was a completely useless and pointless debate if Pro's only intention was to prove that the media made claims about Rush that they could not source. I'd tend to agree with him there and really couldn't care less if I lose this debate because of it. However, again, since I thought this was going to be an actual debate instead of monotonous "The media is scum" tirade, my intention in this debate was to prove that RL has consistently been a questionable and controversial figure since the inception of his public career, and has indeed made some inappropriate or unwise comments in the past. As such, I respect the NFLs decision (which is what I interpreted this debate to be about), and stand by the fact that the decision to deny Rush the bid was NOT made based on politics.

To claim that Rush wasn't allowed to bid because of alleged slander is the same speculation, again, as what Pro is condemning. Rush applied to be a part of a private organization, and as such, he has to respect their authority and rules that are not identical to U.S. government policies.

Source:

[1] http://mediamatters.org...
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
LeafRod, Nonsense, people who are even slightly racist do not accumulate close friends and colleagues from the group they supposedly hate. No one can possibly defend against the charge that they are racist inside, but don't show it. Who knows, maybe you are one of those secret racists? Right? No, wrong. The false accusations flow from first hating Limbaugh for his political beliefs, then trying to rationalize a fundamentally irrational level of hatred. It should suffice to attack Limbaugh's political beliefs rationally, one by one, without calling up irrational hatred.
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
Well, there are varying degrees of racism, and I think Limbaugh is more of one than most people, and more of one than people should be.

You're right, though, that he isn't crazy enough to just block them out completely.

Of course, I also have other reasons for generally thinking he sucks.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
theLwerd, There are 32 teams with 45 player per team, 1440 total. 7 objected. The Union never voted, just an activist in the union.

Are we to understand that you listen to Limbaugh regularly?
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
thLwerd,

Why wasn't it amusing? Did you think it racist or because it's true?

Look, I agree with you on the reasoning on Vick & the NFL; however, let's not kid ourselves about how unfairly Rush got treated vs Vick and so many other convicted felons in the NFL. In the end, it's their (NFL) problem. But this debate was more about how Rush is portrait in the media; there is a clear double standard.

Democracies...straw man...what? Democracy IS the tyranny of the mob! It is the OPPOSITE of protection of minorities. It's precisely the things that are undemocratic that allow for the protection of minorities. It is the fact that we have a Republic & rule of law that minorities can be "protected."

You say: "Additionally, even if it's true (if it could be statistically proven somehow), it would still be racist." This is of course impossible because if it is statistically proven then it is NOT solely based on race and thus NOT racist by YOUR own definition. Its similar to the so called racial profiling: as if cops make up a profile that only has race in it. I mean honestly! Really!

Here's a knee slapper from back in my college indoctrination days: I was told that minorities (in this particular case it was black people) cannot be racists because they are the minority and as a minority, are not in a position of power and thus cannot be racist. Hilarious!
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
* NFL Players Union
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Roy --

"People who viciously attack Limbaugh and Fox News are not regular listeners/viewers and have very little idea what they do."

This is a hasty, fallacious assumption. I HATE Fox and I watch Fox News every single day. Maybe on the flip side, a FAN of Fox news isn't aware of what Fox does? It's very hard to see bias when you're in agreement.

"There is no evidence that many players objected to Limbaugh, just a handful of obliging activists."

At least 7 players have come out publicly and said they would never play for Limbaughs team (http://www.nydailynews.com...) and the NFL union opposed him (http://newsbusters.org...).
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
To clarify further on that point (to avoid confusion), I don't think that all racism is wrong.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
tboone, your attempts at being clever are far from amusing. Here's my answer to your Michael Vick "joke" -- http://www.debate.org...

On a serious note, regarding MV (1) I don't think what he did was a crime, since I don't believe that non-human animals have rights. And (2) even if it's a crime by law, the NFL is a private organization that can employ whomever they see fit in compliance with the law. It's not illegal for them to keep MV, so if they want him over RL, tough :)

Anyway, I didn't say that democracy was about minority rule... straw man, much? I said democracies attempt to protect minorities against the tyranny of majority, via things like the legislature and elected executives as opposed to direct democracy via ballots. Isn't that obvious?

Regarding racism, you're again completely straw manning my argument. Nowhere did I say that if someone's feelings are hurt that it's racism. What I said was that if feelings or thoughts about an individual are derived about a person's race alone - positive or negative - then it's racist, even if it's correct. For instance, if someone said "Blacks are better athletes than whites," it might not hurt anyone's feelings, but it's still racist. Additionally, even if it's true (if it could be statistically proven somehow), it would still be racist.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
thLwerd, "See the post I just made to Roy."

What does that have to do with the obviously flawed statement you made about democracies protecting minorities? A democracy would crush a minority. Democracy is about majority rule not minority.

As far as the definition of "racist" that you are attempting to defend here: it's do broad a term. It's almost like "if feelings are hurt, then it's racist." If that's the case, then we're all racists.

As far as Limbaugh & the NFL go: I guess he should have been a dog killer or convicted felon, then they would gone easier on him! (Damn it! I suppose that last statement could be construed as racist.)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
theLwerd, "Roy didn't provide any incentive whatsoever for people to have slandered him this time (I mean did they not want him to own the Rams that badly? And whom?)"

The incentive, of course, is blind hatred of Limbaugh, contrary to the facts and the evidence. It's defending a quasi-religious belief. What's the incentive to deny evolution, for example? The incentive is to keep one's particular belief system in tact. People who viciously attack Limbaugh and Fox News are not regular listeners/viewers and have vey little idea what they do. they nonetheless know that they should claim racism, etc., as part of their pweudo-religion. They then depend upon nonexistent or out-of-context quotes when called upon to defend their faith-based beliefs. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There is no evidence that many players objected to Limbaugh, just a handful of obliging activists.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lucky120 7 years ago
Lucky120
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Haezed 7 years ago
Haezed
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 7 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
RoyLathamDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60