The Instigator
goroth288
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Canatheist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Confederate Flag.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 78595
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

goroth288

Con

The Confederate flag IS racist. In no way does it show that people fight for this country, it is a symbol of mistakes. It is the exact same situation as when Hitler took the Swastika and turned it into a racist flag. It only takes a slip up to make an innocent symbol into a racist symbol. If anyone honestly defends this flag, you're ruining the point of why this country came to be- human freedom. We are free to create a government to make everyone happy. This country is supposed to give religious freedom and freedom of thought and speech for every citizen in America. People come here to take advantage of a better life and the south was ignorant and stupid. Honestly if the southern states that want to become their own country can go do that for all I care, they would fall into poverty and quickly become a third world country. Maybe that's what they need to realize their stupidity. Nobody wants a racist flag waved around anymore, it's classified as offensive to thousands of people, just get rid of it and never touch it again. Don't go off doing something stupid like saying that the confederate flag signifies something fine, because it's not. If someone could give a non- religious and non- hateful example, then I might actually consider your opinion, otherwise grow up and accept the fact that it's a terrible sign.
Canatheist

Pro

The Con has stated that "The Confederate flag IS racist."
I simply ask how this is so? The flag is simply a symbol. It is not anything but a banner to represent an idea.

The con continued to say "In no way does it show that people fight for this country, it is a symbol of mistakes."
No, it was a battle flag for an army on the losing side of a battle. These people were still fighting "for this country".

Then the con stated "It is the exact same situation as when Hitler took the Swastika and turned it into a racist flag."
Again, the Nazi flag was a banner for the party. It was only a symbol, a label of sorts and had no power to convey a message of it's own.

Then Con said "It only takes a slip up to make an innocent symbol into a racist symbol. If anyone honestly defends this flag, you're ruining the point of why this country came to be- human freedom."
In part, this is not an argument for the Cons side. It is only through attribution that a symbol gains any kind of meaning. It is simply an emotional response. If you are condemning a defense, than in a sense is that not ruining the point of this country, according to you? "Human freedom"?

"This country is supposed to give religious freedom and freedom of thought and speech for every citizen in America."
Does that preclude the people who honor those that fought under the southern cross? Do they not have a right to respect their heritage, even if it offends yours?

"People come here to take advantage of a better life and the south was ignorant and stupid."
Now who is being bigoted and small minded. That is a discriminatory statement.

"Honestly if the southern states that want to become their own country can go do that for all I care, they would fall into poverty and quickly become a third world country."
Why would this be assumed? Southern states have access to a large amount of the resources.

So the Con says "it's classified as offensive to thousands of people, just get rid of it and never touch it again."
So that which is offensive to someone, should be done without. You do realize that people are of different mind and have differing opinion. Many confederate flag proponents have zero affiliation with racism.

"If someone could give a non- religious and non- hateful example, then I might actually consider your opinion, otherwise grow up and accept the fact that it's a terrible sign."
Nothing I said so far should be taken as hateful, and certainly not religious. It is a symbol, that certainly has a bad image to many, that is respected by many people. Do we really need to empower symbolism and give it power and control over our lives and emotions.

Personally I think the flag should be dropped as it is just another symbol of segregation, but I think arguing and fighting for such is generally pushed for immature reasons. It is a flag, it has never killed or hurt anyone, and no one has killed or hurt for it.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tlockr// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con presented 0% understanding of history and showed multiple examples of flawed logic. Pro destroyed Con hands down. Hopefully, Con is at least consistent and wants to bring down the pyramids because they represent the lives of thousands of oppressed slaves.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct, S&G and sources are completely unexplained in this RFD. (2) The arguments points are not explained enough, as the voter doesn't show that he's read any of the debate. Vague generalities about Con's understanding of history and "flawed logic" don't suffice.
************************************************************************
Posted by Fungames 1 year ago
Fungames
One round is simply not enough to debate this issue properly. There much to discuss, and a hypothetical con vs pro should include:

Con: The creator of the flag specifically intended it to stand for racism, quoting his statement from the newspaper he wrote in:

"As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. " William T. Thompson"

Pro: Symbols change their meanings. That swastika universally meant hapiness and luck was hijacked by nazis to mean Aryan race supremancy. That CSA flag once meant white man's supremacy over slaves, then also meant revolt and freed, and today is used by both KKKs AND people defending heritage and believing Civil War was unneccesary destruction is a whole issue about CONTEXT in which symbol is being used.

Pro: Also, one cannot assume all CSA soldiers and people believed that slavery must be safeguarded in the long run. Those were views of interest to some few percent of slaveowners in the CSA. The reasons for them were different, e.g. tariffs which North imposed on the South.

Con: But it was the political elite who defined casus belli back then, and even though tariffs are mentioned in declarations of secession, slavery was overwhelming issue.

Pro: It does matter what views on slavery and the war itself (which I think was against reason, using scorched earth that was only meant to destroy Southern industry to make them even more dependant on developed North) have people that use the flag nowadays. Not all of them are racist. The reason that many people became radical and joined KKK is revanchism and sentiment that followed destruction after the war.

...And so on. This is how you should debate guys.
Posted by Canatheist 1 year ago
Canatheist
Agree or disagree, I feel I addressed Con's rant, so vote Pro :)
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
@ Greg4586

Quiet down you trouble maker.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

Abe Lincoln
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
Do you really think that the North was any less racist than the South. Whenever it's taught the North is almost always glorified as the benevolent heroes. They were both racist.

Well the victors write history I guess.
Posted by EcoFriendly 1 year ago
EcoFriendly
So symbolically you're saying the Confederate Flag has no meaning? You seem to be attacking the pro's position. How does this make you any better? Southern states views on slavery at the time wasn't the only reason for the civil war. No need to attack someone's view on this subject and call them "stupid".. Brush up on your history before you DISCRIMINATE other peoples view.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
could you do us all a favor and post your rants in the forums next time?

"It took a lot of courage to oppose slavery in, say, 1855. It takes zero courage to oppose it today. This is one reason I am convinced that those who are most ostentatious in their aversion to slavery in 2013 are the least likely to have opposed it at the time. Their excessive eagerness to disassociate themselves from perceived "extremism" would not have served them well in the 1850s, when abolitionism, which had zero electoral success, was the most notorious extremism of the day."

Tom Woods
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
I won't accept this debate because I don't have the time, but the so-called "Confederate flag" was only used for one of the great General Robert E. Lee's armies. And if you're going to jump to extremes of black-and-white thinking and compare the Confederacy to Nazis, at least do a little historical research. The Union had slaves too, and the Civil War was fought more over states' rights versus federal government than anything. Hopefully, Pro will not be so eager to apply today's politically correct values to events long past.
No votes have been placed for this debate.