The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The word "racism" has become a misused label in the United States.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,184 times Debate No: 99553
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




Hello and thank you to anyone who accepts this debate. I would simply like to address the fact that society tends to label anything that remotely has to do with race or ethnicity as "racist". To clarify, the Pro (me) will be arguing that the phrase has been misused in society and is tossed around too much while the Con side can argue that the word is used correctly and is correctly applied to each scenario I bring.

The definition of racism is: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. (Any dictionary says the same thing or something along the same lines)

The definition of stereotype is: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

The overarching idea of my arguments is that racism and stereotyping are completely different.

1. Police Brutality
Many people have labeled the police organization as racist because there is unfair targeting of minorities (namely African American and Hispanic). However, I believe that this is a result of stereotypes not racism. The Huffington Post points out in 2015 that the reason blacks are more likely to be arrested than white people is due to heavy policing in dense urban areas where blacks are more likely to live. This is a result of the stereotype that black people commit more crimes. Whether this is true or not is not important. Rather what we must look at is that police have long been ingrained with the idea that blacks and Hispanics commit more crimes. This isn't due to the fact that police believe that blacks and Hispanics are inferior to whites, but rather because they believe that they, in general, commit more crimes. Therefore, labeling racism onto police brutality against minorities is a misuse of the word racism.

2. Trump's Muslim Ban
Organizations such as Ultraviolet have been advocating the repeal of the Muslim ban on the basis that it is racist because it targets Muslims. There are few things to realize. Trump's ban is not really a Muslim ban. He may say it is and he may have said in his campaign that he would implement a MUSLIM ban, but this is not entirely true. Saudi Arabia has a very high Muslim population but was not included on the list of travel banned countries. This is most likely due to Saudi Arabia being a large exporter of oil to the United States. What we must understand is that Trump wanted to keep America safe. It may in the end, end up being horrific for the United States, but you have to give him chops for trying. This also debunks the idea that the ban was racist. Trump did not issue the ban because he believes Muslims are beneath the power of the white man; he issued it because he wants to keep Americans safe and in the past, followers of the Islamic religion have enacted terror on the United States. I hope everyone realizes that those in support of the travel ban are not anti-Muslim. Islam is a very peaceful religion and only a particular sect takes the 6th pillar too far, however because of the harm that a small sect of the Islamic religion had brung to the US and to countries world-wide, action needed to be taken. It was not because Trump is a racist person nor because this idea was "racist". The goal was to keep people safe, not to demean others.

I hope that, even in such a touchy subject, that we can keep calm, argue with logic, and understand the other side even better than we do now.

Thanks and have a great day :)


1. Police Brutality: There are transcripts of the police in Fergusen using demeaning language describing Black people. Even I agree with you that stereotypes do occur, a fact I believe should be corrected with reason and logic, but those stereotypes always brings a racist mentality as time progresses confirming the subjective truth of those stereotypes which does cause racism. The South does make more stereotypical arguments which tend to often lead to racist comments and even actions. I have seen videos first hand where a black person didn't have to die if those stereotypes didn't exist. It's when we deny the effect of stereotypes in the human psyche that we become ignorant of our racism.

2. Muslim Ban: We treat the Jewish people as a religious sect and a race of people. You are considered racist if you speak against the Jewish people like any other race. We have enveloped all of the Muslims into one group of people just like we do when we talk about all races. You have admitted yourself that only a relatively handful of Muslims are terrorists, but the Muslim ban affects a great deal of them that haven't been proven to be terrorists.

Even when you look at the countries that the Muslim ban has occurred, I would postulate that only an extremely small percentage amount from each country are actually terrorists thus you are sending back somebody to Saudi Arabia because simply they are from Saudi Arabia. That is a racist gesture, point effect. Muslims that are from countries not on the list are not being sent back. This is proof of racism where one person from Saudi Arabia is being sent back literally because of the country they are from. But honestly, we really have made Muslims into a race just like we did with Jewish people.

I will grant that we haven't labeled a prejudicial concept for having the mentality of being against another religious sect, but to me, it's not any different from racism.
Debate Round No. 1


First, thank you for accepting this debate! I hope we have good one!

Let's start off with your first argument about police brutality. You mention the transcripts of police using demeaning language. Can you provide the transcripts in your next post? This is out of pure curiosity. I've never heard of these transcripts and would love to analyze them. I agree with you that stereotypes should be corrected, however that isn't the point of today's debate. You say that stereotypes bring about a racist mentality. Could you provide evidence on that please? You also mention that there were videos where "a black person didn't have to die of those stereotypes didn't exist." You are absolutely right! If the STEREOTYPES didn't exist (in this case that African Americans are more rebellious and not law abiding), many lives could have been spared, however this doesn't tie into racism. Again, my point is not that racism doesn't exist, but rather that it is wrongly applied in society. People believe that many deaths due to police are a factor of racism, but, as you just mentioned, these could be prevented if stereotypes didn't exist. Hence, get rid of stereotypes, prevent deaths, but again, no tie into racism.

2. "You are considered racist if you speak against the Jewish people like any other race." This doesn't really link into the topic. You are absolutely right in saying that only a handful of Muslims are terrorists, just because the Muslim ban affects a great deal of Muslims doesn't mean it's racist. "You are sending back somebody to Saudi Arabia because simply they are from Saudi Arabia." Quick fact check, Saudi Arabia isn't on the list of countries in the "Muslim ban". You must understand that Trump's travel ban was aimed at Muslim majority countries. The fact that most terrorists derive from the Islamic religion means some action needs to be taken to atlas close some gates to possible terrorist openings. "One person from Saudi Arabia is being sent back literally because of the country they are from." Again this is a flaw in understanding Trump's ban. His goal was not to have all these innocent people be sent back to their home countries. His plan was to try to tighten foreign entry into the United States in order to atleast decrease the possibility of a terrorist attack. People being sent back was, in a sense, collateral damage, one that can be argued was necessary, but what can't be argued is that the ban was racist. If it was, then you need to answer these questions:

1. Why did Trump leave out Saudi Arabia and other countries that also have a majority Muslim population? If he left out some countries that are Muslim majority, obviously it was not an attack against the Muslim faith, but rather a defense against countries that terrorism stems from. It also happened that the countries that were blocked had high terrorism numbers.

2. Why didn't Trump attack the Muslims living in the United States currently? Some of the terrorist attacks on the US derived from Muslims within the United States. This is because the ban was not to attack Muslims but rather to attempt and decrease chances of terrorism in the US. I'm not saying Trump's travel ban is perfect and going to stop terrorism, but peoples' attack on the ban on the basis that it is "racist" is ridiculous. Attack the logic of the ban, attack the practicality, but don't attack it saying it is racist because it isn't.

You are correct in saying that the US has made Muslims into a race. This happens with nationalities, ethnicities, all other religions, color of skin, education level, etc. As long as there is no action taken against a specific population with the idea that the population is inferior, there is no "racism". It could be stereotyping or a multitude of other options, but the two arguments I brought up, police brutality and Trump's travel ban, is not "racist". It's just the people of America not understanding the term "racist".


Definition of racism (Miriam Webster Definition)
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
: racial prejudice or discrimination

Also about stereotype(Miriam Webster Definition, the example sentence is,"It is not fair to stereotype a whole group of people based on one person you don't like."

First, I would like to establish how I think in general and speak to what my arguments truly are. I am a "mathematician"(not literal) in which I create logic and reason with facts as the variables and morality as the constant. So my arguments are not so much as backing up facts but to rewrite how we think about things. For my example with Saudi Arabia(Which I have conceded that it was a false example, but the logic is still sound), my argument is about how we are actually literally sending them back to their own country because they were born there. You have argued the reason why that happens is because of terrorism. I disagree philosophically and theologically that terrorism is an appropriate reason to send someone back to the country that has extreme prejudice over our accepted general country's philosophically and theologically point of view. Whatever you define as our country's philosophy and theology doesn't matter to this logic because I am assuming that you know that many of those people in the middle east "pretty much hate our guts"(for whatever reason). My ultimate question before I give you the ratio of terrorist Muslims to all Muslims in the US is this: What ratio of bad people(example terrorists, corporatists 'I don't believe in owning everything for moral reasons') in a particular race(You have conceded that Muslims is a race) to good people is appropriately able to accept to stereotype that particular race? I would like to postulate that an average Muslim in America, that follows the law in America, is different from a Muslim in any of the countries on "The Muslim Ban" list. Now I will concede that this is an argument against stereotyping and not about racism.

Ironically enough, I'm actually doing another argument with what seems to me as a White nationalist that is arguing for racism in which I do think you are wise enough to concede that it is racism. First, I would postulate that many of those Muslims in the middle east are indeed themselves racist to Americans. They do burn American flags and often say,"Death to America", which would indicate they believe they are superior to us. I would also postulate that the reason for their racism is a product of stereotypical arguments one such example being; Americans are arrogant(again for whatever reason). We(me and you), in my opinion, are not arrogant (also, in my opinion, I do believe that many Americans, far more than there are terrorists, are indeed arrogant at least to some degree). We discuss people objectively in this manner to discover truths. This is his argument for white superiority:

"To answer your question, yes, a white person should absolutely be proud of the melanin in their superior system, by virtue of the fact that white folks simply have the best culture, the best organizational doctrine, and, well, the best everything. We are all equal in Heaven, but here on Earth, we are quite unequal." Because of the lack of characters I'm able to use this current argument, I will paraphrase his argument, but honestly, you should take a look at the logic white people CAN have. Because it sounds very logical, I would postulate that this "propaganda" (in my opinion) has been spread throughout many in the white culture. Not to try to have you write my argument of how he is wrong, but I'm wondering if you know how he is wrong. I only ask because if you can't argue this, then wouldn't that establish that you have the same bias as him? If you do, then wouldn't that indicate that you're in denial of your own racism?(I assure you this is completely logical thinking that does not have to be correct if you can prove why these questions are invalid with reason and logic) The only thing I ask is that you don't respond by saying that he doesn't mean it. The fact of the matter is if I don't prove him wrong, then why would he not be superior because he is white? By the way, my argument for him is much different from my argument for you. The basic sum of what he is saying is that his race is superior because of the domination that Indo-Europeans had over history. However, to digress, my argument is to prove conceptually that that type of rationale can create many unfounded stereotypical arguments towards DIFFERENT races based on the observations that I see with Muslims in other countries that have a similar rationale towards us. Now what he is blind to, in which this is my argument to him, is going to be about is "why?" white people were so defined in history as a "superior" race. I use "superior" figuratively because it has absolutely nothing to with the amount of melanin in your system, which I will prove with his argument. I believe that most people act upon false assumptions, but only the wise will see past those unknown lies.

To say my conceptual argument is wrong is to first prove that Muslims don't act stereotypically as well as we do, in addition, to prove wrong that racism is a product of stereotypical arguments. I am arguing that Muslims can be racists too, along with any other race. I have purposely used Muslims in my example because if you think that they are right in how they view us, then you are not a hypocrite for saying that we should keep using stereotypical arguments for any race including black people. Personally, I would like to show any race that I am not their political enemy and more importantly that I'd prefer to be their friend instead.(I do follow the Christ, so I still technically judge that their beliefs are wrong, but we live in America where different beliefs are accepted to coexist with each other, which is the reason why I don't want to send them back to people who essentially may view them as tainted by the Devil)

I also believe that simply because some people are hypocrites, that does not mean that I have to be one. I am trying to better than you not by saying that I'm white, but instead trying to be better through intellectual arguments and what my heart or the very core of who I am says to be true. In my opinion, that does not make me a hypocrite for seeking power.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I hope to further my development of reason and logic through conceptions rather than facts. Facts, to me, are just variables in an equation(which can be changed such as the mistake I made with Saudi Arabia). Debating conceptions builds onto the equation. I realize I haven't produced for my previous argument, but I opted to go a different route to prove my argument conceptually. If you do prove my argument conceptually incorrect, then I will probably go through the "fact" route.

"The fact that most terrorists derive from the Islamic religion means some action needs to be taken to atlas close some gates to possible terrorist openings." "Some action needs" does not mean that a "Muslim Ban" had to happen. "Some actions" can be improved background checks OR improved airport screening OR something else that doesn't involve potentially sending an innocent American to their deaths. "The Muslim Ban", in my opinion, is too great of an unnecessary measure that only makes America seem too good to have Muslims which is superiority. I will try to completely solidify that opinion in my next argument.

I would wish you luck, but I actually do hope that you lose. However, I still would like to thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2


Due to personal conflicts and time issues, I forfeit this debate and give the win to Sidex. Judges please vote for him, I will type once sentence responses to ensure that this debate does not end in a forfeit.


That is very kind and respectful of you sir, I truly do humbly thank you for your consideration of what I perceive is logical and reasonable to be truth. I actually do perceive you as a very wise man, which is why I said you are not arrogant. I am going to be arguing against "white pride" with the words of Jesus Christ. But to be fair, I will not show him the same decorum as I am showing you. I am "eager" to articulate my ego and I believe that my "white pride" opponent is a perfect person to be condescending towards. Again thank you very much for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro is correct in that the word racism has been misused. The correct term for what is actually happening is bigot, not racist. To prove racism, you have to show a systematic usage of one's race as superior to another. Con did not successfully argue that. A cop calling a black man a derogatory name is not racism, unless you can prove that the cop feels that his race is superior. It is merely bigotry. Both had good conduct, spelling and grammar.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter votes for the conceding side in this debate. If a debater concedes, the voter is required to reflect that in their RFD.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Good luck with the Orchestra, may you play with gusto and grace.
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
The same goes to you Sidex. I really must apologize for this, but I don't think I will be able to finish this debate. I have 5 tests coming up and am attending the All-State at San Antonio for Orchestra this week and will simply not have time to be on Knowing your kindness and clear intelligence in debate, I hope you will understand and I am completely fine with giving you the win on this topic. I simply do not have the time to give lengthy opinions that would be necessary for a wonderful debate like this. Again, I apologize for having to end this debate early, but I know you will understand. Thank you for this debate and I wish you the best of luck in your future ones :)
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
I really am saying with all humility that I do enjoy this debate and would also like to say that you have given me so much to think about. Thank you very much
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
Perfect :). Yeah, usually I take most arguments by their word, but in this case, where there is evidence to prove both sides and in an unusually touchy subject, I like to see the evidence. Please not biased sources (I would not accept sources like CNN or The Hill in response to Trump's travel ban as they are democratically biased and would attack Trump's ban like crazy). Use think tanks or bi-partisan sources. Frankly, the whole Saudi Arabia deal was just a correction, nothing big.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
I knew about Saudi Arabia a while ago, I just didn't care about correcting it that much, considering the logic is still there, I was afraid you were going to make me work to prove my argument, but since you did ask, it is my obligation to provide such evidence, i'll write a response tomorrow
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
Wow you responded very quickly...
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
yeah my fault using Saudi Arabia as an example, but the logic still applies to any country, so whatever
Posted by KingOfKingsLordOfLords 1 year ago
I agree with you. SJW of today's society are too PC all the time.
Posted by McDavid 1 year ago
Thanks for the clarification.

I might be willing to debate this with you, but I think the topic is a too broad. Could we focus in on one of you examples? I'd be willing to do a debate a resolution, Police departments in America are not racist organizations.

If I understand correctly you'd take pro, arguing they are not racist, but they do utilize stereotypes. I'd be willing to take con and argue that some practices are indicative of racism.

Let me know what you think.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 1 year ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Pro gives Con the arg points. Not letting the debate forfeit gives Pro conduct.