The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Adam2isback
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

White Democrats are more racist in general than white Republicans

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: 7/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 93950
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

White Democrats are more racist than white Republicans in general. You can start debsting if you want.
Adam2isback

Con

I will not be arguing that Republicans are more racist in general, I will argue that both are equal.
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

The Democratic Party was the party in favor of slaves. Notice that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. Think about that. Democrats are the political children of those that were pro slavery and pro klan.

The KKK was founded in Tennessee immediately after the end of the Civil War as a sort of social club for former Confederate Soldiers whose influence quickly spread through the decimated Southern states. As Columbia professor Eric Foner wrote in his A Short History of Reconstruction, in its early days, the group was loosely bound by one main principle: launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.

Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Yankees who early Klansmen believed destroyed their homeland through what they termed a “war of northern aggression.”

--

The Democrats replaced slavery with enslavement through "plantation politics". They found it cheaper and easier to enslave the blacks. With plantation politics, you "hire" the black man rather than have him as a slave. You pay less for him, not being directly responsible for his needs. You pay him minimum wages, then flip him a few "extras" here and there. You pay less for him as a worker than as a slave, he appreciates the "extra", which is actually less cost to you, and you buy his loyalty by flipping or promising him a little something extra here and there, all while he is unaware that you are doing it because it's:

1)Not you actually forking out the money, it's the citizens.

2)To get cheap labor.

3)To buy off your vote.

--

White, Liberal Democrats are guilty of what we call the "bigotry of low expectations". They would expect 8 out of 10 from a white man, but only 4 or 5 out of 10 from a black man. Blacks are obviously inferior and need help from the white man because they aren't as capable or smart.

These are the same Liberal whites who scream about "white privelege", yet would never give up their "white privelege", but would gladly yell about it in theory to overcompensate for silently pittying the "inferior blacks". Perhaps they should give up their spots at Stanford and/or Harvard to a black man as volunteers. No? Didn't think so. All while? White Republicans assume blacks can do it on their own because:

1)They've seen them do it.

2)They see them as equals and rivals in the workforce and not as inferior, helpless blacks.

--

And then there is Hillary Clinton, the queen of "political correctness" yet the "Queen of lies and fabrications" as well. The very Hillary who wants to bring in masses of migrants, not for multiculturism, but cheap servants. The same Hillary who's foundation is worth billions. Not millions. Billions...The same Hillary who has 1/4 of her campaign openly payed for by the nation behind 9/11 and supporeter of ISIS and Wahhabism.(Saudi Arabia) The same Hillary who whores herself out for votes by promising little bribes to minorities that she doesn't provide one dime for. The Hillary who is "for the poor", yet is one of the biggest capitalists on Earth. The same Hillary who views blacks and Latinos as her inferior servants to the Democratic party. You fetch the water, she'll flip you a nickel from someone elses' pocket.

--

Hillary's America trailer-


--



Adam2isback

Con

The Democratic Party was the party in favor of slaves. Notice that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. Think about that. Democrats are the political children of those that were pro slavery and pro klan.
Remember now, bro, being against slavery doesn't mean you're not racist. Slavery and racism are two inherently different things. The slave trade was not for racist reasons. Also don't forget that whites, as well as blacks, Hispanics, any citizen in the South that broke a law was sentenced to slavery.
Now your argument is that Lincoln was not racist. Not true at all. In fact, the complete opposites.
http://www.bartleby.com...
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not"
But that's not damning enough. Look who he appointed to a position in government: Mr Rowan Hinton Helper. http://docsouth.unc.edu...
Contrary to what you might be thinking, bro, it's his work that called for lynchings of non-whites in America, viewing them as a threat.
In fact the end of the article even declares that his racist work got Lincoln elected: "In January 1861 the Herald declared that Lincoln's election had been due to "this very work of Mr. Helper, and kindred speeches and documents.""
Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Yankees who early Klansmen believed destroyed their homeland through what they termed a “war of northern aggression.”
I disagree. I don't say this to go against you, my friend, but that isn't the reason. Racism was the main reason. Because as I said before, the Klan existed in the North long before the South as mentioned. There was sentiment against the Union, but most of those the anti-Union sentiment was not coming from racists. If anything the USA was more racist than the Confederacy.

The KKK was founded in Tennessee immediately after the end of the Civil War as a sort of social club for former Confederate Soldiers whose influence quickly spread through the decimated Southern states. As Columbia professor Eric Foner wrote in his A Short History of Reconstruction, in its early days, the group was loosely bound by one main principle: launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.
It was never proven that the Confederates founded this. IN fact, Tennessee was actually the least Confederate of all the Confederate states.
https://www.lewrockwell.com...
It's actually quoted with sources: "There was a New England version of the Ku Klux Klan as well, in the form of roving gangs that conducted "terroristic, armed raids on urban black communities and the institutions that served them" (p. 165). So it turns out the "Klan," like the Black Codes, was a New England invention."


White, Liberal Democrats are guilty of what we call the "bigotry of low expectations". They would expect 8 out of 10 from a white man, but only 4 or 5 out of 10 from a black man. Blacks are obviously inferior and need help from the white man because they aren't as capable or smart.

These are the same Liberal whites who scream about "white privelege", yet would never give up their "white privelege", but would gladly yell about it in theory to overcompensate for silently pittying the "inferior blacks". Perhaps they should give up their spots at Stanford and/or Harvard to a black man as volunteers. No? Didn't think so. All while? White Republicans assume blacks can do it on their own because:
1)They've seen them do it.

2)They see them as equals and rivals in the workforce and not as inferior, helpless blacks.
Now I will prove here that Republicans have just as despicable of a history as Democrats. Now that they are more Democrats.
That is generally true about white conservative Southerners, because most Southerners do believe in the equality of man that is said in the "Bible" -- that there is "neither Greek nor Jew." But there is something that at least goes against Republicans (at least those in the North). Granted, Democrats were also against Civil Rights too. but let's look at Senate members who voted against the 1964 bill:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) "
In terms of Northerners, and since the numbers are in a "yea-nay" format, more Northern Republicans voted against this bill than Northern Democrats. Althought in the South Democrats had the majority in voting against it. But they were equal.

The Democrats replaced slavery with enslavement through "plantation politics". They found it cheaper and easier to enslave the blacks. With plantation politics, you "hire" the black man rather than have him as a slave. You pay less for him, not being directly responsible for his needs. You pay him minimum wages, then flip him a few "extras" here and there. You pay less for him as a worker than as a slave, he appreciates the "extra", which is actually less cost to you, and you buy his loyalty by flipping or promising him a little something extra here and there, all while he is unaware that you are doing it because it's:

1)Not you actually forking out the money, it's the citizens.

2)To get cheap labor.

3)To buy off your vote.
That is more exploitation in itself than racism. That's horrible mind you, but that was done to all workers. Cheap labor would also put other races out of a job. It was done with immigration.

And then there is Hillary Clinton, the queen of "political correctness" yet the "Queen of lies and fabrications" as well. The very Hillary who wants to bring in masses of migrants, not for multiculturism, but cheap servants. The same Hillary who's foundation is worth billions. Not millions. Billions...The same Hillary who has 1/4 of her campaign openly payed for by the nation behind 9/11 and supporeter of ISIS and Wahhabism.(Saudi Arabia) The same Hillary who whores herself out for votes by promising little bribes to minorities that she doesn't provide one dime for. The Hillary who is "for the poor", yet is one of the biggest capitalists on Earth. The same Hillary who views blacks and Latinos as her inferior servants to the Democratic party. You fetch the water, she'll flip you a nickel from someone elses' pocket.
Bro, I'm for the Republicans as much as you, but this isn't about racism, but Hilary's bad policies.
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

This is still a democracy, and most Americans view blacks as more racist than whites, and even blacks view blacks as more racist, thus white Liberals support a group that American whites and blacks view to be racist, thus making them racists towards? Their own race. It's called "self hate" which is one of the nastiest forms of racism on Planet Earth.


--

Self hate-

-Refers to an extreme dislike or hatred of oneself, or being angry at or even prejudiced against oneself. The term is also used to designate a dislike or hatred of a group, family, social class, or stereotype to which one belongs and/or has. For instance, "ethnic self-hatred" is the extreme dislike of one's ethnic group or cultural classification.


OJ Simpson was guilty of this fallacy. He disassociated with his "blackness", and embraced the white demographic. White Liberals are manifesting the same phenomenon. They have become self hating racists towards their own kind in some sort of mutant racial self righteousness by hating their own and becoming overzealous towards another group. They are the white guy who yells, "black lives matter!" then is complacent when violence is acted out on whites. They protest against violence, but then hold violent demonstrations, take over rallies, and attack police. Why? Because they cannot embrace being white for fear of being labeled "racist", so now they turn their racism towards their own ethnicity.


--

Even avid Liberal Bill Maher said that he is "sick of liberals who "hate themselves because they are white."

www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a44266/maher-white-guilt

--

Bill Maher on Liberal "self hate"

(Short video)


--

The racism of low expectations-

Recently, Sam Harris and Bill Maher found themselves at the center of controversy for criticizing the Liberal response, or lack thereof, to the atrocities being committed by ISIS in the name of Islam.

This is what you might call "reverse racism" where the group considered the minority is given a pass, and the majority group is held to a higher standard. This is racism vs. Whites(By self group hate), bigotry to Christians and Atheists(held to a higher standard), and reverse racism by low standards towards North Africans and Arabs.


--

Pat Condell "There's no Racist like a Liberal Racist")

(Short video)


--

Reverse Racism-

"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.”

- Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

"White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.”

- Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valani

--

Monumental self-criticism also creates a carnival-like atmosphere. Showing how the plot of Shakespeare’s Hamlet operates according to a hidden suppression of otherness is like throwing pies at the school principal. Demonstrating the sexism of the church fathers is akin to giving the finger to a policeman as you drive by. It’s now somehow regular to flaunt a false authority, especially when you are applauded for doing so. High fives all the way around for liberals.

As a main point, the tyranny of guilt tends to please because it feeds their moral conceit. They ascend to a place where they imagine that they can see all the evils and they assume, falsely, that such a place must be good, and that their residency there makes them good in turn. But it is a false morality. It is blinded by its own reverse racism towards its own ethnic group, turning a blind eye to white cops shot in the street that probably have nothing to do with racism, radical Islamic extremist, and massive crime by illegal immigrants. It would rather say, "Well they (the whites)deserved it" or, "The minority group is just misunderstood." They may have felt good by reversing the direction of their support, but sold their soul to it, becoming the most violent, self hating, racist group manifested in modern America.

It's the twisted ideology that screams about slavery, but ignores black slave owners, that the war against slavery was whites vs whites, and that it was whites who gave blacks their rights in the first place. It points out white conquest but ignores the conquest of everyone else. It points to bigotry of Christians but ignores bigotry of Muslims.

Being racist towards blacks is? Racism. Being racist towards whites is? Still racism.

Adam2isback

Con

Sorry bro but none of that argument has anything to do with white liberals being more racist than white conservatives. I don't disagree that blacks on average are more racist and get away with it, but we're talking equals. As I have proven White Republicans were equal in racism throughout history. Even Rush Limbaugh had said "uppity negro."
http://www.mediaite.com...
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

Con said the "N" word, so conduct to Pro.

*

White Conservatives oppose all of the b.s. benefits and perks given to minorities. Why? They see them as equals and not as special needs children. They assume minorities are as smart as anyone else and can buck up like anyone else.

You can try to claim there is some invisible wall keeping minorities from success, but reality says this is a lie. Many minorities have become successful by working hard. A racism in America that will keep a minority from achieving the American dream cannot be shown or pointed to because it does not exist. I am proof of this.

These minorities voted culture vs culture with their feet. They left. They come to America. They stay. Why? You know why.

Ironically, minorities who come from countries overseas have had astonishing success. Skin color doesn't hold you down in America. It's a lie presented by the Democratic party to keep the minorities "in their place". They pat the minority on the head, make empty promises, wink and nod to one another, buy votes, and walk back to the plantation mansion content that the minority workers are still "in the fields" right where they belong. This isn't just racism. It's blatant racism.

Hillary says we should "build bridges, not walls".


-The Dems built a 4 mile long, 8 foot high wall around the DNC to "keep out undesirables."


-And building a wall is racist.


-And then even put a wall around the stage.


So there you have it. The Democrat leader, Hillary Clinton, is not only a racist but a full blown hypocrite.

Bronto exits thread.

(Bronto theme music plays)

Adam2isback

Con

"The Dems built a 4 mile long, 8 foot high wall around the DNC to "keep out undesirables.""
I don't deny that.
But... we're talking that white Republicans are equally as racist...
and I didn't say the N-word I said "negro." It's not a bad word last time I checked.
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"But... we're talking that white Republicans are equally as racist..."

And I have given many points that show Democrat whites are more racist. Con has chosen to provide no rebuttal against my arguments. Con has chosen to simply parrot the concept: "they are equal". I can say Con has a furry tail and flippers, but that doesn't make it so.

For starters, no 2 groups are 100% equal on anything in the reality of planet Earth. One is always more on some level. On this point, Con cannot actually even have the possibility of being right to say "they are equal". It's a mathematically b.s. statement.

Excerpt from article on "The Identity of Indiscernables"-

-"The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. It states that no two distinct things (such as snowflakes) can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science. A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below."

"A form of the principle is attributed to the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It is one of his two great metaphysical principles, the other being the principle of sufficient reason. Both are famously used in his arguments with Newton and Clarke in the Leibniz–Clarke correspondence. Because of its association with Leibniz, the principle is sometimes known as Leibniz's law. (However, the term "Leibniz's Law" is also commonly used for the converse of the principle, the indiscernibility of identicals (described below), which is logically distinct and not to be confused with the identity of indiscernibles.)"


Con did use the "N" word. It is a Spanish word being used in slang form to designate a group of peole, thus conduct to Pro.

Vote Pro.
Adam2isback

Con

Vote con -- I have stayed consistent, showed that many white Republicans (Such as many who, in the North voted against Civil Rights Bill -- and those Abraham Lincoln and Rowan Hinton Helper) were equally as racist. That's was my point of the argument.
Plus "negro" was never the same as the N-word.
"Negro" was said by many blacks as a term of endearment, and the NAACP even has the word Negro.
Vote con
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RonaldTrumpkin// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? Democrats are racist? Read a f*cking book. Republicans have a HISTORY of hating and killing blacks for no reason other than the color of their skin. And the real problem is that white people are afraid to admit that they're so ignorant and racist.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter clearly is using their personal opinion on the topic to determine the outcome rather than any assessment of the arguments given in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheChristian// Mod action: Removed<

4 point to Pro (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro used history, evidence NOT from Wikipedia, debunked most of, if not all, of con's points, provided examples of reverse racism, and other things, whereas Con glossed over the arguments provided.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides and render a decision based on those assessments. Using generalizations like "Pro used history" and "debunked" certain arguments is not sufficient, nor is stating that one side just "glossed over the arguments provided." It should be clear what Pro is winning, and what Con is losing, and why.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.