The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

White supremists should prefer Democrats over Republicans in most federal elections.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 56676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Different forms of white supremacy have different conceptions of who is considered white, and different white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy.

Flint, Colin (2004). Spaces of Hate: Geographies of Discrimination and Intolerance in the U.S.A. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 0-415-93586-5.

First round acceptance.

The definition of federal election is limited to those with-in the United States.


Hello, I am excited to accept this debate.

Given your past win ratio, I expect that you will bring up some interesting points, and I am interested to see how you argue this position.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion-Democrats are typically pro abortion, which is a good thing to consider if you're racist. 50% of black children are aborted, before they are even born. Black women are around 15% of the female population yet they have 35% of all abortions.

You can bet white supremacist's are happy knowing there is 50% less black people than there should be.

Welfare-This is another thing racists are happy about, because welfare hurts black families. Ever since LBJ launched his war on poverty. LBJ's push for more welfare has caused a tripling of out of wedlock births for black families. It's now at close to 75%, and that's not the only way welfare hurts black people.

Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.

Racists are probably loving those stats.

Minimum Wage- Increasing the minimum wage disproportionately increases black unemployment.

This is something racists, will enjoy knowing.

Conclusion-As you can see Democratic policies seem to target blacks in extremely harmful ways. The fact that liberal policies are so harmful to blacks, should encourage white supremacists to vote Democrat.


You have made some interesting points. I will counter them before providing my own.

First off, there is nothing here that would be convincing to anybody with a pro-choice view, as from that view these are not lives to begin with. However, even if you accept that these are children, it should be noted that more whites have abortions than blacks:
The link shows: even if a higher percentage of black children are aborted, a higher number of white children are aborted. In terms of sheer numbers, white supremacists do not win here.

Finally, your source of information is a highly biased organization that cites refuted claims such as the "abortion-breast cancer link", which was disproven by the American Cancer Society:
And National Cancer Institute:

With falsehoods like that, why should we take your source seriously?

In fact, you even misquoted your own source! You claim that there would be 50% fewer blacks, but your source actually says "[the black community] would be 36 percent larger than it is" without abortion.

Again,your source is extremely biased. However, the key problem with your argument is that correlation does not equal causation. You mentioned that welfare was launched, but there is no evidence to connect it to a certain percentage of rapists being black.

In addition, blacks and whites actually make up a statistically equal percentage of welfare recipients. Because whites make up more of the population,a higher number of whites receive welfare.

I will address Min. Wage in the next round.

However, the GOP is actually welcoming to racists, at least in some states, as evidenced by the plurality of Republicans in Mississippi who want to ban inter-racial marriage:
I believe a racist would want to be in the company of other racists.

Due to character limitations, I must stop here.
Debate Round No. 2


Abortion- Con misses the point. He says white people have more abortions, but this does nothing to negate that a disproportionate amount of Blacks have abortions. This is what would be favorable to white supremacists. My opponents source actually confirms my view.

Black women"s abortion rates are 49 per 1,000, Hispanic women"s are 33 per 1,000 and non-Hispanic white women"s are 13 per 1,000.

Blacks are being prevented from being born faster than whites. This is certainly preferable to racists.

My source is certainly credible. The article quotes several scholarly studies. The mention of a link to breast cancer was cited back to a study. The sources you claim debunk them actually don't. They just claim that when all the studies are taken together, the results are inconclusive.

Welfare- It doesn't matter if my source is biased. It quotes a ton of numbers from scholarly work done on the issue. Those citations are fine. The point I was making is that welfare contributes to many factors causing poverty and poverty is a major contributing factor to crime. Here is a debate where I discuss these issues with welfare.

I understand the difference between causation and correlation and Welfare actually does a lot to perpetuate the contributing factors to poverty and thus crime.

My opponent points out that more whites are on welfare, but once again misses the point. A disproportionate amount of blacks are on welfare. This means, since welfare is harmful That it is harming a disproportionate amount of black people, which is a good thing for racists.

Republicans- The article mentioning the poll you cited has some problems. These numbers don't accurately reflect the demographics of the Republican Party. About 70 was over 46 years old.the true demographics are close to 50% by my estimate.


Masons_State forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend and hopefully if my opponent returns, he doesn't make any unfair arguments in the final round.


ah! I am terribly sorry to have missed that round. Here I arrive half an hour late to post during the 3rd round.

I must thank you for giving me another chance to respond to round 3. I will not attack Republican policy in this round, as you would have no chance to respond.

On the topics of Abortion and Welfare, I stand by my earlier arguments. Assuming that both of these are negative (which is another debate), I think the gross number matters more than the percentage.

From a pro-life view, abortion is murder. Given that there are more abortions of whites, that would mean that more whites are killed than blacks. I cannot see how a white supremacist could support that.

From a pro-choice view, abortion is not a negative at all! In fact, the large population increase that would result if abortion were banned would result in a huge economic drain on the black community. Raising a child costs on average 300k. With minority families making less money than Whites on average, there is an economic benefit to abortion, especially for minorities.

As for the validity of your sources: I personally would not trust such heavily biased sites. The "abortion-cancer" idea has no evidence to support it. As you said, at best studies are inconclusive. With no conclusive evidence, why would I believe it?

Given that these policies impact both whites and minorities, I do not see why a white supremacist would support them. Even if these policies were harmful to people, why would they want to harm white people along with blacks? It certainly would not seem ideal.

I feel I must address a Min. Wage, as I said I would. Although it is true that some people would lose jobs, many would also get out of poverty due to higher wages (900k). Many of those who would benefit most from the higher wages would be minorities.

This has been my first real debate on this site. I hope that I have not made any "unfair arguments". This was enjoyable. GG
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by inaudita 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: The fault of Wylted's sources is bothersome at the least.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Forfeiting is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. For this, Pro is awarded points. Arguments - Pro. Con put up a good fight. Unfortunately, his last rebuttal on the minimum wage point was somewhat confusing, I'm not sure it actually rebuts the point raised by Pro. The best arguments raised by Con were him showing the biased nature of Pro's sources. Although Pro rebuts these alligations, I too, must agree with Con that there are some issues. For these reasons, I award arguments to Pro, but leave Sources tied as Con showed why Pro's sources were mostly biased.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con tried very hard, but his forfeit combined with his previous rounds' struggle made it near impossible for him to uphold his points at the end