The Instigator
HC-Nebami
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

anyone who didnt vote for Obama is a racist!!!!!

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 9 votes the winner is...
oculus_de_logica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 749 times Debate No: 48055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

HC-Nebami

Pro

Anybody who didnt vote for Obama is a racist because Obama was our first black presidint and those racist white republicens didnt vote for him because hes black and theyre racist. Con has berden of proof.
oculus_de_logica

Con

Fellow earthlings, it is my great honour to serve as your con for this evening. As my first act in the noble office of contender I'll start with the simple statement:
"I won't talk like this during the entire debate, so relax"

But I will talk about how flawed this resolution is all on it's own and how Pro cannot properly defend it and therefore how he cannot possibly win this debate. let's start with the list of fallacies I have open in my other tab that apply to the debate[1]. If I handle any of these fallacies incorrectly do let me know in the comments so I can fix it:

THE CONJUCTION FALLACY:
"assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them."
My opponent is stating that the only reason that someone would not vote for Obama is because he is black. This falls under several fallacies but I think this one fits the best; Pro is assuming that it is more probable that each and every person that did not vote for Obama is racist than it is that even a single one of them is not racist. Because that is the problem with generalizations like the resolution is: It does not allow any space for errors; either everyone is A or it is false. SO in order to PROVE that the resolution is false and win the debate I must only find a single person that did not vote for Obama that isn't a racist. It won't matter if there are a half a million racist voters, if I can find even a single one I don't need to worry about the rest, I've proved that not everyone that voted for Obama is racist.

Now, I'll perform a single fallacy on my own and appeal to chance: Is it more likely that you have 61.000.000 voters that are ALL racist instead of 61.000.000 where at least one is not racist? If we even assume that humans are evil by default and there is only 1/10th of a percent chance (0.1%) of a person to not be racist we still have practically 0 chance once we're talking about six million voters. Even if we have a thousand voters the chance of everybody being racist is still under majority, around 36% (0.999^1000). So with each voter the odds of this resolution being true will slide closer and closer to 0. I therefore deduct that at least a single voter exists that isn't racist and chose Romney due to his political opinions and promises and therefore the resolution is negated.

Fallacy of the single clause
"it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes."

This one is a bit far fetched but my opponent displays the following chain of reasoning:
"You Didn't vote for Obama you must be Racist because there is no other reason not to vote for him"
This is oversimplification. If I disagree with a person it must be because of my opinion of that said person. If I think that someone is a bad leader it must be because of my personal opinion of that person. If I think some other person if more fit than the person in question it must be because of my personal opinion of the latter.

you see how this line of reasoning cannot work; Because it makes the unfair assumption that I cannot form a personal opinion of what someone said or his actions, I have to be fixated on that person and how he appears to me regardless of his character. This is a racist line of thought and cannot work as a case in this debate: and that leads us to the final section:

IT WAS RACIST TO VOTE FOR OBAMA
This might seem counteractive and an absurd statement; But in fact it is part of my case: If the resolution is true then this statement must be true as well.

As I've reasoned in the second section of my debate my opponent seems to assume that there is not a single reason to vote for someone except for your own personal opinion. if this is true, and note that it has to be in order for my opponent to make any case on generalizations, then it must be reasonable to assume that everyone that voted FOR Obama must have voted him for the sole reason that he is black. But wait a minute, this is racism as well. Discriminating someone due to their race or personal opinions. By voting for someone because he is black is just as racist as voting against someone because he is black. This leads us to the conclusion that EVERYONE IS RACIST.

but that doesn't makes sense, again. As I demonstrated in the first section of this round it is impossible for everyone to be racists because if even a single one is not the entire chain is broken. Since it is impossible for everyone to be racist the counter resolution that it is Racism to vote for Obama is false. But if the Counter resolution is false then the resolution must also be false. But if the resolution is false my opponent cannot defend it and has lost the debate.

Fellow Earthlings; I could go on and on but I have effective proved trough rather simple logic that my opponent has started a debate he cannot defend. I have shown that the resolution cannot hold ground. My opponent must show that in order for someone to vote for Obama he must not be racist. My opponent has given me the burden of proof and I fulfilled it until he has proved otherwise. My opponent must give us a detailed explanation, a solid wall, a column to show us why my case is false. I shift the weight of the debate on to him and await the next set of arguments.

1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
HC-Nebami

Pro

Obama is the progressive leader that will lead us the glorius sosialist state! every american knows how good Obama is but you republicans dont like him just because hes black! you confederits cant stand that a black man leads our country, but the sivil war decided this 200 years ago that all men evolvd equel! intolerent bigits all of you!
oculus_de_logica

Con

Ahh, we have more fallacies to examine here in round 2. Let me introduce you to the most notorious one there:

AD HOMINEM
"the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent."


My opponent avoids the topic completely by trying to degrade me and the cause itself; Accusing me of being a Republican, A confederate, intolerant bigot and racist. He did not answer nor refute my arguments and he did not place any new to the table.

Now, his attacks on me are not based on anything and to be completely honest are so far off mark that it's almost humiliating. Let's recap: I'm a Republican, despite the fact that I do not live in a 2-party system nation. I'm a confederate and yet I don't live in the US; I'm Intolerant despite living in a country where the first female president was voted into office and am a friendly, patient man that tolerates everything and everyone. I'll on the other hand gladly accept that I tend to be a bit of a bigot, but only a little bit. I have a bit of an ego which isn't a good thing when you're intelligent. I've improved a lot over the last few years and I'm not as full of myself as I used to be.

now, I'd like my opponent to watch his mouth and spelling: we are on a mature debating platform and making three spelling mistakes in the line where you're insulting your opponent doesn't fit in well here.

Back to the debate:
Since all my arguments went unanswered completely I'd like my opponent to answer them in a mature and reasonable way and properly support his opinion and defend the resolution. I await the next set of arguments and hand the debate over.
Debate Round No. 2
HC-Nebami

Pro

man you all ganging up on me like im the one whos doing bad! time to step up my game then

you talk to republicans they tell you they not racist, because iits not populer to be racist. but secretly they all voted for Ramney and McCane because theyre racist.
my opponent says there other reasons not to vote for Obama. but is this really true? Obama is the great Furer who leads america to the American Riech! his unaffordable care act show his greatness! surly those who oppose Obama are racist trecherus enemees of the state!

its not racist to vote for Obama, we need first black president no matter who he is!

May the Senit and the Houss declare Obama der Furer of the American Rejeem!

my arguments have prevalled against the racist republican! vote Pro!
oculus_de_logica

Con

My opponent has made a rather crucial mistake by his choice of wording. Führer is in common speech a negative term; Let's define it according to the dictionary:

füh·rer also fueh·rer (fyoV1;or′ər)
n.
A leader, especially one exercising the powers of a tyrant.

and how do we define Tyrant?

ty·rant (tī′rənt)
n.
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

So, my opponent is saying that we should make Obama the Führer, someone that will rule without restrictions in harsh, cruel manner. is this really something that we want? Is this something Obama wants? this is a RED HERRING: "a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to."

The leadership of Obama in this context is not related to the actual debate and can be dismissed entirely. my opponent has then left his third round with the following arguments:

"1)you talk to republicans they tell you they not racist, because its not popular to be racist. but secretly they all voted for Ramney and McCane because theyre racist.
2)my opponent says there other reasons not to vote for Obama. but is this really true?his unaffordable care act show his greatness!
3)surly those who oppose Obama are racist trecherus enemees of the state!

4)its not racist to vote for Obama, we need first black president no matter who he is!
5)my arguments have prevalled against the racist republican! vote Pro! "

1)
Again, you need to be able to prove that. you have not effectively proved that and in fact you cannot prove that. given 6.000.000 voters from either party that did not vote for Obama we cannot assume that everyone voted because he is black. if one of them can give a good, structured reason to vote for the other party this argument falls flat on its face.

2)
unaffordable
A2;nəG2;f;6;H0;dəb(ə)l/
adjective
  1. 1.
    too expensive to be afforded by the average person.
so you're saying that his health care plan is too expensive and yet is a sign of his greatness? If it is too expensive it isn't effective and this point falls. Even if it was a typo we cannot assume that a single act of 'greatness' defines a person on its own. What if I wanted something McCain was promising? Isn't that a valid reason to vote for him, he was the better politician in my own opinion?

3) Proof, proof, proof. statements and opinions are worthless, you need proof and reasoning to be able to throw down sentences like that. this point is dropped as it is.

4) so you'd rather vote for 'lil wayne than anyone currently in the senate just because he is black? isn't that racist? you think that he is superior to another race because he is black. you think that being black makes you a good politician. being black is no reason for voting someone and thus this point backfires, it is racist to vote for Obama on the grounds that he is black.

5) actually, you didn't answer any of my arguments. You failed to protect the resolution and we here have another case of ad hominem. I'm not a republican in this definition of the word because I do not live in the US and cannot be a republican. I'm not a racist either: this assumes that the resolution is true and making the conclusion based upon that. another fallacy but since it wasn't part of the case I'll drop it.

My fellow earthlings: I am not a racist. I came into this office little over 12 hours ago to prove to you that my opponent is making a claim he cannot defend, and I have succeeded in my quest. My opponent could not refute my chain of logical thinking, my deductions where untopped and my opponent sits on his crumbling wall of arguments and reasons as the mighty army of the free thinking people of this world (or just me, whatever works) come marching towards him and deliver the final attack. Dear voters, consider this debate as proof that logic always prevails over opinions: and that you're free to vote for whomever you'd like without considering his race, gender or persona. in life, it's logic over opinion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
https://www.google.is...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Baer 3 years ago
Baer
Okay, I like our president. I really do. But don't you think that people might want to consider more than the politician's skin color before voting? I mean, just because one of them is black doesn't mean we should just drop everything else and vote for him. Again, I am absolutely not racist and like our current president very much.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
Wow, I was expecting maybe 3 points and the rest would just ignore the debate as it was a troll debate. You guys are wonderful. :3
Posted by Amanda1242 3 years ago
Amanda1242
You are being racist by assuming that that is the sole reason for people didn't vote for him. Please, I think things through a little better.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
Guys; Leave the troll fighting to me, we don't need four people debating HC here. ;)

But good that you mentioned that Benito; You just negated the resolution for me and brought me a 'witness' to use.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I just realized that the username HC-Nebami is not random. What does it spell backwards?
Posted by benito_felipe 3 years ago
benito_felipe
Ok, I agree that MANY people didn't vote for Obama due to his skin color. This is certainly true

BUT that doesn't mean all opponents of Obama are racists. They simply don't agree with his policies. I have a handful of black/minority friends who don't support Obama.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
the_streetsurfer
I vote for presidents based on how good they are, not their skin color
Posted by Soulja_n 3 years ago
Soulja_n
Any one who didn't vote for Barack Obama is a racist.... You've got to be kidding!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by TheGamer1998 3 years ago
TheGamer1998
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not racist but he's breaking down the economy with his huge @$$ and expensive vacations
Vote Placed by thesupporter 3 years ago
thesupporter
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is just not listening I don't like Obama because he is black I don't like him because he lied to the American people
Vote Placed by abyssal7130 3 years ago
abyssal7130
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by bettabreeder 3 years ago
bettabreeder
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't Spell Confederates LOL! I'm Not Racist I hate Biden too, Heritage Not Hate
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really lean to one side of this, but even if I agreed with Pro, Con would still get the victory because he had better conduct, a better use of words, and sources. Never mind reliable sources, he at least had sources.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: One sided, the argument was definetely for con and he had sources.
Vote Placed by lnhsjayhawk 3 years ago
lnhsjayhawk
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro sounds a bit delusional, con clearly had better arguments and sources, along with proper grammar.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one with valid "arguments" and Pro did not refute them specifically but he just stated his false opinions and mostly went off topic and in-fact it seems "Pro" is being racist as he tried to create an impression that, "Obama is superior just because he is first black "President" of the United States". Also Con was the only one with sources and had better S & G than Pro.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
HC-Nebamioculus_de_logicaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This is not a vote bomb. Pro had several misspellings and probably did it on purpose, seeing as how he was trolling. That is also why he loses conduct points. Con was the only one to use sources. Con's arguments were logical pro's had several logical fallacies that con pointed out.