The Instigator
us
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

are the confederates 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 1 vote the winner is...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 43599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

us

Con

The confederates are not racist they are a riotous side in the Civil war. They had a good cause that was unfortunately lost. Abe Lincoln is a lair he told a very big lie witch all presidents do anyway but he said that the confederates had slaves when the union also had more slaves then the south. lots of good man died under the confederate flag and they fought for the flag and what it stood for, states rights and freedom.
DudeStop

Pro

Thanks Con.



I'd like to point out that Con did nothing to disprove the confederates racism. Because he has not shown any definitions, I will.

"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"[1]

While enslaved, the African Americans were obviously poorly treated because of race.. [2]

Con's case is refuted.

Thank You.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.historyonthenet.com...
Debate Round No. 1
us

Con

First lets go back in to history slaves were shipped under the American flag it is in every history book so look it up. Also why did Harriot Tubman Take the slaves to Canada because slavery still existed in the north even though Lincoln stopped slavery in the south. There was also about 6% of slaves in the south and the south released more slaves than the north. The south may have been cruel to slaves but so was the north cause the north would trade or keep slaves if they found them.
DudeStop

Pro

Thanks Con.

Please provide one source to support your claims.

The North and South could both be racist- You haven't shown why the South was not in fact racist and instead focused on how the North is racist. I remind my opponent where the Burden Of a Proof lies.

I wait you responses.
Debate Round No. 2
us

Con

Most of my sources are online because the victor tells the story so in every history book it is what lincoln said. The confederates were not racist they only fought in the war because of taxes on cotton and states rights. Besides there was not that many slaves in the south. Robert E Lee didn't have slaves even the confederate president had no slaves. I state my argument.
DudeStop

Pro

Thank you Con...

I yet again must re-burden you to show a source. The internet is a great source of information, so all you need to do is provide a link showing where you got said information.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well"

Regardless of other reasoning, African Americans were beaten and killed for there race. It is the definition of racism.- Until you provide a rebuttal, my arguments still stand.

I await your responses.
Debate Round No. 3
us

Con

Just look up a source about confederate history and it will prove my case this is all i write
DudeStop

Pro

I don't think I could add anything to this round. con refuses to provide a single source.
Debate Round No. 4
us

Con

If you are looking for a source then fine look up www.tolertance/magazine/number-40-fall-2011/feature/getting-civil-war-right. that is my source. look it up and see and how about give me your source to all of you information if you know all about the war.
DudeStop

Pro

My opponents source does not work. He also did not refute a single argument from me, so please, vote Prol
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
I'm sorry who's fault is that?...
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Well, Con only have 500 characters, which is extremely short. I think we can cut her/him some slack :)
Posted by ChrisF 3 years ago
ChrisF
Not very impressive Con. You used one source, and spent several rounds arguing about not needing any sources for your argument, which I'm pretty sure is factually incorrect.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Anyway, these sources are on your side, DudeStop. Why are you complaining?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Anyway, these sources are on your side, DudeStop. Why are you complaining?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com...
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Well, the article cited its source: Peter Kolchin (1993), American Slavery, p. 81.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Yeah from Wikipedia... Of course.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
(I meant "slaves" not "slavers")
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Oh, I know why Con's not citing!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

By 1840, virtually all slavers were gone from the North. Whereas the CSA wrote in their constitution that they would never pass a law that would end slavery, and had 40% of their soldiers as slaves.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
usDudeStopTied
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 has a large number of grammar violations. Con went three rounds avoiding giving a source. Pro, you should have used this time to make new arguments. Being beaten for race is indeed racism. Alternative reasons for the war, the North being racist, and Lincoln being a liar do not matter. Lee not owning slaves is one person. In the end, Con references another cite, and recommends that it be read to prove the point. Con--you can't just link to someone else's debate to prove your point. You still need to debate, and you do need to cite your sources specifically. You are using other people on the internet to do your debating. In addition, you still do not refute Pro's claims that the South owned and mistreated slaves, nor did you refute that that demonstrates racism. You only give evidence of one person who did not own slaves. That is insufficient. I do not think I'll take off a conduct point: but don't ask your opponent to look up sources for you, or use a website to make a full debate.