The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
15 Points

Trump vs. racism. Is he Racist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 9/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,314 times Debate No: 104125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (3)




The rounds are:
1. Acceptance
2. Argument
3. rebuttal
4. closing statements and rebut against rebuttals


I accept. Judges good day. I hope you can disregard your personal views and vote fairly on this debate based on which side made the best argument. I have personally embarked on various debates defending Primary Candidate Trump, Republican Nominee Trump, President-Elect Trump, and now President Donald J. Trump. My job is to defend Mr. Trump against Pro's accusations that Trump is racist.

I would like to provide a definition for racist:

Racist: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

I wish my opponent good luck and thank the judges for reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

My position is that Trump is racist. People can do racist actions without announcing that they are racist. That's what Trump does. Some people may not be afraid to be racist but there is such thing as saying racist things.

I would like to start with some examples:

He claims to have a "great relationship with the blacks" which no normal person would say

Some of is top advisers and cabinet picks have a prejudice past
Steve Bannon was part of a white supremacists group that was openly racist and anti Semitic. Keep in mind he picked these people for a reason
Mike Flynn made anti Muslim comments over the years.
Jeff Sessions has made racially insensitive comments and he lea white nationalists
Steve Mnuchin who faced allegations for racial discrimination.

You may ask, these are different people. It doesn't mean he's racist. Yes It does. Who would pick racist people to be on their cabinet? It's not good for society.

Also another thing, even if Trump was somehow not racist, after his election, hate crimes increased roughly about 20%. Coincidence? I think not. This means Trump's actions are making other people feel like their able to do certain things that are racist and prejudice. An example was when a group was beating up a homeless man I think about one or two years ago and they said they did it because of Trump, which means Trump's actions are influencing people. Also, he denied responsibility for those hate crimes. It's definitely not coincidence because almost 900 hate crimes followed in the 10 DAYS after his election. There was a man beating up a homosexual and he said: "the president says we can kill f*ggots now" I know that wasn't a racist comment but keep in mind there were 900 hate crimes and most of them were racist acts. In about 40% of those acts, Trump's name was mentioned on signs and things like that.

Remember when he launched a travel ban targeting Muslims? Yeah. Don't just say it's to protect the citizens of America, that just means he can't trust any Muslim if he's willing to do that to all Muslims.

Trump also attacked Muslim gold star parents. When he said the wife didn't say anything because she probably wasn't allowed to, that was a prejudice comment against their religion. The father of Gold Star said she could not speak because she was filled with grief.

He claimed a judge was biased because he was Mexican. Now why would he say that? Hmm I don't know. Maybe because he's prejudice, and if you ask me that was clearly a racist comment. People don't say racist comments like that if they aren't racist. So maybe there are some people who don't realize they're racist and later apologize for it but he didn't address that comment with an apology so that means he doesn't care. He said to ABC we're building a wall between here and Mexico and he's giving us unfair rulings. Even if he said that, we all know he wants to build a wall. Is that honestly the best solution? Sure there are some bad people but there are bad people everywhere. He should have another solution to find drug dealers and whatever, but if he's just going to get rid of every illegal immigrant even if they're here to contribute to the world, then that's prejudice.

I know Trump agreed to try to make DACA legal but he's doing the right decision for the wrong reason. He doesn't want that. But it's what the people want and he wants to win the people over.

A while ago, the Justice Department sued him twice for not renting his apartment to black people. Trump didn't even admit his wrong doing. The second time he didn't rent to black applicants because the apartment wasn't available, which was not true.

Discrimination has happened a lot throughout his career. I would like to say more reasoning but that would take too long. I'll give you my article instead.

Of course, he also questions whether or not Obama was born in the United States. And remember that White supremacist rally? A person who wasn't racist would address racist comments made.

Also in the past he says he doesn't feel comfortable letting black people handle his money. I'm aware that may have been the sentence for the punch line: I only feel comfortable with Jews handling it, That's stereotypical against Jews and blacks, and it was not a funny joke.

I would say more but I will leave it at this for now and I'm looking forward to your argument.


I thanks my opponent for their arguments.

First I would like to provide a few observations:

The Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove that Trump is racist. My job is disprove those accusations. If my opponent cannot successfully prove that Trump is racist, it should be concluded that Trump is not racist.

My opponent fails to provide another defenition for racist so my defenition should be used to judge what is racist and what isn't.

My opponent uses one source from Huffington Post to prove all their claims. I encourage them to got beyond that single source and individually prove each allegation, preferably from a different source. Now to address my opponents arguments.

African American Arguements:
How does this prove that Trump is racist? If he has a good relationship with African Americans, then that's good. In fact numerous African Americans support him with a couple being Ben Carson, Kanya West, and Paris Dennard. There are more on this website. [1] What normal person would say that? A person running for President who is trying to get votes. In fact, Trump got more African American votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012.[2] His good relationship worked out for him!

Advisors/Cabinet Members:
My opponent answers their own argument for me. Just because Trumps followers are racist doesn't make him a racist. Here's an analogy to your statement. You're saying because Trump's advisors are racist, Trump is racist. Using that same logic, if my followers are courageous and I choose them for my cabinet, does that make me courageous as well? You're comparing apples to oranges? His reasoning for picking the people he picked is called the spoil system which was advocated by Andrew Jackson [3], a President who was similar in many ways to Trump. The system states that followers are rewarded for their loyalty by giving them office.

My opponent fails to prove how each of the people they named are racist in someway, however, their argument should be disregarded as this debate is about Trump being racist, not his advisors.

Post Election:
Again, this has nothing to do with Trump being racist. Trump's actions can only be done by him. Your explanation doesn't make sense it, if Trump being racist correlates with hate crimes, why did hate crimes only occur after the election and not before? And once again, can you give me a specific source that says the 900 crimes fact. I don't want a list of "racist" actions done by Trump. Have a source for each individual one. Your list is not accurate and detailed enough.

Travel Ban:
Targeting Muslims? Can you explain to me why India and Indonesia aren't on the travel ban list? They are the two countries with the greatest Muslim populations.[4] And the Travel Ban was ruled constitutional by all 9 Supreme Court Justices.[5]
But why am I even saying this. Islam is not a's a religion. According the definition I provided religion has nothing to with racism so this argument should also be discarded.

Gold Star Family:
1. This debate is about how Trump is racist, not prejudice so stop using that.
2. Why does the father have to speak for his wife?
3. This is a matter of Islam which is a religion not a race
Judges, disregard this argument.

Mexican Judge:
Simple. The Judge was biased against Trump. "Statutory law provides that any justice or judge must disqualify himself in a case in which he has a substantial interest, or has been a counsel, or has been a witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his/her attorney as to render it improper for him to sit on the trial or any other proceeding."[7] The judge was part of the La Raza organization which advocates for Hispanic groups. If it was you at trial, would you want a biased lawyer?

I support the wall and it is a good solution but that is the topic of the debate.

Illegal Immigration:
It's not racist to uphold the law. The law clearly states, if you are hear illegally, you are subject to deportation. [8] Trump is doing his job. He swore to uphold the laws of the United States and that is what he is doing. No one is above the law.

Trump wants DACA. It doesn't matter why....

Justice Department:
I knew this one would show up and I have stuff to defend this as well. You have part of my rebuttal. The result to that case was that Trump had to read a piece of paper. It was by no means an admission of guilt. Mind you this after a full court trial and all the formalities.[9]

I'm not answering your arguments unless they are listed out and sourced separately.

Obama being born in Africa was first brought up by Hillary Clinton's campaign.[10] So by your logic, Clinton is a racist isn't she? All Trump did was pressure Obama to release his birth certificate. Even then, all his records are sealed. Why?

White Supremacy:
Trump has repeatedly denounced white supremacy even after Charlottesville but you Democrats hold a double standard. No notable Democrat has condemned ANTIFA which is domestic teerorist organization. The hypocrisy is unreal. But that's not relevant. Just an observation. How many times do you want him to condemn them?

Please say more and not give me a list.

Nice debating you. If you need tips please ask!

Debate Round No. 2


"Racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another" From the online dictionary. The first option alternative the definition you gave, and I choose to go with the first thing that pops up.

My arguments ARE in fact, topical according to the definition I provided. Although you have a different definition, I choose to stay by mine. Prejudice does mean racist, even though you choose not to believe that, making all my arguments topical under my definition.

Although I used these examples from the Huffington Post, this isn't new to me. I have seen video proof of all these examples.

I told you, a normal person would not say he has a "good relationship with the blacks" unless he is an egotistical maniac who says that you win votes from people of the black community. You examples of people who support them shouldn't matter. They're all crazy. Ben Carson is technically a black white supremacist and has a picture of him and Jesus in his house, Kanye West has no soul and wants to run for president in 2020. CNN needs to get rid of Paris Dennard, he supports all republicans no matter what and don't even get me started on Don Lemon and him. My point is, just because a few crazy people who happen to be black support Trump, doesn't mean he's not racist. It just proves how ignorant some of his supporters are.

I literally stated before, if a person was not racist and was actually trying to help all people, they wouldn't put white supremacists and former KKK members on their board. It's just not how it works. It's like saying, oh I'm a feminist and then it turns out your boyfriend led a no feminists protest last week and you're totally fine with it. If you're trying to help a problem, you don't hire people who are against the idea. Although that's not all I can use to prove he's racist, it just doesn't add up to why if he weren't racist, he would get racist people to be on his ideas. If you really weren't racist and you were actually trying to help everyone, even if the advisors/cabinet members were somewhat decent, you would say, no exceptions. We cannot have prejudice people on board. But there are. And that's not okay.
Below is some examples of Trump's board being racist.

The hate crimes occurred after the election for a reason. Now people think since they elected Trump, their actions are okay to proceed with. It doesn't take a genius to realize that's how Trump's actions are affecting. Is this enough evidence for the hate crimes?

I think everyone is aware of acts done after the election.

They had to get rid of the travel ban for a reason. It does target people like muslims. He probably doesn't realize India and Indonesia had muslims. He's not well educated. Nambia isn't a country, Donald.

I told you, under the definition of racist that I chose, prejudice does mean racist. Like I said before, Trump is not well educated, so the fact that he made accusations that because of their religion the wife couldn't speak is racist and prejudice.

The Mexican Judge. Of course I would not want a biased lawyer, but the nerve that Trump had to go to the conclusion and say without thinking: He's biased because he's Mexican is not okay under any circumstances. Once again, he's being prejudice for not letting in anyone without a visa because he thinks they're here to bring crimes. Prejudice.

The wall may not be the topic of the debate, but it's still a prejudice matter and I have the right to point it out if it supports my argument. It's pretty obvious you tried to avoid my argument by steering away from it, so that's an argument you failed to answer.

Trump is not doing his job. DACA is a good thing with reasonable standards to help those who have done nothing wrong. If that's unacceptable then that's outrageous.

The Justice Department. Once again I said excuses for what he said should not matter. There are no excuses and though he was racist, he did not apologize for what he did. Therefore, he is ignorant to the topic.

Obama: You're claiming that Hillary brought it up. Guess who said that? Trump. I do not trust him therefore I choose to ignore your evidence.

White supremacy: Trump had the nerve to blame both sides for the Charlottesville case. A women got KILLED in this and the excuses for it are ridiculous. The rally he failed to address the comments AT the rally. His apologies are not sincere and he wants to defend himself instead of giving the truth.


For one, I can't find "The Online Dictionary" that you claim of, but an Oxford dictionary has the same one so I'l go with it.

Good've seen video proof? Please show it to me and the judges to prove your examples are true. Until then, we don't know if you're lying.

African Americans
So you concede that Trump wasn't racist when he said he has a good relationship with African Americans.
Point to be noted judges. My opponent fails to refute my arguments that Trump's statement aren't racist. The topic isn't whether Trump is egoistical or a maniac, it's about whether he is racist.
Black White Supremacist? No offense, but what does that even mean? How can a black person support the white supremacist ideology of getting rid of African Americans? It's just illogical and ridiculous. What's wrong with having a picture of Jesus in your house? Numerous Hispanics are Catholics and have pictures of Christ. Does that make them white supremacists as well? Again you're into making accusations against Kanye and Paris. Explain why they are bad. You need evidence to warrant your claims. The problem is that it's not just a few African Americans. It's a total of 8% of African Americans, which was more than Mitt Romney got in 2012.[1] You're basically saying all these voters are stupid because they voted for a white person. Who's being racist now?

Did you even read my analogy? Let's look at yours. If you're dating a boy that's an anti-feminist, does that make you an anti-feminist as well?? I don't think so. It's the same logic. And once again, you haven't proved how Trump's cabinet is racist or prejudice. Why should I and the judges believe you if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims? And you seem to avoid my spoil system argument. It's been a tradition.

Points to be noted:
My opponent refuses to answer my arguments and my opponent refuses to prove by Trump's cabinet is racist

List out your examples on here. I'm not going to go read them. And the judges won't consider them either

Hate Crimes:
So my opponent and his website cite the Southern Law Poverty Center which is inherently a biased organization and source. According to my opponents source, some of the accusations have been wrong by the SLPC. In addition this article [2] provides reasons why the SPLC is biased with onse being they used the term white supremacist four times in one small paragraph. In addition some of the hate crimes are not even hate crimes. For example, one of them involves a person saying the "n" word which is very common in schools.

Gold Star Family:
You haven't explained why what Trump said was wrong and prejudice. Again provide EVIDENCE. From what I see, the mother didn't talk at all when she should have. If she was filled with so much grief to not be able to express her love for her son, then that's kinda weird. And btw it's a fact that Islam restricts the right of women. Take look at Saudi Arabia, a women cannot leave the house without a male relative.[3]

Travel Ban:
Your argument here makes no sense. The travel ban didn't go away. It's still here. And prove to me that Trump didn't know that Indonesia and India don't have the most Muslims. As for education, Trump went to the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school.[4] When did Trump Nambia isn't a country?

Points to be noted: My opponent make ludicrous arguments with ZERO evidence.

Mexican Judge:
Did you read the La Raza argument. He was biased because he was a part of that organization and that organization despised Trump. Classical case of bias. If the judge was white and part of that organization, Trump probably still say it's biased. As I mentioned numerous times. If you come here illegally, you are subject to deportation. Coming here itself is a crime, so they should be deported.

I wasn't trying to avoid your argument and I can still defend it. The Wall is to prevent illegal immigrants from coming. There will be a beautiful door to come here legally like you should. It's not prejudice to enforce the law that has been around for decades.

Trump is doing his job. He told Congress to get legislation to his table and he'll sign off on it. The rest is up to Congress to get a bill passed and get sent to the President's desk. Remember the President doesn't make laws, Congress makes the law.

Trump didn't have to admit anything. Without admission you can't prove he's racist. It's not an excuse. The court couldn't prove he was racist and compromised. Trump just had to read a piece of paper. That's a win for him.

Did you even bother to read my article? Clinton's Chief Strategist Mark Penn brought it up.[5] Your disregard to even read my article shows your intolerance. Trump merely pointed it out. Assuming that everything Trump says is a lie is ridiculous. Do your research before you make accusations

Point to be noted judges:
My opponent refuses to even consider my evidence and refuses to provide counter-evidence

Let me ask you a question. Do you know who ANTIFA is and what they do? They literally hate free speech and we're at Charlottesville which lead to the violence between the two groups.[6] They throw urine at people they don't like and even pepper spray people.[7] In case you didn't know, ANTIFA is a left wing group and it clashed with the white supremacists. Trump has to blame both sides for the violence they caused.

I await your response and urge you to post after 3 days due to time constraints on my part. Sorry for the inconvenience it may cause :)

Debate Round No. 3


I already provided evidence from the Huffington Post. I don't need to provide video evidence. Your evidence is as or is less believable as mine. Therefore I will not show you video evidence.

African American
I did refute your argument because I told you no normal person would say that. Keep up here.
Ben Carson: I was just using that to say how crazy he is. There's been articles that he's a black white supremacist. I'm just using that to describe him. Ben Carson doesn't just have a picture of Christ. He has a picture WITH christ. I'm just using all these examples to explain how weird his voters are that happen to be african american. I'm not being racist. I'm proving that a racist is racist. Trump. I'm not saying they're stupid because they're voting for a white person. I'm saying they're being oblivious to the fact that they voted for a person who is racist, has low education, and is a rude person in general.

The reason Trump got more than Mitt Romney was because Obama was running against Mitt Romney and he was very popular. That evidence doesn't prove Trump isn't racist.

Fine if you don't agree with my analogy on the feminist thing, it doesn't matter. I'm going to keep telling you until you get this through your head.
Even though
this does not prove he's racist by ITSELF
it gives you evidence that he's done something a racist person would do
put people on the cabinet
who ARE racist
and they have power to do things
meaning Trump's putting his trust in racist people.
Did that get through your head? I tried to break it down for you.

If Trump agreed racist is a bad thing, why would he make it worse and put racist people on his cabinet? Stop trying to find a way out of this, he's letting racist people have power to do things. I DID answer your arguments. I understand what you're doing. You don't know how else to answer this. If you ask me, you're not reading MY arguments.

Hate Crimes
you evidence, I can't access, therefore I choose to ignore why my article may be biased. There's still been hate crimes which you didn't prove they didn't happen meaning you agree, hate crimes followed the election and now we can all agree it's because of Trump because you also didn't bother answering that. Good! It's better off that way. Also, you didn't say that person didn't use the N word and who cares if it's used in schools? I'm guessing the white community didn't use that word and if they did, that's bad but that doesn't mean it's not a good word to use. Sorry your argument there didn't make sense.

Gold Star Family
I did provide evidence and I did argue why it's prejudice. This is getting annoying, if you're just going to ignore my arguments this isn't worth it. I said he just went ahead and accused that she didn't speak because she wasn't allowed to. That's prejudice. Accusing a stereotype that isn't true. Prejudice. Which brings me to another point.

A lot of what Trump said is prejudice and you aren't disagreeing that racist is prejudice, therefore I proved why Trump is prejudice and I win the debate on topical. Which is actually all I have to win so technically I already won.

Travel Ban. I don't have to prove that Trump didn't know India and Indonesia were muslim countries. I was just talking about how he's not well educated. He says a lot of false evidence. You obviously don't listen to the news. During Trump's UN speech, instead of saying the correct african country, Namibia, he said Nambia. He obviously was oblivious to the fact that that's not a country because he didn't correct himself meaning he's not well educated in that area. He's just kind of dumb. I mean, when he went to Puerto Rico to help with the hurricane, he did two stupid things. First, he said it was miracle. I DARE you to go up to a mother who lost her child in that hurricane and say: It's a miracle. NOt everything is a miracle. You have to accept tragedies. AND when he was handing out supplies to survivors, wait. Take that back. He didn't HAND out supplies. He stood with some toilet paper, THREW it out into a crowd of people and joked around. He was smiling, pointing at people like: oh! Good catch! Seriously?! I also did have evidence. For the Gold Star family. Plus, a lot of my arguments I don't really need that much evidence because I'm refuting yours.

I didn't say because of the organization he was racist, I said Trump went ahead and said he's mexican. Nt that he was part of the organization, that he's mexican. Trump is being prejudice because if it were that easy to come here legally, trust me. immigrants would come here legally. But they don't because it's harder than you think. He's not thinking of those who are just coming here for a better life.

you can't just say: he's doing his job. It doesn't work that way. Oh! A police shot a black person because he was loitering! It's okay he's doing his job. It just doesn't work that way. He's leaving the decision to congress because he doesn't want to handle it himself.

Although things got out of hand at the protest, if you ask me, nothing really started up until that 32 year old woman got run over by a car. Are you saying that doesn't matter? if one of my loved ones got killed because of a protest, I would've gone berserk. Yes, someone from the protest got rowdy and punched someone of the right wing. But that was after the woman got killed. No matter what happened, it's completely unacceptable to kill someone because of anger, which is not what the left wing did at all.

I gave examples that you agreed Trump did where he was prejudice. My arguments are topical under the definition of racist. I provided evidence, I refuted your arguments, yet you say I do none of that. Some of my arguments you didn't refute. You didn't refute my topical argument so I'm guessing there's no debate on that. I won topical, so technically I already won the debate.

I am interested to see what you come up with.


I disagree with the evidence claim. I have provided far more evidence and sources compared to you. And unlike yours imply sources aren't biased.

African American:
Fine, he's not normal, but that doesn't make him racist does it? Show me the article that says Carson is a black white supremacist. Just because you say there's one doesn't mean the judge will believe you and neither will I. What's wrong with a picture with Christ. Have you forgotten freedom of religion? You are being racist. By your logic every African American that voted for a white person, Trump is stupid.

Actually, it does prove that he's not racist. Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton.[1] Therefore, Hillary should have received at least somewhat close to Obama's total, but that wasn't the case as I mentioned.

Once again, you fail to prove how Trump's cabinet is racist, even though I've asked you to prove that numerous times. And once again, you fail to answer my spoils system argument. And I'll explain it to you once again, choosing brave people for the cabinet doesn't make you brave.

Likewise, you refuse to read my argument and my sources. It's not racist to put someone in your cabinet that has been loyal to you. It's been a tradition since Andrew Jackson. And then again, you fail to provide any warrants for your claims.

Hate Crimes:
I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Here's the link once again.

If you don't believe that their biased, then fine, I have another rebuttal. Correlation doesn't equal causation. [2] Unless you explicitly prove to me that Trump told the people to commit hate crimes, it doesn't prove that Hate Crimes were caused by Trump. Your reasoning is simply a logical fallacy. Not to mention that fact that you are being extremely racist. Judges, my opponent literally said if a white person says the N word, that's bad. That is so racist. No one should use the N word no matter what. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that an saying the N word was counted as a hate crime. A lot of people use that word at schools around the country.

Gold Star Family:
What evidence? I didn't see a link under your argument for this. You're implying that not allowing a woman to talk is a stereotype type. The problem is that, that's not true as I proved early with my Saudi Arabia source and women's rights. And the fact remains, she still hasn't said a word. On the other hand, the Navy Seal who died's wife was able to talk. Grief doesn't last forever. Why hasn't she said anything a year later about her son?

Your definition States that Prejudice=Racist. I did denounce your arguments, I just used the word racist instead of prejudice. You don't win, because I have been topical, as I said Trump isn't racist because he made those remarks.

Travel Ban:
Yes you do have to that Trump didn't know India and Indonesia were Muslim countries. The burden of proof is on you to prove this is true. The benefit of doubt is in my side. You're the one making a claim, so therefore you have to prove that it's true. And even if he did mispronounce Namibia, how does that make him uneducated and racist? I bet you don't even know every country in the world. And he's 70 years old. Cut him some slack. And how does Namibia relate to the Travel Ban. One mistake doesn't prove that you're uneducated. As for Puerto Rico, he was making a comparison to Hurricane Katrina. Stop only taking a part of the story. Katrina had far more lives lost compared to Puerto Rico and it was a good thing that the death toll was kept low. Your emotional story has nothing to with the miracle comment. And where is the video of Trump throwing toilet paper and laughing. Oh wait, you don't prove that it's true.

Show me a source that Trump was those exact words: "He shouldn't judge me because he's Mexican." You have yet to show any source for this. Trump is not prejudice for enforcing the law. Immigration may be a problem, and it should be fixed, but through Congress. Until then, Trump is sworn to uphold the law.

Trump legally cannot make DACA legal until Congress passes the bill. The police analogy makes no sense. He already made his decision to keep DACA, but to do that he needs legislation approved by Congress. The President's job is to sign bills into law not make laws.

No one is asking you. Show me evidence that the violence started after the guy drove his car through the crowd and then the violence started. It does matter and Trump condemned both sides for a reason. They both were igniting violence. Here's a video of ANTIFA igniting violence.[3] The question is can you condemn ANTIFA?

Final Observations:

--My opponent refuses to prove how saying something good about African Americans is racist
--They refuse to prove how Trump's cabinet members are racist and how that automatically makes Trump a racist
--They refuse refute my spoils system argument
--Pro fails to explain what a black white supremacist even means and doesn't provide any sources for this accusation
--They fail to prove how a picture with Jesus makes someone racist
--My opponent is blantly racist saying that African Americans shouldn't have voted for Trump because he's white and also says the N word should be allowed to use by anyone but a white person
--My opponent refuses to read my sources!!
--They refuse to answer my women's rights of Muslims argument
--They refuse to prove how Trump doesn't know about India and Indonesia
--My opponent uses cherry-picked evidence from CNN and uses biased information from the SPLC
--My opponent refuses to show evident for the toilet paper argument
--My opponent cannot provide a direct quote by Trump saying the judge is biased because he's Mexican
--My opponent refuses to consider the La Raza rebuttal
--My opponent doesn't seem to understand that Trumo cannot do anything about DACA until Congress acts
--PRO concedes that it's Trumps job to enforce the law and deport illegals and therefore it cannot be prejudice or racist
--PRO concedes their apartment contention
--My opponent cannot prove that the violence started after the man drove the car
--My opponent concedes that both sides were to blame for the violence at Charlottesville

Many more but I think I'm out of space
Thank You opponent for this opportunity and thank you judges for reading. I hope y'all have a wonderful day.

Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 2 months ago
I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. I refrain from doing debates because they are glitchy af now because of the management change a couple years ago. I"d be more than happy to discuss it and debate it via PMs if you"d like. The man has done a lot for African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Etc. You just have to get past the bs of the MSM which I"d be more than happy to do.
Posted by OrangeDoge 2 months ago
Thank you for responding!
Personally, I believe that Donald Trump has conveyed acts of racism. Then again, This is simply my belief. If you'd like, We can debate this. Or, Have a simple discussion.
I plan on spending the rest of my summer break cramming for school, But I'm pretty sure a 3-Round/5-Round debate wouldn't hurt.
I'd like to know your thoughts on this
Posted by ILikePie5 2 months ago

I"d be more than happy to discuss it with you
Posted by OrangeDoge 2 months ago
Adequate debate.
I'd like to see what this comments section has to say, Given the current events in the U. S.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Unicorn got absolutely rekt in this debate and fell back on the stereotypical "everything Trump says is a lie" mentality. And you wonder why he'll serve a full two terms, LOL
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
Posted by kitty_cat_LOL 2 years ago
i don't really know if trump is my thing to debate about.

but i kinda agree with the con side

because he is my friend
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 2 years ago
But in the definition I used, it does mean prejudice. That was more than half my argument, Masterful
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
Being prejudice does not always mean being racist.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 3 years ago
I"m aware but the DEFINITION of racist uses the word prejudice. Make sense?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Masterful 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote in comments
Vote Placed by Ragnar 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Obama: You're claiming that Hillary brought it up. Guess who said that? Trump. I do not trust him therefore I choose to ignore your evidence." WTF? If Trump says the earth is round, it must be flat. Then claiming video evidence, but it's a secret that cannot be shared with us judges... Whereas con gave numerous respectable sources, shot down pro's, and even instructed pro on how to use sources to prove his points. Pro had a minimal BoP to easily reach, which is showing that Trump is racist, rather than treating it as self-evident. Saying someone is racist because racist people like them, is not far from saying a rape victim is a rapist because rapists clearly liked them. Pro further refused to support his claim that religion and race are the same thing, which set the tone for con being able to support the ad hominem about pro being racist. Con has no duty to disprove the resolution, so long as the proof of the resolution is refuted.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Keep up here." - Pro. The irony of this comment made me laugh. Pro failed to prove that Trump is racist, or at least they did not provide enough evidence to support their claims, as well as using many logical fallacies as their arguments. I'm aware that pro included some sources, but most came from organizations that have been known to be extremely biased against Trump (Huffington Post, CNN). A tip for Pro. When you're making an accusation or a claim about someone, you need to prove it. When you say "He probably doesn't realize India and Indonesia had muslims", you need to provide evidence. Most of your arguments and accusations were absent of this evidence. Without providing sources to support your claims, Con and the judges won't know if you're mistaken, or just lying. It is not our job to look up these sources for you, it's Pro's job to do it for us. Con didn't have to do much to discredit your arguments because of this.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.