Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges.

Given Pro's last round response, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of him starting this debate was. If all he was trying to prove was that certain racist comments allegedly spoken by Rush Limbaugh have not been sourced, then clearly no debate was even necessary. I can't prove that Rush Limbaugh made those 3 specific statements any more than CNN could. Did Pro really expect that kind of specific argument from Con? I have to wonder what would make him assume that there are young sleuths here on DDO who could investigate every single one of Rush's on-air talk radio segments (thousands upon thousands of hours of radio) or his decades in the public eye and therefore provide a sufficient Con rebuttal according to Pro's terms. Considering the recent controversy -- not to mention Roy's reputation as being a formidable debater -- I didn't expect him to create such a one-sided debate (it's manipulative because no "debate" can even occur ~ You either source it or you can't). I figured this debate was about Rush's comments being the reason that Limbaugh was not able to make a big for the St. Louis Rams, and I've argued it from that perspective. For that reason, despite the outcome, I'll continue debating it as such. Now in regard to being considered guilty until proven innocent, what I actually said about Limbaugh was that he does not get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters, considering all of the controversy he's sparked over the years in which people have depicted his statements (those to which he's admitted to saying) as being blatantly racist, i.e. the bone-in-nose comment. Yes, the U.S. government upholds a just innocent until proven guilty policy; however, not every organization in the U.S. operates under those stipulations... especially private ones. So, basically I was defending the NFL's right to deny Limbaugh a bid for whatever reason they so chose. And, moreover, I believe that their concerns about his racists comments were justified, which I explained at length in the previous rounds. Moving on, Pro writes that it is the accusers job of presenting evidence via transcripts of RL's radio show that he's made specific racist comments. First of all, I didn't say anything in the last round about existing transcripts so I have no idea what Pro is talking about. However even assuming that these transcripts exist (the site Pro sourced does not include ALL of Rush' segments from ALL of Rush's shows), the thing is that nobody knows for sure whether he made those comments on the radio, or some other point that he was running his mouth. It's true that he shouldn't be accused of things without any proof; however, his reputation as a racist and the way the players would have responded is why Rush didn't get a bid -- not those 3 specific comments, or his politics as he's claimed. So while perhaps 3 quotes weren't sourced (or maybe not even spoken), there are plenty of other remarks that people could have made their decision to label him as a racist upon, which is why I argued that he wasn't slandered. Additionally, Pro notes that in the last round, he cited 2 black listeners who like and support Rush as proof that he's not a racist. Well good for them! That proves nothing, as those are Conservative listeners and that's what Rush's show is about - Conservative politics, not racism. Just because some black people like Rush is hardly any evidence in his favor. And regarding Rush not getting a big based on his politics, well, it's fair to assume that a vast majority if not all NFL owners are Republican, so I highly doubt that's the case. To clarify, I agree with Pro that it was wrong for people to take Rush's other quotes out of context, which is why I avoided listing those in my original response upon further investigation of the context in which he said certain things. Pro saying that "clearly my sources are biased" is a joke. You'll notice that he simply made this accusation without responding to my argument that sources such as ESPN or more frustratingly FAIR - a watch dog media bias group - are NOT biased sources. So, Pro making this claim without any evidence and just saying it - or citing specially how and where they were biased - therefore makes him just as guilty of slander as the media that he's trying to condemn. Next Pro writes, "Demonstrations in support of the DC voucher program were made by black parents, who according to con's logic must have been racist for opposing the NAACP. Con believes that liberal ideology should be upheld regardless of who it hurts." First of all, I'm not a liberal, so Roy's attempting to poison the well and discrediting my point based on this misconception. Pro completely and undoubtedly straw manned my point here; what I did was explain why the NAACP generally opposed school vouchers -- I did NOT say that those who did were racist!!! Pro continues to say that Rush's alleged comment about not listening to 12% of the population was insignificant, because we don't know which 12% Rush may have been referring to. That's irrelevant. Like I said in the previous rounds, we live in a democracy which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, whomever those minorities might be. Sure, it's possible that he was talking about owners of Chinese restaurants, but as I said, it's not completely outlandish for Rush to be accused of bringing up issues of race on his program. On August 21, 2007, Limbaugh said, "Democrats want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur. There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them?" [1] I mean, this is a perfectly cited source - with audio - for Pro. I've got a newsflash: Some liberals don't want to go into Darfur to secure the black vote. Some people actually care about human rights and what's going on over there. To say that Democrats support our military helping out because the people in Darfur are BLACK is ridiculous and offensive. Now, regarding Rush playing the Movin On Up theme song from the Jeffersons, you'll notice that Pro didn't respond to this disrespectful act but merely claims that it didn't happen... despite the fact that I cited a source claiming the contrary, and the fact that there are audio records of this. Nevertheless, I'll conclude my argument with two final points: First, Pro writes, "The Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live asked "Could it be Satan?" in response to every event she didn't like. Con asks "Could it be racism?" with the same voice." Again, Pro's trying to depict me as some PC-obsessed flaming liberal out to attack Rush like the rest of the media. That is not me, and that has never been my intention. Like I said, this was a completely useless and pointless debate if Pro's only intention was to prove that the media made claims about Rush that they could not source. I'd tend to agree with him there and really couldn't care less if I lose this debate because of it. However, again, since I thought this was going to be an actual debate instead of monotonous "The media is scum" tirade, my intention in this debate was to prove that RL has consistently been a questionable and controversial figure since the inception of his public career, and has indeed made some inappropriate or unwise comments in the past. As such, I respect the NFLs decision (which is what I interpreted this debate to be about), and stand by the fact that the decision to deny Rush the bid was NOT made based on politics. To claim that Rush wasn't allowed to bid because of alleged slander is the same speculation, again, as what Pro is condemning. Rush applied to be a part of a private organization, and as such, he has to respect their authority and rules that are not identical to U.S. government policies. Source: [1] http://mediamatters.org...