The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

Here are my rebuttals. 1. "Racism is something in which a person hates ALL people who have a certain skin color, you said that the debate is all about if someone implied that water is wet, then they meant that all people are white. If someone implied that water is not wet, then they meant that all people are black. " This is incorrect, let me define to you what racism is, first off (According to Marriam-Webster). Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [1] Source: . https://www.merriam-webster.com... Secondly, Even if I said that, it doesn't necessarily mean that I said that there were only black people in this debate. There are white people too, which you are excluding them from the debate ironically. 2. "this is where you contradict yourself, you say that it has nothing to do with racism, but in the first round you state it has everything to do with racism, thus making a contradiction. " I never said this at all, you made this up just in attempt to get an easy win. I only said it has to do with racism and I demonstrated that in the first round. Let me reinstate that to you, so you understand my demonstration. This ongoing debate trend wasn't necessarily debating if "water is wet" or not because it seemed like a stupid question from the start. We all know that water is wet and all that other stuff, but that was not the main point of that debate. My position is that the "Is Water Wet? " debate was mainly based as a race divider debate because it wasn't meant to debate if water is wet or not. It was mainly to say that if someone implied that water is wet, then they meant that all people are white. If someone implied that water is not wet, then they meant that all people are black, which both sides of that "Is Water Wet? " debate are false. Saying that all people are white, or all people are black is racist, and that would offend anyone of color, especially African Americans. You can't just say that all men and women are white or black, because that is false. Not all men and women are white; And, not all men or women are black. Each side of this "debate" are demonstrating racial superiority over another race. Whites are showing superiority over Blacks, and Blacks are showing superiority over Whites. It is so divisive. It is a racism debate not just because how it works and how it has nothing to do with water being wet or not, but the fact that the majority of the people who say that water is not wet are black people, and not enough whites to voice themselves to make this "debate" fair enough for them. 3. "first off, I don't see any comments turning this into a race thing, but even if its true, if so few are taking it that way, how would the entire thing be considered a "racial divide". " First off, you misrepresented what I said entirely, I didn't mean to literally read the comments, I meant don't take my demonstration out of context, which you did anyway. Taking things out of context does not help you in any way to refute any arguments I made. You took it out of context by making an overgeneralized assumption to take comments literally in a poor attempt to refute my arguments and my demonstration. My conclusions are: 1. The "Is Water Wet? " debate is a race divider (racism) debate. If someone implied that water is not wet, then he implied that all people are black, and if the person implied that water is wet, then he implied that all people are white. It is divisive, racist, and there are not enough whites to voice themselves out to make the "debate" fair enough. 2. The con took everything I have demonstrated and argued way out of context. Taking things out of context does not help you in any way to refute any arguments I made. You took it out of context by making an overgeneralized assumption to take comments literally in a poor attempt to refute my arguments and my demonstration. 3. The con has failed to refute any of my arguments and my demonstration by taking my arguments out of context, misrepresenting some things that I said, and not even making a valid case against said arguments. The conclusions are clear, I demonstrated my position, I refuted every argument he ever made, and answered every question con ever asked me. Here are all the sources I used in all of my arguments: (1) . https://m.youtube.com... (2) . https://m.youtube.com... (3) . https://m.youtube.com... (4) . https://m.youtube.com... (5) . https://www.merriam-webster.com... I will implore that everyone should Vote Pro! This has been a fun and fair debate.