Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

"A person cannot prefer something unless he values his preference more than he values his other options." This wholly depends on what you mean by "value". If by preferring, for example, Cadbury chocolate to Hershey's chocolate, I value Cadbury more than Hershey's in some way, than I agree. But whatever we mean by "value" here, it is not that Cadbury chocolate is superior to Hershey's. It simply means that Cadbury chocolate gives me more pleasure. My taste buds determine my preference. "Value" is a confusing word, and not one I would pick. By "equality" we agreed we were talking about notions of superiority. This type of preference has nothing to do with that. I don't believe that Cadbury chocolate is superior to Hershey's chocolate, since it's entirely subjective. If I said I have a preference for Caucasians since they're the smartest or best dressed, than that would be racist. By saying they're smarter, I'm saying they're superior in some way. Furthermore, dress sense is subjective, so it's invalid to say a race is better at dressing than others. If I said Caucasians are more attractive, that would be racist as well. Sexual attraction is subjective, so there's no basis in calling a race better looking. If I said I tend to be more sexually attracted to Caucasians, that would not be racist since I'm just outlined my personal sexual preference. "If you like one thing more than another, do you consider them to be equal? Yes? Then why do you prefer one? Isn't it a contradiction to say, "These are equal, but one is more desiable than the other"? How can one be more desirable if you consider both to be equal? If they're equal, you shouldn't have a preference one way or the other...If two things are perceived as being equal, there's nothing about one which makes it more desirable than the other." Pro is clearly equivocating and has been doing so this entire debate. "Unequal" does not equate with "different". Races are different in appearance, yet equal, since "equality" in this debate only means that none is inherently superior or inferior to another in any way. People of different races generally look different, so we can say they're different in appearance. Being different in appearance does not equate to being unequal under the definition of "equal" that is always meant when discussing racism or sexism. Also, I think Merriam Webster's definition is more suited than Pro's: "something that is liked or wanted more than another thing"http://www.merriam-webster.com..."Wanting" or "desiring" has more to do with what this debate is about. Sexual desire of certain racial features over others."The fact that one is more liked than the other...means that one is subjectively superior to the other.""Subjectively superior" is not a remotely sensible concept. If something is subjective, than some will dislike it and others will like it. Subjective and superior do not go together."From last time, I would like for Con to answer this question: 'If a person believes two things are equal, how can he perceive one as being more desirable?'"It's a simple matter of an equivocation fallacy, but Pro understands this. His argument is based on it.Pro agrees that his argument entails anyone with a sexual orientation is sexist. This, and the fact that it entails all straight persons to be sexist against their own sex both make his case prima facie absurd. Just as a note, things can be both partially objective and subjective. Taste in music, for example, is partially subjective and objective. For example, we could say classical music is objectively an impressive and intricate art form, and some love it partially for that reason. Still, those who recognize this might prefer rock for subjective reasons. Those who love Beethoven love him for his genius and because his music personally appeals to him, i.e. for objective and subjective reasons.