If you don't vote for Obama, you are racist.

Con provides 3 definitions of racism, but does not designate which one is being referred to. I will do that for Con: definition 1 and 3 are being used, and it is the subtle distinction in the two definitions that will make my case for me. Con writes, "There are people who do not agree with racism, thus, not everyone is a racist." As I already stated in the previous round, just because someone does not agree with racism does not mean they are not a racist. The beliefs a person holds are not changed by whether they agree with those beliefs or not. The two are not mutually exclusive. Using the definitions Con provides: first definition is racism as a "belief," third definition is racism as "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." The two are not mutually exclusive. An obvious example is homosexuality. A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to the same-sex. That said, a homosexual can disagree with homosexuality, arguing that it is immoral or unnatural. This disagreement with the doctrine of homosexuality would not change the fact that the person is a homosexual. Likewise, a racist can be against racism while still being a racist. I will delve further into this counter-intuitive phenomenon—that someone can disagree with a belief while still holding that belief—later in the round. Before doing so, I want to address Con's weak attempts to negate my refutations. Con admits imprecision and ambiguity to the previous argument, specifically in the use of the construction "can not." That's all fine and good, I don't really care if Con is imprecise or ambiguous, if anything it only hurts the argument Con is trying to make. Second, Con writes, "What I meant is that someone can not-vote for Obama because of other reasons. What I meant in my previous argument by the words, "Can not" is that someone can not-vote for Obama and vote for someone else, not someone cannot vote for Obama. If I meant that they cannot vote for Obama, I would have not separated the "can" and the "not". Thus, PRO misunderstood my argument." At no point did I argue that Con stated "someone cannot vote for Obama." If Con and our readers were to inspect my argument, it would become evident that I did not misrepresent or misunderstand Con's argument. Let me reiterate, at no point in the previous round did I say that Con "meant that they cannot vote for Obama." My argument had nothing to do with an inability to vote for Obama. I do not care whether someone can or cannot vote for Obama; the entire issue is irrelevant, both for Con's argument and for my argument. Con thinks I misunderstood his argument, when in fact, Con has misunderstood my argument. Somewhat ironic, I would say. So: Con's only real argument is that "someone can disagree with racism, thus, they are not racist." I addressed this already: whether you disagree with something or not does not change whether you hold the belief you disagree with or not. Someone can disagree with "racism," this does not mean that they are not a racist. There are many people who are racist even though they recognize, theoretically, that racism is bad. What I am saying is that racism, as a "belief," is thoroughly embedded subconsciously, and therefore, whether we agree with racism or not, we are nevertheless racists. Before continuing, I hope that this point is clear, for both Con and our readers. Con has provided no evidence that everyone is not a racist. What Con has done is invoke a definition of "racism" as a "belief." That is why Con provided the definitions: to affirm that racism is a belief, and then argue that because racism is a belief, someone can disagree or agree with this belief. To be honest, I agree with Con's premise completely. It is a sound premise. It is true that because racism is a belief, someone can disagree or agree with this belief. The problem with Con's argument, then, is not the premise, but the reasoning and conclusion that Con draws from this premise. Con erroneously concludes that because someone can disagree with a belief, it means that person does not hold that belief. I argue that it does not follow from the premise that someone can disagree with a belief, that that person no longer holds that belief. I already gave as example the example of homosexuality. Someone can disagree with homosexuality, the belief that the same-sex is sexually attractive, yet nonetheless the person can be a homosexual in the sense that they are sexually attracted to the same-sex, and therefore, believe subconsciously that the same-sex is attractive. An example of a case where someone disagrees with racism and yet firmly holds that belief (i.e., they are racist) should suffice. In the book, "Blink: the power of thinking without thinking" (the title says it all, does it not?), Malcolm Gladwell writes about the "Implicit Association Test," developed at Harvard. The test (which you can find online) discovered that 80% of people who prior to the test stated they were against racism, had pro-white associations and negative-black associations. The result suggests two things. One, that disagreeing with a belief does not mean that same belief is not firmly embedded subconsciously. And, second, following from the first conclusion, it is clear that a lot more people are racist than think they are. In fact, that many people who think they are against racism are in fact racists. As for my argument that "everyone is a racist," it is clear that at least 80% of people are pro-white. Nonetheless, to be thorough, I will provide further evidence that EVERYONE is racist, either consciously or subconsciously. Raymond B. Cattell, an important evolutionary psychologist and Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus at University of Illinois, has argued that racism is natural, innate, an evolutionarily instilled drive. Cattell's argument is that racism is an innate drive, not unlike the innate sex drive. [1] In a recent conference, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and social theorists gathered to discuss a "gene for racism." [2] Moreover, in a recent study in the "British Journal of Social Psychology," it was determined that "everyone was a little bit racist" [3]. The use of a quantitative degree here, "little bit," is irrelevant for this debate, as the debate is whether you are or are not, and being a "little bit" is being racist. Conclusion: Con did not show that disagreeing with a belief means someone cannot hold that belief. I, on the other hand, not only gave arguments to demonstrate that someone can disagree with a belief while still holding that belief, I also gave examples (from the Implicit Association Test) of people who were shown to disagree with "racism" yet were shown to be "racist." Thus, I have negated Con's arguments. Furthermore, in negating Con's arguments, my claim that "everyone is a racist" stands. To buffer it, I provided new evidence, from evolutionary psychology and biology, to suggest that EVERYONE is indeed a racist. Thus, the result is clear: everyone is a racist, so therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist. Vote Pro. [1] http://www.euvolution.com... [2] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk... [3] http://www.cos.gatech.edu...