First off, the guy you accused of bias is so aggressively centrist that it honestly pisses me off a little (though I won't bother clashing with him on this because we're too busy fighting the common foe that is misinformation)- so he was quite possibly one of the worst people to try to No True Scotsman out of the argument. (So calling someone a "Trumptard" for spouting election misinformation is too biased to make a valid point, but calling someone a libtard- because I bet there's a good 90% chance you've done that at least once- for fact-checking said misinformation... isn't?) It's a transparent fallacious attempt to cry "BIASED!" so that you don't have to actually prove your point, and we all know it. (Also, I may not like its use either, but "Trumptard" is a term generally used exclusively to those stupid enough to cry foul on the election- similar to "voteflake"- so it provides its own descriptor.)
Secondly... hate speech does actually have a definition. According to Cambridge, hate speech is "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". Context matters, but the anecdotal example you gave was a result of people not knowing said context. The stuff Trump and his supporters have said... is NOT a result of improper contextualization, and is just a result of them being bigots. All the bans being dished out to major Trumpers and accounts tied to QAnon isn't some Orwellian "Big Brother decides what you're allowed to say" situation, it's the equivalent of being forcibly removed from a store because you were screaming obscenities and pissing on items as well as other customers.
Get out of here with your elementary-school-level arguments, and come back when you can provide hard evidence instead of throwing fallacies around at random trying to "disqualify" people from the discussion.
Now define racism. Sorry I'll leave, didn't realise I wasn't allowed to debate, you're the boss.