Instigator / Pro
12
1384
rating
24
debates
25.0%
won
Topic

White-On-White Crime: America's Hidden Epidemic

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
6
8
Spelling and grammar points
4
4
Conduct points
2
4

With 4 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...

Death23
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Required rating
3
Contender / Con
28
1585
rating
18
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 1,372 / 5,000

The US is plagued by crimes of all types, and every race commits its fair share of crime. On the other hand, there is a big misconception of non-white people committing the most crimes. This is absolutely ridiculous, especially when you take a good look at America's demographics. White people are an estimated 60% of the population, but most white people will say that non-whites commit the most crime. We all know that this is a fallacy, and it's illogical but white people tend to think & act in an illogical way.

When it comes to black/white, 14% of the population (black people) couldn't possibly close the gap if they tried to. Whites simply need to take some accountability for their actions. Their "go-to favorites" are FBI stats & Chicago, but myself and others have already debunked those faux stats on numerous occasions by providing documented facts. Pulling stats from a government website is pure nonsense because the American government has never had an ethical track record to begin with. Not to sound prejudice, but If you look at every racial group's history, then you'll see that white people have always been criminal minded and they've committed the most atrocities.

If anyone can provide a "logical" argument, then you're more than welcome to accept this challenge. Also, leave your emotions out of it because I'm simply stating rock-solid facts.

Round 1
Pro
As I always say, I like to use these debates for creating dialogue into how different racial groups think rather than just trying to win debates in general.

Over the past few days, I couldn't help but notice all of the high profile and random low-level crimes that have been committed by white people at the local and national levels. Day after day and crime after crime is the norm, but I've basically been paying attention to how much crime whites are perpetrating. Yes, other races do it as well, but there is one continuous denominator when it comes to this topic. My question is, "why do white people commit so much crime?"

Nope, I'm not being prejudice; I'm just asking a question. This is why it makes no sense for whites to say that non-white people commit the most crimes when we are all clearly aware of who's doing what. From Politician Mitch McConnel getting caught accepting donations to University of Miss students shooting up memorial signs of Black activists, it seems like the beat doesn't stop with white crime. The tv show Big Brother is also in the headlines for the racism of its white cast members, and story-after-story of Jeffrey Epstein is getting ridiculous. 

And yet again, another white person calls the police on a black person for walking down the street. Geeze...

I'd just like to know what's going on in the minds of white people? As I asked before, "is there some sort of psychological imbalance that makes them so prone to bad behavior or is it just hardwired for them to naturally commit crimes?  No harm, no foul. 
Con
Pro has acknowledged that FBI statistics contradict his position, but claims to have debunked them as "faux stats" by providing "documented facts". Pro does not support this with evidence. The burden of proof is on Pro to support his position with evidence.
Round 2
Pro
My opponent clearly doesn't possess enough knowledge to even present an argument. 

By his own admission, he's basically saying that everything the FBI reports is 100% truthful... Yes, my opponent just stumbled over his own feet.

Just for "sh*** & giggles," here are some (misconduct) reports on the FBI: https://www.oversight.gov/report/doj/investigative-summary-findings-misconduct-fbi-supervisory-special-agent-making-false. And more FBI misconduct can be found right here https://oig.justice.gov/reports/inv-findings.htm. 

The funny thing about it is that I basically used "Government-Related" sites to destroy is own argument. 

We can now throw that burden of proof nonsense out of the window at this point thanks to documented evidence that's courteous of your very own government. 
Lol.
Con
Here is what is going on in this debate:
 
The debaters are in agreement that FBI statistics indicate that that the resolution is false. This is sufficient to show that the resolution is false. Pro contends that FBI statistics cannot be trusted. Con challenged Pro's mistrust of FBI statistics as unsubstantiated. Pro now presents evidence to support his attack on the credibility of FBI statistics. Let us examine Pro's evidence.
 
The first piece of evidence - https://www.oversight.gov/report/doj/investigative-summary-findings-misconduct-fbi-supervisory-special-agent-making-false
 
"Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Supervisory Special Agent for Making False Representations, Working for an FBI Contractor, Accepting Gifts from an FBI Applicant, Assisting the FBI Applicant in the Employment Selection Process, and Misusing a Government Vehicle and Cell Phone" >> (Upon opening PDF "Investigative Summary FBI SSA (2-5-19).pdf" Page 1; Paragraph 2) >> "the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information alleging that a Federal Bureau of Investigation Supervisory Special Agent (SSA), engaged in outside employment with an FBI contractor without FBI approval; falsely represented material facts on mortgage loan documents; and misused the SSA’s government vehicle."
 
This appears to be an isolated case of misconduct which has nothing to do with FBI crime statistics. This evidence should be rejected because it is irrelevant.
 
The second piece of evidence - https://oig.justice.gov/reports/inv-findings.htm
 
"Investigative Findings in Cases Involving Administrative Misconduct" -- "This page contains links to summaries of our investigative findings in cases involving administrative misconduct that meet either of the following criteria: (1) cases involving as subjects members of the Senior Executive Service and employees at the GS-15 grade level or above, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys, in which the OIG found misconduct and no prosecution resulted; or (2) cases involving high profile investigations, or in which there may otherwise be significant public interest in the outcome of the investigation." -- [list of investigative summaries]
 
Pro has linked us an OIG web page with a list of investigative summaries. Pro has not pointed to any specific summary other than the one I previously addressed. We cannot reasonably be expected to sift through this entire list of investigative summaries to locate one which supports Pro's case. It is Pro's responsibility to locate his evidence, not ours.
 
In regards to the FBI's credibility... the FBI is the principal federal law enforcement agency and is non-partisan. The FBI is held in high esteem and there exists a culture of compliance and professionalism within the FBI. The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false.

Round 3
Pro
My opponent is now saying that the evidence that I presented is an isolated case. I'm guessing that he wants me to sit and name every single misconduct charge of every single individual of every single sector of the FBI?...Sir, I basically used those two sources just to prove a point & just to breakdown your argument simplistically.

He says that "it has nothing to do with FBI crime statistics."...The FBI is made up of many sectors & crime statistics is only one sector. If FBI misconduct & lies are happening in one location, then it's surely happening in other locations. I'll ask one single question before I digress & you can reply with a simple yes or no.

Since the FBI has been in existence since 1908, "has the FBI been 100% accurate & ethical since its inception? 

Before I digress, I'd like to mention that the FBI was instituted by a well-known racist named Theodore Roosevelt. Here is one of his many racist quotes: "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."...
Here's what the highly accredited Global Research Center for Research on Globalization reported on the FBI's principles as an institution: "The most celebrated political figures in this country, including those called blue blooded, elite or patrician, were mostly criminals." Also "The Roosevelt family was no exception to this pattern of gaining wealth through thievery and then parlaying it into positions of influence for themselves."...The FBI's Acting Director J. Edgar Hoover also has a documented history of bad ethics, crimes & scandals, but that's a story for another day.

My opponent said verbatim that "The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false."...

Well, after giving you the history & well-documented bad ethics of the FBI, "I Rest My Case."

Now that I've completely obliterated my opponents case on the FBI's credibility, we can all see that he's solely speaking about statistics that comes from an untrustworthy institution...Trying to change the narrative won't work with me. I asked basic questions in the introduction in which you refuse to answer.

Sir, why won't you answer the questions?


Con
Pro's round 3 are really bad. I think he is trolling. Nobody makes arguments this bad.
 
Pro's args:
 
Re - Relevancy objection to isolated case of misconduct from prior round
 
>>He says that "it has nothing to do with FBI crime statistics."...The FBI is made up of many sectors & crime statistics is only one sector. If FBI misconduct & lies are happening in one location, then it's surely happening in other locations.
 
Obviously there is going to be misconduct in the FBI. This is the case for all human organizations. The isolated case of misconduct was unrelated to crime statistics. The allegations included lying on a mortgage application and unauthorized use of a vehicle. It wasn't relevant.
 
>>[Assertion that the FBI has not been 100% accurate & ethical since its inception]
 
So what?
 
>>[Teddy Roosevelt said racist things]
 
This is not relevant because it was over 100 years ago.
 
>> Global Research Center for Research on Globalization reported on the FBI's principles as an institution: "The most celebrated political figures in this country, including those called blue blooded, elite or patrician, were mostly [...]
 
This text is taken from a columnist article written by Margaret Kimberly. The column was reprinted at https://www.globalresearch.ca/theodore-roosevelt-and-american-racism/5402633 - This was not a report on "on the FBI's principles as an institution". Pro just flat out lied.

Round 4
Pro
In conclusion, my opponent hasn't brought any type of argument to the table. His main argument was about FBI statistics and nothing else.

My opponent stated that "The FBI is held in high esteem and there exists a culture of compliance and professionalism within the FBI. The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false."...Yes, those were his very words.

I simply displayed documented evidence from credible sources of the FBI's racism. My opponent's reply was that "This is not relevant because it was over 100 years ago."...As you can see, he's making excuses and acting as if racist beliefs & principles don't apply today, which is absolutely ridiculous. 

I'd like to ask my opponent a question. "If those 100-year-old racist beliefs/principles are irrelevant, then why do whites continue to practice racism today?" 

As you can see, my opponent has yet again trapped himself in his own nonsensical argument & that one question alone can be applied to every field of work.

On the other hand, I'm not saying that FBI stats are 100% fraudulent, but we all know that it's (logically) impossible for 14% of the population to commit more crime than 60% of the population. In all of my debates that fall under this topic, no one has been able to come up with a single logical reason to prove my wrong.

I asked my opponent, "Since the FBI has been in existence since 1908, has the FBI been 100% accurate & ethical since its inception? 
My opponent's reply: "So what?" 

OK, so did you not state that "The FBI is held in high esteem and there exists a culture of compliance and professionalism within the FBI. The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false?"

At this point, everyone can fully see my opponent's contradiction.

Final Conclusion: My opponent ran away from the topic of discussion in which he refused to answer any of my questions from the introduction because he wouldn't be able to provide any logical answers. This is a perfect example of getting caught trying to change the narrative of the discussion. 

Trying to defend/debunk the FBI's unethical, criminal & racist track record is quite ludicrous especially after I've provided documented facts that can be found from a number of sources...On the other hand, your responses to the facts in which I quote you saying "so what, he's trolling & his arguments are bad."  

I Rest My Case & Thanks For The Debate.








 







 
Con
In conclusion, my opponent hasn't brought any type of argument to the table. His main argument was about FBI statistics and nothing else.
 
I don't need more than FBI statistics to show that the resolution is false.
 
My opponent stated that "The FBI is held in high esteem and there exists a culture of compliance and professionalism within the FBI. The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false."...Yes, those were his very words.
 
No response necessary.
 
I simply displayed documented evidence from credible sources of the FBI's racism. My opponent's reply was that "This is not relevant because it was over 100 years ago."...As you can see, he's making excuses and acting as if racist beliefs & principles don't apply today, which is absolutely ridiculous. 
 
I'd like to ask my opponent a question. "If those 100-year-old racist beliefs/principles are irrelevant, then why do whites continue to practice racism today?" 
 
It wasn't "documented evidence from credible sources of the FBI's racism." It was a quote from Teddy Roosevelt.
 
As you can see, my opponent has yet again trapped himself in his own nonsensical argument & that one question alone can be applied to every field of work.
 
Conclusory / unsubstantiated
 
On the other hand, I'm not saying that FBI stats are 100% fraudulent, but we all know that it's (logically) impossible for 14% of the population to commit more crime than 60% of the population. In all of my debates that fall under this topic, no one has been able to come up with a single logical reason to prove my wrong.
 
Shifting the goal posts. The resolution is that white people commit the majority of crime, not that black people do. (i.e. 60% of the population commits less than 50% of the crime)
 
I asked my opponent, "Since the FBI has been in existence since 1908, has the FBI been 100% accurate & ethical since its inception? 
My opponent's reply: "So what?" 
 
So what?
 
OK, so did you not state that "The FBI is held in high esteem and there exists a culture of compliance and professionalism within the FBI. The FBI is competent and trustworthy. It is unlikely that the FBI statistics are false?"
 
At this point, everyone can fully see my opponent's contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
 
Final Conclusion: My opponent ran away from the topic of discussion in which he refused to answer any of my questions from the introduction because he wouldn't be able to provide any logical answers. This is a perfect example of getting caught trying to change the narrative of the discussion. 
 
The fact that Pro's questions went unanswered does not mean that Pro is correct.
 
Trying to defend/debunk the FBI's unethical, criminal & racist track record is quite ludicrous especially after I've provided documented facts that can be found from a number of sources...On the other hand, your responses to the facts in which I quote you saying "so what, he's trolling & his arguments are bad."  
 
Pro lies and continues to troll.
 
I Rest My Case & Thanks For The Debate.
 
Pro and Con both agree that FBI statistics indicate that the resolution is false. Pro failed to present any evidence indicating that the FBI lacked credibility. Pro did not dispute that the FBI is competent and trustworthy. Pro's case sucked. Vote Con.