Instigator / Pro
Points: 12

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Death23
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 28
Description
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
Published:
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. 
Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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?


Published:
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
Published:
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.








 







 
Published:
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.

Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for taking the time to work it up, as always.
Contender
#29
Added:
--> @mairj23
Cool story. Nobody believes you.
Contender
#28
Added:
--> @Death23
I'm speaking about the comment section not the actual debate.
Tricked you? Dude, I presented simple facts that can be found from multiple sources. You wrecked your own argument by putting all of your faith in an unethical institution. You decided to go the stat-route & it backfired on you.
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @mairj23
I didn't sign up for a troll debate. You tricked me. Is that supposed to be funny? I don't find it to be.
Contender
#26
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
You gotta start having a little fun with this stuff because it increases the level of competition. It's cool to win a debate but most of you guys are too obsessed with trying to win. Yes, I'm well-aware that the demographics aren't in my favor & I'm perfectly fine with it.
Again, it's just playful banter so have a sense of humor sometimes.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @mairj23
Why are you acting like you destroyed Death when you're the one who will lose this debate? Literally everyone in the comment sectin thinks that you're either an idiot or a troll. Stop acting like you've just roasted everyone, because you can't roast.
#24
Added:
Dude, Have a sense of humor. It's nothing personal.
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
You're probably right. He's starting to come across as an alt-right troll rp-ing an SJW perhaps as some mocking type behavior. I considered this before accepting the debate and looked through his posting history on the forums and it seemed he had a long history of posting things like this, but his arguments are just unbelievably bad. Nobody is that bad.
Contender
#22
Added:
--> @mairj23
Come on, enough is enough. We know you are a troll. It's not possible for a human being to be that stupid. Just give up already and leave this website, you're becoming an embarassment.
#21
Added:
At least give this guy a chance before the slaughter begins so put your pom poms down fellas & enjoy the show.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Death23
Dude you just slammed that fool!
#19
Added:
hehe, mairj got rekted
#18
Added:
--> @Death23
Just read your R1... Well played, well played!
#17
Added:
--> @Death23
Yes, that's cool.
Instigator
#16
Added:
Uh-oh. Mairj23 is at it again. This can't be good...
#15
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The question I'm asking from the beginning of the debate remains the same as at does at the end: if the FBI statistics are flawed to the point that there's no reason to believe them at all, then what should I believe? Assuming I buy the entirety of Pro's argument, that alone is not sufficient to affirm. By Pro's own admission, his burden was to prove that white Americans commit the most crimes. That requires more than just assertions or even logical analysis (which I also felt was lacking from Pro). It requires that Pro provide evidence, solid numbers that support his point. The FBI source (though, surprisingly, not the numbers themselves) is the only one given in this debate, and both sides agree that it supports Con. That means the sole evidence that actually applies to the question of crime statistics is the very one that Pro is railing against. Assuming I buy any bit of it whatsoever (and I'm finding it very easy to do so, despite Pro's protestations), I vote Con.
However, let's assume I don't. It's Pro's burden to support the resolution. Without any evidence to support his case, he simply fails to affirm the resolution he's created. I could write off every word Con said in this debate and still find myself negating on this. If Pro wanted to use this debate for the sole purpose of challenging the accuracy of these statistics, his argument would have made more sense. But that wasn't what he did, and his tactics did nothing to aid him in winning this debate.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I didn't really understand what Pro was trying to prove here. When naming debates, he makes their names sound like book titles instead of the topics of the actual debates. However, I'm going to assume that Pro was trying to prove that African-Americans do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States, and that the statistics that support that idea are false. If that were the case, Pro failed miserably.
Round One:
Pro says he notices a lot of high-profile and low-profile crime happening recently, all of which was commited by whites. He provides no statistics WHATSOEVER, just personal anecdotes and a few bizzare stories with no sources to back them up. Pro concludes that because of these anecdotes, the statistic that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is false. He then asks if white people are mentally disabled and genetically more likely to commit crimes.
Con says that Pro refuses to trust official FBI statistics about blacks commiting a disproportionate amount of crime, and asks Pro why this is so. This is a valid question, as Pro has not provided any facts that prove the FBI statistics are false.
This round goes to: CON
Round Two:
This round starts off with Pro commiting a number of logical fallacies. First, he engages in an ad hominem fallacy and says that Con does not posess enough logic to even present an argument. Then, Pro assumes that Con said all FBI statistics are 100% truthful, even though Con never said that in this debate. Pro then gives two links about the misconduct of the FBI.
Con investigates the two pieces of evidence provided by Pro, and finds that they both do not prove Pro's statement. The first link concerns a isolated case of misconduct by an FBI agent. As Con rightly said, this isolated case is completely irrelevant. The second link is a web page with a list of summaries. Con rightly points out that Pro should present each summary separately, and that it is Pro's job to provide sources for his claims.
Round goes to: CON
Round Three: Pro again engages in a logical fallacy, the strawman fallacy. He claims that Con said all his evidence are isolated cases, which Con never said in the debate. Pro then says that because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, ALL OF the Bureau's statistics must be false. This is a non sequiter, the logic does not follow. Pro then accuses one of the FBI founders, Theodore Roosevelt, of racism, and calls most politicians of the USA criminals. The only source Pro provided was some bizzare "Global Research Center for Research on Globalization", which I couldn't find on the Internet no matter how hard I tried.
Con absolutely destroys Pro in the third round. He points out that just because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, does not mean that all of FBI statistics are completely false. He points out that Roosevelt's quote is from over a hundred years ago, and ideas like Roosevelt's were normal in the past. Now, the government and the FBI no longer hold these outdated, racist ideas. Con also exposes Pro's lie about the Global Research Center, proving that the report Pro presented was not talking about the FBI as an institution.
This round goes to: CON.
Round Four:
Pro accuses Con of not bringing any argument to the table. Yet in the following sentence, he says that Con's main argument was about FBI statistics. Pro then accuses Con of only talking about FBI statistics, when this was the topic of the entire debate. It seems to me that Pro is trolling at this point. Everything else in Pro's final argument is simply ad hominem attacks against Con and white people. Pro needs to understand that just calling someone names and blaming whites for everything is not an argument, you need things like sources and quotes as well. Pro is just stating his own opinions, he is not making arguments to disprove what Con is saying.
Con summarises this whole debate with this quote: "Pro lies and continues to troll". All the debates of Pro can be summarised as lying, trolling, and being an ignorant idiot.
This round goes to: CON
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Round One
-The burden was on Pro construct the debate, but they provided nothing but a commentary on racism and other stuff (Jeffrey Epstein?) in the news. I was expecting some type of constructive argument with sources but Pro did not provide this. Therefore Con was forced to fish for some type of argument or source. The best Con could do was go to the Debate description where they found some mention of the FBI And in the last line Con was promised "rock solid facts." Again, which Pro had not provided.
Advantage - Con
Round Two
--Pro starts out in their first line by throwing an insult at Con. This is a pet peeve of mine. Whenever a debater starts making ad hominem attacks it usually is evidence that they have none. Pro then provides two links that they clam was just "sh*** & giggles," when it's clear that Pro's burden is to support the Pro side of the resolution - it's not just for "sh*** & giggles." Con, on the other hand, did not lower themselves to ad hominem attacks but attempted to bring some organization to the debate. Con shows that the sources Pro provided were not specific enough to prove Pro's side.
Advantage- Con
Round Three
-Pro opens up with an appeal that they cannot be expected to rifle through the source they provided to find specific evidence. Pro then brings up irrelevant data from decades ago that are pertinent to the standing debate. Pro keeps trying to make Con prove that the FBI is not 100% factual when that is not their burden to prove. Con admits as much in their response.
Advantage - Con
Round Four
-Pro argues that since Con cannot prove that the FBI is 100% truthful that means they can not be trusted and therefore should win the debate. Con counters that "Pro failed to present any evidence indicating that the FBI lacked credibility." This true and it was on Pro's burden to provide, which they did not.
Advantage - Con
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both pro and con appear to agree that the FBI stats disprove the resolution. Noting this, con turned the burden of proof to pro, by highlighting those stats as valid governmental data for which pro must pro must provide a good reason to exclude. Imo governmental stats should be presumed accurate unless given reason to believe otherwise.
Given that the only way con is able to refute the contention is to provide governmental stats - it’s up to pro to show these stats are inaccurate. Pro throws a couple of anecdotes that imo fall well short of being able discount them due to being piecemeal examples of misconduct of individuals rather than the systematic dishonesty of the organization as a whole that would be required.
I side with cons position here that the remainder of the points are largely irrelevant as they don’t cut to the core of the debate. Specifically, pro meanders off the rails in the last couple of rounds; asking questions that are largely irrelevant or unrelated to the resolution rather than attempting to engage directly on his burden.
If your going to make substantial claims, and base your debate off these claims: you must be able to justify them, rather than simply assert they are true and offer little more than anecdotes and incredulity.