Instigator / Pro
21
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#1228

It's Official! White Males Have Been Labeled As Dometic Terrorists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

mairj23
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
16
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description

It's only the third day of August and multiple cases of shootings, stabbings and hate crimes have dominated the news. As we all know, the perpetrators are always white people. Yes, criminal behavior takes place in some form or fashion everyday, but the common denominator is always white people. I keep asking in these debates, "why do whites commit so much crime?" It's a question that most people have yet to logically answer.

From the Garlic Festival Shooting to the El Paso Shooting, white people have reverted back to "Dark Age" behavior. It has gotten so bad to where members of congress are labeling white people as Dometic Terrorists, which is a title that's long overdue because whites commit the most crime. These are just some of the high-profile cases so you can only imagine how much crime whites commit that doesn't get any news coverage.

My stance on this matter is that I support congress/politicians' labeling white Americans as domestic terrorists. The evidence is right before our eyes, and I've proved on numerous occasions that these people are criminal minded to the highest degree...If you can prove otherwise, then you're welcome to take this challenge.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct: Con has one more forefeit, and given that he didn’t engage in the content, the failure of this debate appears more related to cons action than pros; the content was odious from both, so balanced out.

Arguments: pro offered more of a rant than a justified, warranted position - there is not enough content above that of personal opinion (from either side) to warrant awarding argument points in this case. So arguments are awarded as a tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Poor Conduct:

Con FF the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!

Con has also insulted pro in the debate with this attack.

" You haven't obliterated anyone, mairj. You just set the argument time for one day so no one has a chance to respond to your bullshit. "

This is a very condescending comment to make and calling his argument " bullshit " is rather rude and poor conduct.

Because of this, I must award the conduct point to Pro.

Namely, I must also award the convincing arguments point to pro since Con never actually makes an argument and instead relies on insults, leaving Pro's argument uncontested.

I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that Con whines about the response time. Con accepted this debate willingly and if he didn't read the debate details that's his fault, not Pro's.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

both sides forfieted bot amount of times, and yes three dots equal a forfeit, thus I award a tie becuase niether side was very good