The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- People
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 20,000
Mairj23 seems to think he is a legend because he can make an outlandish claim with an argument of 1 day and win.
Aside from the fact that the only reason he wins is because no one can deal with his bullshit in that timespan, I hereby formally challenge mairj23 EXCLUSIVELY to this debate. Prove yourself. 3 days. No bullshit. I am Con.
You have BOP. Prove to me that your outlandish claims mean anything.
R1-Argument (I will waive R1, since the burden of proof is on PRO.)
R2-4- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.
Rules are simple:
1.No Kritiks
2.No New arguments made in final round
3.No trolling
4.No getting off topic
5.You must follow the Debate Structure
6.You can not agree with my stance
7.No Plagiarism
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
Accept this debate if you truly believe what you say.
- “I just wrecked your entire argument with two definitions and four questions.”
- “And that my friends is how you obliterate an opponent.”
- “Mike Tyson couldn't have Knocked him out faster”
- “Now that I've completely obliterated my opponents case on the FBI's credibility”
- https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342
- https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-demographics-2014-8#the-air-force-had-the-highest-rates-of-female-members-the-marines-had-the-lowest-6
- https://www.fedweek.com/issue-briefs/demographics-of-federal-workforce-summarized/
- https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-24/despite-diverse-demographics-most-politicians-are-still-white-men
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a27724/nuclear-war-deaths-visualization/
- https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
- https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/study-destroys-argument-that-white-cops-are-shooting-black-men/
Proof? My last debate was clearly titled, “It's Official! White Males Have Been Labelled As Domestic Terrorists.”...Since (con) is purposely misleading the readers, then I'm going to further expose his very own lies. I clearly stated in the 2nd paragraph of my previous debate's intro that “It has gotten so bad to where members of congress are labeling white people as domestic terrorists.”...Did I not say that?
I'd like for Con to answer one question. “Where did I ever say that “all white people are domestic terrorists?... I'll wait...........
I'm speaking in general and not in absolutes. Of course, every white person isn't a domestic terrorist. Even though (politicians) made the actual remarks, they're actually not saying that about every single white male. My opponent is so hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong to where he is completely missing the point, and he's completely ignoring the fact that is was (politicians) who made the comment, not me.
Mistake #2: My opponent blatantly stated that I referred to myself as being a “Legend,” but he can't find a single statement of mine that's actually saying that I'm a legend. Ok, so if I actually made this statement, would you guide me and the readers to where this statement is located? I'll wait...............
At this point in time, I've caught (Con) in multiple lies, and I really can't take him serious because his credibility is nonexistent.
Your entire argument is basically a lecture on how statutes, laws and whatever else are created, which is totally irrelevant. This debate is not about what it would take to put legislation in place, the debate is about who's perpetrating the crimes.
“Where did I ever say that “all white people are domestic terrorists?... I'll wait...”
- “I support congress/politicians' labeling white Americans as domestic terrorists.” (I support OTHER people as labeling all white Americans as domestic terrorists. By extension, is literally a GIVEN that I support doing the SAME.)
- “these people are criminal minded to the highest degree” (All white people are criminally minded.)
- “the common denominator is always white people.” (White people are ALWAYS involved with these acts of terrorism)
- “As we all know, the perpetrators are always white people.” (Do I need to explain this one?)
- “white people have reverted back to "Dark Age" behavior.” (All white people are violent and illiterate.)
- “It has gotten so bad to where members of congress are labeling white people as Domestic Terrorists, which is a title that's long overdue” (Pro supports this title)
- “white people can't seem to stop their murderous behavior.” (White people are murderous)
- “it's very clear that white males are causing all of the problems.” (ALL white males)
- “the majority of them are mentally disturbed to a degree.” (Majority of white males are mentally disturbed)
- “Is there some kind of mental imbalance that makes white males so evil or is it sheer stupidity of their intelligence...or lack thereof?” (Straight racism.)
- “Another one bites the dust”
- “I'm literally exposing your hypocrisy and contradictions with ease.”
- “I'm pretty sure you'll pick your battles wisely the next time because you're clearly outclassed.”
- “I'm confident that I won't hear from you.”
- “Dude, that's only Round 1. Do you really want to continue because I got plenty more documented facts in the pipeline.”
“So, why did the government label the Black Panther Party of the 60s/70s as a terror group?... I'll wait…”
“Although "domestic terrorism" is defined in the Patriot Act of 2001, there is no specific federal crime covering acts of terrorism inside the U.S. that are not connected to al Qaeda, ISIS, other officially designated international terror groups or their sympathizers.” (1)
“In other words, you're basically saying that white violence shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes”
In that case, my opponent is simply referring to videos surfaced by spectacle. Media loves the racism message, as it makes more spectacle and more money. Thus, I’m certain many specific instances of white cop aggression have been compiled for all to see.
- It is impossible to enforce the bill with no law enforcement/military left
- The bill would leave America with no leadership
- Devastating civil war
- World nuclear war, with potentially 500 million resulting deaths
- Burden of proof (My opponent has essentially conceded that he has the burden of proof.)
- Whites do not target blacks
- Whites mostly kill other whites
- Black officers more likely to shoot unarmed black suspects
- Hispanic officers more likely to shoot unarmed black suspects
- Black people commit more crime
- Moral objection
“The Amnesty International travel advisory for the country of the United States of America calls on people worldwide to exercise caution and have an emergency contingency plan when traveling throughout the USA. This Travel Advisory is being issued in light of ongoing high levels of gun violence in the country. Depending on the traveler’s gender identity, race, country of origin, ethnic background, or sexual orientation, they may be at higher risk of being targeted with gun violence, and should plan accordingly.” (1)
“gun violence has become so prevalent in the US that it amounts to a human rights crisis.”
- White people.
- Terrorists.
- Domestic terrorists.
- White men.
- White supremacy.
Remember: it is not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute.
- “I support congress/politicians' labeling white Americans as domestic terrorists.”
- “members of congress are labeling white people as Domestic Terrorists, which is a title that's long overdue” (Pro supports this title)
Refer to the third paragraph of description, first sentence.
So all Pro has effectively done here is limit the BPP to the formal definition of “any group that could potentially disturb the peace.”
“My Reply: Who's labeling an entire race? As I stated earlier, politicians are condemning violent-white males as domestic terrorists because violent-white males have committed the most mass shootings.”
“My Reply: You're pulling stats from government-related institutes. Are you aware that the FBI was founded by well-known racists? Do you think that their ideologies/principles doesn't apply to this day?”
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. If you are to suggest that this complex, diverse institution we depend on for safety is skewing data for the mere sake of white supremacy, you better have undeniable proof.
Thus, I find it rather safe to put the word of the FBI over you.
- It is impossible to enforce the bill with no law enforcement/military left
- The bill would leave America with no leadership
- Devastating civil war
- World nuclear war, with potentially 500 million resulting deaths
- Burden of proof (My opponent has essentially conceded that he has the burden of proof.)
- Moral objection
- Me pointing out phony evidence by Pro.
Considering your intentions for having the debate in the first place, then yes, this is very much troll-y. Also, it is VERY obvious to everyone, not just trolls.
If there is an option, then it would be up to the mods to decide. Just like with FF debates, you don't know whether a debate is troll or not until after it began.
So, debating a topic on actual events is "troll-y"?
Yes, you outed yourself as being a troll because only a troll would say something like that. LMBO
Yeah, I've won debates but most debates only receive a handful of votes.
If doesn't take rocket science to figure out who's who.
And dude, you have won debates before.
There is no race profile indicator. How are they voting white?
I didn't know this was a troll debate. Maybe there should be an option to specifically label a debate as a troll debate, next time.
Troll debates are unmoderated. Since I find this debate to be troll-y in nature (and so do the mods since they didn't remove my vote), my vote should not be removed. Also, even if it was removed, it would not affect the outcome of this debate.
A voter being lazy does not correlate to bias by racial basis. All christen is pointing out is that PressF4Respect did not properly vote. Other than that, you sit any professional judge in a room and show them our cases and the debate outcome would be exactly the same. It’s interesting to me that your defense mechanism against loss is to claim oppression. How interesting.
You're correct. I don't take these debates too serious because the demographics are one-sided. Whites will always vote white no matter how ridiculous their arguments are.This guy's title says it all but white people will claim otherwise despite the fact that whites committed three separate mass shootings in a week's time.
On a professional, unbiased platform; he'd lose by default because he wouldn't be able to justify the mass shootings.
The Rules and Code of Conduct specifically says, and I quote:
a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
PressF4Respect has failed to survey the arguments and counter arguments, or weigh them, and has instead simply stated a 1 word answer in their RFD Reason For Decision. PressF4Respect has viciously broken this rule and screwed up the outcome of this debate!
I believe that PressF4Respect's vote is invalid and should be fixed. His/Her reason for awarding "Better Arguments" and "Better Sources" to con was simply "Yes".
A voter can't simply state 1 word answers as to why they cast their votes. A voter needs to specify why they chose to award those, in more detail.
Lol. In my Negan voice..."yeah...sure...…...ok."
No problem!
He is comedic at least
Lol, got 'em.
I like how you were "begging for votes" as you were in the lead.
You have taught no one anything except the foolishness inherent in your own beliefs. If you think you ran circles around me, you must have failed geometry.
Thanks for votes!
Bill Cosby is a convicted rapist and sex offender.
You're the so-called pro debater, and I easily ran circles around you, which is why you're begging for votes. It's quite clear to everyone that you're not satisfied with your own lackluster performance.
Just so you know, "I only debate my equal, all others I teach."
I never said you as an individual is committing crimes. I'm speaking in general as a collective group and that doesn't mean every single person.
What crime did Cosby commit?
As I've always stated, the demographics are not in my favor to win which is why I have no problem with losing.
That is very true, and is also very unfortunate.
It's both: he does not care about others and he hates losing debates. Most people do not like to lose, so they will cling on to their absurd beliefs even when they understand those beliefs are pointless, instead of admitting that they lost. Mairj23 is one of those many people.
Do you not want helpful feedback, or do you just hate seeing objective voters realize how much you've lost?
You haven't explained it at all, you just call the statistics "fake" and accuse white people of crimes. When someone dismisses all statistics that disprove their narrative as "fake", it seems that they have a problem with accepting the facts...
Also, I really hate how you always say stuff like "as a people" and then blame me for it and claim that I'm somehow hypocritical. I am not people, I am a single person. I'm an individual not responsible for the actions of other whites. Do you think it would be fair for me to blame you for the crimes of Bill Cosby or some other black criminal? Of course it is not. So why would you do the same for me, just because I am white?