The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists.

1350

rating

debates

20.69%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

08.06.2019 07:32PM

Con

The burden of proof is on Pro, thus I will waive this round as per description. Good luck with your constructive...

08.07.2019 03:40AM

Pro

First of all, I've never considered myself as a legend. Stating the obvious is not an outlandish claim because I can back up my arguments with rock-solid facts.

On the other hand, you trying to argue against the topic at hand is simply outlandish in itself because this sh** is happening in real-time.

Burden of proof?...No sir, it's your place to prove me wrong because all I have to do is refer to one weeks worth of mass shootings. I'll do you a favor by playing devil's advocate, and all you'll need to do is give me a simple yes or no answer.

First and foremost, the definition of a mass shooting is "an incident involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. Domestic terrorism means a form of terrorism in which victims "within a country are targeted by a perpetrator with the same citizenship" as the victims."

Are You Ready?

1. Was it a white person who opened fire at last weeks Garlic Festival in California?

2. Was it a white person who opened fire in Dayton a few nights ago?

3. Was it a white person who opened fire in El Paso?

4. Are unarmed black people getting shot by white cops more than unarmed white people?

Not to sound smug, but I just wrecked your entire argument with two definitions and four questions.

Since you like to use the word "outlandish" so much, then it will be quite outlandish to answer "No" for any of the four questions.

Now that we understand what domestic terrorism is and we can fully see who's perpetrating the (domestic)-mass shootings, this is exactly why the US gov. is labeling white Americans as domestic terrorists, and this is why my opponent has no foundation to stand on for his illogical way of thinking.

Round 2

08.09.2019 12:43AM

Con

Pro’s goal is neither possible nor desirable. For clarity, I will begin with a counter-constructive, and then make a rebuttal of his points.

1. Literal Impossibility.

The resolution is as stated: “The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists.” The first thing to establish is the meaning behind domestic terrorism. My opponent provides a fair definition, and it will be used for this essay.

Now that that is established, we must understand the US government system for labeling and responding to a domestic terrorist threat.

Interestingly, it is not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute. Groups like the KKK are given the label “hate groups” instead. Mass shootings by domestic terrorist individuals are charged as federal hate crimes and firearms charges — not terrorism explicitly.

Thus, if judges were to judge this resolution based on a fully literal interpretation, it is impossible for Pro to straightforwardly achieve his goal.

There is, however, a potential loophole: if the entire race of white people were labeled as a foreign terrorist organization, then that would by extension include white Americans. Foreign terrorist organizations can be prosecuted within the US. Thus, the actions of “terrorist” white Americans could be deemed domestic terrorism by the government and prosecuted as terrorism, in THEORY.

In practice however, the passage of the bill would effectively outlaw 75.1% of all American citizens (211,460,626). (1) Given that the military is 70% white, this would leave only 30% capacity to fight against the remaining 70% that would surely splinter off in self-defense. Not even the officers would be left, as 78% of them are white as well.(2) The federal workforce is 64.7 percent White. (3) 97 percent of all Republican elected officials are white, and 79 percent are white within the Democratic elected officials. (4) Given these facts, Pro is proposing that we leave America without governance, leadership, and law enforcement to actually enforce this bill.

2. Imminent Civil War.

However, Pro has also generously gifted America a chaotic state of total civil war.

Outlawing the entire white race, especially one that is the majority of the government, is a surefire way of getting every armed redneck in a 2 light-year radius to resist you with deadly force. I do not think this needs much elaboration, but imagine the deaths that would accompany a war of that scale with such weapons.

3. Imminent War With Europe, Russia, Australia, Canada, and More.

A classification of a group as a terrorist organization is an effective declaration of war on that group. Systematic war is waged until the group is fully exterminated. What is the result? American application of whatever force left on white nations.

Nuclear warfare cannot be out of the question.

If such a war were to break out, estimates land at half a billion deaths (which is more than ten times the casualties of World War II), leading to nuclear winter and further death. (5)

This concludes the constructive portion of my essay, I will now move to the rebuttal section.

Analysis:

My opponent begins by saying, “I've never considered myself as a legend.” False, as can be inferred by your statements found throughout your debates, such as:

“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”

Secondly, my opponent tries to turn the burden of proof onto me by, ironically, attempting to fulfill his burden of proof: “No sir, it's your place to prove me wrong because all I have to do is refer to one weeks worth of mass shootings.”

My opponent must not understand what BOP means. The reason that Pro has the burden of proof, is that it is the job of those who make claims to support them with evidence. Pro says that he does NOT have to support himself, and demonstrates this by, logically………supporting... himself ...with ... evidence?

Anyway, since my opponent clearly does not understand BOP, it still stands that he, as Pro, must have it.

Now that that is said, let’s respond to his actual “evidence.”

“Recent Shootings, Therefore All White People Bad.”

The first three of my opponent’s questions relate to recent shootings. Guess what, the answer to

all those FIRST THREE questions is “yes.” (The last one is “no,” I’ll get to that later.)

Guess what? That does nothing for your point, especially since three examples can not refute the fact that white people aren’t overrepresented among mass shooters, given that they make up 75% of the population.

Further, let’s compare homicide victims from 2016 shall we? 500 whites killed by blacks compared to 229 blacks killed by whites. (6) I am not implying that blacks target whites, but I am saying it is clear that whites do not target blacks.

Moreover, 43.5 percent of homicide victims are whites, and 81.3 percent of those victims are killed by other whites. (6) If whites are the unique perpetrators of mass shootings, and if they are to be treated as one terrorist group that seeks to destroy other demographics, they need to turn friendly-fire off bigtime.

From these statistics, it is pretty clear that shootings are not a uniquely white phenomenon that targets other races. Thus, the justification for labeling whites “domestic terrorists” is very low.

Racism in Justice:

Now, one last thing: my opponent mentions that “unarmed black people get shot by white cops more than unarmed white people.” NOT TRUE!

Firstly, we find that whites make up 55 percent of the victims of officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Compare this to 27% black, and you can see a per capita difference, but not overall.(7)

Further, it has been found that black officers are 67 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect. It also found that Hispanic officers are 145 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect. (7)

Although, why is it that there is a per capita difference? Well, simple: black people encounter the police in more dangerous situations at a disproportionate rate. This is simply because black people commit the most crime out of any demographic per capita. We can see this clearly in stats, because black Americans make up about 13% of the population, but according to the FBI, they account for about 50% of murders, and about 38% of all violent crime overall. (7)

Thus, any per capita difference can not be attributed to racism of the cops involved.

Closing:

But in conclusion, we should consider this a moral issue too. Should the actions of a few dictate that we condemn the majority? I think not, and I hope that judges think not also.

Thank you.

Sources:

08.10.2019 10:12PM

Pro

First and foremost, I want to address some misconceptions from my previous debate that's about this topic.

After the recent mass shootings, many (politicians) have stated that “white males should be labelled as domestic terrorists.” I'm basically quoting what someone else has said, & I agree that domestic terrorists should be punished. My opponent seems to think that I came up with the term white-domestic terrorist, which is his first mistake.

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.

Part 2:

My opponent said, "It's not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute. Groups like the KKK are given the label “hate groups”

My reply: So, why did the government label the Black Panther Party of the 60s/70s as a terror group?... I'll wait...………..

As my opponent just stated, "it is not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute."

My opponent specifically stated in his debate instructions to "not get off topic," but he's lecturing us on the passage of bills and the demographics of the military & law enforcement...Sir, the discussion is about who's committing the acts of terror...Con goes on to giving the white-American percentages of the work force/law enforcement and how it would basically splinter the country.

On the other hand, thanks for saying that because you perfectly proved why white-terroristic cops & white-racist citizens do not get punished for shooting/killing unarmed black people. Lol...You just put your foot in your mouth...In other words, you're basically saying that white violence shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes...Remember, you said that this action would "leave America without governance, leadership, and law enforcement to actually enforce this bill."

Did you not say that?

All of the remaining nonsense about Russia, Europe etc., is totally irrelevant so I don't even have to address it. My opponent goes on to say that "white people aren’t overrepresented among mass shooters, given that they make up 75% of the population."... Wow! This is quite laughable because all we have to do is look at what happened last week. I'll play devil's advocate just for entertainment so checkout https://www.newsweek.com/white-men-have-committed-more-mass-shootings-any-other-group-675602 and https://www.phillytrib.com/news/majority-of-mass-shootings-carried-out-by-white-men/article_8b8b0145-c512-525a-8a7d-256bfb3a959f.html. Your history on earth is a dead giveaway, no pun intended.

My opponent goes on to say that "more unarmed-white people get shot/killed by cops than unarmed-black people," which is utter ridiculous. So, if this is true, then why does over 98% of all video evidence showing white cops pulling the trigger on unarmed-black people? I'll wait...………..

In conclusion, I just proved with facts that my opponent has no argument what-so-ever. To further strengthen my argument, I'd like to ask my opponent one more question and make one more statement...

Yesterday, was it a black male or a white male who walked into a Missouri Wal-Mart with a military-style weapon?

Yes, this white male was also charged with making a "terroristic threat."....Keyword: Terroristic.

Round 3

08.11.2019 05:08AM

Con

Addressing the addressment of misconceptions:

Domestic Terror:

My opponent seems offended that I would quote him accurately. I’m not sure what he expects.

He says that he “only supports domestic terrorists being punished”…. But wait, this isn’t what he has said up until now! Pro is clearly backtracking, as he now understands the fatal error in his ways.

Here is his question to me:

“Where did I ever say that “all white people are domestic terrorists?... I'll wait...”

Here is a LITERAL COMPILATION from your previous debate (and others) you reference, that I have had to LIMIT for the sake of space!

“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.)

ALL of these statements are made independently by YOU, Pro. ALL of them completely encompassing ALL white people. You cannot suddenly make a 180 degree turn and start talking about how “Of course, every white person isn't a domestic terrorist.”

If that was your original intent, you had MANY chances to make that clear. But, you didn’t. Thus, we have no reason to believe you when you suddenly have a change of heart and start talking about “generalities not absolutes.”

Furthermore, the title of THIS debate that you ACCEPTED reads this: “The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists.”

Pro CHOSE to affirm this resolution. Pro affirms this statement.

Thus, as far as any judge should be concerned, your backtracking is a CONCESSION. I must by extension win this point of contention.

Judges should also consider: should all white people be condemned to domestic terrorist status without committing an actual crime? I would hope you think not. Thus, I would win the debate at large.

Legend:

My opponent again contends that he does not consider himself a “legend.” (In other words, someone who thinks very highly of himself and his abilities.) My purpose for actually including this point in my previous speech was to show voters how arrogant my opponent has been in his debates. No pedestal should be given to someone like Pro.

While not actually relevant to the debate itself, I think voters should be reminded of the compilation of statements I have pointed out. I will even add some more I found:

“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.”

Responding to the Second Part:

Given how I have proven that my opponent is advocating for the official government labeling of all white people as domestic terrorists, it becomes increasingly clear how literally impossible it is for the US to actually put that notion into practice.

Response 1:

Remember, in my last speech I pointed out that it is impossible for the government to currently officially label a group as a domestic terror group.

My opponent’s question:

“So, why did the government label the Black Panther Party of the 60s/70s as a terror group?... I'll wait…”

That would be a good question, if the premise is true. The government did no such labeling. Perhaps some individuals said that the BPP was a terror group, and those individuals may have even been in the government, but the government did not and does not have the ability to formally label a group as such.

According to NBC, for example,

“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)

FBI records even read that the BPP is a “black extremist organization.” (2)

Further, upon looking on the Wiki for the BPP and searching the term “terrorist,” there has been no results. (3)

Given these facts, my opponent’s premise is falsified and thus the question is irrelevant.

Response 2:

My opponent implies that I get “off topic” by mentioning population percentages and bill passages.

This was not off-topic, as I have proven that my opponent is advocating for every white person in the US to be labeled a terrorist. I have proven with the established and uncontested data that this would be literally impossible, but if accomplished would result in chaos and war.

Given that my opponent does not understand my reasoning behind the included information, my point stands strong.

Response 3:

My opponent introduces a Straw Man fallacy:

“In other words, you're basically saying that white violence shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes”

Quite obviously, I was simply showing with that data that white people literally CAN’T be “held accountable” if being “held accountable” were to mean labeling an entire race as domestic terrorists.

If a white person commits a crime, it is just to punish them. What is NOT just to do is to condemn an entire race and 75% of the country on the basis of the actions of a few.

Response 4:

When responding to my point about white people not being overrepresented among shooters, my opponent simply calls my point “laughable” and points to more specific examples that, when weighed against statistics, simply cannot hold weight.

Remember, statistics are the organized collection and representation of numerous such examples. Statistics thus have a much greater accuracy when looking to achieve a worldview.

My point still stands uncontested.

Response 5:

My opponent gives no source for his information. I searched “98% of video evidence shows white cops pull the trigger” and returned no relevant results.

I assume this stat was a made-up exaggeration to make a point.

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.

However, again: specific examples, when weighed against statistics, simply cannot hold weight.

Again, one must simply look and see that 55% of police shooting victims are white, and the per capita differences can easily be explained by crime rates. Black people simply commit more crimes.

Final Statements:

Now, I should point out all the unaddressed arguments I have made that my opponent has ignored out of what I suppose is either mistake, laziness, or fear:

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

By ignoring these arguments, my opponent is effectively conceding to them. Judges should remember this when casting their votes.

Thank you.

08.12.2019 05:39AM

Pro

Disclaimer: I'd like to start out by saying that I generally tend to get straight to point, which is why all of my opponents tend to get angry because they have to write a full-novel to make it seem as if they're presenting some kind of argument. My ability to catch people in lies is the reason why my opponents have to go back and reconfigure their arguments.

As I stated in the previous round, it's hard to take my opponent serious at this point because he refuses to accept that white males are being labeled as domestic terrorists. Thanks to 24-hour news, video cameras and social media, everyone in the world can now see who's the actual problem. Before I breakdown his lies & delusions even further, I have to speak on the latest saga of white-domestic terrorism.

Opening Argument: Human-rights organizations all over the world are now weighing in on this issue. Amnesty International, which is a highly credible human-rights organization, has issued travel warnings for any foreigner who's deciding to visit the US. This organization stated "exercise extreme caution when traveling to the US because of its recent gun violence by white-domestic terrorists." Amnesty International also stated that "white male-gun violence is so prevalent in the US that it amounts to an extreme human rights crisis."... In addition to that, the Department of State issued a travel warning that noted "a traveler's race, sexuality, country of origin and ethic background may place them at higher risks for being attacked by white-supremacy ideology."

As we can see, white-domestic terrorism has gone mainstream, and it can't be refuted because these travel bans & human-rights violations were caused by last week's mass shootings. If they weren't caused by the mass shootings, then what prompted them?... I'll wait...…………………..

Since the title of this debate is "The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists," I can pretty much end this debate with my opening statement because it wasn't Blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc., who perpetrated the mass shootings.....Am I correct?

Addressing Con's Lies: My opponent's delusion is becoming humorous right about now. (Con) stated that "my opponent seems offended that I would quote him accurately & he says that he only supports domestic terrorists being punished."

To anyone who's reading this debate, watch how easily I expose his lies while clarifying his semantics.

My Reply: #1: Con (supposedly) quoted me for saying "white males should be labelled as domestic terrorists," but he has yet to show any proof of me actually making this statement. In his previous argument, he took an entire screen shot of all my quotes, but this one particular statement isn't anywhere in those quotes.

#2: Con keeps stating that I've claimed to be a so-called legend, but he has yet to provide the actual quote of me saying that I'm a legend. Hmmm

#3: Another misquote saying "I support congress/politicians' labeling white Americans as domestic terrorists...Nope, I actually said "many (politicians) have stated that white males should be labelled as domestic terrorists."

#4: Con's semantics includes me saying "white people can't seem to stop their murderous behavior, it's very clear that white males are causing all of the problems and the common denominator is always white people."...My reply: In last week's triple-mass murder, were white males the common denominator, the ones who caused the problems and the ones who exhibited murderous behavior for the all of the killings that they performed?...I'll wait...…..

Con has a problem with me being confident in my debates... Dude, a little playful banter back & forth isn't hurting anybody.

Terrorism, Hate Groups & Faux Stats: My opponent says that it's impossible to label a group as a domestic terrorist but He's Wrong As Usual, and I've proved this with the Black Panthers. Here is Con's statement. "The government did no such labeling. Perhaps some individuals said that the BPP was a terror group, and those individuals may have even been in the government, but the government did not and does not have the ability to formally label a group as such."

My opponent doesn't even realize that COINTELPRO infiltrated the BPP in the 1960s. COINTELPRO, which was the Counterintelligence Program of the FBI, was used to infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt political organizations, which were (wrongly labeled) as being a terrorist group. Interesting Facts: Rapper Tupac Shakur's mother & family members were Black Panthers and they were sent to prison for affiliation. Ever wonder why Trump mentions the name Assata Shakur so much?

Next time, do some actual research before speaking on topics that you lack knowledge in.

Con says, "I was simply showing the data that white people literally CAN’T be “held accountable” if being “held accountable” were to mean labeling an entire race as domestic terrorists. 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.

Con also states "statistics are the organized collection and representation of numerous such examples. Statistics thus have a much greater accuracy when looking to achieve a worldview. My point still stands uncontested... 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?

Your point has been dismantled because you're basing faux stats from a corrupt & unethical institution.

Since Con claimed that I didn't address his questions; it's going to be mighty hard trying to dispute "documented facts" As the old saying goes, "be careful of what you ask for because you just might receive."

Round 4

08.13.2019 04:23AM

Con

Voters, there is a very serious matter you need to take into consideration with this debate. Pro is blatantly, outright lying about what his sources do, and do not say. In fact, one of his sources was fabricated fiction.

Firstly, this is Amnesty International’s actual travel advisory:

“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)

On their Twitter, they said:

“gun violence has become so prevalent in the US that it amounts to a human rights crisis.”

Keep in mind, there are absolutely NO mentions of:

White people.
Terrorists.
Domestic terrorists.
White men.
White supremacy.

Secondly, the US Department of State released no such travel warning. The most recent one was the Kyrgyz Republic in August 9, 2019. (2)

Pro also calls these warnings “ travel bans.” Remember: only one out of the two travel warnings Pro cited even existed, much less a travel BAN.

This alone should be enough to discredit all of Pro’s sources, as we frankly cannot trust them nor Pro. Pro knew what he was doing.

Still, I suppose I could be bothered refuting them ANYWAYS.

Pro’s Fundamental Misunderstanding:

The reason Pro brings up these previous points seems to be to prove that white males are currently being labeled as domestic terrorists.This point has been resurfacing throughout this debate, and I think it arises out of Pro’s fundamental misunderstanding of what he is even supposed to PROVE in the first place.

He seems to think that a liberal organization or a gun control politician constitutes formal representation for the entirety of the government.

Remember: the resolution is “The US government should label white Americans as domestic terrorists.” NOT “Amnesty International” or certain congress members.

Pro accepted this debate. Pro affirms this resolution.

Remember: it is not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute.

In other words, the Department of State, who would be the only organization with the true authority to accomplish such an act if it were lawful, can not do so since it is unlawful.

Thus, there is no way around the fact that Pro can not accomplish his goal of formally labeling innocent white Americans as domestic terrorists.

Addressing Pro’s Silly Attempts Of Addressment:

My reply to the first reply:

When I quoted Pro to show he has previously vocalized his support of labeling innocent white Americans as domestic terrorists, Pro has responded by suddenly backtracking on his position.

Remember, here are just two of many examples of Pro addressing domestic terrorism and white people:

“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)

I mistakenly thought this proof would need little explaining, but unfortunately I think Pro is playing dumb here.

Pro says that his support of politicians labeling innocents terrorists does not extend to himself supporting those policies.

That is an obvious fallacy: if I express support of racism acted upon by other people, I would by extension be considered racist, correct? If I supported politicians voting for capitalist interests, I would be a capitalist, correct? There are endless examples. Pro can not express support for his racist beliefs in other people and it not reflect on his character and argument.

My reply to the second reply:

This point stands uncontested. The myriad of quoted statements from Pro with equivalent underlying meaning are sufficient to prove my point.

My reply to the third reply:

Pro claims I misquoted him. Ha, if only!

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1228/its-official-white-males-have-been-labeled-as-dometic-terrorists
Refer to the third paragraph of description, first sentence.

My reply to the fourth reply:

Pro claims his racist statement is accurate, that all white people are responsible for “all of the problems” and are all“the common denominator” of murderous behavior.

This can not be true if black Americans, according to the FBI, account for about 50% of murders, and about 38% of all violent crime overall.

Replying to “Terrorism, Hate Groups & Faux Stats"

My opponent cites the fact that the FBI used counterintelligence against the BPP as proof of the government’s ability to formally label groups as domestic terrorists.

Unfortunately, this does little to reinforce Pro’s feeble point. Again, FBI records even read that the BPP is a “black extremist organization.” (3) The counterintelligence operations took place against groups the FBI deemed a threat. This could include hate groups, extremists, terrorists, or any group that could potentially disturb the peace.

So all Pro has effectively done here is limit the BPP to the formal definition of “any group that could potentially disturb the peace.”

And ONCE AGAIN: it is not currently possible to designate any group as a domestic terror group, because there is no explicit domestic terror statute.

It simply has not been done.

Next, my opponent says the following as a reply to my previous argument:

“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.”

Good question: you are. Politicians may be. It is still impossible to feasibly criminalize 75% of your population. None of what you said refutes any of my claims. I really think I am starting to sound like a broken record here.

Lastly, my opponent says this in response to my statistics:

“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?”

The FBI is a bureaucratic government agency. It is not as if it is a company under the same leadership for decades. Procedures and leadership rapidly and constantly change. The FBI gets stats from reports from various local, state, and federal government agencies as well as independent research. All of those institutions employ African Americans, and give data to the FBI who happens to be employing African Americans in its ranks.

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.

Final Statements:

Now, I should point out all the unaddressed arguments I have made that my opponent STILL has ignored out of what I suppose is either mistake, laziness, or fear:

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.

By ignoring these arguments, my opponent is effectively conceding to them. Judges should remember this when casting their votes.

Thank you.

08.14.2019 05:43AM

Pro

In conclusion; I've presented a solid argument that's based on facts, and I don't have to conclude by throwing my opponent under the bus because the facts speak for itself.

As I sit and read my opponent's last argument, it's quite obvious that he has gone into defensive mode. Con is now (demanding) that everyone should vote for him. In earlier rounds, he kept his composure quite well, but his last round sounds like a desperation plea and we all know why. My opponent is clearly missing the point, and here is his big discrepancy...

Strike 1: Con doesn't seem to realize that No One's Actually Saying That All White People Are Terrorists. The reason why white people have the focus on them is simply because white males have been going on killing sprees in which he can't refute. This is why many people/politicians have labeled white males as domestic terrorists. At the same time, NO One Is Actually Saying That All White People Are Terrorists.

These mass murders are being committed by white males therefore the white race is being represented Collectively. The statement that all white people are terrorists is just a general statement, and it Does Not Actually Represent Every White Person Because Every White Person Isn't Committing Mass Murders. My opponent wants you to believe that the blame is being put on every single white person when it's clearly not. I can't break it down any simpler than that. There's one thing that's for certain and it's that Blacks, Asians, Hispanics etc., wasn't responsible for the recent mass murders, and there's no way he can try to spin it.

Strike 2: When I displayed the statements that came from Amnesty International & other human-rights organizations who have imposed travel warnings, my opponent tried to discredit these organizations by going directly to Amnesty International's website to get quote-for-quote statements. Once again, Con doesn't realize that I took those quotes from multiple sources such as MSN News, MSNBC, BBC News & others and complied them into one statement to save space. Each of those news syndicates didn't quote Amnesty International verbatim, which is why the terms white-male terrorists and white-mass murderers were used.

In addition to that, Con has failed to strengthen his argument yet again. One specific question destroys his lack of argument which is, "Since travel warnings were put in place because of America's mass murders; which demographic of people caused the actual mass murders?...If the mass murders never happened, then there would be no need for travel warnings to the US in the first place.

Strike 3: Con keeps stating that 'there must be a domestic terror statute in place to punish domestic terrorists or to punish anyone/group that's presumed to be a terrorist.' That's Not True & I Proved It With The Black Panther Party. Con keeps babbling about who has the authority to enact laws etc., which is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that BPP members were imprisoned even though the BPs were Never a terror organization. It's quite weird that these people were thrown in prison even though there wasn't a domestic terror statute in place. Hmmm.

As you can see, Con puts all of his faith in a government that possesses a horrible track record in human rights as well as ethics. This is what he said. "The FBI is a bureaucratic government agency. It is not as if it is a company under the same leadership for decades. Procedures and leadership rapidly and constantly change. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence." My Reply: I want everyone to watch how easily & effortlessly I breakdown my opponents madness.

Are you guys ready?

Remember Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, The Black Codes and Redlining. All of these circumstances happened at different times, but the racist ideologies/principles have remained the same...Remember, each of these "unethical eras" took place over centuries, but you're saying that the FBI has morally changed since its inception of 1908???

Other than Black Americans, I'm pretty sure the Native Americans would most definitely disagree with my opponent's sheer madness.

Closing Statements: My opponent has called me racist so much to where individuals in the comment section have noticed it and have called him out. Unlike Con, my goal isn't to win every single debate because I'm well-aware that the demographics are not in my favor. I have nothing to lose by actually fighting a losing battle, but I have everything to gain by exposing the truth.

The simple fact of the matter is that white people commit the crime because whites are ranked #1 in homicide, grand theft, burglary, rape, sodomy, hate crimes, serial killings, mass murder, larceny, multimillion-dollar Ponzi schemes, bank fraud, general fraud, forgery, vandalism, prostitution, drug-abuse violations, child pedophilia, disorderly conduct and etc. Proof?...Lol...I'm going to use the irony of a government-related source to prove my point. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21

08.13.2019 03:27PM

#37

I live in a heavily minority community, and a substantial sum of them see much the same way as mairj23. They see me as a rich, violent profiteer off of their suffering. The goal would be to stop the spread of such evil ideologies. Despite this, I do not see much merit in bitterness over it, no matter if it is justified.

The reason, I think, for the sadness, is that I see radical, evil ideologies born out of personal suffering. Had their lives been more comfortable, would such ideologies develop?

08.13.2019 03:19PM

#36

-->

@Kikomori

Unfortunately yes, although it was not my intentions.... oh well, it was fun

TheRealNihilist

08.13.2019 03:18PM

#35

-->

@MisterChris

Bitterness can be justified if you are personally impacted by it. If you are not then I don't think it is justified. Even though you are justified it might not be the best thing to use as a driving force because it can make you think irrationally. irrational arguments are bad if you want to be rational.

I guess you can have sadness for him but it wouldn't really mean anything if you want to change his mind and if you are not close in some sort of way. If you are and you tell him your grievances it might help but don't expect it to be the reason the person stops being who he is.

08.13.2019 03:14PM

#34

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I suspect that you are right. I am rather bitter about the blatant racism inherent in mairj23’s views, although my bitterness will not change anyone’s mind who holds those views. I am trying to decide if my bitterness is justified, as much as a sort of sadness that people are led to world views like these.

Kikomori

08.13.2019 10:59AM

#33

-->

@mairj23

@MisterChris

It seems this will turn into another semantics debate. Does ‘white Americans’ mean ‘ALL white Americans’?

TheRealNihilist

08.13.2019 10:37AM

#32

-->

@MisterChris

Why would he stop having those claims because of a debate you make?

A debate sites main goal is not to change people's mind. It is to house opposing opinions voted on by its users.

If you actually want to change his mind. Simply ask him why he believes it and counter him. Be civil and try to be as charitable as you can. In order to increase the chance of your actually changing their mind.

08.13.2019 12:52AM

#31

-->

@MisterChris

He is one of the more funny members, yes

08.12.2019 10:01PM

#30

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Probably because I challenged him so blatantly he knew he would have to either prove himself or cut the crap with his arrogant statements

08.12.2019 09:59PM

#29

-->

@mairj23

This will be fun, await my response! :P

08.12.2019 09:57PM

#28

-->

@Dr.Franklin

don't worry, I laughed when I saw his speech.

08.12.2019 03:57PM

#27

-->

@mairj23

I doubt that

TheRealNihilist

08.12.2019 10:31AM

#26

-->

@mairj23

Why did you accept this?

08.12.2019 06:19AM

#25

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Put your pom poms down. His knees is buckling & I got him wobbling all over the place.

08.12.2019 06:11AM

#24

-->

@TheAtheist

You're so frustrated with your boy's lackluster performance to where he's making your eyes glow. Lol.

08.12.2019 06:09AM

#23

-->

@MisterChris

You claimed I've dug myself a hole, but it's going to be mighty hard trying to pull yourself out that ditch that you're laying in right about now.

08.11.2019 01:18PM

#22

Sources for R3 (forgot to submit them):
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/there-no-law-covers-domestic-terrorism-what-would-one-look-n1040386
https://vault.fbi.gov/Black%20Panther%20Party%20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

08.11.2019 12:30PM

#21

-->

@MisterChris

HE will always dig a hole deep in consperiacy theores

08.11.2019 05:29AM

#20

-->

@bmdrocks21

@Dr.Franklin

@TheAtheist

Honestly, it seems that Pro is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole here.

08.11.2019 05:09AM

#19

-->

@bmdrocks21

@TheAtheist

Oh well, just makes my job easier

TheAtheist

08.11.2019 04:21AM

#18

-->

@mairj23

"Even a fish would stay out of trouble if he kept his mouth shut."

I think that quote applies to you more than it does to me.

bmdrocks21

08.11.2019 04:00AM

#17

-->

@MisterChris

He reads about every fifth word, then fills in the rest with what he wanted you to say.

08.11.2019 03:08AM

#16

-->

@mairj23

but whatever, i can work with this

08.11.2019 03:07AM

#15

-->

@mairj23

ummm... I don't think you really read what I wrote super closely

08.10.2019 10:16PM

#14

-->

@TheAtheist

"Even a fish would stay out of trouble if he kept his mouth shut."

08.10.2019 03:29PM

#13

-->

@TheAtheist

I try, brother

TheAtheist

08.10.2019 06:34AM

#12

-->

@MisterChris

Wow dude. You just obliterated mairj23 with that R2 argument. Great job!

08.09.2019 03:26PM

#11

-->

@mairj23

blacks are domestic terrorisrts

But it was just a general statement :), it'snot like I called for congress to label them as such HAHAHA

08.08.2019 02:14AM

#10

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It's more so a general statement, not an absolute.

08.07.2019 01:58PM

I'm now a domestic terrorist!

08.07.2019 06:16AM

-->

@MisterChris

That's cool.

08.07.2019 04:24AM

-->

@mairj23

I'll be busy today, so expect a response on the 8th

08.06.2019 07:34PM

-->

@MisterChris

Crush him!

08.06.2019 07:34PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

Perhaps... although, we must be able to justify that his views constitute as trolling. So, hopefully, there will be a clear giveaway. I do know that I specified "accept this debate if this is what you truly believe."

08.06.2019 07:33PM

-->

@GuitarSlinger

@Dr.Franklin

It's going to be a fun ride

GuitarSlinger

08.06.2019 03:51PM

It's too bad you can't insert graphics here....I'd insert one of those "Watching and eating popcorn" memes .....right....about......NOW!

bmdrocks21

08.06.2019 02:32PM

I think the "no trolling" rule might come into effect here