Instigator / Con
5
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#1330

Should the White American Male Not Be Labelled As A Domestic Terrorist?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description

The title of this debate speaks volumes, especially with all of the white-male violence that's occurring. West Texas just experienced another mass shooting as of August 31, 2019, and the culprit is yet again another white male. There really isn't too much to say about the topic in general because anyone who has common sense can see exactly who's causing the problems in American and abroad. At this point in time, the white-American male should definitely be considered as a domestic terrorist, and the mass shootings proves my point to the highest degree.

If you think otherwise, then you're more than welcome to take this challenge, but I highly doubt that you'd be able to present a solid argument... Good luck.

"Hey, if it's not too much trouble; could you teach me how to debate like you? IF so then would you message me some techniques?
I've read some of your debates and you've basically ended everybody's career. Hit me up."

This...THIS is going in the best quotes by DARTERS

-->
@mairj23

By voting for the clear winner of a debate, I got exposed? Oh no!

-->
@bmdrocks21

Trying to do damage control with these long, redundant comments because your boys got caught cheating with the votes again? Yes, your little click has been exposed.

Just proves that I've done my job perfectly. Peace

out what you meant. Disregarded. Queen Elizabeth II's jewelry choice means black people had a big impact on Europe...
Pro: Defaming 104 million people because of 4 people will have serious bad consequences. White people have done tons of good, so this title is not merited. Walls don't point to losing political power, they have other benefits to explain the push for one. Correctly points out that he (as well as I) don't have to read the opponent's sources to figure out their argument. There aren't a lot of black statues, contrary to Con's claim. We should focus on terrorism rather than labeling to fix the problem.

Verdict:

Arguments: I will say this debate was difficult to vote on. So much talking past each other and Con trying to contradict the name of the debate. Pro provided some pretty good claims and backed them up with evidence. Pro did pretty well, but essentially won by default due to Con's inability to cite anything of (even remote) value until the last round.
Grammar: Both sides had some spelling and grammatical errors.
Sources: Con didn't use sources for 2 rounds, used a poor source for round 3, and some okay ones for round 4. Pro used decent sources the entire debate and substantiated almost every claim with them. Win for Pro.
Conduct: Both sides had mediocre conduct.

are judged on a collective level. Tries to parallel nonviolent protesting blacks in the 1960s to black people now. He doesn't mention if the victims of these mass shootings are black. Didn't substantiate that no news outlets mentioned the "Burning building" speech until recently. Brings up Pro's shaming tactic of misspelling. I agree it was irrelevant, and voters can spot it by themselves. Then says white people are the biggest mass murderers without any citation. States 90% if murder cases in Chicago are unsolved. Doesn't cite. Also doesn't say that the murders mentioned by Pro were included in that stat.
Pro: Again casts down the claim that 32% of an entire country should receive a label based on four people. Mentions similarities again between races to say no meaningful difference could lead to such a classification. Proves that whites still run the country, meaning these shootings couldn't be because of losing political power. Proved that economic factors drove differences in populations and that they will level out, leaving nothing to fear, supposedly. Also throws out how judging on a collective would apply since only four guys committed the crimes and there are 104 million of them. Disproved the claim that more unarmed blacks were shot than unarmed whites. Showed how national emergencies aren't unique to things committed by white people. Said disease killed the Natives, not the white people's purposeful action. Combats the #1 serial killer/mass murderer claim with Mao as well.

Winner: Pro because he again cited sources and rebutted claims effectively.

R4
Con: All races have invented things. Building walls, voter supression, and gerrymandering are apparently proof of white people losing political power... Black people apparently didn't benefit from civil rights laws because other people benefit as well... Gave sources for the blacks' supposed saving of Europe. Didn't explain the points, and it is not my duty as a voter to read your sources and find

without substantiating. Counters claim of Muslim terrorism with mentioning the Oklahoma City Bombing. Says that the government was founded by racists without substantiating or stating relevance over a hundred years in the future.
Pro: Brings up again that people are not commiting terrorism because they are white, which throws doubt on the sustainability of Con's stance. States that only half of mass shootings are perptrated by white people, showing that it isn't specific to the race in question. Also shows how Muslims commit dispropportionate amounts of terrorism. Labels the opponent's posititon as racist for judging people by race. Brings up the valid fact that Con cannot see Pro's knees, and therefore couldn't know they are buckling. Shows how Con's argument that MLK was assassinated by whites is non-unique since people of other races do it too. Brings up the necessity for Con to defend calling all white men domestic terrorist based on Con's wording. Shoots down Con's Timothy McVeigh point by showing even worse terrorist events by Muslims. Shows how the FBI was created after slavery was abolished, which throws doubt on the FBI being founded in racism. Brings up why it is inconsistent to only view mass shootings when considering people as terrorists.

Winner: Both sides are kind of talking past each other. Saying that Muslims commit terrorism is irrelevant. Saying that calling black people are thugs is irrelevant. If white people are domestic terrorists, having Muslims also be domestic terrorists is a red herring. So is saying that people belittle blacks while your ENTIRE stance is to do the same to whites. Since Pro actually had some decent points and gave EVIDENCE for them, he wins the round.

R3
Con: Argues again that white men should be considered domestic terrorists because four white guys committed domestic terrorism in about a month span of time. Blames domestic terrorism on declining white birth rates.... Again doesn't substantiate why or how people

Arguments:
R1
Con:Says "facts speak for themselves" without citing a source. States that because another white guy committed a mass shooting that they are now the face of domestic terrorism. Says a travel warning was put in place. Dismisses mental illness as a cause without evidence.
Pro: Gave definition for domestic terrorist. Pro enumerates many good things that white people have done, including ending slavery. Also brings up the infeasibility of labeling all of them in a certain way. This was an important point that Con tried to throw away. Pro also brought up the impossibility of defining white vs black people because there is no huge difference between races of people. This means that all races act the same, so it would be illogical to label just white people as "domestic terrorists". In rebuttals, he once again throws out the claims of Con that not all white men are terrorists despite the fact that this is exactly what they are debating. Con brings up that other groups are committing even larger amounts of terrorism, proving that white people commit proportionally low amounts of terrorism. Pro then also brings up that the travel ban is a farse. It doesn not relate to white people and other groups, such as blacks, even have higher amounts of gun crime, meaning white men are not a group that can be singled out. Pro argued that any mass shooter likely has mental issues. Threw out the RICO suggestion by Con as being an explicit infringement of the 1st Amendment. Brings up moral things the US has done.

Winner: Pro. Provided verifiable points and thoroughly rebutted Con's points.

R2
Con: References four white male domestic terrorists who perpetrated mass shootings. Says people are judged as a collective without substantiating the claim. Made claim about how calling black people "thugs" devalues them. Pro didn't do this, nor did he give evidence of people saying this. While true, it is irrelevant. Says white people built their entire lifestyle via racism

THIS COULD BE VOTE BOMBED!!

-->
@mairj23

You didn't destroy any trolls.

-->
@David

What happened to all of the trolls in the comment section? I replied to there nonsense but their accounts have disappeared.

-->
@bmdrocks21

yup, ended kaput goodbye

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Oh man! I'll never be able to show my glorious jowls around here anymore!

-->
@bmdrocks21

Probably, LOL ended careers, like we have debate CAREERS??

-->
@toto1

Lol, are you a mairj 2nd account?

-->
@Trent0405
@billbatard
@LeeroyJenkins1301
@toto1

Your votes are removed as you are ineligible to vote. Trent's vote is removed since CVB are removed

-->
@billbatard
@toto1

Awwwwwwww,sorrry but there's rules on this site, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

-->
@toto1

I dstroyed him, he started replying with Need I say More because he didnt have an argument,!!

I LOVE IT, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-->
@toto1

Thanks. I really don't have any special techniques but I can give you a few tips. I'll message you.

-->
@mairj23

Hey, if it's not too much trouble; could you teach me how to debate like you? IF so then would you message me some techniques?
I've read some of your debates and you've basically ended everybody's career. Hit me up.

-->
@mairj23

I fully agree with you. Most of your argument was on point. The other guy is completely lost. I like how u you ended his career with the first few questions in round 1 and it was pretty much over after that.

-->
@mairj23

LOL, you are not a good debator then

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Dude, I've lost more than I've won but there's a method to the madness. Lol.

-->
@mairj23

Actually I have beaten you twice now

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Stop da Madness. U know that I'm da G.O.A.T.

-->
@mairj23

Haha, very funny I destroyed you

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I tend to have that affect on my opponents.

-->
@mairj23

How?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Begging for votes when the demographics are already in your favor speaks volumes & is a dead giveaway that you're not confident.

-->
@mairj23

Who was getting crushed?

-->
@mairj23

No nerves struck. Yes, we did evolve from you people.

Don't be mad because you don't even know the origins of AIDS, which can be found from a single google search.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Struck a nerve didn't I?...

Then again...Europeans do have the same genes as the Rhesus monkey which can't be disputed. Lol

-->
@billbatard

Most modern-day diseases are man-made and used as population control. An animal is basically the scapegoat.

You're right about white terrorism. They're now panicking because everyone can see their motives and true colors.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I'll get one in tomorrow homie

-->
@Barney

Uhhh, that's my plan of attack, beat them in the core arguments and make them go off track

---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”

Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.

1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.

2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).

3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.

---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.

6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.

6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.

Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).

Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.

-->
@bmdrocks21

thx

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I'll get you this weekend, my dude
:)

-->
@bmdrocks21
@MisterChris
@Trent0405

Wouldn't mind a quick vote :)

-->
@mairj23

Y'all got it from chimps.
https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0

So, even though almost half of Africans can't read, you're trying to say how they are so smart? Nice one lol.

-->
@billbatard

I'd say that we underestimate the scale of far right violence, I'm glad Trump doesn't excuse those "conservatives". But, it is a problem.

-->
@mairj23

it came from monkeys i thought

the problem i would say is that , we did a good job dealing with islamic extremism and ignored far right extremism because i think for a significant level, white privilege , yeah i said it. white people feel entitled, when they get violent they are being patriotic you know FREEDOM@@@! braveheart moment , its only terrorism when those brown people do it or those spoiled white lefty types .. no one wants to notice the huge white Elephant in the room, angry white men have the biggest body count, synogies , mosques blac churches, garlic festivals, attention wal mart shoppers@!!! we have to aknowledge that the reaon is so bad is that we neglected to call it terrorism and of course it is

-->
@bmdrocks21

Since statistics are formed from mathematics & mathematics comes from Kemetic science & kemetic science comes from Kemet Africa....

You do the math but I'm sure that statement flew over your head......Didn't it?

-->
@bmdrocks21

How can someone claim to be so intelligent & think that AIDS come from an animal?

Google the word "Beastiality" and see which race pops up on the screen. Pow Pow!

-->
@mairj23

Also, since you mentioned the ability to read.... here are some illiteracy rates:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 40.1%
Europe and Central Asia: 1.8%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262886/illiteracy-rates-by-world-regions/

-->
@mairj23

I said "Indians" as in referring to Native Americans. So.... no.

Also, AIDS comes from monkeys. Maybe stop committing bestiality, and then it wouldn't be a problem.

-->
@mairj23

They are still plenty of accidents with traffic lights, also the steam engine made the car which lead to the traffic light