Instigator
Points: 17

I Was Right! White People Have Been Officialy Labelled As Domestic Terrorists

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
Speedrace
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Required rating
5
Contender
Points: 42
Description
As the title states, white supremacy has been "Officially" listed as "The Greatest Threat To America" by the Dept. of Homeland Security. News Broke a few days ago about the group of people who are committing the most crimes in the US, and it's not a surprise because white people (in general) are criminal minded to the highest degree. The individuals who I've debated in the past are looking like complete & utter fools right about now because I was 100% correct. If anyone objects to this well-known topic of proof, then you're more than welcome to argue your lack of position.
Round 1
Published:
Well, there really isn't too much to say because the proof in the pudding. As I've stated and proved on numerous occasions that white people (in general) are domestics terrorists because they commit the most crime from petty theft to full-fledged mass murder. It's quite ridiculous for anyone to try and prove otherwise because we all can see what's happening in real-time. We all can see who's the common denominator when it comes to this topic. 

As I've stated in past debates, the government isn't a trusted entity/organization because the government was founded by bigots. It's quite ironic that the same government that has (falsely) labeled other groups as criminal organizations, "i.e. the Black Panthers," is the same government that's now labelling itself as domestic terrorists. I guess Homeland Security finally decided to do the right thing for a change.

I just love proving my points with cold-hard facts and rock-solid evidence. Trying to blame white-domestic terrorism on mental illness is so pathetic and redundant at this point, and everyone can see through the blatant lies. The government/law enforcement is majority Caucasian, and it doesn't want to seek out and prosecute white people for their crimes. I can literally go on and on for days, but the proof is playing out right before the world's eyes.

This debate is more so of an "I Told You So" moment...At this point in time, white people are the face of everything that's wrong in American society. You're the face of the MeToo Movement/Scam, the face of the LGBT Nonsense and the face of Domestic Terrorism. 

I'm just stating the obvious so don't get mad at me for what white people are doing.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
And another one bites the dust.
Published:
You thought

My opponent obviously has the burden of proof. He must prove that white people have been OFFICIALLY labeled as terrorists. To do that, sources must be shown indicating this official status. The description is not counted as evidence. Just saying that it happened is also not enough, an actual source must be given to show that it happened. Since no sources were given, this means that Pro has not met his burden of proof. This ipso facto means that Con wins.
Round 3
Published:
Nice try, but the burden of proof is already proven thanks to all of the recent mass murders that have been perpetrated by white people. You may want to speak with Homeland Security since they added white people to the list.
Published:
White people could commit multiple genocides and that still wouldn't meet the burden of proof. This is not that they're terrorists, it's of they were OFFICIALLY labeled as terrorists. No sources have been given for that (again, the debate description doesn't count). And YOU have to talk to Homeland Security, because YOU have the burden of proof, not me. Until you PROVE the resolution, Con wins.

Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Evidence must be given to prove an official status. None was given, meaning Con wins ipso facto.
Added:
--> @mairj23
Those numbers are pretty high. The average income in Zimbabwe per day is $4. To buy a loaf of bread, it is 17.5% of your entire daily work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-bread/zimbabwe-nearly-doubles-bread-price-as-economic-woes-mount-idUSKCN1RS13X
Bet they wish whitey would come back and feed them lol.
#94
Added:
--> @mairj23
WOW YOUR STUNNING LACK OF EVIDENCE HAS ME SHOOK 🤯🤯🤯
#93
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Your boy's mind is clearly shook after I made the "retrograde comment" earlier.
All I ask at this point is to let him lay in his casket peacefully. Lol...….figuratively not literally.
Instigator
#92
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
So, what you're saying is that a loaf of bread costs $30, a pint of milk cost $20 and a snickers bar costs $67?
Am I correct?
Instigator
#91
Added:
--> @mairj23
oh wow no response...
#90
Added:
--> @mairj23
Hundreds of million dollars can buy food.....unless you're in Zimbabwe and hyperinflation made your money worthless.
#89
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
You seem to not have any idea that you're setting yourself up for an embarrassing ending because the more you retrograde back, the closure you'll get to the answer. Lol
Instigator
#88
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
I guess hundreds of millions of dollars can't buy food. Hmmm
Where did the supplement and institution of tax money come from?...I'll wait
Instigator
#87
Added:
--> @mairj23
Those tobacco crops don't feed families, now do they?
#86
Added:
--> @mairj23
Taxes?
#85
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
I'm going to simply flame you with one basic question.
You said that the Irish built the Eerie Canal, railroads yada yada yada.....but....
where did the government get the money from to build it?...…..I'll Wait??????????? Lol
Instigator
#84
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Despite the fact that the US put sanctions on Zimbabwe for deporting the white racists, tobacco sales topped $730 million US dollars in 2018 and $507 US dollars in 2019...
I'm sure you feel pretty stupid right about now. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-08/22/c_138329541.htm
While in Europe, there are countries with people still walking on all fours. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140716151122.htm
Instigator
#83
Added:
--> @mairj23
Hahaha...I hear ya...…..but one more strike & it's a wrap.
lie
#82
Added:
--> @mairj23
“Who founded and made up the overall majority of White Supremacist groups?”
White Supremacists
#81
Added:
--> @mairj23
Well Africans still can't farm. Kinda why the Breadbasket of Africa, Rhodesia, ended up becoming starving Zimbabwe. Oops.
#80
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro provides no evidence suggesting that white people have been OFFICIALLY labeled as domestic terrorists, although he provides evidence saying there are white people who do crimes. Unfortunately for pro, that is not the resolution. Con points this out, and pro never counteracts that. Con gets the argument points.
Pro also seemed to just hate white people and he was extremely toxic. Conduct to con.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
BoP-- Pro looks to anecdotal cases to prove the BoP is on Con, as Con points out this is faulty, the BoP is on P+ro because he must prove White people have officially been labeled domestic terrorists. BoP on Pro.
SP=CON MJ=PRO
MJ's whole case revolves around white people being violent, not that they've OFFICIALLY been labeled domestic terrorists, so even if MJ's main point is true, he loses as a result of him failing to that white people have OFFICIALLY been labeled domestic terrorists. MJ didn't meet his BoP.
#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:
Pro made a claim (that White people were OFFICIALLY labelled as terrorists), and then left it completely unsubstantiated (providing exactly 0 evidence for said claim and then claiming that his BOP was already satisfied)), instead choosing to shift the goalposts to White Supremacy.
#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:
Pro would rather throw around toxic hate speech than provide evidence for his arguments, losing him a conduct point. Con asks Pro for evidence, and Pro can provide none. Pro loses all credibility, therefore, and Con gains a "reliable source" point. Pro also loses his arguments, as they are no longer warranted.
#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:
Pro asserted that white people are officially branded as terrorists - then shifted this to white supremacy in the opening. Con spelled out what pro needed to do to win; provide specific links and evidence as to the official status of white people. Pro didn’t do this at all, and instead relied on this assertion. As pro has burden of proof, not providing this evidence when challenged essentially means he loses the debate.
As a result, clear cut result of arguments to con is the only decision I can make.
Conduct: pro seems more interested in just throwing out hate speech and admonishing white people, and it was evident in later rounds, that he was primarily interested solely in this aspect of the debate and not engaging. As this sort of hate speech is pretty toxic in debates, this warrants a clear violation of conduct.
#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:
This is an easy one (not the mention a troll debate). Pro makes some broad assertions which boil down to them treating the resolution as a truism rather than a debate, and con basically offers to concede the debate if pro will just point to the official source mandated by the resolution.
Pro works hard to make their side look moronic, by claiming that con must turn himself in to homeland security for having been labeled a domestic terrorist, but refuses to show any evidence to suggest this is more than their own imagination; as con reminds us.
Sources:
Con leveraged the absence of positive evidence to win the debate. Not only this, but he outright walked pro through how to find a source to support their case and win (just talk to homeland security, and get them to provide a link...). This award is akin to had pro offered a dozen sources and con flipped them all to favor his side. Occasionally one can leverage the existing evidence to win a case, without introducing any of their own.
This is not a matter of neither side having evidence, this is both checked for evidence and provided it all; which con pointed out was none, and that disfavors pro.