Instigator / Pro
17
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#1458

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
18
Better sources
8
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
3
6

After 6 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.