Can America&#39;s White Domestic Terrorists Ever Clear Their Violent Image?

1758

rating

511

debates

68.3%

won

Description

As we all are aware of in 2019, the White-Domestic Terrorist is reaping havoc on society. White people, in general, seem to can't suppress their deviant mind-state and the Dark Age behavior has resurfaced at an all-time high. Today, a white supremacist's plan to blow up a synagogue was thwarted by the FBI. A few days ago, a White-Domestic terrorist threw acid in the face of an Hispanic man for no apparent reason.

To make matters worse, Politician Katie Hill of California (a White woman) has resigned for affairs with men/women, fornication with goats & white supremacy tattoo. To add insult to injury, a number of white-female teachers have continued their sexually deviant interactions with underage boys around the country...At this point in time, there is no hope for the White-Domestic Terrorist...Anyone who thinks otherwise can definitely take debate.

Round 1

11.05.2019 03:16AM

Con

First and foremost, thanks to my challenger for taking this debate.

On the other hand, it's quite impossible at this point in time to put up any kind of sound argument to redeem the White-Domestic Terrorist. Just with the few examples that I've given, how are you going to justify this behavior? Caucasians have earned the title of domestic terrorists and your track record proves it. Your violence has forced America's Homeland Security to officially label white people as domestic terrorists.

I and millions of people don't think that your image can be restored because the white race comes from a culture of violence in your homeland of Europe. Historians and scholars have even stated that Europeans are a "war-like" people. Instead of trying to justify your actions, maybe you should start taking some accountability for your actions.

I'm simply speaking on real-world topics so don't "shoot the messenger"... literally and figuratively... We all know how a simple reflection in the mirror tends to spark that European rage.

11.07.2019 02:17AM

Pro

This debate is about 'can they ever do it' not have they done it or will they do it soon.

Round 2

11.07.2019 05:10AM

Con

It's quite obvious that my opponent shouldn't have taken this debate.

11.09.2019 04:03AM

Pro

This debate is about if they ever can clear their violent image. Con's case of 'inherent barbarian violence' in European blood is negated by the fact that over time, European societies have come to have the most politically serence social democracies of all time.

To clear their image, they (and/or their offspring) need only to apologise for acts, prove over time that they're not violent and cruel and then the news cycle will move onto villainising some other group.

Round 3

11.10.2019 02:24AM

Con

My opponent speaks of a social democrat but it's clear that he doesn't even know what that means. Definition of Social Democracy: a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups and poverty, including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.

If this is true, then why are people still fighting for equality? Case in Point: Why is the American government in favor of Illegal Immigration while neglecting its own citizens?...Why is the US gov. complicit with predatory lending and red lining black communities? Doesn't the US have a shi*** healthcare system?

If what you're saying is factually true, then European-democratic societies wouldn't have the massive amounts of problems that they are dealing with today. America & Parts of Europe were built from the revenue of slavery. Wouldn't slavery be considered, as you say, "Barbarism Violence?"

My opponent doesn't have a leg to stand on, and he shot himself in the foot with his own mentioning of a social-democratic society.

The facts is simply that the white-domestic terrorist will never be able to clear his/her name as a group because they've committed so much "barbarism" throughout history...……..If you think not, then state your reasons instead of trying to change the narrative of this debate.

11.10.2019 02:17PM

Pro

I didn't shoot anything. Their image of slavery is nothing to do with the white terrorists Pro is speaking of. I said that clearly there's not some inherent 'barbarian gene' in white people, since they have ended up making the most pleasant, caring and just societies known today in Western Europe, Australia, Canada and such.

Round 4

11.11.2019 05:53AM

Con

My opponent isn't making any sense because he can't refute with any type of logical argument to prove his case.

His silence speaks volumes.

11.12.2019 06:11AM

Pro

I love you.

blamonkey

11.25.2019 03:28AM

#88

-->

@oromagi

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: "Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass."

>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll debate per the definition provided in the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations. Article 3 sub-section 3 designates three categories of troll debates. One of these categories reads:
"Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content."
While not humorous, it is axiomatically true that the debate is facetious in nature. Additionally, the topic is designed to incite and annoy. It, purely and simply, is a troll debate. Thus, it is not moderated.
************************************************************************

11.25.2019 12:01AM

#87

-->

@Barney

Honestly, I don't have a clue how you became a moderator.

11.24.2019 11:49PM

#86

-->

@RationalMadman

I agree 100%...When someone can't handle the truth or gets exposed, vote bombing will take place.

I've literally embarrassed the so-called "best-of-the-best" debaters and vote bombing began as soon as the debates were over.
I take it as a badge of honor.

11.24.2019 11:42PM

#85

-->

@Barney

As I've stated earlier, this topic has been all over the news and I've listed numerous sources. I've noticed that it's considered a "troll debate" when a certain demographic gets exposed. Yes, fornication with goats but don't forget about the white supremacy tattoos also.

Of course, the mainstream news has stopped reporting on it because this is a white-run society that's trying to protect a white woman who just so happens to be a congresswoman.

11.24.2019 06:24PM

#84

-->

@RationalMadman

Note that I consider this a troll debate, and still voted based on debate content. I have long disliked that comedic debates are outright non-moderated. However, that they are non-moderated is the current standard; a standard you knew both when you accepted the debate with that facetious description, and ended it with a cheeky declaration of love.

11.24.2019 05:29PM

#83

-->

@Barney

If this is a troll debate, you will be okay with everyone votebombing against me then? Just stop that bullshit.

11.24.2019 09:23AM

#82

-->

@RationalMadman

@mairj23

If this was not a troll debate, please provide a link to any respectable news site verifying the "fornication with goats" mentioned in the description.

...

Admittedly, I am still new to the whole modding thing here. I meant to call this a troll debate in my vote as a matter of my opinion as a voter; not make any official proclamation.

11.18.2019 09:05AM

#81

-->

@blamonkey

This is not a troll debate.

11.18.2019 05:27AM

#80

If you have a problem with this label, then you'll need to speak to the Justice Department.

bmdrocks21

11.18.2019 01:20AM

#79

-->

@mairj23

1350

11.17.2019 11:30PM

#78

-->

@blamonkey

YOU ARE NOW A WHITE DOMESTIC TERRORIST!!!
-mairj23

blamonkey

11.17.2019 10:53PM

#77

-->

@PressF4Respect

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. As this was already designated a troll debate by another moderator, and seeing no reason to counter that decision, this vote ought not be removed.
************************************************************************

11.17.2019 04:37AM

#76

-->

@Nemiroff

You've demonized yourself by your actions.

Who isn't a terrorist? Black Americans, Asian Americans Hispanic Americans

11.16.2019 02:32PM

#75

-->

@mairj23

You are not just talking about current events in usa, because you referenced historic violence going back to europe. Your topic tries to demonize white people in general.

My question remains. If a few terrorist examples can label a whole race or ethnicity as terrorists, who isnt a terrorist?

11.16.2019 08:45AM

#74

-->

@Nemiroff

If what I'm saying is hearsay, lies or propaganda, then why are some states trying to pass legislation about this topic?

I'm just stating and debating current events. Nothing more, nothing less.

11.16.2019 08:41AM

#73

-->

@Nemiroff

This discussion is about US terrorism, not other areas of the globe.

Are you aware of why the Justice Dept. labelled white people as domestic terrorists? If not, then wouldn't 3 consecutive mass murders within 1 month by the same ethic group be considered terrorism?

As you can see, you have no argument what-so-ever.

11.15.2019 05:24AM

#72

-->

@mairj23

Let me see if i understand you.
Because a group of white people were labeled (by mostly other white people) to be one of many terrorist groups, therefore white people in general are terrorists?

But terrorist groups exist in all parts of the world, therefore arent all people terrorists?

And if your statement about white people is true for all people... what's the point?

11.15.2019 04:19AM

#71

-->

@mairj23

Unfortunately your research is hearsay, and you refuse to provide evidence, as evident by your exchange with pressF4.

You are confident in your "research" about the same as your flat earther, holocaust denier, or any other conspiracy theory under the sun. Perhaps one day you will open your eyes, til then your hopeless.

11.14.2019 10:40PM

#70

-->

@Nemiroff

Yes I'm right and I'm very confident because I've done the research long before creating this debate.

I've posted authentic links and this subject has been displayed all over the news. No matter what the scoreboard says; I'm coming out the victor either way.

11.14.2019 11:36AM

#69

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Pro; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************

11.14.2019 11:35AM

#68

AntonZenz123
51 minutes ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
it is the height of hypocrisy to say a whole race is racist, thats racist isnt it? so you lose

AntonZenz123

11.14.2019 10:40AM

#67

compared to what? look at the coloured monkeys they do worse and they arent even smart like whites are

11.14.2019 09:56AM

#66

-->

@mairj23

Speaking of learning how to take an L, you should take your own advise. Your so convinced you are correct before the debate even starts you dont realize how you fail to support your claims.

11.14.2019 04:49AM

#65

-->

@mairj23

I asked you a simple question, to which you still haven't answered. Unless and until you do so, by providing sources to your claim, my point (any claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence [Hitchens' Razor]) still stands.

11.14.2019 03:16AM

#64

-->

@PressF4Respect

Dude, at least have some dignity with your concession.

You're not the first person to take an "L" and you certainly won't be the last.

11.13.2019 02:36PM

#63

-->

@mairj23

“I've posted links”
Where did you post the link to the US Department of Justice statement labelling White Americans as domestic terrorists? I have yet to see it.

“& we've all seen it on the news.”
Can you show me a news article stating that the US DOJ labelled White Americans as domestic terrorists?

So far everything you said is fluff, and you’re still dodging my original question:
Do you have sources? Yes or no

JacquesBonhomme

11.13.2019 06:02AM

#62

the only ting white people are guilty of is superiority, and that has put us in a position to abuse weaker monkeys

JacquesBonhomme

11.13.2019 06:01AM

#61

what can be more racist than to accuse a whole race of being racist

11.13.2019 05:37AM

#60

-->

@PressF4Respect

I've posted links & we've all seen it on the news.
I'll take that as your concession speech.

11.13.2019 04:09AM

#59

-->

@mairj23

Do you have sources? Yes or no

11.13.2019 03:27AM

#58

-->

@PressF4Respect

You can't be mad at me because your race of people are the face of American Domestic Terrorism.

I should've been a lawyer because my questions can literally shutdown any argument.

The ball is in your court. Do you have the confidence to take the last shot?

11.13.2019 01:28AM

#57

"Says the guy who does his research from Wiki. lol"
Another useless ad hominem attack with zero relevance to the subject at hand.

"I don't mind entertaining trolls. It let's me know that I've ruffled some feathers."
I've asked you multiple times to provide evidence, which you have failed to do. That isn't trolling.

"Just think about. A few basic questions obliterated your entire argument on a public forum & that speaks volumes."
My argument is: You have not provided sources, therefore I can dismiss your entire claim.

If this were a debate, I could literally say "no" and win.

Let me boil it down into a single question:
Do you have sources? Yes or no.
If so, then present them.
If not, then your entire argument can be dismissed via Hitchens' Razor.

11.13.2019 12:00AM

#56

-->

@PressF4Respect

Says the guy who does his research from Wiki. lol

I don't mind entertaining trolls. It let's me know that I've ruffled some feathers.

Just think about. A few basic questions obliterated your entire argument on a public forum & that speaks volumes.

11.12.2019 02:45PM

#55

-->

@mairj23

"Lol. Says the guy who changes his thumbnail every two weeks."
What does this have to do with anything?

"Dude, I've already flamed your nonsensical argument with 3 basic questions. Remember...….the ones that you refuse to answer"
The only thing my argument utilizes is Hitchens' Razor, and right now it's working like a charm. The only way to "flame" it is to PROVE YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM...

unless you are unable to, which is completely understandable.

11.12.2019 08:18AM

#54

-->

@PressF4Respect

Lol. Says the guy who changes his thumbnail every two weeks.

Dude, I've already flamed your nonsensical argument with 3 basic questions. Remember...….the ones that you refuse to answer.

11.12.2019 08:11AM

#53

-->

@SirAnonymous

I'll break it down for you since I personally have a few years of undergraduate law studies.

The DOJ is (Not) speaking about specific groups/organizations. They're using an ambiguous approach for white people as an "Ethic Group." It's basically a generalization that law enforcement uses when a certain "ethnic group" of people are repeating certain acts or behaviors.

The mass shootings/random killings were race-based because white people perpetrated the crimes & left manifestos that stated that the violent acts were about race.

11.12.2019 06:08AM

#52

-->

@mairj23

"I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.
It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime."

I am aware of that. However, it would be pointless for the DoJ to label organizations according to something that isn't a crime. I have looked on the DoJ website. I have searched for domestic terrorist groups. They do not have a list of domestic terrorist groups. Thus, whites are not a domestic terrorist group according the the DoJ, and you are making this up. In fact, I'm guessing that you know you are making it up and are lying because you are trying to troll us to see what kind of outraged reactions you can get. Am I right?

11.12.2019 04:01AM

#51

-->

@mairj23

As for me, the only thing I need to deal with you is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

11.12.2019 03:58AM

#50

"I'll wait"
Literally me right now

11.12.2019 03:57AM

#49

-->

@mairj23

"If the various sources haven't proved it,"
What sources? Please enlighten me, if you can.

"then why did the DOJ state that white people have committed nearly ever domestic-racial attack in the US over the past year?"
When did the DOJ state this? What documentation can you produce to support this statement? Again, sources plz.

11.12.2019 03:34AM

#48

-->

@SirAnonymous

I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.

It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime.

11.12.2019 03:28AM

#47

-->

@PressF4Respect

If the various sources haven't proved it, then why did the DOJ state that white people have committed nearly ever domestic-racial attack in the US over the past year?

I'll wait?

11.12.2019 02:16AM

#46

-->

@mairj23

No, you didn't say it was a crime, but that's not the point. The DoJ doesn't label any group as a domestic terrorist group because domestic terrorism isn't an official crime. In other words, the fact that it isn't a crime proves you made it up.

11.12.2019 01:41AM

#45

-->

@mairj23

My point is: Prove your statement (that the US Justice Department has labelled white Americans as domestic terrorists) with a source

You have yet to do that

11.12.2019 12:47AM

#44

-->

@SirAnonymous

Did I ever say that it was a crime? Of course, it's not a crime because the same people who create the laws are the same people who are committing the actual crimes. https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/08/white-supremacists-responsible-for-all-race-based-domestic-terrorism-incidents-in-2018-doj-blocked-report/

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-supremacy-linked-to-race-based-domestic-terrorism-data-shows-2019-8
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/09/trumps-doj-hid-shocking-report-on-growing-terror-threat-from-white-supremacists/

The state of New York is also looking to pass legislation.https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/460460-states-should-follow-new-yorks-lead-in-the-fight-against-racial

11.12.2019 12:28AM

#43

-->

@PressF4Respect

Your point has already been obliterated which is why you have failed to answer my previous basic questions.

11.11.2019 06:31AM

#42

-->

@mairj23

No, it hasn't been all over the news. In fact, I found quite the opposite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-domestic-terrorism-understanding-law-and-fbi-definitions-terrorist-activity-in-the-united-states/
While domestic terrorism does have an FBI definition, it is not technically a crime. This article specifically mentions that they can't single out white supremacist groups, let alone whites in general. In other words, you are making this up out of whole cloth.
Prove it or retract your claim. Stop trying to avoid the question.

11.11.2019 06:21AM

#41

-->

@mairj23

My point still stands. Show me a source to prove your (currently) unsubstantiated claim. This should be easy, if you didn't make it up.

11.11.2019 06:13AM

#40

-->

@SirAnonymous

Lol. Yeah....sure...…..ok

It's been all over the news buddie so try a new tactic.

11.11.2019 06:11AM

#39

-->

@mairj23

I just looked up "Justice Department labels white americans as domestic terrorists." The only result I got that was remotely similar was some guy in a blog complaining that one branch of the DoJ used the term "domestic terrorists" because that somehow targeted white Americans.

You have the burden of proof. Present your evidence, or admit that you made it up. Stop trying to avoid the question.

oromagi

11.18.2019 01:09AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass.

11.14.2019 08:10PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

"If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC