Instigator / Pro
10
1384
rating
24
debates
25.0%
won
Topic

Is COVID-19 & Natural Disasters God's Counter Punch For White People's Evil Nature?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
15
Sources points
4
10
Spelling and grammar points
3
5
Conduct points
3
5

With 5 votes and 25 points ahead, the winner is ...

fauxlaw
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
History
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 / Con
35
1624
rating
41
debates
68.29%
won
Description
~ 714 / 5,000

Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth, is it fair to say that God's judgement is coming into fruition for the white race via COVID-19 & natural disasters?...Whites have killed the most people, commits the most crime, have destroyed the eco systems and have put animals on the endangered species list. Even though other races have suffered from this virus etc, whites appear to be the main target.

The argument is "can white people reduce their evil acts to save themselves & the world?" Can Europeans erase their savage history/behavior of committing crimes against humanity? ONLY BRING FACTS TO THE DEBATE & LEAVE YOUR EMOTIONS AT THE DOOR.

Round 1
Pro
Thanks for accepting.

Well, my stance is that the corona virus and the up-tick of natural disasters could be a result a divine intervention. I'm not 100% sure, but the term "reap what you sew" may be playing itself out now days. If you're into spiritual/religious theology, then it kind of looks like the all mighty has a hand in what's going on. No...I don't know God's actual plan, but I can fully say that white people may be getting a dose of karma.

The European race has singlehandedly destroyed the earth and its people, which can't be debunked because the information is documented. I'm basically taking the Pro stance in this debate. If this particular one group of people weren't terrorizing & raping the planet, then a lot of these issues may not be happening at the moment. 

Then again, most of today's real-world issues wouldn't be happening if white people could control their greed and criminal behavior. There's got to be some type of mental imbalance that's at play. 

Whether COVID-19 is man-made or it came from nature, it could be a spiritual counter punch to what whites have done to people on a global scale. 
Con
My opponent offered a curious charge is his opening description of the debate: “Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth, is it fair to say that God’s judgement [sic] is coming into fruition for the white race via Covid-19 & natural disasters?[1]
 
I consider the Descriptionsection as inclusive in a Pro’s total debate argument, and therefore is open-season to rebuttal. Note that Pro offers no data reference to substantiate either claim made in the statement; to wit,neither “everyone’s” awareness, nor that God’s “judgement” [sic] is upon any particular sub-group of the human species, based on racism, or any other cause.
 
I rebut the statement, and the numbers support my case that Con’s argument fails. According to an up-to-date study, including data through 30 March, 2020 from the Coronavirus Disease [Covid-19] Statistics and Research website,[2] which calculates the world numbers of deaths recorded due to Covid-19 as of the above date, there have been 1.59 deaths per million among nations of predominately European descent, whereas, nations of predominately Asian descent have counted 3.75 deaths per million through the same date. This number exceeds all other racial profiles in the world, and is more than twice the number of European deaths per million, the second highest racial profile. Therefore, Pro’s statement of God’s wrath against the alleged “the most evil racial group,” i.e., white European stock, simply by measure of the number of deaths per million does not follow.
 
Pro’s argument fails on another scale. Under the presumption that God would spare members of a racial sub-group who do not express racist tendencies, by simple age-related status, it is known that children up to the age of 12 need to have racial definition defined for them by significant numbers to recognize racial differences, let alone discriminate. The numbers vary by race, but are telling. Non-white Hispanics need the definition of racial variance at a rate of 40.9%. Non-Hispanic whites need the definition at a rate of 40.4%. Blacks need the definition at a rate of 24.6%.[3]
 
Moreover, the very idea that God punished by death for all wrong doing simply does not have biblical support for the claim; otherwise, we would currently have a situation coincident with the one time the Holy Bible documents such a severe punishment visited upon the earth’s human inhabitants save Noah and his family.[4]We will visit this concept later in the argument. Therefore, by Pro’s argument, even innocent children relative to racial discrimination must suffer death at God’s hand for their skin color, which flies in the face of the rebuke by Jesus when some of his disciples tried to keep children from approaching him. “But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”[5]
 
In Pro’s round 1 argument, he further states, “The European race has singlehandedly destroyed the earth and its people, which can’t be debunked because the information is documented.” I submit that if it is documented, Pro should reference at least one source, but, no source was offered. Need I present a source to tell us neither the earth, nor the people inhabiting it are “destroyed” since we and it are still here, functioning, alive, and, while making mistakes, generally have things in good working order. Well, I’ll give you a source: live streaming from the International Space Station[6] which shows no evidence of the destruction Pro describes.
 
I will not argue that we have some serious environmental issues. However, climate issues alleged to be at the threshold of calamity simply do not agree with the fact that 140 to 65 million years ago, our placental mammalian ancestors, having identical physiological systems as current Homo sapiens,faced climate extremes far more severe than we do today.[7],[8] They survived these extremes by a concept introduced by Charles Darwin: “A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. …Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence…”[9] Darwin proceeds through the chapter to describe several elements of that struggle: adaptation to the environment. Plants and animals engage adaptation, or they face extinction.
 
Pro concludes that the alleged calamity of Covid-19, whether anthropogenic or naturally caused, “…could be a spiritual counter punch…” i.e., from God as punishment for the “global scale” actions of just white Europeans. According to ScienceDaily, the novel virus originated in China, not Europe or America, and it is not God’s revenge.[10] Observe, for example, God’s declaration: “… and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake... neither will I smite any more every thing living, as I have done.” [11]
 

Round 2
Pro
Ok, so my opponent says "Pro offers no data reference to substantiate either claim made in the statement; to wit,neither “everyone’s” awareness, nor that God’s “judgement” [sic] is upon any particular sub-group of the human species, based on racism, or any other cause."...My reply is that my opponent (Con) doesn't seem to realize that I'm speaking in general terms when saying the word "everyone." I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed.

Con goes on to give data statistics for COVID-19 "death rates" but the death rate is not the topic of discussion. I specifically said that Europeans/white people (appear) to be the main target...This information can be found in the debate's description, which is a blunder on my opponents part...On the other hand....

China is supposedly the genesis of the virus in which Con is referring his data to, but as of this very moment, (3/31/2020 - 5:35 p.m.), the US death toll of 3,600 people has just eclipsed China. Yes, that single statement alone has basically destroyed his death rate argument. Info can be found at https://apnews.com/a25f04dd3484923e7fd1a59e3808d774...To further dismantle Con's argument on death rates, Italy has over 12,480 deaths as of (3/31/2020). Info can be found at https://virusncov.com/covid-statistics/italy....Current death rates & infected rates for all countries can be found athttps://virusncov.com/coronavirus-death-statistics/, and European countries dominate the death-rate statistics.

My opponent goes on to redundantly speak about racism, when this debate isn't really about racism. Yes, racism is a discriminatory crime, but Con is simply off topic at this point. Bringing racism into this discussion will only enhance my argument.

Con goes on to say "The European race has singlehandedly destroyed the earth and its people, which can’t be debunked because the information is documented.” I submit that if it is documented, Pro should reference at least one source, but, no source was offered."...My reply: Since my opponent is playing the "denial game," then I'll gladly ask a few questions to prove my point. I'll need a simple Yes or No to the questions.

1. Did whites kill the Native Americans after coming to the new land?
2. Did King Leopold, a white man, genocide over 10 million Congolese people in Africa?
3. Didn't Europeans nearly wipe out the Aborigines of Australia etc?
4. Didn't whites use medical experiments on Black Americans decades ago?
5. Didn't whites participate in forced sterilization of Puerto Rican women?
6. Do whites hunt for sport instead of survival?

I can literally go on and on. 

Con states that "while making mistakes, whites generally have things in good working order."...My reply: If things are in good working order then North Korea wouldn't be a threat. If things were in good working order then building a wall on the Southern border wouldn't b an issue. If things were in good working order then there wouldn't be any conflict with Iran. If things were in good working order then white cops wouldn't be shooting (unarmed black people) in the back. If things were in good order then the US government wouldn't be opening safe injection sites for drug addicts.

In Con's justification, he simply states "live streaming from the International Space Station[6] which shows no evidence of the destruction." 
My reply: Huhhh?

Con even brings Charles Darwin into the conversation, which is nothing more than Pseudo-Science, but this guy is the same person who supported the genocide of the Aborigines and was a well-known racist. More of Darwin's devaluation of humans can be found at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/five-reasons-reformation-anglicanism-relevant/.

As you can see, all of Con's arguments have been shutdown with facts and documented evidence, so he will need to bring more fire power in the next round.






 

Con


My opponent’s second round failed to capture the understanding of my 1stround argument of death rate by deaths per million residents of a particular country, not, as Pro alleged, hard death count by country. And those countries further sub-grouped by racial profile, i.e., Asians and Europeans, for example. As a result, China, and other Asian countries’ normalized death rate per million have not been surpassed by either America, specifically, or by other white European countries’ death rate per million. As I pointed out in my round 1, the death rate per million of Asians surpasses that of Europeans by more than double.
 
Since I must waste time and argument space to explain why rate per million is a more statistically sound argument than by hard numbers, so be it. The tactic normalizes the wide variation in population, country by country. There are, currently as of 3/30/2020, 142 countries affected by Covid-19 by at least one death per million.[1] The spread among the 142 countries was 1.39B [China] as the maximum population to 33,400 [San Marino], as the minimum population. A scope that large must be normalized, even with so many countries involved, and the pattern should be familiar to Americans, whose presidential election by constitutional law is based on this principal of statistical normalization to avoid high populated states from having more clout than least populated states. All states are equalized, or, as the science of statistics calls it, “normalized.” That normalization is described in full in the ASQ Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook, 3rdEdition.[2] I am a certified SSBB, and have professional expertise in statistical analysis. 
 
Those countries were further normalized by racial profile; i.e., Asian, European, African, Native American, etc. There are 43 Asian, and 56 European nations; the two largest of each racial type. The fact that European nations exceed Asian nations by 13 countries, and yet trail in death rate per million by less than half should be telling with regard to this debate, demonstrating that Pro’s suggestion that the plague of the Covid-19 virus is not God’s vengeance on white Europeans due to their alleged racist values. Nor do Isuggest that, instead, it is Asian nations who have deserved God’s wrath, because I reject that God is at the root of this pandemic, or any other. 
 
While many Christians are convinced that God manages every earthly detail of the condition of mankind, playing favorites with people against other people, and is the total, singular cause of everything that occurs on earth, I suggest otherwise in the extreme. I suggest that sources indicate that God is not the totalcause of anythingon earth; that there are other forces involved, as well.[3] Yes, God does have influence, but to expect that He intervenes to change natural outcomes would deny man of the free agency of his choices, which are promised as God’s third greatest gift to man, following life, itself, and the atonement of Jesus Christ.[4] “I do not believe that God has caused the misery, the famine, the pestilence, and the death that are now sweeping the war-torn countries of Europe [in 1917].I do not believe that the conditions of the world today are a direct result of disobedience to God’s laws.”[5]
 
My opponent claimed in his round 2 arguments that “My opponent goes on to redundantly speak about racism, when this debate isn't really about racism. Yes, racism is a discriminatory crime, but Con is simply off topic at this point. Bringing racism into this discussion will only enhance my argument.” 
 
I will remind readers of Pro’s commentary in the introducing Description:“Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial groupon earth…” It should appear obvious that, contrary to his claim above regarding my redundancy, it is Pro who wears that vest. If the vest fits…
 
Pro argues, “I'm speaking in general terms when saying the word ‘everyone.’ I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed.” We must stand by our statements without assuming the reader will interpret any statement as general reference, and, therefore, undeserving of citation. By such argument, why cite anything at all, and yet feel justified that one’s position has credence? Fine. Do we assume, then, that the debate title, “Is Covid-19 & Natural Disasters God’s Counter Punch For White People’s Evil Nature” is an example of “I never speak in an absolute manner?” If so, I submit that the entire debate from Pro’s perspective does not require citation and is not absolute by any premise proposed. Reader, beware, because Pro does cite when it suits the argument. “Never,” must not be an absolute. How, then, do readers trust anything Pro argues?
 
Pro asked questions. I’ll respond:
 
1.    Did whites kill Native Americans after coming to this land? Yes, and Native Americans killed Europeans, as well. But, let’s further investigate this term “Native American.” “American” is a European name, not an indigenous one. So, which culture is usurping which, now? The indigenes did not begin to use the term, “Native American” until the 1960s.[6] Up until then, “Indian” was a common term is use, and that is based on Columbus confusing the indigenes, thinking that he had reached the shores of his objective; the potential trading partner, India.[7] Why wouldn’t the indigenes continue to refer to themselves by their tribal ancestry? Many do.
2.    Did King Leopold, a white man, kill African Congolese? Yes. Leopold did. I didn’t, and the whole host of European descendants alive today did not.
3.    Didn’t Europeans nearly wipe out Australian Aborigines? Yes, but same answer as #2.
4.    Didn’t whites use medical experiments on Black Americans decades ago? Yes, emphasis on the history, and not current activity, as in #s 2, 3.
5.    Didn’t whites participate in forced sterilization of Puerto Rican women? Yes. Again, a past issue no longer in practice.
6.    Do whites hunt for sport instead of survival? Yes, but I don’t. And what has sport to do with the Covid-19 pandemic other than it has successfully curtailed its practice. And, there are hunters among all racial groups, so why does Pro single out whites? As Pro has redundantly done.
 
Pro argues that I claim we have things in “generally… good working order.” I do, but Pro ignores the preface, generally. From Pro’s own words: “I'm speaking in general terms…” I see; Pro can use a general sense, and we are compelled to understand that is the case, but I am forbidden, because the reader may yet be confused by my use of general terms. No, I reject the notion.
 
Pro closes by accusing Charles Darwin as a racist, but no citation. Well, Darwin was a European, after all. I reject all such broad accusations without evidence, such as the list of questions above. Apparently this debate is all about racism, contrary to Pro’s claim. It is an easy manoeuver to rabbit punch, but I don’t think God engages in such activity, unless we’re going to fashion a modern god as Br’er Rabbit. But, no, it’s Br’er Fox wearing the vest. If the vest fits…
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



[2]Kubiak, T.M, Benbow, Donald W., The CSSBB Handbook,3rdEdition

[3]Smith, Joseph, Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith,Deseret Book.

[5]McKay, David O., Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page 206. From an address given April, 1917 in “Conference Report.”

[7]ibid

Round 3
Pro
I'll start out by saying that my opponent has claimed that I'm confusing (his) death rate per millions argument vs (my) hard death rate argument, but I'm going to play devil's advocate just prove my point. Con stated that "China, and other Asian countries’ normalized death rate per million have not been surpassed by either America, specifically, or by other white European countries."...

If you clicked on the link, then you'll notice that Italy tops the list for death rates per million people per nation as of 3/30/2020. You'll also notice all of the European countries that are ranked after Italy and China doesn't even crack the top 10....My opponent just tripped over his own feet by his own admission.

As I stated earlier, (total death rates) will outweigh per million, per capita or per anything because it's an accumulation & not an average. Besides the fact that China has slowed the virus' growth dramatically, Italy & the US have become the epicenter of COVID-19 infections/deaths.

My opponent now goes into the God/religious route and states that "I do not believe that God has caused the misery, the famine, the pestilence, and the death that are now sweeping the war-torn countries of Europe."...but didn't God cause the misery, famine, pestilence and death in Egypt? Remember the Biblical Plagues? Didn't the Hebrews get punished by God after breaking God's commandments?...  As you can see, my opponent has shot himself in the foot with that comment.

Well, my opponent asked for sources, and I have definitely brought receipts.

My opponent, Con, stated that "the word Never, must not be an absolute."...My reply: Con is now playing word games, aka Semantics...I'll play devil's advocate yet again just to show him that the word 'Never" can be an absolute. For Example: I've (never) killed anyone, I've (never) won every debate that I've entered and Black people as an ethnic group has (never) visited & colonized a European country...In other words, the word Never can definitely be an absolute. 

I've stated in the description/argument that white people has singlehandedly destroyed the earth & its people. I went on to ask about six basic questions that fall under this topic, which pertains to white people and my opponent replied with Yes for all six questions...So, you basically just agreed on how white people have destroyed the earth and its people, so why would you go on to try & make excuses by justifying the actions of what whites have done??

It kind of defeats the purpose & your excuses have put you in a Catch 22 dilemma that you won't be able to get out of. 
My opponent continues to act as if the term, in-general, is confusing in which it is not...Example: Black people are (generally) good basketball players but every black person is not a good basketball player...White people are (generally) good baseball players but white person is not good at baseball.

Finally, Con states that Pro is lying when stating that Charles Darwin was a well-known racist despite the fact that Darwin supported the genocide of the Aborigines in Australia. Receipts: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/charles-darwin-spawns-much-pseudo-scientific-racism...also https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/.

All it takes is a little research from multiple sources if you're truly seeking the truth.
Con

Rebuttal of Pro round 3:
My opponent’s round 3 argument stated, “China doesn't even crack the top 10....My opponent just tripped over his own feet by his own admission,”thus demonstrating that Con does not yet understand the statistical concept of rate per million, and will not accept my professional credentials. Pro claimed, following the above quote, “…(total death rates) will outweigh per million, per capita or per anything because it's an accumulation & not an average.” None of his charges; not per million, not per 100,000 [he does not mention this, but I did], not per capita, nor any other per… are statistical averages [called “mean” in the biz].
 
I have already offered the reference to the premier American source[1] for understanding statistical calculation, and that it entails more factors than mean. It is available at a rate of $28 USD[2] for a used copy from one of many book websites. If one does not understand the language, best to abide by Mark Twain’s commentary on speaking as a certain segment of the population. The quote by Twain begins, “Better to…” That ought to be sufficient for reference. I’ve also offered, by reference, one of many sites to purchase the manual, or, on that site, are other suggested volumes for further education.
 
Pro then launches a salvo that I have “shot [myself] in the foot” because I entered a “God/religious route,”ignoring that “…Covid-19 & Natural Disasters [are] God’s Counter Punch For White People’s Evil Nature,” as is his claim as subject matter of the debate. Once again, Pro is willing allow his use of a topic, but ridicules my use of same. If I am not to argue the same points Con introduces, first, am I to default this debate by arguing against the relative success of mosquitoes to carry and transmit disease, and that they are agents of God’s vengeance, as Pro would [and has, by virtue of “natural disasters”] declare?
 
I stated, in round 2, “’Never,’ must not be an absolute,”according to Pro, when I, commenting on Pro’s own commentary, reminded him of his follow-on commentary that “…[he] never speak[s] in an absolute manner?”Is it not a game, then, to argue, first, that “I never speaks in absolutes,” such as “never,” and then claims an absolute, such as “never,” and then admits that “Never can be an absolute?”Let us never parse games.
 
Pro claims in round 3 argument, “I've stated in the description/argument that white people has [sic]singlehandedly destroyed the earth & its people.” Then he did ask six related questions, which I answered, noting that five of the six were questions dealing with non-current conditions, and the sixth singled out whites as if the only participants in the activity: hunting, which is engaged by all races, on all continents so it is not relevant question, and in which there are members who do not all engage hunting as either a sport or for survival, so it is not relevant in that case, either. What Pro did not do, and has not since making the claim in round 1, is cite his source for the claim. And, no , in this debate website, claiming generalities does not absolve a debate participant from failure to cite sources.
 
Finally, I challenge pro’s claim that I accused him of lying regarding Charles Darwin. I dislike having to take up words in my argument limits to explain my commentary because it is clear enough to dedicated readership. What I said was, as a close to my round 2 argument, “Pro closes by accusing Charles Darwin as a racist, but no citation.”Wherein is my accusation that Pro is lying? That he does not cite sources; yes, and that is demonstrated. Is that an accusation of lying by absence of a lie? By confronting Pro for lack of sourcing his commentary, he doubles-down on the claim, as if it is common knowledge, mind you just because Darwin was European, that he was a “well-known” racist. A dizzy logic, and I will not entertain it further.I will wager that of 16of people who are asked whether Darwin was racist, or not, a rate of 9x105per million would declare a common answer to polling questions: “I don’t know.”
 
A continued curious logic: Pro concludes by saying, “All it takes is a little research from multiple sources if you’re truly seeking the truth.” Curious, because, although not captured in quotation punctuation, those are not Pro’s words. In fact, I’ve demonstrated that Pro is demonstrably not that familiar with the practice. They happen to be my words, included in commentary in the Forum section; a private joke, I presume, that shot itself in the foot.
 
Argument, round 3:
 
God as the Reaper by Covid-19:
As a rebuttal to my round 2 argument that God is not the totalcause of anythingon earth, contrary to the belief that God is the total cause of everything on earth, Pro did not bother to rebut in his round 3 argument other than by oblique reference by quoting me, and then claiming, not by direct quote, but readers will understand by my oblique referral, that I am a worse shot then Dick Cheney. Since Pro introduced God as a player in this debate – specifically the antagonist by Pro’s perspective – let us proceed by arguing the point that God is not an antagonist.
 
Let’s reference Genesis: “And I, [God]behold, establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 
And with every creature that is with you; of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beasty of the earth.
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”[3]
 
A covenant, biblically speaking, is a solid contract between God and man that promises, not that there will be no innocent suffering and death among the inhabitants of the earth [creatures included; not just man], but that all will not die by His hand.
 
Whites have put animals on the endangered species list:
 Pro is adept at singling out whites, yet claims this debate is not about racism [round 2 claim]. Readers, take note. I reply that China, and Africa, as just two of 195 recognized U.N.-sanctioned countries, sharing all the races of earth, have endangered species on “the list.” China has 55 creatures listed;[4] Africa lists 10 animals.[5]  And the predominate race in both countries is…, well, it’s not White Europeans. I note as an aside that most websites listed by Google on its first 3 pages of hits for the query of the number of endangered animals listed in these specific countries are sponsored by agents of the travel industry. That’s ironic. As is my conclusion to this argument round. Happy April Fools Day.
 
 
 
 
 

Round 4
Pro
In conclusion,

My opponent is now trying do to damage control because I was able to debunk his argument with facts. He goes on to say that I didn't answer certain questions. If I wasn't able to answer every single questions, then it's because the questions were buried somewhere in a ton of filler content. Sir, the debate topic was pretty much simple in itself, and a full novel of material isn't necessary.

In other words, the "Filibuster" technique didn't work.

Now my opponent is giving the definition of "averages" and "rate per million" in which I've excepted it. Con stated that "China has more deaths than any other country because China was where the virus started"...My reply: That's a very weak argument, and I've given up-to-date sources, which specifically states that Italy and other European countries have a higher death rate than China...In addition to that, I've given multiple sources with (real-time information) of the death/infected rates. 

My opponent is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, which is nothing more than Filibuster...Every news syndicate whether it's CNN, FOX, ABC etc, are all saying that European countries have higher death rates than China. So...why are you trying to argue documented facts that are plastered all over the tv?? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/...puts the nail in my opponent's coffin. This is "real-time information, but notice all of the European countries that have higher death rates than China.

Yes, I personally said that "I never speak in absolutes" because I'm actually making a general argument. Did I not say that in the first or second round? I went on to show how the word (never) can be used  as an absolute. Did I not give an (example)?... Keyword:Example...I went on to ask six basic questions that relates to how white people have singlehandedly destroyed the earth/people and my opponent agreed on every single question......Basic questions put him in a Catch 22 situation that he couldn't get out of so he went on to make excuses...Once getting caught with his foot in his mouth, he goes on to say that "these are non-current conditions."

Sir, the past decisions/actions, which are non-current conditions, are the foundation for what society is today. Con says that "hunting is engaged by all races" and I agree, but whites engage in (sport hunting) more so than any other race...Did anyone notice how he purposely left out the word (sport). Hmmm...Besides the fact that whites come from a gun culture, which is why you lead the world in gun-related statistics. Your very own Roman scholars/historians have stated that "Europeans were naked savages who were war mad." Do I even need to cite sources for something that (everyone) is aware of???...Yes, I just used a generalization & not an absolute.

My opponent goes on to say that "pro doesn't site any sources for Charles Darwin's racism"....despite the fact that I've given documented sources of Charles Darwin's racism. If you don't believe me, then scroll up to the previous round....Just because certain endangered animals lived in a specific area doesn't mean that the indigenous people of the area killed them....If that's the case then why do white people rank #1 in African Safari Hunting?...I'll wait...……..

As you can see, my opponent's very own lips have testified against him, and that speaks volumes.


Con

Definitions:
I conclude with round 4 having to define, yet again, statistical norms wherein my opponent is confused, claiming, in his round 4 argument, “my opponent is giving the definition of ‘averages and ‘rate per million’ in which I've excepted it.”I defined “rate per million,” but I did not define “average,” or, as more correctly noted, “mean,” but I did not define that, either. What I said was, None of [Pro’s] charges; not per million, not per 100,000 [he does not mention this, but I did], not per capita, nor any other per… are statistical averages [called “mean” in the biz].”
 
My opponent further exposed his misunderstanding of “rate per million,” and normalization, an equalization of such diverse population differences as exist between nations of the earth. I admit my teaching failure. Some people just refuse to learn.
 
God as reaper:
Pro first breached the subject of the God/religion argument, by declaring it in the title of his debate. Let’s put an end to a linkage that Pro has never managed to prove by any citation, regardless of the citation in his round 4 argument, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ that there is a causal relationship between the Covid-19 pandemic and any action on God’s part.
 
Yes, the statistics clearly indicate that many European nations’ death rates exceed China’s, but, ignoring my argument of death rate per million, let’s really look at Pro’s original charge; that it is “God’s Counter Punch For White People’s Evil Nature.”
 
I can easily make the claim that planes crash because they hit the ground. But, is the ground the root cause of the crash, or is there another, prior cause, or causes, that only result in the plane hitting the ground? Root cause, and causal effect, is a consistent science that cannot be ignored by a cavalier attitude of, “I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed”[round 2]. In a relationship of two possible correlative variables, in this case, that Covid-19 is killing people, and that God is reaping vengeance specifically on white people [even though virtually all races are dying], there is either a positive causal relation [favoring Pro’s position], or a negative causal relation [favoring Con’s position].[1]
 
Pro has not offered any cited evidence that God is reaping souls by vengeance; there are just claims, because “[he] never speak[s] in an absolute manner, so no data is needed.” If that is acceptable to voters, I concede the debate.
 
However, I have cited evidence that God no longer reaps wholesale the souls of the wicked, as by His covenant with Noah,[2] as well as by demonstration that more than just white people are dying by direct cause of Covid-19. Indeed, it appears Pro does not acknowledge absolutes, except that ‘never’ can be an absolute, except he first argued that it was not. A dizzying logic.
 
Absolutes:
I further discuss his statement, “I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed”[round 2] when I asked why he did not cite sources for his claims. I will let the citing data side of that slide, as it speaks for itself relative to Pro’s attitude about scholarship. But the precedent phase is telling in view of Pro’s chosen title for the debate; if it is anything but absolute, even stated as an interrogative, sue me. I will add Pro’s rebuttal in round 4, “I went on to show how the word (never) can be used as an absolute.” Yes, he did, completely reversing his stand in round 2. Since the precedent, conditional phrase of round 2 was so confidently reverses by round 4, the condition, now failed, means the conclusion, “so no data is needed,”also fails. So much for the added confidence in round 3, “Well, my opponent asked for sources, and I have definitely brought receipts.I contend that Pro has painted himself into a corner, without a paintbrush.
 
Hunting:
Following, Pro confidently said, “Con says that"hunting is engaged by all racesand I agree, but whites engage in (sport hunting) more so than any other race...Did anyone notice how he purposely left out the word (sport). Hmmm...Besides the fact that whites come from a gun culture…” which prompts the question, who first created the gun culture, by invention of both black powder, and then firearms to use it?
 
Hmmm… it was… a white European? Ding, ding, ding… dunnnn. Nope. It was the revolutionary nation [empire, rather], China, in the 9thcentury C.E. A Chinese Buddhist alchemist wrote the earliest known account of the substance, saying, “Some have heated together the saltpeter, sulfur, and carbon of charcoal with honey; smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house burnt down.”[3] “Following the invention of black powder, the Chinese also developed the first firearms. Thanks in part to the Silk Road and adventurous traders like Marco Polo, by the 13th century ancestors of the modern firearm had spread from Asia to Europe, where they were further developed as weapons in the form of matchlock, wheel lock and flintlock firearms.”[4]
 
My opponent claimed that I “purposely left out the word (sport).”  I’ll repeat my round three commentary on the subject: “…there are members who do not all engage hunting as either a sport or for survival…” Perhaps a propensity for self-reversal begets the accusation toward others, as I really believe is the fallacy behind the entire proposed debate.
 
Society’s foundation: non-current conditions:
Pro argued that, “Sir, the past decisions/actions, which are non-current conditions, are the foundation for what society is today.” [round 4]
 
It is evident that, in some cases, indeed, past thoughts and actions are the source of current thoughts and actions. Witness the long enduring principles of European monarchies, which extend into the present day, as well as Chinese empiric dynasties which endured for a thousand years, and more, even if not into the present day. However, it is also true that the present-day American society split from the long enduring monarchy[s] of Europe to establish a new nation founded upon a constitutional principle of a three part, co-equal branched democratic republicThe fact that Pro did not bother to cite sources to support his claim, or any claim in this regard, such as “Do I even need to cite sources for something that (everyone) is aware of???”is just erroneous. “Everyone,” still another absolute in which Pro does not speak, “speaks volumes.”
 
Charles Darwin’s racism
Well, he was a European, as I earlier said. However, that the two conditions are linked is certainly Pro’s charge, but, let’s see if it holds up to scrutiny, an on this, I’ll close my rebuttal. Pro cited https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/charles-darwin-spawns-much-pseudo-scientific-racism
However, a complete read of this article fails to exhibit a single charge of racism on the part of Darwin other than by the article author’s claim. While other commentary is cited, such as by James Watson, who, along with Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin, discovered the structure of DNA [I attended, as a student at UCLA a lecture given by Watson in the late sixties, and had the privilege of meeting the man], there is no citation in the entire article of a Darwin contemporary who, referring to Darwin, called him a racist. I suggest the author’s lack of cited sourcing is no better than Pro’s. Thank you, Pro, for the debate, and, thank you, readers and voters for your attentive review. I rest my case.