Instigator / Con
3
1474
rating
325
debates
39.85%
won
Topic
#2206

Prove that "white supremacy" exists as such

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.
So this means each so called non-white person is a prisoner in a prison system, Called the system of "white supremacy".

You can't do anything, Go anywhere as a "non-white" person without the say so of a "white supremacist".

Being a "non-white" person, You don't own anything or control anything of constructive value ultimately. Basically the definition of "white supremacy" truly means what it is on every sense of the word. It means SUPREME, Total authority and an unjust system during it's dictation, Directly or indirectly.

Present evidence for this, What appears to be theory, Hypothesis of a world government system.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

-->
@Barney
@seldiora

thanks for voting!

-->
@Intelligence_06

thx 4 vote, intel!

-->
@oromagi

You're welcome

bump

-->
@Mall

"Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."

Uh no. I don't think that is what you are supposed to do.

"Overkill" is quite fitting for this debate. Mall doesn't even have much of a case. In my opinion, this is one of those troll debates. Enjoy the free win!

-->
@Mall

"Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."

I love your debating style, very dramatic.

I failed to attribute this sentence:

[Quotation marks] "placed on either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English

I apologize for the oversight.

-->
@oromagi

His working definition was discernable from the debate description. He seemed ignorant rather than deceptive because, well, look at how he rights. I wouldn't put it past him to make the mistake. That, and the term itself is susceptible to being misunderstood in the way that he misunderstood it. Don't worry about me though. I'm too lazy to vote.

-->
@skittlez09

oromagi is the Yoloxóchitl-Chalcotongo word for "overkill"

-->
@Death23

I started to compose a defense but I'm not sure any defense in comments would be fair to Mall. I think my reasoning as laid out in CON1R1 is quite explicit, rational, and justified. I'll be happy to revisit the question with you in PM or in comments after the debate.

-->
@skittlez09

No. His opponent isn't even trying.

-->
@oromagi

bruh overkill much? lol

I do not see a good reason to use Pro's definition rather than the one implicated by the debate description.

I failed to attribute this sentence:

A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

I apologize for the oversight.

I am not taking this debate. It is just not worth it. Proof that white supremacy exists, but again mall will probably either lawyer me or obscure his own definition to a point where no fun is produced whatsoever.

To those who get confused about definitions, I'm not giving THEEEEE definition of so called white supremacy or the so-called correct definition.

This is just a premise . Sometimes you have to just go with something being aware you can disprove something.

-->
@Mall

White supremacy is a belief, not a state of affairs. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/white_supremacy https://www.britannica.com/topic/white-supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/white-supremacy https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/white-supremacy

The description is clear, it's the terms, it's the criteria, basis and premise. Arguments must be made according to it or else it defeats its purpose .

When the description is not clear to anyone, ask as many questions as warranted for clarity. That's why I always extend that.

So that means you don't accept a challenge until something that is not clear is.

-->
@Barney

His descriptions are inconsistent at times. In the title it says just prove something and done, but the description sometimes say that you must prove a worldly basis heavily within said thing.

-->
@Barney

he 100% of the time does his Round 1 in debates as 'the description will serve as the first round'.

-->
@Mall

Is that description your first round again, or the terms of the debate?

If it's the terms of the debate, then this is a meaningless truism. If not, then I can easily prove that various racist ideologies exist and even dominate certain areas.