Instigator / Con
3
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
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.

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:

pro was the only one who used sources, didn't act angry, and reasoned out with multiple ideas supporting his idea

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:

The instigator tried to write a truism, as I warned in the comments, these are meaningless.

The contender ran a multi-point Kritik, first that rules may be overridden to maintain the spirit of debate, then an inverse semantic...
https://tiny.cc/Kritik

Then of course, cited evidence of white supremacy existing. For which Department of Homeland Security source was particularly effective, and nothing about the point was challenged.

Con's case on the other hand was that pro conceded by bringing the debate out of the mindless truism area. I do however give con credit for catching that the goalposts had indeed been moved (getting more advanced on fallacies, that something is the form of the fallacy does not mean it is assured to be fallacious: e.g., Trump is the president, so while quoting him is an appeal to authority, he may be a valid authority on the topic). Sticking with what's been proven meaningless, is non-ideal; in such cases, a reason why that would be a debatable topic under those limits needs to be shown (that it's debatable, does not mean it needs to be fair, just debatable).

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:

Sources: Pro. Pro is the only one who used sufficient sources. Con used none for anything.

Args: Pro. Con dropped most of Pro's points and at the later two rounds he just gave up proving that White supremacy does not exist. Con, meanwhile used various approaches for the topic, such as governmental reports, News, etc. Con moved the goalpost from just saying white supremacy exists to all Whites are privileged, which is not what the topic means at the start.

S&G: Pro. CAPITALIZING PARAGRAPHS FOR NO REASON IS NOT FUNNY. Format is very disorganized compared to Pro.

Conduct: Pro. Con is not constructive in any way in the later two rounds. His attitude of being angry of the opponent using a reason within his invisible barriers is not that of a civil debate.