Instigator / Pro
3
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#2214

The Recent Protests/Riots Are Proof of White America's Racism & Hatred of Black People.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

vector
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
14
1502
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

The recent protests/riots came into fruition because of white America's true nature and feelings towards Black people. I've made similar debates that pertain to this topic, and no one has been able to prove me wrong. Whether it's taught or engrained, Whites are definitely the most racist group of people on the planet and history backs up all claims. I fully understand and agree that rioting is a necessary evil unto itself and I support it. Every racial group has rioted throughout the years in some form of fashion. People in today's society who denounce rioting are simply being hypercritical to the facts of life. The protests/riots have went global which further institutes and backs up my claim.

Case In Point: Statues of racist white people are being toppled in various countries. People all over the globe are calling out the Jewish community on their racism, lies & fallacy of being the real Jews. Bill Gates has been banned from entering certain countries because of his eugenics programs. White South Africans are complaining about keeping land that isn't theirs...As you can see, it's the same group of people who are causing all of the world's problems.

If you can prove that whites aren't the most racist group and are not the world's perpetrators then you're welcome to take this challenge.

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 had no arguments to show for in R1 (but he DID have a conduct violation. Calling CON racist indirectly). In R2, PRO attempts to make up ground by using mostly unevidenced assertions such as "you don't see black cops murdering unarmed whites every month" and things of the sort. PRO also did not explain how those assertions translated into the whole of the modern white race being racist against black people, except for a select few. As for the select few, many of his examples are dated, such as referencing King Leopold or the system of colonization in the 1800s. But PRO does make a valid argument in R2: In America, many whites do not support the tearing down of the "racist" statues, which reflects racism in American society as a whole.

On the other hand, CON's R1 & R2 ties everything very nicely to the resolution, proving that white America is not a racist society in the modern era. CON argues that PRO's main point is moot because the ties to the statues are cultural and not based on belief systems. CON also had an effective offensive point: in the modern era, the Chinese are the most racist ethnic group. So in comparison, the US is doing pretty good. As a voter, CON does a very good job convincing me that modern era whites are at least mild in comparison. However, CON may want to show that the actions of the Chinese government are actively supported by the Chinese people. If they are not, that could potentially blow a hole in CON's argument.

PRO changes up his strategy and throws the resolution out of the window from R3 onwards. PRO argues that the debate is actually about the global racism of whites instead of white America, despite the resolution being explicitly about white America only. Not only this, but PRO changes his tune and argues that the resolution was never about modern America, despite using present tense and arguing based on a current event. I'm labeling this as a conduct violation. PRO's arguments in these rounds consist of listing a bunch of individual events and stats about the general conditions of black people to prove that white society is racist.

From R3 onward, CON replies pointing out that PRO is disregarding the resolution. Then CON expertly dismantles the list of events and stats PRO threw at us.

Arguments and conduct go 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:

It seems that before accepting the challenge, con stated what they believe the resolution meant in the comment section:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2214/comment_links/28723

Which is basically a Rules Kritik:
https://tiny.cc/Kritik

Con's interpretation is: "the debate is on how white people are the most racist group of people"
With pro's constant complaints about how this debate isn't about white Americans, or recent things, or much of anything else from the resolution... Yeah, there's some actual benefit of insight to be gained by looking at the debate through con's proposed lense.

With all that in mind, it does not dismiss the original resolution, So I'm going to weight this debate with duel BoP: Pro has to prove the resolution as written, con has to prove the alternative. The primary is still the original. Mainly, I'm not dismissing con's case as a mere whataboutism. Embarrassingly, pro lends the greatest support for this by insisting they meant for the debate to be about: "Whites are definitely the most racist group of people on the planet and history backs up all claims"

Conduct:
R1, before con could post anything, pro rants and raves about con not answering imaginary questions. This sets the tone from them going forward, with accusations of lying and such.

S&G:
Pro chose to harm legibility by writing the majority of their replies in all bold. Pro on the other hand was organized and did not intentionally make their case unreadable.

Sources:
After some misfiring of posting stuff in the comments, con excelled at this. Using the FBI data to undermine the gist of pro's claims was a good highlight, which pro decided to drop. Pro of course has a greater number of sources, but immediately harmed credibility by insisting that the average white American today is a hundreds of year old immortal man who likely never stepped foot in the Americas (King Leopold II).
Under the second resolution, con's sources prove the crimes against humanity. Pro tries to dismiss them insisting that China being more racist would not make them more racist (weird...).

Arguments:
Pro gets side tracked never trying to uphold the resolution, and even repeatedly insisting the debate is not about the resolution he wrote. Apparently "the modern age" has absolutely nothing to do with "recent" times which this debate necessitates. Frequently going over a hundred years ago, and not even within the Americas, this causes a massive BoP failure.
Con on the other hand first highlighted the problem, then moved on to their own case to show concentration camps for non-criminals on the basis of race. On the primary resolution they showed twice as many whites killed by police than blacks (which I know statistics well enough to understand why it's still a troubling figure, but it was pro's job to challenge than rather than just drop the point).