Instigator / Pro
4
1474
rating
325
debates
39.85%
won
Topic
#2506

There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated 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
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
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.

Saying, supporting and or acting in the name of "white power" has no wrongdoing there as demonstrated as such.

Same goes for "black power" or pretty much anything of the sort. I notice there are those that build up a stigmatizing case behind such saying. The correct approach is to allow whoever it is in support of such to build their own case behind whatever it is that means all the world to them.

It comes down to what a person means when they say anything. You ask what they mean specifically about anything and how it affects you.

Will it affect you in a constructive or destructive way?

Depending on what it is, it may be much needed to verify if there will be a non-constructive/stalemate result.

So it's not so much in the words that people use but more important in the meaning of those words.

For any questions, particularly regarding the title, send comments or messages in order to avoid confusion.

I agree with the voters. There is plenty wrong with the phrase "white power" upon demonstrating so . That's the whole point. The truth is what it is each and every time.

-->
@Barney
@Intelligence_06

Vote

-->
@Intelligence_06

welcome to my Ted talk

-->
@oromagi

***
Regarding #24 being reported...
No action beyond this reminder to whomever filed said report, to report CoC violations instead of posts from people you dislike.
From the CoC: "However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
There is further no rule that specifies everyone must be perfectly polite at all times.

Continued frivolous reports, will result in revoking of quick report privileges.
-Ragnar, DM
***

let's see if I can win this using only I can I BB style of arguments, since Mall's debating style is similar to that Chinese Entertainment show.

Where there's no controversy, there's no disagreement.

Well this topic I guess is incontrovertible but there's enough controversy in the comments, that's for sure.

"Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?"

I'm sorry I can't have a better response than what I gave.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?"

I'll answer in this way this time in that in general the topics I choose are based on common sense. Not much involves research for that you know.

"And just one for me:

Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?

I just do the best I can with the truth. I may not be understanding all that you're asking.

When you say semantics, does that mean paying attention to all words instead of just some not worrying about specificity?

I think based on recent accusations that you're a Nazi sympathiser as well as some devil's advocate positions you've taken in order to question people on their views, you should take this debate down and tone it down with the extreme positions you take just to question someone with a politically correct and (dare I say) sane outlook.

This is advice to you because I know that you're making these debates just to question people and make them think, as well as to better understand why the mainstream loathing of something like Nazism and white supremacy exist. You are using a debate website to make your opponents debate and that's fine but I highly recommend that you think a little bit about how far you're going with your devil's advocate positions and questioning and how this reflects on the views that you, the user, actually hold. At some point trolling isn't lighthearted fun anymore.

-->
@Mall

Being "open" to questions and such means literally nothing if you only answer things semantically and with very clear non-sequiturs, For example; Oromagi asked the following question;

"why do you never use sources?"

And you reply:

"I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on. So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable."

The first thing to point out is that given the context, Oromagi was most likely using the word "never" colloquially as a stand-in for general. Probably in order to get your attention and for you to provide a proper response.

Second of all, your answer is practically a nonanswer. "they'll get link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on." Except that presumes that every link on the google page would agree with your claim, and whenever a person makes a claim, the BoP lies on them to justify said claim. Therefore it would be your "burden" to provide the specific source that backs up or justifies your claim.

So because you didn't answer these questions for Oromagi:

Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?
Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?

And just one for me:

Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?

Are there any further questions?

Even though I'm trying to hide something by offering the opportunity for questions and answers.

Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.

Waaaahh! Don't try to interpret my meaning using English, all meaning that I am willing to acknowledge originates from me and is subject to reinterpretation at my whim. Waaaah! No opinion is based in fact. Mommy, ask me more questions! Because I says so, Mommy! Waaaah!

An outlook less useful to humanity's pursuit of knowledge will not be found.

-->
@Mall

Look man, I'm just trying to help you and I'm not accusing you of being deliberately dishonest. The people on here are getting a little miffed about this obscure method of having to pry the debate meaning from you when everyone else just puts It up available to anyone immediately. This is just a particularly provocative title, and there is just no way to interpret the resolve other than, "if (white) people are better than non-(white) people, then it's alright to act on that."

-->
@Mall

The point is that you could just put the descriptors in the description. But instead of just arguing the resolve and it's descriptive constituents, we have to go on an adventure to pry the hidden double meaning of your phrasing before the debate, otherwise we are going to attack the obvious interpretation of the resolve, and you'll be like, "but you're not reading into it enough." But really, you just weren't upfront about your side from the start.

I wouldn't be honest and open to questions right now if I was attempting to be disingenuous.

That's why we ask questions. It's to get clarity.
You folks act like I'm going to say one thing now and say another later.
I'll say this over and over again. You're asking questions to get clarity. You continue to ask until understanding is reached.

So the point about there being no transparency or no opportunity to obtain such of a topic is false.

If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.

Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.

There is*

-->
@Mall

literally every aspect of the title of the resolve can only be interpreted to mean that white people are better than non-white people and others nothing wrong with believing and acting on that

-->
@Mall

And the description doesn't help to clarify because the description always says ask questions before accepting. but why would you make it so that we have to relearn definitions of a ton of words we already know before we can have a debate with you about the resolve.

-->
@Mall

"What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean"

This is exactly the problem because you're vague language makes it impossible to argue with you because nobody knows what you're arguing about. all we have is the resolve and if the resolve doesn't mean what the resolve says then you're not being an intellectually honest debater

"why does your topic sentence lack a noun?"

I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.

"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"

I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.

"why do you never use sources?"

I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.

"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"

I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.

First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.

So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.

I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.

"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"

This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.

Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.

What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?

-->
@Mall

deliberate bunk

It is like you are allergic to nouns because nouns makes sentences you might have to justify.

So, you are saying we know that there was nothing wrong with 9/11 because we can only know the harms of 9/11 by means of whatever 9/11 is. Meaninglesss.

What is meant by "upon demonstrated as such"?

It's good that the words are being paid attention to.

When there is nothing wrong with a certain thing, we would only know when it can be shown that there is no harm by means of whatever that is.

-->
@oromagi

He thinks that because in one case racism is beneficial racism would be overall beneficial.

-->
@Mall

why does your topic sentence lack a noun?
why do you never use dictionary definitions?
why do you never use sources?
why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?

White power " is an expression primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints. It is also a slogan used by the prominent post-Ku Klux Klan group Stormfront and a term used to make racist/racialist viewpoints more palatable to the general public who may associate historical abuses with the terms white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist."

So the expression should always be interpreted as intentional racism.

Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?

-->
@Mall

What do you mean by "upon being demonstrated as such"

Does anyone have any questions?

Sure the title is correct...there is nothing wrong with being a tad bit obsessed with skin melanin section of the biology textbook. At least they are not focused on the reproductive section...

To Truth!
-logicae

The entire existence of this guy is a giant fallacy by ignorance.

Almost tempted to take the low hanging fruit. But this is just....woof.

-->
@Mall

I think we've established that you're perfectly capable of writing a sentence clearly. Therefore, all the broken clauses and unparseable salads of non-agreement that are the hallmark of your offerings are probably tactical.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the topic is, the only engagement we'll see here is about how your foggy writing doesn't mean what anybody but you might interpret it to mean and you'll only ever want to talk about why we don't endorse your sloppy thesis, right?

I'm not sure that I buy that you endorse White Power so much as enjoy the use of words of maximal offense like a shiv to discomfit your fellows online. Cheers for that.

-->
@Barney

to be fair, a debate in the spirit of death penalty, except saying "we should punish assault with assault" would be a viable debate topic not violating DART (because Death Penalty with firing execution can be argued to be violence, otherwise)

-->
@Mall

FYI, you are stepping close to a hard line:

"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
&
"Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban."

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#violence-and-criminal-behavior

-->
@MisterChris

to be fair, debaters on the level of Mikal could potentially win on pro's side

yikes