Instigator / Pro
16
1314
rating
50
debates
13.0%
won
Topic

There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
8
8
Spelling and grammar points
4
4
Conduct points
4
4

With 4 votes and 12 points ahead, the winner is ...

oromagi
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
28
1924
rating
97
debates
98.97%
won
Description
~ 1,396 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Pro
Someone in the comments mentioned white ideology and being good for kids.

I'm going to complete that circle and it'll be 100 percent agreeable.

My "white ideology" or idea concerning my white family is that strong valid principles are held to enable all of us to live in virtue. My "White" children will be cultivated with decency, respect, inner worth, strong sense of self value, pride, honoring their "white" history , their ancestry, heritage etc.

Making sure in our family, we have a love for our selves and for those that came before us. Teach them to love what's right. Make them to be an outstanding citizen.

This is what makes us a strong family or people or very powerful family or powerful people. Now that's pretty ideal.



Con
THBT: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG to BELIEVING/ACTING in the NAME of "WHITE POWER" UPON BEING DEMONSTRATED as SUCH

OBJECTION: unparseable

  • The preposition "to" doesn't agree with the adjective wrong.  Common usage suggests "with" in the sense of "regarding."
  • "upon being demonstrated" is a confusing and extraneous prepositional phrase in this context.
  • "as such" is another extraneous prepositional phrase in this context.  
    • Any debate topic will necessarily be interpreted literally.  
  • CON suggests a more direct rewrite of thesis for the sake of clarity while trying to preserve PRO's construct:
    • THBT:  THERE'S NOTHING WRONG with WHITE POWER
DEFINITIONS:

  • NOTHING [pronoun] is "an absence of anything"
  • WRONG [adjective] is "incorrect" or "immoral"
  • WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
    • WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
BURDEN of PROOF:

Wikipedia advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."

As the instigator of this debate and the maker of extraordinary claims (that white power is harmless), PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate.

CON interprets PRO's thesis to mean that PRO intends to prove that  the ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect.  If CON can show at least some degree of fault, PRO's thesis must fail.

DESCRIPTION:

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.
  • CON interprets this claim to mean: White supremacists are incorrectly stigmatized.  White supremacists should be allowed to make their case."
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.
  • These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted. 
  • CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences.
So it's not so much in the words that people use but more important in the meaning of those words.
  • CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument. 
  • Writing is how we express our thoughts. 
    • If PRO's words fail to match PRO's meaning then the onus of clarification rests on PRO.
PRO1.1:

My "white ideology" or idea concerning my white family is that strong valid principles are held to enable all of us to live in virtue.  My "White" children will be cultivated with decency, respect, inner worth, strong sense of self value, pride, honoring their "white" history , their ancestry, heritage etc.  Making sure in our family, we have a love for our selves and for those that came before us. Teach them to love what's right. Make them to be an outstanding citizen.
  • PRO should state the "strong valid" principles that uphold white virtue exclusively.
  • Decency is not an exclusively white virtue.
  • Self-respect is not an exclusively white virtue.
    • inner worth,
    • strong sense of self value and 
    • pride
    • love for ourselves
      • all mean the same thing as self-respect
  • Honoring one's  heritage is not an exclusively white virtue.
    • heritage,
    • history,
    • ancestry, 
    • love for those that came before us
      • all mean the same thing as honoring one's heritage.
  • Self-respect and honoring one's ancestry are relatively easy virtues compared to most, insofar as both traits redound to one's personal advantage and the higher virtues are generally more selfless.
    • Kim Jong-un is chock full of self-respect and family honor, for example, but few would call the North Korean dictator virtuous.
  • What is "white" history? 
    • How does white history differ from non-white history?
  • Citizenship is legal membership in a state.  
    • No national citizenship is contingent on race
    • The notion of white supremacy contradicts the equal status of non-white citizens
    • The principle of egalitarianism contradicts the notion of white supremacy.
      • Therefore, white supremacy never improves citizenship and very likely conflicts with core national principles such as egalitarianism and fraternity.
This is what makes us a strong family or people or very powerful family or powerful people. Now that's pretty ideal.
  • POWER is the "ability to coerce, influence, or control"
    • Where is the virtue in on family controlling another?
    • Likewise, where is the virtue in some people exerting control over other people?
FAULT1.1:  FUZZY CONCEPT

  • The idea of a white race is a relatively recent invention brought about by colonialization as part of the classification of and justification for the slavery and genocide that made colonies profitable enterprises.
    • There are no distinct geographical or biological traits that distinguish white people from non-white people.  Even white skin is a highly relative and debatable notion.  
      • What one group of white people calls white varies considerably from what other people call white and mostly just reflects personal preference.
FAULT2.1:  DISRESPECTS ANCESTRY

  • PRO argues that honoring one's ancestry is a virtue but only honoring white ancestors excludes the majority all white people's non-white ancestors.
    • The two genes most commonly associated with lighter skin color originated in the Middle East 22-26,000 years ago
    • But human ancestry stretches back much farther than that.  In fact, the most recent woman from whom all modern humans descend is estimated to have lived about 150,000 years ago. 
      • PRO only honors the most recent thousand whiteish generations and excludes the non-white 5 or 6 thousand generations of ancestors before those.
FAULT3.1: JUSTIFICATION for VIOLENCE

  • As PRO notes, the ultimate justification for white power is power itself.  The drive to control other groups of people to the advantage of your group of people is older than humanity.  The massive labor demands of colonization required massive violence to force large populations to work themselves to death without compensation.   The idea of a racial hierarchy was innovated to justify that massive violence.  Although the demand for modern labor is rapidly shrinking, the employment of that old justification lives on as an excuse for attacking strangers.
    • The FBI reports that white supremacists represent the majority of domestic terrorism arrests:
      • "On July 23, 2019, Christopher A. Wray, the head of the FBI, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the agency had made around 100 domestic terrorism arrests since October 1, 2018, and that the majority of them were connected in some way with white supremacy. . In the past, Wray has said that white supremacy was a significant and "pervasive" threat to the U.S."
      • In our modern age,” he said, “the continued menace of racially based violent extremism, particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation, the struggle and unity of its diverse population, and the core values of both our society and our department. It has no place in the United States of America, and we will work to defeat it.
    • "An analysis by The New York Times of recent terrorism attacks found that at least a third of white extremist killers since 2011 were inspired by others who perpetrated similar attacks, professed a reverence for them or showed an interest in their tactics.  The connections between the killers span continents and highlight how the internet and social media have facilitated the spread of white extremist ideology and violence."
      • "In a manifesto posted online before his attack, the gunman who killed 50 last month in a rampage at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, said he drew inspiration from white extremist terrorism attacks in Norway, the United States, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom."
SUMR1:

  • In R1, PRO failed to prove that  the ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect. 
    • The virtues PRO cited were not particularly white nor particularly virtuous.
    • In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age.
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R2.
SOURCES


Round 2
Pro
Well to try to keep the epicenter of this, we'll deal with what I said last round because everything else you mentioned was either a misunderstanding or nothing I mentioned.

I never said "white power" means "white supremacy". I never gave the meaning of power but in a context with the power of family.

You should be asking what I mean by " powerful family/people".

Through my definition of "White ideology", ***mine****, I described what makes my "white family " strong. The ideology or ideal condition concerning "white " folks is what makes them powerful.
In what way?

I'm glad I asked for you. You should question more to get to truth. But to avoid refutation, you welcome the STRAWMAN.

My people or my family are made powerful being upstanding, moral, just, decent , outstanding citizens. They follow a code of conduct and principle that enables for them to do right by themselves so that they can do right by others.

They would be powerless in a society that fights or enforces non-law abiding people's freedoms to be removed. You can be much more powerful being a non-criminal, going into society, contributing to society, taking office, perhaps a very important office to help maintain civility throughout society.
It all comes with being an outstanding citizen.

So that is ideal for my "white" family. I don't believe I ever mentioned the word "exclusive". You'll have to show me where I used that word.

I was not speaking exclusively but specifically, specifically about a particular group.

I implore you to verify what I mean when I say anything. Actually communicate with me, in plain language, drop the technical lingo, have a heart to heart exchange.

What does "white " history mean?

That's history concerning "white " folks.

Speaking of the ideal and virtue of my family doesn't insult others. Speaking good about anybody doesn't insult those other than whom I've said. Remember the difference between specific and exclusive.

So based on what I mean when using these terms, I've demonstrated nothing wrong, no harm.

I'd hope you agree there's nothing wrong with being a law abiding citizen .

Con
thanks, Mall

THBT:  THERE'S NOTHING WRONG with WHITE POWER

  • In the absence of any contradiction from PRO,  CON will continue argument with the clarified argument suggested by CON
DEFINITIONS2:

  • PRO objected to CON's definition of white power which came in two parts:
    • WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
      • WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
I never said "white power" means "white supremacy".
  • No, the dictionary provided that definition as cited
I never gave the meaning of power but in a context with the power of family. 
  • PRO never game a meaning full stop. 
  • As any good manual on debating will advise, if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage.
    • "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
  • By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description and again in R1, and
      • By asserting some personalized, non-dictionary definition,
        • PRO has relinquished any authority in defining the term WHITE POWER
You should be asking what I mean by " powerful family/people"
  • PRO should be explaining what he means to VOTERS without waiting for prompts from CON
Through my definition of "White ideology", ***mine****, I described what makes my "white family " strong. The ideology or ideal condition concerning "white " folks is what makes them powerful
  • Circular doublespeak-
    • white power is what makes your white family strong
    • white family is what makes your white power strong
  • VOTERS should recall that CON advised PRO in R1:
    • "CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument."
  • CON asks VOTERS to prefer CON's dictionary definition over PRO's late-breaking nonsense definition.
    • CON's definition stands
BURDEN of PROOF2:

  • In the absence of any objection, PRO accepts the entire burden of proof for this debate.
CON interprets PRO's thesis to mean that PRO intends to prove that  the ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect.  If CON can show at least some degree of fault, PRO's thesis must fail.

DESCRIPTION2:

  • R1: "These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted.   CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences."
    • PRO offered no clarification
PRO1.2

  • R1: PRO should state the "strong valid" principles that uphold white virtue exclusively.
 I don't believe I ever mentioned the word "exclusive". You'll have to show me where I used that word.
  • In R1, PRO identified decency, self-respect, and ancestor respect as virtues specific to white power
    • If PRO is not able to defend those virtues as exclusively white, then why make the white distinction?
    • That is, if decency and self-respect are virtues specifically found in nonwhites as well, then PRO is offering the adjective white as a distinction without any difference when modifying the noun power.
      • PRO needs to either withdraw the adjective "white" as irrelevant
      • or else explain why these qualities make the power that PRO is discussing "white"
"[white] people or my family are made powerful being upstanding, moral, just, decent , outstanding citizens."
  • Same as above,
    • either PRO means that these are qualities special to members of the  white race or else PRO is just talking about people and families generally and unnecessarily adding the provocative racial modifier "white" purposelessly.
[white people] follow a code of conduct and principle that enables for them to do right by themselves so that they can do right by others
  • Same as above,
    • Don't nonwhite people do right too?
[white people]  would be powerless in a society that fights or enforces non-law abiding people's freedoms to be removed.
  • If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
    • Why?
    • This argument contradicts all of PRO's prior assertions.
You can be much more powerful being a non-criminal, going into society, contributing to society, taking office, perhaps a very important office to help maintain civility throughout society.
  • So why reserve enfranchisement for whites exclusively?
***
  • R1: Self-respect and honoring one's ancestry are relatively easy virtues compared to most, insofar as both traits redound to one's personal advantage and the higher virtues are generally more selfless.
    • Kim Jong-un is chock full of self-respect and family honor, for example, but few would call the North Korean dictator virtuous.
      • PRO drops this argument
***
  • R1: What is "white" history? 
    • How does white history differ from non-white history?
That's history concerning "white " folks.
  • But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?
    • If one calls the American Revolution "white history" then one defames the sacrifices and struggles of the black one-fifth of Americans who fought for freedom.
    • If one calls the bombing of Hiroshima "white history" then one ignores the suffering and loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
      • Why exclude nonwhite contributions from history
I was not speaking exclusively but specifically, specifically about a particular group.
  • Another distinction without much difference.
    • SPECIFIC is "intended for, or applying to, a particular thing"
      • So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect,  and history as applying to white people particularly
    • EXCLUSIVE is "excluding items or members that do not meet certain conditions"
      • So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect, and history as not apply to nonwhite people particularly
  • Two sides of the same coin.  If PRO and CON agree that none of these qualities, histories etc are whites only qualities or histories than PRO's thesis is reduced to "there's nothing wrong with power" which is easily proved false.
***
  • R1: Citizenship is legal membership in a state.  
    • No national citizenship is contingent on race
    • The notion of white supremacy contradicts the equal status of non-white citizens
    • The principle of egalitarianism contradicts the notion of white supremacy.
      • Therefore, white supremacy never improves citizenship and very likely conflicts with core national principles such as egalitarianism and fraternity.
      • PRO generally drops this argument except to say:
I'd hope you agree there's nothing wrong with being a law abiding citizen 
  • Depends on the law.  HD Thoureau famously reminds us:
    • "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,  the true place for a just man is also a prison"
  • If the law applies specifically for whites (or exclusively of nonwhites) then the law does grievous harm against the disenfranchised.

***
  • R1: POWER is the "ability to coerce, influence, or control"
    • Where is the virtue in on family controlling another?
    • Likewise, where is the virtue in some people exerting control over other people?
      • PRO drops this argument
FAULT1.2:  FUZZY CONCEPT

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT2.2:  DISRESPECTS ANCESTRY

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT3.2: JUSTIFICATION for VIOLENCE

  • PRO drops this argument
SUMR2:

  • In R2, PRO failed to prove that the ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect. 
    • PRO wants the shock of advocating white power without the burden of defending the intellectually indefensible
      • PRO thinks that reserving credit for some virtues as specific to white people is somehow more defensible than excluding the same virtuous credit from nonwhites
      • CON has failed to show how his notion of WHITE POWER is less harmful than  traditional racism
    • In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age. 
      • Arguments that made PRO simply ran away from
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R3.
SOURCES

Round 3
Pro
Do you agree that there's nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen?

Would it matter if that citizen is "white"?

If they're "white" , there's still is nothing wrong with it.

I call that a "white "person of power. Why? The person is more powerful than a person incarcerated. Presumably non-law abiding or convicted as so.

Nothing wrong there in that expression. The more complicated you make it, more simpler I'll make it.

I demonstrated nothing wrong in what's called "white power" or "white" person power there.









Con
thanks, Mall

THBT:  THERE'S NOTHING WRONG with WHITE POWER

DEFINITIONS3:

  • Essentially, the entirety of PRO's unimpressive argument is WHITE POWER is pure so long as we use PRO's definition of WHITE POWER which is uniquely PRO's invention, bears no resemblance to any scholarly source on the subject of WHITE POWER, and contradicts CON's definition which CON proffered first, that being :
    • WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
      • WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
R2: As any good manual on debating will advise, if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage
    • "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
  • By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description and again in R1, and
      • By asserting some personalized, non-dictionary definition,
        • PRO has relinquished any authority in defining the term WHITE POWER
  • PRO dropped this argument
R2: Through my definition of "White ideology", ***mine****, I described what makes my "white family " strong. The ideology or ideal condition concerning "white " folks is what makes them powerful
  • Circular doublespeak-
    • white power is what makes your white family strong
    • white family is what makes your white power strong
  • PRO dropped this argument
  • R2: VOTERS should recall that CON advised PRO in R1:
    • "CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument."
  • CON asks VOTERS to prefer CON's dictionary definition over PRO's late-breaking nonsense definition.
    • CON's definition stands
BURDEN of PROOF

  • In the absence of any objection, PRO accepts the entire burden of proof for this debate.
DESCRIPTION3:

  • R1: "These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted.   CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences."
    • PRO offered no clarification
PRO1.3

  • R1: PRO should state the "strong valid" principles that uphold white virtue exclusively.
 I don't believe I ever mentioned the word "exclusive". You'll have to show me where I used that word
  • R2: In R1, PRO identified decency, self-respect, and ancestor respect as virtues specific to white power
  • R3: In R3, PRO added law-abiding as a virtue specific to white power
    • If PRO is not able to defend those virtues as exclusively white, then why make the white distinction?
    • That is, if decency and law abiding  are virtues specifically found in nonwhites as well, then PRO is offering the adjective white as a distinction without any difference when modifying the noun power.
      • PRO needs to either withdraw the adjective "white" as irrelevant
      • or else explain why these qualities make the power that PRO is discussing "white"
  • PRO dropped this argument
"[white] people or my family are made powerful being upstanding, moral, just, decent , outstanding citizens.
  • R2: Same as above,
    • either PRO means that these are qualities special to members of the  white race or else PRO is just talking about people and families generally and unnecessarily adding the provocative racial modifier "white" purposelessly.
  • PRO dropped this argument
[white people] follow a code of conduct and principle that enables for them to do right by themselves so that they can do right by others
  • R2: Same as above,
    • Don't nonwhite people do right too?
  • PRO dropped this argument
[white people]  would be powerless in a society that fights or enforces non-law abiding people's freedoms to be removed
  • R2: If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
    • Why?
    • This argument contradicts all of PRO's prior assertions.
  • PRO dropped this argument
You can be much more powerful being a non-criminal, going into society, contributing to society, taking office, perhaps a very important office to help maintain civility throughout society
  • R2: So why reserve enfranchisement for whites exclusively?
  • PRO dropped this argument
***
  • R1: Self-respect and honoring one's ancestry are relatively easy virtues compared to most, insofar as both traits redound to one's personal advantage and the higher virtues are generally more selfless.
    • Kim Jong-un is chock full of self-respect and family honor, for example, but few would call the North Korean dictator virtuous.
      • PRO drops this argument
***
  • R1: What is "white" history? 
    • How does white history differ from non-white history?
That's history concerning "white " folks
  • R2: But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?
    • If one calls the American Revolution "white history" then one defames the sacrifices and struggles of the black one-fifth of Americans who fought for freedom.
    • If one calls the bombing of Hiroshima "white history" then one ignores the suffering and loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
      • Why exclude nonwhite contributions from history
    • PRO drops this argument
I was not speaking exclusively but specifically, specifically about a particular group
  • R2: Another distinction without much difference.
    • SPECIFIC is "intended for, or applying to, a particular thing"
      • So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect,  and history as applying to white people particularly
    • EXCLUSIVE is "excluding items or members that do not meet certain conditions"
      • So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect, and history as not apply to nonwhite people particularly
  • Two sides of the same coin.  If PRO and CON agree that none of these qualities, histories etc are whites only qualities or histories than PRO's thesis is reduced to "there's nothing wrong with power" which is easily proved false.
  • PRO drops this argument
***
  • R1: Citizenship is legal membership in a state.  
    • No national citizenship is contingent on race
    • The notion of white supremacy contradicts the equal status of non-white citizens
    • The principle of egalitarianism contradicts the notion of white supremacy.
      • Therefore, white supremacy never improves citizenship and very likely conflicts with core national principles such as egalitarianism and fraternity.
      • PRO generally drops this argument except to say:
I'd hope you agree there's nothing wrong with being a law abiding citizen 
  • Depends on the law.  HD Thoureau famously reminds us:
    • "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,  the true place for a just man is also a prison"
  • If the law applies specifically for whites (or exclusively of nonwhites) then the law does grievous harm against the disenfranchised.
R3: Do you agree that there's nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen?
  • No.  CON is not aware of any body of law that does not uphold a fair degree of injustice.
    • For example,  present US immigration law allows the government to separate breast-feeding infants from their mother without any kind of hearing or judicial process, and deport the mother to a foreign country without any kind of plan or identification or receipt that might allow that mother to ever reunite with her child.
      •  Although all the American lawyers, doctors, immigration officers, social workers, and elected officials who make this human rights atrocity possible are abiding by US law, the wrong those participants do is undeniable.
    • Citizenship in any state means sharing in the responsibility for that state's harms and since  states maintain their authority by violence, there is no citizen anywhere that does not share in some wrongs perpetrated by abiding by the law.
Would it matter if that citizen is "white"?
  • CON argues that an egalitarian society should minimize the customization of law and privilege by phenotype.
    • That is, in a egalitarian society, power is held by the people for the people.
      • Any power unique to white power is unjust
      • If no power is unique to white people, then the WHITE POWER distinction is absent and irrelevant.
I call that a "white "person of power. Why? The person is more powerful than a person incarcerated. Presumably non-law abiding or convicted as so
  • So now PRO wants to change the definition of  WHITE to mean "law-abiding" making all non-WHITE people criminals by definition.
    • CON calls that unwarranted by any reasoned argument and quite racist besides.
    • VOTERS will have to decide whether PRO's non-dictionary, semantically plastic, ahistoric, nonsensical, racist definition of WHITE POWER is preferable to the Wiktionary's authoritative definition which is simply "white supremacy"
***
  • R1: POWER is the "ability to coerce, influence, or control"
    • Where is the virtue in on family controlling another?
    • Likewise, where is the virtue in some people exerting control over other people?
      • PRO drops this argument
FAULT1.3:  FUZZY CONCEPT

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT2.3:  DISRESPECTS ANCESTRY

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT3.3: JUSTIFICATION for VIOLENCE

  • PRO drops this argument
SUMR2:

  • In R2, PRO failed to prove that his ever-shifting ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect
    • In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age
      • Arguments that made PRO simply ran away from
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R4
SOURCES



Round 4
Pro
"By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description"

The definition is what you make it. If you're still not understanding the point of this topic, the topic statement should of been questioned.

If you understand the topic statement , you'll find it's about nothing being wrong as being demonstrated that there isn't.

Then your next question, "Well how or what would demonstrate that?"

You have to ask theses things in your mind at least and think first. How can you demonstrate "white power" to be nothing bad?

What you really have to do is go into the question mode to get a handle on the person's position.

You have to argue based on what I'm saying , not what you already know or accept as true for yourself. You have to see whether what I say is consistent with the way I'm using terms.

So to build on a comment made, I used what's called "white ideology" as an example. Based on what it means to me, it's no different as you can see, for a meaning that can incorporate anybody being an ideal person or citizen. I just went specific with one term and that was a "racial" trait. 

If you want to say the "tall ideology", "american ideology", "female ideology", "sheep ideology", whatever we're talking about, the next step is an explanation. It's not about what you think these things already mean and therefore true because you can be greatly mistaken.

So I went and explained what "white ideology" is when talking to me. As we can see , I just laid out universal qualities but in context of a specific bunch.

It's just like when someone says "blacks" are incarcerated. Someone else will jump up and say "Not just blacks though." Ok, we're aware of that.



"Don't nonwhite people do right too?"

Thank you for your questions finally.

Now I'm not dropping this answer. 

Sure "non-white" do right. I'm just talking about my "white" family right now.

That's why I said I'm not speaking exclusively but specifically. I'm talking about a specific sort.

I hope you can distinguish between the two.


"If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
Why?"

The "whites" that are locked up would be powerless because that's the whole point. The freedom would be cut off , taken away.

Not all "whites" are in jail because my "white family" is out here obeying the law. Maybe you would feel more comfortable if I didn't say my "white family". Maybe I'll just say my family even though you know they're "white" because I've said it over and over. I may not say the word but you'll be thinking it. What if I say the " Mall" family? Mall is the last name. Would this make a difference?

All it is, is just description. It doesn't have to be more than that. But I think you're reading this with negative digestion or connotation.

"So why reserve enfranchisement for whites exclusively?
PRO dropped this argument"

I'm not being exclusive . I think you don't have an argument so you continue to press this falsehood.

I never used the word "only" anywhere in this exchange. You reading it into what I've said because I think by default, you're taking a negative read off the language. 

If I say "white pride" , "white heritage" or "black pride", "black heritage", non-inclusiveness is felt and perhaps a build up to animosity.

But for instance, "black power" or " black unity" doesn't necessarily mean outright a hatred outside the unity but a love for the unity, a love within.

" But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?"

The history of the 20th century presidency. Which president of the united states wasn't "white "?

"If one calls the American Revolution "white history" then one defames the sacrifices and struggles of the black one-fifth of Americans who fought for freedom.
If one calls the bombing of Hiroshima "white history" then one ignores the suffering and loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
Why exclude nonwhite contributions from history"

Don't ask me , I'm not excluding. You and I can discuss SPECIFIC things in history such as the history of the white house I mentioned concerning its presidency at a SPECIFIC time in history, yes sir. 

"So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect, and history as applying to white people particularly"

There are decent people in the world that are good law abiding citizens/non-convicted criminals that are "white".

Is this true or false?

"So PRO speaks of white decency, self-respect, and history as not apply to nonwhite people particularly"

Your error that you continue to make in your interpretation is that to you, describing a people means outright that whatever it is I'm discussing applies to them only.

I never said these things are only applicable to this certain group but you're reading more than what I said.

It appears you have a problem with specificity.

"Two sides of the same coin. If PRO and CON agree that none of these qualities, histories etc are whites only qualities or histories than PRO's thesis is reduced to "there's nothing wrong with power" which is easily proved false."

Neither of the interchangeable statements conflict. When it can be demonstrated as it has been here, it does not.

There's nothing wrong with the power of a person that is "white". Now I can leave off the last part and then you can ask me for whatever reason there is, it's your choice to ask what the "racial" classification is or skin tone is.

For whatever reason you may want to know whether it's pertinent to a discussion or it's your curiosity, none of this is false.

Number 1, if it's true that the person has power, it's true.

Number 2 , if it's true that the person is classified as "white", it's true.

Number 3, All of these things are true, nothing is wrong including nothing found to be wrong with what "white power" means in this case.

I say in my ideology that I love "white " people. Does it mean I hate everyone else other than?

"The notion of white supremacy contradicts the equal status of non-white citizens
The principle of egalitarianism contradicts the notion of white supremacy.
Therefore, white supremacy never improves citizenship and very likely conflicts with core national principles such as egalitarianism and fraternity."

I never said a word of "white supremacy".

Please, why not just ask me to explain what I'm saying ?

"No. CON is not aware of any body of law that does not uphold a fair degree of injustice."

Is there any law you see nothing wrong with abiding by?

If you answer yes, then that's all you had to agree with from the jump.

So that's the part of the "white ideology" you agree that nothing is wrong with.

Would it matter if that citizen is "white"?

You're up, yes or no.

"I call that a "white "person of power. Why? The person is more powerful than a person incarcerated. Presumably non-law abiding or convicted as so
So now PRO wants to change the definition of WHITE to mean "law-abiding" making all non-WHITE people criminals by definition."

I say again, would you feel comfortable of just stating that the powerful person that's law-abiding is so, because that person has freedom that a jailbird doesn't and then describe later of the person being"white"?

We're just going from broad to specific here. It doesn't change the validity when in reverse from specific to broad. I can be specific here and general later on.


"Where is the virtue in on family controlling another?
Likewise, where is the virtue in some people exerting control over other people?"

A family controlling another what for what purpose?

You'll have to fill in those gaps of information.

I never phrased anything quite in those details so I may only answer according to what appears to be your thoughts and not my points.

I think the idea of people having control over other people is quite virtuous in let's say between parents and their children.

Now that is within the "white ideology" I described. My raising of a family has to do with control. 

So your remaining remarks are "drop this" and "drop that". 

I explained the premise the best way I could.
I hope you have a better understanding now with more information.

A lot of things mentioned came from what appears to be a lot of misunderstanding from your side. 

Therefore instead of trying to go after every line, I just summed up everything that should cover anything left unclear.

I appreciate your questions. They're the first step to seeing what I say holds up.


Con
thanks, Mall

THBT:  THERE'S NOTHING WRONG with WHITE POWER

DEFINITIONS4:

  • R3: Essentially, the entirety of PRO's unimpressive argument is WHITE POWER is pure so long as we use PRO's definition of WHITE POWER which is uniquely PRO's invention, bears no resemblance to any scholarly source on the subject of WHITE POWER, and contradicts CON's definition which CON proffered first, that being :
    • WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
      • WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
R2: As any good manual on debating will advise, if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage
    • "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
You have to argue based on what I'm saying , not what you already know or accept as true for yourself. You have to see whether what I say is consistent with the way I'm using terms.
  • VOTERS will note that PRO's outlook stands in direct contradiction to the spirit of any debate. PRO is saying "the only terms to which I agree are my terms, and those change from round to round."   
    • CON hopes VOTERS agree that insisting on some dictionary sourced definition is  a minimal good faith gesture towards seeking honest engagement.  
  • By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description and again in R1, and
      • By asserting some personalized, non-dictionary definition,
        • PRO has relinquished any authority in defining the term WHITE POWER
  • R2: Through my definition of "White ideology", ***mine****, I described what makes my "white family " strong. The ideology or ideal condition concerning "white " folks is what makes them powerful
  • R2: VOTERS should recall that CON advised PRO in R1:
    • "CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument."
Based on what {WHITE POWER] means to me, it's no different as you can see, for a meaning that can incorporate anybody being an ideal person or citizen. I just went specific with one term and that was a "racial" trait. 
  • CON interprets this vague language to mean "[PRO alone} defines WHITE POWER and an ideal citizen"
  • CON asks VOTERS to prefer CON's dictionary definition over PRO's late-breaking nonsense definition.
    • CON's definition stands
  • WHITE POWER means white supremacy by any ordinary interpretation of the words
BURDEN of PROOF

  • PRO accepted the entire burden of proof for this debate.
  • PRO must prove that the WHITE POWER movement is harmless in every respect
DESCRIPTION4:

  • R1: "These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted.   CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences."
    • PRO offered no clarification
PRO1.4

  • The whole of PRO's argument depends on a single silly argument
  • PRO's argument is "when PRO said WHITE POWER in the thesis,
    • PRO didn't mean WHITE POWER in the "white supremacy" sense that CON documented in Round1,
    • PRO didn't mean WHITE POWER in the ordinary sense used by VOTERS and the News and literature and TV shows
    • PRO didn't  mean WHITE POWER in the sense defined  by every English language encyclopedia and dictionary in the world
      • PRO actually something meant something super elusive-  a sort of white family set of values from white ancestry and white heritage that respects itself and that is specific to being white but not exclusive to being white and not white people who are in prison but only law-abiding white people.
      • VOTERS should decide whether dictionaries or PRO's imagination are the more  fair-minded definer of a word's meaning.  
        • If a dictionary is preferred , then the whole of PRO's argument fails as unwarranted
  • PRO invested a lot of energy in distinguishing virtues "specific" to white people but not "exclusive" to white people
    • CON used dictionary definitions to show how little difference lay in PRO's distinction which argument PRO simply ignored.
  • CON argued that  if decency and law abiding  are virtues specifically found in nonwhites as well, then PRO is offering the adjective white as a distinction without any difference when modifying the noun power.
    • PRO needed to explain why these qualities make the power that PRO is discussing "white"
    • PRO dropped this argument 
"[white] people or my family are made powerful being upstanding, moral, just, decent , outstanding citizens.
  • same argument, same drop
[white people] follow a code of conduct and principle that enables for them to do right by themselves so that they can do right by others
  • same, CON asks "Don't nonwhite people do right too?"
    • CON dodges
 I'm just talking about my "white" family right now.
  • another drop
[white people]  would be powerless in a society that fights or enforces non-law abiding people's freedoms to be removed
  • R2: If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
The "whites" that are locked up would be powerless because that's the whole point. The freedom would be cut off , taken away.
  • PRO seems to be arguing that WHITE POWER is harmless because all harm done by white people is limited to prisons where white people are powerless and so not part of WHITE POWER
    • Even using PRO's tortured logic, we have to assume that at least a few white people did some kind of wrong before they merited imprisonment, giving lie to PRO's assertion "nothing wrong"
    • PRO failed to establish that there is no WHITE POWER in prison
    • When CON argued further no body of law is free from the harms of some injustice, 
      • PRO dropped the argument
  • R1: Self-respect and honoring one's ancestry are relatively easy virtues compared to most, insofar as both traits redound to one's personal advantage and the higher virtues are generally more selfless.
    • Kim Jong-un is chock full of self-respect and family honor, for example, but few would call the North Korean dictator virtuous.
      • PRO drops this argument
  • PRO concedes his usage is provocative:
If I say "white pride" , "white heritage" or non-inclusiveness is felt and perhaps a build up to animosity.
    • But PRO refutes any negative connotation
  • R1: What is "white" history? 
    • How does white history differ from non-white history?
That's history concerning "white " folks
  • R2: But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?
Which president of the united states wasn't "white "?
  • Why exclude nonwhite contributions from history?
Don't ask me , I'm not excluding
    • ....but you are eluding. 
      • PRO drops this argument
R3: Do you agree that there's nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen?
  • No.  CON is not aware of any body of law that does not uphold a fair degree of injustice
Is there any law you see nothing wrong with abiding by? If you answer yes, then that's all you had to agree with from the jump
  • Right, because then PRO would change the definition of WHITE POWER to "decent people in the world that abide by those laws that PRO selects as just"
    • PRO never explains how the term WHITE POWER can abide the law selectively
Would it matter if that citizen is "white"?
  • CON argues that an egalitarian society should minimize the customization of law and privilege by phenotype.
    • PRO drops this argument
Number 1, if it's true that the person has power, it's true.
Number 2 , if it's true that the person is classified as "white", it's true.
Number 3, All of these things are true, nothing is wrong including nothing found to be wrong with what "white power" means in this case.
  • Essentially the worst syllogism ever
    • A person has power
    • That person is white
    • Therefore, there is nothing wrong with WHITE POWER
      • PRO's conclusion is entirely non-sequitur
FAULT1.4:  FUZZY CONCEPT

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT2.4:  DISRESPECTS ANCESTRY

  • PRO drops this argument
FAULT3.4: JUSTIFICATION for VIOLENCE

  • PRO drops this argument
CONCLUSION:

  • PRO failed to prove that his ever-shifting ideology of WHITE POWER is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect
    • PRO put all of his efforts into re-defining WHITE POWER away from any realm of  wrongdoing
      • but even so, PRO never bothered to show how unincarcerated white people are blameless in all respects
    • In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age
      • PRO simply ignored CON's entire argument 
VOTING

  • CON asks VOTERS to award CON for ARGUMENTS
  • Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate and
  • Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration
    • Please VOTE CON!