Instigator / Pro
16
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2536

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
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
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 week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
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.

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.

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:

Con showed that white power is connected with white supremacy. Pro argued that wasn't the definition he was using, but didn't provide any reasons to prefer his definition, whereas Con sourced his definition. Arguments 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:

Con showed white supremacy being connected with white power, therefore something wrong which pro could not or would not defend against.

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's obvious. Pro confused white supremacy with heritage/culture.

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:

I'm not letting this end in a tie. Pro dropped several of con's refutations and his own points were weak. His logic was inherently flawed which was easily pointed out by con.