Instigator / Pro
21
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#2719
It's Official: White Americans Are Domestic Terrorists: Prove Me Wrong
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 21 points ahead, the winner is ...
Barney
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- People
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 8,001
- Required rating
- 5
Contender / Con
42
1775
rating
37
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,096
/
5,000
It's been a minute since I've posted, but I couldn't let this opportunity go to waste. White-Domestic Terrorists stormed government buildings today in D.C., which is an act of terrorism. I've debated this topic on many occasions and have literally destroyed every opponent because my arguments are based on facts and my arguments are proven in real time. The hypocrisy of white people is being proved as we speak because these are the same people who support racist cops who shoot unarmed, nonthreatening Black people. As today's "coup" took place, not a single shot was fired at the white terrorists, which further proves my point. We all know that the European race are global terrorists because history proves it, but I'll just stick to their terrorism here in the US for this debate.
This debate is more so of proving that white Americans aren't domestic terrorists. My opponent will need to prove that white Americans aren't hypocrites when it come to law/order. Punishment for the terroristic acts today should be discussed etc,......"If you can't stand the heat, then get..............."
Round 1
Thanks for excepting,
So, as the title states, "White Americans Are Domestic Terrorists." My stance on this topic is firm, is provable and is backed by documented evidence by multiple sources. In addition to that, the majority of my arguments tend to be proven by real-time actions just like the debacle that took place today in D.C. The terrorist act by white Americans in D.C. is downright treason, and every individual who participated should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The issue is that a racist government, such as in America, fails to apply the law equally across the board...which can't be denied. We all know that if those people were Black, then the outcome would've been treated completely differently...which can't be denied.
History has proven that America does absolutely nothing to the white individuals & organizations that perpetrate bold and obvious crimes. This is seen throughout the injustice system on a daily basis, especially since whites commit more crime than every other race...which can't be denied. The same people who forced their way into this government building, shooting guns & fighting law enforcement, are the same people who frowned upon last year's protestors who broke a few windows...which is utter Hypocrisy. Of course, white terrorists have been doing these things for decades, especially in the past year i.e., Michigan, Kentucky etc., The DOJ has purposely hid information about white terrorism and the FBI has reported that white supremacists have infiltrated every level of law enforcement...which can't be disputed.
Racist-white terrorists i.e., police officers, are rarely charged with murder. They have bogus laws that give them immunity to a certain degree, which is why they continue to murder unarmed, nonthreatening Black people. White citizens will commit crimes all day, every day and the police officers refuse to pull the trigger. I don't think that my opponent has a leg to stand on in this debate.
Question #1. Do you agree that America has a white-terrorism problem?
#2. Do you agree that the terrorists in D.C. should be charged to the fullest?
#3. Why do white officers use greater restraint when dealing with white citizens who have clearly committed crimes?
#4. Do you agree that white Americans are Hypocrites?
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on two fronts, which shall be given their own sections below
- Elizabeth Warren
- Semantics
Burden of Proof
The resolution lacks the qualifier “some,” leaving the hyperbole of racist resolution akin to declaring Jews deserved to die in the Hallocaust; which is self evidently false. Hypothetically one or two Jews who indeed died in it were pedophile serial killers, which would not bridge the gap to the generalized statement. To meet minimal BoP, pro must prove a high percentage of white people actively committing acts of domestic terror.
Conversely, as the resolution asks that pro be proven wrong, I must prove that not all whites are domestic terrorists; or at the very least that such an official declaration has not been made by the government.
Definitions
Since this is about official declarations, the FBI defines domestic terrorism as: “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature” [1].
Please note the definition demands criminal acts, allowing for easy tracking of if the majority (or at least a high percentile) of white people are in prison on charges of terrorism.
And the US Census Bureau defines white people as: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” [2].
I. Elizabeth Warren:
Elizabeth Warren is not a domestic terrorist, as verified by her serving the senate, rather than being in prison. Further, she is verified as white via a DNA test [3]. Pro has offered no examples of any verified white people committing any acts of domestic terror.
With that alone, I have proven pro wrong.
II. Semantics:
As seen in the preamble, pro must prove the resolution is true of white people in general, which has not occured.
Further, pro’s word salad claimed various things cannot be denied. I proclaim they are denied. To start with...
Kills
Pro claims: “I've debated this topic on many occasions and have literally destroyed every opponent”
Pro’s record here is 5 wins vs. 17 losses. Which being such a low rate of victory, means it is not a hyperbolic reference to winning debates. Destroy would be eliminated, so pro seems to be referring to brutally murdering people they’ve interacted with in real life; which I deny pro has done based on them being here instead of in prison.
Sources
Pro claims “evidence by multiple sources” but in reality has offered none. All pro needs to do to get me to concede, is prove that even a tenth of white people have served prison time for domestic terrorism, which if true there should be many easy to find sources.
Police are all white
Pro shows their ignorance about basic details of the US with the statement: “Racist-white terrorists i.e., police officers”
Race is a genetic thing, which clothes and career choice do not change. Further, black police officers exist, and some have even been fired for violence [4]. However, pro has not identified even one (of any race) charged with domestic terrorism. Once again, pro is proven wrong.
Q&A
To be sporting I'll answer…
“#1. Do you agree that America has a white-terrorism problem?”
Nope.
“#2. Do you agree that the terrorists in D.C. should be charged to the fullest?”
You first have to demonstrate that anyone has been officially declared a terrorist in DC. What you’re doing is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
“#3. Why do white officers use greater restraint when dealing with white citizens who have clearly committed crimes?”
WIth this, pro has already conceded the debate as apparently white people are less violence prone than other races. My source [4] hammers this home.
“#4. Do you agree that white Americans are Hypocrites?”
Some are, and many more are not.
…
And one of my own: #5. Why are you so racist?
Sources:
Round 2
To start things off on a basic note, my opponent is clearly playing the Semantics game because he can't make a sound argument for the sake of his actual own argument.
Con says " The FBI defines domestic terrorism as: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature”
My Reply: Con is giving the definition for domestic terrorism via the FBI...On the other hand, the broad-general term of domestic terrorism states "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens."...My opponent has made his first blunder because the FBI definition directly falls under the broad-general term of domestic terrorism by default....Does it not?
Con says that "To meet minimal BoP, pro must prove a high percentage of white people actively committing acts of domestic terror." My Reply: In 2016, white militia in Oregon forcefully took control of a federal building/land in which several white men were charged/convicted. In 2020, white militias took control, occupied or forcefully made their way into federal buildings in the states of Michigan, Kentucky, North Carolina etc., Is that not an act of domestic terrorism by your very own definition?...
F.B.I. Says Michigan Anti-Government Group Plotted to Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer...Isn't Gov. Whitmer a US citizen & elected official??... Authorities charged 13 white men, some of whom were accused of plotting to storm the State Capitol building and planning to start a civil war...Didn't these men use religious, political, social, racial influences to achieve the goal??? F.B.I. Says Michigan Anti-Government Group Plotted to Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
As everyone can see, my opponent's entire argument has been destroyed by his very own Definition...
Con is completely off topic by using Elizabeth Warren & her DNA as an example of white terrorism. He also says that US Census Bureau defines white people as: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”...My Reply: I really don't have to address this because he has digressed away from the topic, which is a form of conceding...Lol...Sir...Do you really think that white people originated from Africa, much less the Middle East?
Con goes on to give my win percentage to further boost his credibility...Well, I'm a black person who's participating on a white-run website while debating topics that fully exposes white crimes & hypocritical assertions with documented facts that can't be refuted. Sir, I'm well aware that the demographics are not in my favor...On the other hand, my points, arguments & debates have yet to be proven wrong...by anyone.
In conclusion, I asked four basic questions at the end of the previous round and Con has failed all four basic questions. Most importantly, when was the last time Black, Hispanic, Asian etc., have participated in what's been mentioned above?...To further (destroy) Con's nonargument...In 2018, white citizens were responsible for every Domestic Terrorism incident in the US...Don't believe me? White Supremacists Responsible for All Race-Based Domestic Terrorism Incidents in 2018 – DOJ Blocked Report (thenewcivilrightsmovement.com)
Pro has not challenged the BoP interpretation, so they must prove whites in general are imprisoned for domestic terrorism (as is required from the “offical” qualifier they specified).
Pro randomly putting whole paragraphs into bold to signify that they are spit-yelling all over their screen and keyboard is amusing, but is incredibly poor on the S&G determinant; and further magnified by their word-salad style mis-organization.
And again, he conceded that white people are less violent; defeating the very notion of this topic.
I. Elizabeth Warren:
Pro claims discussing White Americans “is completely off topic.” Yet for anyone literate, the specified topic is literally about “White Americans.”
Literally 100% of the named White Americans in this debate are not terrorists. This again proves pro wrong. He is of course welcome to list terrorists, and show their DNA tests to prove they are indeed white.
II. Semantics:
Pro must prove the resolution is true of white people in general, which has not occured.
Kills
Pro commits to special pleading that his debate losses and general inability to destroy anyone are due to him being black. His racist feelings against black people are noted, but are wholly off topic to the subject of White Americans.
Sources
Pro introduces a source that claims 13 people were arrested. Pro has not proven they are white (no DNA tests, not even pictures), or even that 13 would be a statistically significant number of white people from which to make proclamations about the larger group. … There are 328,239,523 people in the USA, of whom 76.3% are white [1]. Doing the division, that is 250,446,756 white people in total (round down to a quarter-billion!). Of whom, he claims 0.00005% were arrested for domestic terrorism (5 out of every hundred-million). Worse still, he already conceded they are less violent than other races, further invalidating said generalization.
Had pro bothered to read their one other source, the very first paragraph casts doubt on the whiteness of the terrorists in question “alleged white supremacists,” key word: “alleged.” And the numbers state “ 25 of the 46 individuals allegedly involved in 32 different domestic terrorism incidents were identified as white supremacists” [2] Taken at face value, that raises his percentile only as far as 0.0002%, or roughly 2 out every ten-million.
With whites as 76.3% of the population, were they generally terrorists they should have a greater rate of terrorism than other groups, instead they only allegedly made up 54% of those terrorists; a significantly lower rate than other groups who should make up only 23.4% but instead make up roughly double that at 46%. Hence, pro's own source proves that whites are less terrorism prone, completely invalidating the resolution [2].
Q&A
Pro in their functional illiteracy claims I did not answer the questions. My answers are plainly visible above, but I’ll repeat:
“#1. Do you agree that America has a white-terrorism problem?”Nope.“#2. Do you agree that the terrorists in D.C. should be charged to the fullest?”You first have to demonstrate that anyone has been officially declared a terrorist in DC. What you’re doing is the fallacy of circular reasoning.“#3. Why do white officers use greater restraint when dealing with white citizens who have clearly committed crimes?”WIth this, pro has already conceded the debate as apparently white people are less violence prone. My source [4] hammers this home.“#4. Do you agree that white Americans are Hypocrites?”Some are, and many more are not.…And one of my own: #5. Why are you so racist?
Sources:
Round 3
As we can see from my opponents very first statement of the 2nd round, he's continuing with his Semantics. He now says that " they must prove whites in general are imprisoned for domestic terrorism (as is required from the “offical” qualifier they specified)." My Reply: There's no where in the topic or opening description that says Imprisonment For Domestic Terrorism Is Required... This is known as Changing The Narrative because he knows that his arguments have been completely shutdown with facts...Nope, I won't allow you to change the narrative, which is another form of conceding.
I will play devil's advocate just to prove my point...I specifically gave numerous examples of white Americans who've committed & were charged with domestic terrorism that firmly falls under the FBI and general guidelines...Did I not?...Myself nor you have the power to prosecute the individuals even though many of the individuals were charged.
Now my opponent is complaining about my debate structure. No sir, I'm not yelling. I'm simply highlighting my response to keep things from getting mixed up.
Con says " Pro claims discussing White Americans “is completely off topic." My reply: Nope, I said that your mentioning of Jews & Elizabeth Warren is off topic because they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic...Of course, they're white, but they aren't relevant to the topic.
"Watch How Easily Con's Nonargument & Lies Gets Exposed With Simple Answers That I've Already Stated. Check Out His Blunders Below."
Con again says "Literally 100% of the named White Americans in this debate are not terrorists. This again proves pro wrong."...My reply: The title of a nationally accredited publication reported in 2019 that "White Supremacists Responsible for All Race-Based Domestic Terrorism Incidents in 2018 – DOJ Blocked Report."...
"So, Shall I give you the link?"
Con says "Pro introduces a source that claims 13 people were arrested. Pro has not proven they are white (no DNA tests, not even pictures."...My Reply: Go back to the third paragraph of the 2nd round & you'll see that I mentioned white militias in bold print.
As everyone can see, my opponent is literally digging his own grave.
Con says "There are 328,239,523 people in the USA, of whom 76.3% are white [1]. Doing the division, that is 250,446,756 white people in total (round down to a quarter-billion!). Of whom, he claims 0.00005% were arrested for domestic terrorism (5 out of every hundred-million)...My Reply: Breaking down the stats/demographics has only entrapped you even further. Since Blacks are at 0%, Asians are at 0% & Hispanics are at 0% of committing terrorism in the US, then you've just proved who's committing the terrorism...Isn't 0.00005% a higher amount than 0%?.................I'll wait
Con says "Had pro bothered to read their one other source, the very first paragraph casts doubt on the whiteness of the terrorists in question “alleged white supremacists."
My Reply: Sir, I just so happen to be one of the writers/editors who wrote the report...I'm a professional writer at multiple publications. Remember when you criticized my writing style earlier? I'm trained to write in an AP Style format.
In conclusion, It's clear that Con has bitten off more than he can chew by accepting this debate. I've literally set back and let you trip over your own statements.
Conclusion:
Pro has conceded that White Americans are actually less violence prone, and backed this up with sources of significantly lower rates of domestic terrorism than other racial groups within the USA. While pro somehow believes proving their own resolution false means they win, in common sense it is the opposite.
Again, the resolution is not 0.0002% of white people officially terrorists, but white people in general.
I. Elizabeth Warren:
Pro has failed to refute or even adequately address this point. He attempts to move the goalpost away from White Americans by repeatedly claiming they are off topic, yet were they are off topic, how could anything about them be proven?
II. Semantics:
Pro denies the implications of the resolution (official sources as easily noted by arrests for actual crimes), instead he insists having a topical debate would somehow be “changing the narrative.” However, he fails to offer any reason White Americans and their lower rate of Domestic Terrorism shouldn’t be discussed. He has merely engages in special pleading [1] by calling them Jews if they have not committed terrorism, but also admits that Jews are still white, and therefore even were he correct in his racist special pleading that all non-Jewish white people are terrorists (99.9998%), that would still leave his stereotype about white people as a whole complete rubbish.
Sources
Extend. Pro’s own sources prove the opposite to his words.
As for pro’s racist claim that this must mean an even lower rate for non-whites, the data already pointed to 46% of terrorism committed by the non-white 23.4% of the population. That’s nearly three times, in fact it’s 270.43% of the rate seen with White Americans (applied basic math to pro’s own source on terrorists in 2018 [2]). For pro to be correct on this, 1 would need to be greater than 2.7, otherwise pro’s racist stereotype is directly countered by reality… Worse yet, it’s a report he claims to have co-authored (one which is uncertain the white terrorists were actually white).
Sources:
Round 4
In the end,
Con's arguments have been shutdown easily with documented facts. Anytime someone redundantly says that the other person is conceding, it's a dead giveaway that "You're" the one who's conceding because you can't get your point across.
I want to end my argument by saying that the definition of domestic terrorism is "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens... Wasn't it white people who forced their way into multiple federal buildings across the country in 2020? Isn't it white cops who are consistently killing unarmed Black people (on Camera)?
Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Wasn't it white men who perpetrated the crime? Are you aware that this attack was listed as a Domestic Terrorist Truck Bombing?
Remember the "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski? Are you even aware that he's listed as an American Domestic Terrorist?
I can go on and on to obliterate the nonsense that Con is spewing.
Just 6 days into the new year and white people have committed another act of domestic terrorism, which is shameful. You are the face of global terrorism and your history proves it.
In conclusion, I have absolutely no idea how Con has a 100% win rate, but you'll need to step your game up if you decide to debate me in the future.
Conclusion:
As previously stated:
Pro has conceded that White Americans are actually less violence prone, and backed this up with sources of significantly lower rates of domestic terrorism than other racial groups within the USA.
Pro otherwise offers a stream of non-sequiturs [1].
What he needed to do was show widespread terrorism and verify (even minimally) the perpetrators are white, which he has repeatedly refused to even attempt.
I. Elizabeth Warren:
After days of research, pro has finally been able to name a single counter example, just the one, Ted Kaczynski AKA the Unibomber. Of course by pro’s own special pleading, since he is presumably white he would be off topic… Mockery aside, that was indeed a domestic terrorist as per the FBI definitions and common English usage. Where this fails is any interpretation of the resolution that notices the plurality requirement. The resolution is White Americans in general, not a lone White American is a terrorist.
Were the resolution true, pro could have won with minimal analysis of a couple links showing widespread terrorism among white people. Instead he could only name a single white terrorist, and when he tried to point to several, he found a piece he claims to have authored which specifically pointed out the massive increased frequency of terrorists among non-whites; invalidating the racist stereotype he is attempting to affirm.
He of course claims he’s got video footage proving cops are all constantly killing black people (which if true and not a hyperbole, considering the number of cops in this country, would mean there would be no black people remaining inside a week of such constant killings), but refuses to share this evidence (likely because it doesn’t exist). Not to mention, I’ve already disproven pro’s claim that all cops are white, pro has even admitted in their question segment that white cops are less violence prone than black cops, and I’ve hammered this home with evidence.
II. Semantics:
Extend all.
Concessions
Pro makes the following hilarious claim:
“Anytime someone redundantly says that the other person is conceding, it's a dead giveaway that "You're" the one who's conceding because you can't get your point across.”
This is wholly non-sequitur [1], such that I shall defeat it with a non-fallacious use of tu quoque [2]...
By pro’s own bizarre assertion, when they claimed me using definitions “is a form of conceding” they would have conceded the debate. When they claimed me discussing White Americans at all in a debate about White Americans “is another form of conceding” they would have conceded again. And finally when they made the broad claim that catching concessions is itself conceding, they would have conceded a third time in as many rounds.
Perhaps I should instead use the term self-refutation when someone so blatantly defeats their own case.
Sources:
If you don't think I understand what sociological means, explain it to me in your own definition
U clearly don't understand what "sociological" mean. If you actually knew what it meant, then you'd already know that there's a well-known term or definition.
Thesis/essays have been written on the topic for years via Academia.
Yeah, it's not the general definition. I have been able to find no source that says that your definition is the "sociological definition" whatsoever. You admit that my definition of racism is the literal general and widespread definition. Systematic racism is not the only type of racism. This is a fact, and it is shown through several dictionaries that say the same thing over and over again.
Harassing, name calling, making assumptions is being prejudice but as soon as you affect someone's life/lifestyle/livelihood then it becomes racist.
It's a (sociological definition) rather than a general definition that's found in dictionaries.
Oooh okay so if I harassed a black person and called them the N-Word, that doesn't affect their job, health, purchasing goods etc. Harassing a black person isn't affecting their lives in a monumental way. So, by your logic, I wouldn't be racist by doing that, just like it wouldn't be racist for harassing a Japanese person and calling them a Jap
Also, you never tried taking a stab at my point that no dictionary acknowledges your definition as an actual definition.
What is a domestic terrorist?.....................I'll wait
Thanks for proving my point. The answer to your 1st question is No. The answer to your 2nd question is Yes.
Why? Derogatory name calling isn't affecting their lives i.e. jobs, health, purchasing goods etc,. As soon as you "murdered" someone; you have just affected them.
Racism is Prejudice plus Power. #micdrop
It's really not. The majority of legal handbooks and dictionaries, if not all, literally state racism as hate or discrimination against a person(s) based on their race. Also, your logic fails.
Let's say I hate Asians. Now, I don't, but let's say I did. Now, let's say I move to Japan. I constantly scream at Japanese, calling them Japs, chinks, ching chongs, and the like. You know, derogatory terms. Are you seriously going to tell me that I would not be a racist in that situation?
If my hypothetical racist self that lives in Japan murdered a Japanese local while calling him a nip, do you really think that that crime wasn't inspired by racism?
> I'm quite flattered that u think that I'm David Badash.
Your functional illiteracy is showing, as I have not once said anything to indicate believing your obvious lies. Instead, I warned you to cease impersonating him (the sole author of a paper you claim to have co-written).
Racism is prejudice plus power. I don't know what else to tell you.
Freelance writing doesn't require working at a physical location......but I'm sure you already knew that.
I'm quite flattered that u think that I'm David Badash.
"I simply gave u the definition of racism which is prejudice plus power."
I hate this stupid argument, it's not true. This is only used so that people can be racist to White people. I just feel disappointed whenever I hear people say that.
> I've never met, heard of or worked with that dude.
That dude in question is not just the author of the piece you are claiming to have partly written, but also the editor in chief of the publication for which you claim to work. But you've apparently never even so much as heard of him...
Thanks for the comedy!
Exactly right, which is why no one should have an issue with what I'm saying. #Hypocrisy101
Speaking in general terms is using group justice, instead of individual justice, which the west is founded on.
You have convinced me of nothing. Good night.
Sir, there are various styles of writing, including AP, Casual, Academic, Chicago Manual etc. It's basically all about using certain abbreviations & structure. I said that "I'm one of the writers/editors who wrote the report, which was then made into a final edit & delivered to the (((Author))) who used the information to make the final cut for publication.
U said that you're "liberal as they come, but this is racist."...Did you not say that?...I simply gave u the definition of racism which is prejudice plus power.
I don't have to rebuke your claim because I'm speaking """in general""" and not absolutes.
"I'm a professional writer at multiple publications. Remember when you criticized my writing style earlier? I'm trained to write in an AP Style format."
Based on what you've written here on this website, I find this unlikely. Even as a high school student, I have been able to notice a distinct style in my own writing that carries over between casual writing and academic. Your writing style in this debate does not reflect that of the linked article, however much the content may. You are not obligated to prove anything to me, and my opinion of you may matter little to you, but I would be curious to see any sort of proof that you are a professional writer.
Indeed, but the claim to affirm the resolution wasn't that white people held prejudice was it? It was "White Americans are domestic terrorists" which is false in the sense that most White Americans aren't. Notice how you didn't try to rebuke my overall claim, just try to hand wave it away.
I don't think u understand journalism...Writers can research & transcribe the info while never going to the company's location. The editor does a "fact check" & corrections before the author spins it into his own words....I've never met, heard of or worked with that dude.
Your earlier claim was to have never even heard of the guy... A guy who you also claim to work with so much that it's his name attached in the place of yours.
oh my
As I said before..."I'm (one) of the writers/editors who wrote the report. In most cases of journalism, there's a team or "think tank" that gathers the info. The main author combines the info & writes the end project.
Paralegals gather info for attorneys, who presents the case to the court.....I've never met that guy.
> Nahhh, I never heard of this dude.
Hilarious, given your previous statement: "Sir, I just so happen to be one of the writers/editors who wrote the report...I'm a professional writer at multiple publications."
Of which, the authors are as follow: David Badash.