Instigator / Pro
4
1361
rating
28
debates
21.43%
won
Topic

It's Proven True: 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.

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
0
8
Spelling and grammar points
3
4
Conduct points
1
4

With 4 votes and 24 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ragnar
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Required rating
5
Contender / Con
28
1766
rating
36
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,015 / 5,000

As the title states, White Americans are proven yet again that they are America's true terrorists. This time around, Atlanta is ground zero with yet another mass shooting that was perpetrated by nonother than a white person. I've debated this topic on numerous occasions and have easily won with simple facts. White-Domestic Terrorism has dated back to the colonization of this land. The main question is, "why are white people so violent and criminal-minded?" Facts and history proves that there's something quite "off" about these people thanks to their pathology. When looking at all of the different races in the US, white Americans are ranked #1 in every crime category. When looking at the last few terroristic acts, white Americans have perpetrated the crimes. Government institutions have also labelled white Americans as domestic terrorists. If anyone has the knowledge, facts and evidence to prove me wrong, then you can accept this challenge of clearing white Americas domestic-terrorism tag.

Good Luck

Round 1
Pro
Thanks for excepting,

So, I pretty much made my first argument through the opening description, but I'll elaborate a bit more just to make clear things up. My stance is that white Americans really are domestic terrorists in the US. Politicians and government institutions have also labelled white Americans as domestic terrorists. When comparing all of the different races in the US, it is white people who are causing the most problems day in and day out. All you have to do is watch the news to see who's committing the acts of terror.

These acts of terror span from the average-everyday citizens to law enforcement to politicians. Terrorism comes in many forms and will span across multiple fields. Technically, this COVID issue is an act of terrorism because the people who are in the forefront i.e. white people,  have shady backgrounds. We've all heard the term "Plandemic" being used more than once.  White Americans refuse to take accountability for their criminal behavior while trying to project their criminal behavior onto other people. This is why the mainstream media pushes so many false narratives, which is why the mainstream media has little-to-no credibility. 

Most of this terrorism simply comes from racism. This racism spans from average citizens to the so-called royal family in the UK. Yes, racism is a form of terrorism, especially if its affecting people's lives. When the "virus" hit last year, it was white people who were filmed spitting on food at multiple supermarkets across America and spitting on mail just to spread this sickness to other people. 

In other words, white-domestic terrorists have started 2021 off with a bang, no pun intended and the evidence backs up all claims. 

Trying to debate something that's obvious is utter insanity, especially when the facts are staring you right in the face.
Con
Catch-22:
The first part of the resolution is that they have already proven the truth of the proposition. However, this is false as I have defeated them previously on this very topic [1]. Unless they can prove this did not occur, they have already failed before we even address white people. Worse, if they try to prove it now, they would then disprove their first clause also invalidating the truth of the proposition. 

This is a basic Catch-22 paradox [2], in which someone is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.


Falsism:
There are 328,239,523 people in the USA, of whom 76.3% are white [3]. If they’re a bunch of terrorists, they would have easily wiped out the very much divided 23.7% non-white peaceful portion of the population.

Worse said peaceful portion of the population is on aggregate actually more violence prone, comparing to whites with: 170% the rate of killings, 173% the rate of robberies, and 125% the rate of aggravated assaults [4]. While there are complex socio-economic factors, the end result is whites use violence less often in America.

These factors easily disprove pro’s feverous notion that whites are a race of evil terrorists, similar to but less imaginative than orcs from Dungeons and Dragons.


Sources:
Also of note: Pro has thus far provided zero evidence to back up his assertions. Without evidence, there is no reason to consider such bizarre claims as COVID coming from white Americans instead of China [5], or that the British Royal family was secretly replaced with white American terrorists…
  1. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2719-its-official-white-americans-are-domestic-terrorists-prove-me-wrong
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Catch-22
  3. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
  4. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=r
  5. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00502-4

Round 2
Pro
First things first, Con's opening argument is using the words them and they. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say that.

If Con is referring to politicians and government institutions, then he must be hiding under a rock. Chuck Schumer, US Senator of NY and Senate Minority Leader, labelled white Americans as domestic terrorists during a press conference after white-domestic terrorists tried to pull an insurrection at the Capital Bldg in Washington DC on Jan. 6, 2021. 'Domestic terrorists': Schumer condemns pro-Trump mob's storming of Capitol – video | US news | The Guardian  Fast-forward to 2:10 of the video. Also Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris etc., have all said the same thing. Also at New Report Warns of Rising Threat of Domestic Terrorism - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Homeland Security via (CNN) states that White supremacist extremists will remain the deadliest domestic terror threat to the United States. White supremacists remain deadliest US terror threat, Homeland Security report says - CNNPolitics

So, what exactly is Catch 22 about it? 

Con goes on to give the US population stats and demographic percentages while stating "Worse said peaceful portion of the population is on aggregate actually more violence prone, comparing to whites with: 170% the rate of killings, 173% the rate of robberies, and 125% the rate of aggravated assaults. These factors easily disprove pro’s feverous notion that whites are a race of evil terrorists, similar to but less imaginative than orcs from Dungeons and Dragons."

When looking at "raw number," whites double or even triple the amount of crime in the US compared to other races...Don't believe meFBI — Table 43 or https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in..

Con says "Pro has thus far provided zero evidence to back up his assertions. Without evidence."...My reply: "I don't even need a closing statement at this point."

Not to forget, I was referring to COVID as a man-made virus because the natural version of coronavirus has always existed. As far as the royal family, I simply used them as an example of systemic racism because systemic racism is a form of terrorism. 

Con's pride is getting in the way of his own argument at this point. The last few terroristic acts in the US came from whites, which can't be disputed. 



 
Con
Requested Clarifications:
“They” was used context dependent as per the standard rules of literacy within the English language, but primarily referring to pro (also known as mairj23, in case being called pro is likewise too confusing for them). And the sole instance of “them” I used last round, clearly denoted pro.


Catch-22:
As previously stated:
Worse, if they try to prove it now, they would then disprove their first clause also invalidating the truth of the proposition. 
By offering new evidence of video clips to try to prove his central thesis, pro has effectively conceded that they did not prove it before [1]. Further the politicians in question made declarative statements without proving anything: merely saying something and proving it differ greatly. 


Falsism:
Pro has attempted to challenge my data with more data that actually supports it.

Anyone literate can just look at the “percent distribution,” and cross check that whites make up 76.3% of the population [2]. If their percent distribution for any crime is lower than 76.3, they are less prone to do that crime than other groups. This is because they vastly outnumber other groups, that even while overall committing more overall instances of a crime, they have a much lower propensity. For example, whites while outnumbering other groups by more than three-to-one, only committed 45.8% of the murders [3].

Let me repeat that… According to pro’s own source, whites while making up three-quarters of the population, did less than half of the killings. Other violent crimes have similar far lower comparative rates [3].


Sources:
  1. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2719-its-official-white-americans-are-domestic-terrorists-prove-me-wrong
  2. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
  3. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
Round 3
Pro
My, my, my....Looks like we have a classic case of denial. I really though that Con, whom is known as Ragnar, could bring forth some type of logical argument.  Let's examine some of my opponent's mistakes.

First and foremost, This simple debate topic really can't be refuted because it's based on events that have taken place just a few days ago and over the past year. I want to ask Con a few simple questions. These simple questions will require a simple (yes or no).

1. Is an insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government?
2. Was the Jan. 6, 2021 event at the nation's capital an insurrection?
3. Was this act perpetrated by a majority white group of people?
4. Wasn't it white extremist groups who threatened to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan last year?
5. Was the bombing in Louisville, Kentucky, last year perpetrated by a white man?
6. Was it a white man who killed those Asians in Atlanta a few days ago?

Do you understand why your arguments make no sense??

Con says "By offering new evidence of video clips to try to prove his central thesis, pro has effectively conceded that they did not prove it before [1]. Further the politicians in question made declarative statements without proving anything."...My reply: The politicians' statements were based on the Jan 6. insurrection at the Capital Bldg. Also, Con is now complaining that I introduced evidence via video & reports to back up my claims. 

Con says, "merely saying something and proving it differ greatly."...My reply: Which is why I said it, then proved it with documented evidence.  Con stated that "Anyone literate can just look at the “percent distribution,” and cross check that whites make up 76.3% of the population...My reply: Pew Research Center reports that there's a large percentage of Hispanics who label themselves as white via the census and job applications as well as some Asians. Proof? Opinion: Why are Hispanics identifying as white? - CNN   More Proof? More Hispanics Declaring Themselves White - The New York Times (nytimes.com)   And more proof? Hispanics opting to identify as white: How are Hispanics assimilating? (slate.com)

Raw numbers will always outweigh percentages because percentages don't tell the full story. For example: You and I play a game of basketball. You make 25 out of 50 shots and I make 10 out of 20 shots; we're both completing 50% of our shots but you've taken (More) shots in total. Further speaking of crime, white people have reached an epidemic level of meth and opioid use all across the nation. Instead of charging and prosecuting them for all of the crimes that they're committing, the government is now funding/building safe-injection sites. How can you speak about crime percentages when white people aren't even being charged in the first place? Do you want me to source this information also?

It has nothing to do with propensity, but this is quite funny coming from a guy who's descended from people who've committed the most crimes in world history...I'm sure you do not want me to go down that route do you?

I'm similar to a cat. I like to play around with my meal before I eat it, so Step Your Game Up.







Con
What is a Terrorist?
Pro would have us believe such absurdities as being born in England is an act of white American terrorism. Contradicting this, they would also have us believe that falling victim to drug addiction is what defines someone as a white American terrorist. If these two things are not contradictions, pro needs to offer proof that the Queen of England (whom pro has declared to be a white American terrorist), is a meth and/or opium addict.

Wikiionary offers two definitions of terrorist [1]:
  1. “A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals.”
  2. “An agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.”

Since pro has (not yet) made claims of white americans being immortal french vampires, obviously the first definition is superior for this discussion (as much as I would be delighted to debate using the latter). It is the first definition that is common English, which I have been using throughout this debate.

For an individual to be a terrorist, they must both use violence (hence my crime rate statistics), and moreover use it for political goals.

For a whole group to be terrorists, they need at least a large percentile to be committing acts of terror for political goals. Until the violence is proven, there is no point in even considering if the non-violence is for political goals.


Catch-22:
Pro has mischaracterized this line of reasoning as a complaint. It is rather a criticism of their impossible Burden of Proof, due to the paradox they chose to place themselves in with this resolution.


Falsism:
Pro tries to counter this with the existence of White hispanics, but never actually gets around to making any conclusion. They may as well have discussed the weather.

Pro also makes a basketball analogy of two people with equal rates of successful shots. This fails to even be an apples to oranges comparison, as those are both at least fruit, whereas sports and violent crimes are completely unrelated; and would need be unequal shot rates if fitted into an analogy. Therefore, white people as a whole averaging significantly less violent crimes per capita, is not challenged by the idea that two people would be comparatively equal at basketball.

Pro finally brings up non-violent crimes of drug addiction, but both fails to offer evidence of it being a white only epidemic, and further fails to show any way that it would be a form of terrorism.


Stereotyping:
Pro asks some questions based around their blatant stereotyping fallacy [2]. That there exist violent people, does not mean all people are violent. It makes about as much sense as watching Blackula [3] and concluding that all black people are vampires (or at least all actors in a 1970’s blaxploitation film, regardless of whether they were born yet).

Even with outlier examples of violent people existing, the connection even for those non-representative samples being outright terrorists have for the most part not been made.


Sources:
  1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stereotype#As_a_logical_fallacy
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Sfrhj5IP4
Round 4
Pro
In Conclusion,

My opponent can't make a solid, logical argument to win this debate, and it shows through his lack of argument. His entire game plan is to deny, deny and deny, which gets him nowhere fast. Con complains that I don't give sources. As soon as I give him sources, he turns around and says that it's too late for sources. 

Con doesn't even realize that I'm speaking in general and not in absolutes. His comments about "Blackula, French vampires and Queen Elizabeth being an American terrorist" falls flat and makes no sense. This is nothing more than "Filibuster" to take the focus away from his lack of argument. Con goes on to say that white Americans don't commit more crime than other races despite the fact that the FBI Crime Database that (I linked to) blatantly shows that whites 'double' and sometimes 'triple' the amount of crimes of other races. He's basically arguing against documented evidence, which makes no sense.

Con tries to use the percentage nonsense to say that whites, whom are 76.3% of the population, aren't committing the most crimes, which negates simple mathematics. He doesn't even realize that his 76.3-precent population statistic is inaccurate because a high percentage of Hispanics and Asians identify as white via the census. He hasn't put 2 & 2 together to understand that the white population is much lower because other races, who identify as white, boosts the overall numbers to 76.3%......SMH

Con fails to debunk the meth/opioid epidemic and how it has negatively affected white Americans. He uses his "deny" tactic", which doesn't refute the evidence. He denies the drug-injection sites that the government is funding all over the country, which keeps whites from being charged, which would otherwise translate into a (crime statistic).

Con fails to answer the six basic questions that I presented because he knows that his entire nonargument would be exposed. 

Here's how Illogical my opponent is...

Con says that "to be a terrorist, they must both use violence and moreover use it for political goals."...My reply: Wasn't the insurrection at the US Capital Bldg a use of violence for political purposes?...Hmmm...So, why would a white militia attempt to kidnap the Governor of Michigan if it wasn't for political purposes? Hmmm

In the end, white people have committed the last five or six domestic-terrorist acts in the US over the past year, which is why politicians and government institutions label white Americans as domestic terrorists.                                                                   #MicDrop
Con
Forgone Conclusion:
Interestingly both sides in this debate believe it to be a foregone conclusion. I have a warranted case with strong sourcing and analysis of said evidence. Whereas pro offers their cognitive dissonance [1], and obvious lies about what I’ve written (such as claiming I denied the existence of methadone clinics).

From the voting policy [2]:
“Someone who never advances their case beyond obvious non-sequiturs, or commits the not even wrong fallacy regarding the resolution, has also not earned detailed analysis beyond pointing that out.”

Forgone Conclusions as summarized by comedian Jim Downey [3]:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”


What is a Terrorist?
Pro has refused to offer any reason why a group committing lower rates of violence would somehow mark them so much more frequent at violence to be labeled to generally be a bunch of terrorists. Instead he senselessly declares that less equals “'double' and sometimes 'triple' the amount.” Which is about as coherent as proclaiming Gandhi’s peaceful protests were infinitely worse than Hitler’s genocides. That is getting into some weird homeopathy stuff about less equals more [4].

Pro even doubles down on their insistence that non-violent crimes (drug addiction) are way worse violence than violent crimes. Which reminds me, white crime has not been covered up, as exemplified by the violent crime arrest statistics from earlier [5].


Catch-22:
Repeating from last round:
Pro has mischaracterized this line of reasoning as a complaint. It is rather a criticism of their impossible Burden of Proof, due to the paradox they chose to place themselves in with this resolution.


Falsism:
Pro in desperation to disagree with everything, now insists the census is lying by including people who identify as white among those who identify as white. Pro’s implied meritless definition of white American, is probably about a dozen people in total; assuming it is not a mere boogeyman living solely in his imagination. Cue Jim Downey again [3].


Stereotyping:
Pro could not even offer any way their case was more intelligent than watching Blackula and concluding that all black people are vampires (or at least all actors in a 1970’s blaxploitation film, regardless of whether they were born yet).

For the third and final time, cue Jim Downey [3]!


Sources:
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  2. https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2CQqMaU1I
  5. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=r