It's Proven True: White Americans Are Domestic Terrorists: Prove Me Wrong
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2719-its-official-white-americans-are-domestic-terrorists-prove-me-wrong
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Catch-22
- https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
- https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=r
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00502-4
Worse, if they try to prove it now, they would then disprove their first clause also invalidating the truth of the proposition.
- “A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals.”
- “An agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.”
“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.”
“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.”
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.
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
- https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2CQqMaU1I
- https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=r
Too much of this debate was taken lightheartedly by both sides. I avoid topics like this but given that I've read debates by the Pro side before, I was curious why he'd remake a topic twice implying he had a stronger case this time.
The word 't****ist' is not to ever be used lightheartedly. Pro seems to be confusing the term with criminal as well as corrupt. For instance, Pro alludes to systemic racism being proof of the resolution as follows:
"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. "
I don't even understand why these sentences are placed consecutively in the same paragraph but both are so shockingly ignorant that it's extremely difficult to be Tabula Rasa in this particular debate. Coronavirus hasn't ALWAYS naturally existed, this is actually what many conspiracy theorists are raising as points, even worse it did indeed appear before the Chinese outbreak in an Italian lab but that's another debate for another day.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/SARS-CoV-2-was-circulating-in-Italy-before-China-recognized-its-existence.aspx
The sentence that follows tells us that Pro has no true idea what t-ism is. It is of course true that in some cases the government itself were the t-ists, especially when enforcing systemic racism with intent (as opposed to incidental systemic racism). Con points this out many times:
"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."
This is the clearest-cut rebuttal Con makes to the continual fusing of criminals, corruption and t-ism. Racist corruption isn't identical to t-ism, they can be intertwined in extremely tyrannical cases but Pro wasn't really implying that. What Pro's overall case seems to be is that it is in fact subtle and undercutting 'hits' to blacks that whites as a whole are committing, which is indeed unlike the 'burst damage' nature of t-ism, as con correctly points out many times, even citing definition.
As far as sources go, Pro's own source was used against him very obviously with the FBI data but also another time (it wasn't direct but it happened, I needn't cite it to justify the vote) and in general, he was using .com articles to back up some random statement that didn't hit home a point as much as add emotional emphasis to how important he felt his statement was.
In contrast, Con used .gov, .org websites on top of .coms and used them to back up statements and data, other than some unnecessary comedy here and there where, for instance, he used a source in the final Round to make fun of Pro. Throughout the debate, both debaters were snarky and severely condescending to one another, Ragnar/Con was just more careful and concealed with his barbed remarks on Pro's 'capacity for coherence' so on and so forth. Pro was more blatant and especially went out of his way to end each Round with a rude quip aimed at Con.
Therefore, the Conduct point is tied because both sides were ridiculous.
Pro failed to define the terms of the debate. What crimes, and committed at what level does it take to establish that white people are terrorists? Pro’s argument consisted of anecdotes which he never tied to an overall argument, and statistics which Con turned on him by pointing out that percentages are how we determine who is more likely to commit a crime. Despite Con asking multiple times “what is terrorism?”, Pro never offered a response to advance his case. Pro seemed to rely on the readers to just “get it”, but that’s not how debate works.
Conduct to Con, Pro repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and insinuations. One example was when Pro stated “Here's how Illogical my opponent is...”. Pro must focus on his opponents arguments, not his opponent. Pro should also refrain from insulting his opponents arguments, if the readers agree with his point nothing further needs to be said.
Sources to Con for not only providing sources but turning his opponents sources against him. Some of Pro’s sources were also questionable at best, providing examples what a politician says is never a great way to prove a point.
The only thing PRO has going for him is "style", which felt the mall placed since he was getting recked in every single category.
Arguments: PRO offered no coherent argument, that is, an argument where at least two premises could be maintained to support the argument.
Sources: PRO's argument that white people committing more crime means they are terrorists is not only non-sequitur but his sources back up CON, not PRO.
Conduct: PRO clearly being guilty of it himself, is constantly accusing CON of not making logical arguments - a blatant lie and also an overly critical attitude.
Legibility: "excepting" = spelling mistake ||| "Technically, this COVID issue is an act of terrorism" = false language technicalities ||| "gets him nowhere fast" = wrong
(PS: if this point feels nit-picky, it's because I am a white domestic terrorist)
Argument: Pro starts his R1 argument with a generalization, “My stance is that white Americans really are domestic terrorists in the US” as if this is descriptive of every white American. Con’s R10 effectively rebuts the argument by demonstration that while white Americans are over 76% of the US Population, they are responsible for 108:1,000 violent crimes, whereas all other races, combined, account for 651:1,000 violent crimes; a rate of increase of over 6x compared to whites by population on an even playing field of crimes committed per 1,000 in the general population [thus the given ratios]. Although Pro’s citation of the FBI’s Table 43 source indicates that there are fewer numbers of violent crimes committed by all other races than whites, the other races commit the greater number of crimes than the white population when the relative populations are normalized as a ratio of crimes per 1,000 in the relative populations, comparable to Con’s source citation. Pro introduces sideline arguments, such as a Pew Research claim that Hispanics report as whites on the Census, and comparing hoop shoots, and the Covid pandemic, then charges “Con doesn't even realize that I'm speaking in general and not in absolutes.” Seems absolutes are what make a debate. Generalization is fine in Forum, but that’s not what this is. Con adequately rebuts Pro’s generalizations. To a rebuttal by Con in R1 that Pro has not cited sources, Pro offered an R2 claim, "I don't even need a closing statement at this point,” as if sources to support an argument are clearly not necessary to his cause since even an argument conclusion is unnecessary. It is necessary to this voter. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro’s own sources do not support his resolution, as Con argued against Pro’s FBI sources. One Pro source, when accessed [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in..] results in “This page does not exist.” Further, a Pro R3 source [https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/opinion/liu-study-hispanics-favor-whiteness/index.html] says in its title that it is opinion, not factual reporting. More worthless generalizations from Pro. Finally, an article on a Pew Research item featuring the allegation that Hispanics are “identifying as white” includes a curious confession: “The second point of confusion is that the new research did not in fact find a Hispanic flight to whiteness.” Whereas, throughout, Con offers arguments with sources that support his BoP, such as the sourcing of the rate per 1,000 population of violent criminals by race, the Catch 22 argument, and Con’s own FBI table 43 source Con successfully rebutted by demonstration that the data actually supports Con’s BoP. Pro simply misreads what the data is saying, dismissing ratios and percentages as inconsequential to whole numbers. Yes, in whole numbers, there are more crimes committed by whites, but whites exceed the whole numbers of all other races, combined, in the general population by a factor of 3x, so that whole number is expected, and does not mean that, on point, one white person is more likely to be violent than one person of any other race. This is the point of Con’s BoP, and he succeeds in demonstration of it by supporting sourcing. Points to Con
Legibility: Leans to Con with unforced Pro grammatical errors, but legibility was still maintained. Tie.
Conduct: Pro’s assertion in the Description that previous debates Pro has conducted on the relative subject of racial animus have been “easily won” by Pro in the past [and Pro claimed in R1 that his Description was argument he would “elaborate a bit more,” making the Description fair argument assessment], is countered by Pro’s 5 debates on the subject on this site on just the first page of his 3 pages of debates. Pro has lost all five of these previous debates relating to this subject. Though I do not assess Conduct points on that basis, it does present an attitude that is prevalent throughout the rounds that is, in my judgment, poor conduct. Examples: R1: “Trying to debate something that's obvious is utter insanity.” Given Pro’s smugness in the Description, the “insanity” is directed inappropriately to Con. In R3: “this is quite funny coming from a guy who's descended from people who've committed the most crimes in world history” Again, directed to Con, a vindictive charge against Con’s heritage [by which none has any say in the matter, regardless, and Con is not personally responsible for any of it, so the slur is as unkind as can be demonstrated]. R4: “SMH.” The Urban Dictionary defines this as, “’Shake my head’ or ‘shaking my head.’ Used in reference to something that's pretty dumb or so silly it doesn't even deserve a response.” “SMH” is the response. Any one, other than the R3 comment, may pass on merit of conduct, but, collectively, and in particular the R3 comment, go beyond the pale. Pro needs to clean up the language and leave the trash-talk in his locker room. Point to Con.
I would suggest use hyperlinkable sources in your arguments.
To me this was not a real debate, and the vote in question had no chance of changing the outcome; therefore I did opt to waste anyone's time with a report.
Benjamin's vote is a votebomb. There is no way that you can say it's 'obvious', it's a votebomb and Ragnar didn't report it to you because he is intending to win this debate.
Good luck in your pursuit of higher education. It is a noble goal.
You brought up BLM, the 1619 Project & Native Americans, not me...Your Ph.D in whatever is fine, but I have a BA in Forensic Anthropology, will soon have a Master's if everything goes as planned, have seen/studied skeletal remains of indigenous people and have written/published multiple reports on the topic to prove that many of the so-called Natives of today are not indigenous at all. I'm well aware of who is who and what is what.......
but none of this has nothing to do with the fact that white Americans are labelled as domestic terrorists.
Fair enough
Strictly speaking, yes, community service does not, in solid, though debatable terms, fit the legal description of indentured servitude, let alone slavery, but I wager Pro is unaware of the specific distinctions, though Pro may now look it it up in attempt to "chattal." No need; the debate is done and in the books. The time for that proof has passed without having made the effort when it counted.
There is still debate over if that actually fits into the nature of slavery - though I suppose the rebuttal to that is that it doesn't fit into the nature of chattel slavery, not slavery in general.
"...if you knew anything about real history"
IF? I happen to have a PhD on the subject. Yes, some Native Americans were also slave owners. And?
And I know a good deal about constitutional law, such as that today, slavery, by strict definition, still exists as punishment for a specified duration for certain crimes. We've just changed the nomenclature: we call it "community service."
Exposing & Hating are 2 different things.
Lighten up, it's only playful banter
You know your a pretty immature loser when you use hashtags on a debate site while seemingly simultaneously taking the position of all 4 political quadrants in the comment section despite openly admitting to hating white people.
#JustSaying
#StepYourGameUp
I am apart of the LGBTIA+ and I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think that intersex and asexual people don't exist? Because centuries of psychological research would testify to how wrong you are there bud.
Well, you did die for our sins!
If I offended your sexually then I apologize, but everyone knows that a lot of nonsense is being promoted through LGBT+. A lot of nonsense is promoted through BLM and a lot of nonsense is promoted through these white militias that's causing chaos.
So now an "IA" has been added to LGBTQ?... but that's the nonsense that I'm talking about.
Wouldn't that make me Jesus? You know - taking things to their conclusion and all
Taking certain comments to their logical conclusion, apparently your parents are God...
You've made several claims without actual evidence - furthermore - you've at the very least revealed yourself to be biased against LBTQIA+, which I am one of, furthermore, perhaps a slight xenophobia? Throwing in a "you wouldn't be here if god didn't make you" argument and you have yourself a classic example of someone with exactly zero credibility for their arguments.
I'm Black & don't support BLM because it was co-opted & has become a fraud which serves LGBT nonsense & illegal immigration.
I've destroyed the Atheist concept multiple times...if you don't believe in a higher power then that's on you, but your a** wouldn't be debating me right now if (something) didn't create you.
#StepYourGameUp
And if you knew anything about real history then you'd already know that Indians were slave owners themselves which destroys your argument.
You are as ignorant as you are unsbustantive.
I'm an atheist and an anti-theist. Please do the basic modicum of research before you make a claim about me bud. The bible is making a fallacy the "nation" is making a fallacy. If you read my profile, and my arguments, you'd also know that I support BLM and police abolition. I find your "boxing" to be unintentionally hilarious and very anger-inducing. A couple of examples DOES not demonstrate the entire guilt of a demographic of people. Let's say that 10 cats had killed a human, does that mean that all cats are dangerous to humans? No, of course not.
"we all as a people get judged by the individual acts of a view" Is bullshit and utter crap, its some of the most flawed arguments I've heard in a while
since when is religion a racial profile? Was slavery a racial profile? It was not, by the way, though BLM, nor 1619 Project will never admit that. They both ignorer that Native Americans were taken into slavery from the 17th century, as well. Can't paint history with your singular brush, no matter how wide it is.
One example??? Your very own Christian Bible says "people are judged as a nation." The term nation refers to ethnic group, not a country. It's not arbitrary. If one group of people has a documented history of kindness then that ethnic group will be labelled as such. Since white Americans have committed the last 5 or 6 domestic terror acts in the US, then that's why you're the face of domestic terrorism. Case in Point: Three random videos of a black person fighting an Asian person and all of a sudden, it's being reported as black (people) vs Asians. The media is blaming black people "as a nation" for 3 random attacks. So, what I'm saying is that we all as a people get judged by the individual acts of a few.
His religion/spiritual belief doesn't negate the fact that he's a white male. Two terror attacks within a week proves my point perfectly.
Let's not forget the fact that another white domestic-terrorist was caught with a rifle outside of Vice President K. Harris' home a few days ago.
You need to learn something - one example of something happening is not enough to demonstrate that an entire demographic follow similarly, furthermore, what are you defining as white here? How do you define "white" people - science finds that people are more different among their own skin color than compared to others, furthermore, white people can have black parents, or Mexican parents, would you still consider them white because their pigment of skin was white? I mean, why should you, you don't consider people like Obama, who had one black parent and one white parent, white, even though in the case of someone having a Mexican parent and black parent could be either. Whats my point, the entire thing is arbitrary, the only reason why it matters is because of the cultural impact the oppression of one race has undergone (the oppression of the black citizen) and the privilege of the white citizen - however - to declare either group wholly terorists would require: A) comprehensive evidence that EVERY SINGLE or MOST people of that demographic were terrorists, OR B) Demonstrate that some cultural impact makes ALL people of that demographic de facto terrorists - problem with that one - there are SEVERAL different cultures among each "race" intertwined to make one general one.
Regarding the recent Muslim mass murderer, that would of course not be enough evidence to proclaim Muslims are in general murderers, let alone terrorists.
Yeah? "Another white-domestic terrorist" who is named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa? That may just be a huge coincidence by some Bob and Mary Jones out of Colorado Springs, who just happened to pick a non-white name for their 21-year-old son radicalized by ice cream and cake. But I doubt it. Try to keep up, my friend. "Right" is not what you are, neither in real time or space time, or even basil and thyme. A few examples picked out of a crowd, including this one, do not make a case. And this one clearly does not even fit your crowd pattern.
By the way, your "easily won" debates are actually all losers, so, perhaps your inbox messages are not as broadly observant as they should be. The same logic appears to escape your results in the last five debates as in this one. Dyslexia? Myopia? No diagnosis?
Why am I right? Just turn on your HDTV and you'll see that another white-domestic terrorist has killed 10 people in a da** supermarket.
My point is proven in "real time."
Thank you so much for the incredibly detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved!
Suuure... and why do we care if some anonymous people said you're right? Please demonstrate why YOU are correct.
Really? Here are a few quotes from my inbox. "Your arguments are controversial, but you're correct."..."Everyone's aware of the truth but we won't admit it."..."Truth tellers are often viewed as crazy."..."I'd vote for you but I'd lose friends here."..."I respect your debates. Unfortunately, white people are on code."
I'm well aware of the politics that goes on.
Extend the argument time to 1 week.
No, actually don't, if you are afraid of losing. If you still think you are undefeatable on this topic even after over 3 losses at my own witness, then go ahead. You can delete this if you want, it is nearly impossible to even prove this.