It&#39;s Proven True: White Americans Are Domestic Terrorists: Prove Me Wrong

1815

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

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

03.21.2021 01:19AM

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.

03.21.2021 06:16AM

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…

Round 2

03.21.2021 08:13AM

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 me? FBI — 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.

03.21.2021 09:15AM

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:

Round 3

03.22.2021 03:36AM

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.

03.22.2021 02:53PM

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]:

“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.”

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:

Round 4

03.23.2021 01:33AM

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

03.23.2021 03:02PM

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:

Intelligence_06

04.23.2021 12:14PM

#31

-->

@mairj23

I would suggest use hyperlinkable sources in your arguments.

04.11.2021 04:51AM

#30

-->

@RationalMadman

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.

RationalMadman

04.07.2021 09:31AM

#29

-->

@blamonkey

@MisterChris

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.

03.27.2021 08:44AM

#28

-->

@mairj23

Good luck in your pursuit of higher education. It is a noble goal.

03.27.2021 06:44AM

#27

-->

@fauxlaw

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.

03.26.2021 04:29PM

#26

-->

@fauxlaw

Fair enough

03.26.2021 03:59PM

#25

-->

@Theweakeredge

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.

03.26.2021 03:34PM

#24

-->

@fauxlaw

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.

03.26.2021 03:31PM

#23

-->

@mairj23

"...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."

03.26.2021 07:00AM

#22

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

Exposing & Hating are 2 different things.

Lighten up, it's only playful banter

Our_Boat_is_Right

03.26.2021 05:08AM

#21

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

03.25.2021 07:34AM

#20

-->

@mairj23

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.

03.25.2021 07:02AM

#19

-->

@Theweakeredge

Well, you did die for our sins!

03.25.2021 06:58AM

#18

-->

@Theweakeredge

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.

03.25.2021 06:53AM

#17

-->

@Barney

Wouldn't that make me Jesus? You know - taking things to their conclusion and all

03.25.2021 06:42AM

#16

-->

@Theweakeredge

Taking certain comments to their logical conclusion, apparently your parents are God...

03.25.2021 05:42AM

#15

-->

@mairj23

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.

03.25.2021 05:01AM

#14

-->

@Theweakeredge

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

03.25.2021 04:54AM

#13

-->

@fauxlaw

And if you knew anything about real history then you'd already know that Indians were slave owners themselves which destroys your argument.

03.25.2021 02:29AM

#12

-->

@mairj23

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

03.25.2021 02:27AM

#11

-->

@mairj23

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.

03.25.2021 02:24AM

#10

-->

@Theweakeredge

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.

03.25.2021 01:48AM

-->

@fauxlaw

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.

03.25.2021 01:45AM

-->

@mairj23

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.

03.24.2021 10:26PM

Regarding the recent Muslim mass murderer, that would of course not be enough evidence to proclaim Muslims are in general murderers, let alone terrorists.

03.24.2021 11:29AM

-->

@mairj23

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?

03.24.2021 08:41AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

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."

03.24.2021 07:11AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Thank you so much for the incredibly detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved!

03.22.2021 04:56PM

-->

@mairj23

Suuure... and why do we care if some anonymous people said you're right? Please demonstrate why YOU are correct.

03.20.2021 11:16AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

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.

Intelligence_06

03.20.2021 02:50AM

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.

RationalMadman

04.07.2021 09:49AM

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:

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.

Double_R

03.26.2021 12:08PM

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:

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.

Benjamin

03.25.2021 10:52AM

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:

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)