The justice system is not racist

In case anyone was following this comment section and is curious, the Novice initiated debate did not happen with him feigning illiteracy in the comments to avoid debating. However the debate I initiated for him went forward, ultimately with RM standing in for Novice.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4221-barney-accused-novice-of-following-him-to-his-house

In case I have not already expressed it, thank you for voting!

"I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?"

Sure.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/4215-the-majority-of-the-current-gender-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-is-a-result-of-sexism

I have created the debate, you have no excuse from just clicking the accept button. I think you have made yourself look like a fool over the last few days so I would encourage you to stop fleeing and debate me.

Yeah, so now he is just asking me the same question I have been asking him, or...something...? This is just really interesting projecting.

After all these months, are you now willing to debate me? Yes or no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to

Oh is he still dodging debate? Of course, I forgot that we were actually doing the thing where I am the one that is dodging the debate and not him.

I am not really interested in the persons projecting, I just want him to stop dodging

-> but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious
It was a rather simple way to mock Chauvin for his odd beliefs about how black people breath best. Common knowledge of the case and context should have left no room for doubt; plus I even included a video link which clarified it was George Floyd who informed Chauvin those 27 times of the breathing difficulty during the murder.

"During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive."

-> It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.
Pretty basic and obvious dad joke.

-> But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.
Would Racism Squared be the right term? Extremely racist defenses of a racist serial torturer.

...

I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?

"George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, in a consistent manner to the testimony from the medical examiner"

Wrong.

George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, in a consistent manner to the testimony from the medical examiner. Derek Chauvin was found guilty during his criminal trial, to which the jury agonized over the evidence far more than either of us could hope to emulate.

Even after George Floyd stopped breathing, Derek Chauvin chose to maintain pressure on the neck thereby impeding the airway.

OK, after rereading that a few times, I finally get what you mean by "breathing expert" - but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious. It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.

And regarding Zoya... obviously, Chauvin was completely in the wrong in that incident. But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.

Since you are stuck on Floyd, I just debated Mps1213 (?) on this topic.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8938/posts/374916

Floyd, like so many black males before him, died due to piss poor health (common affliction with cardiovascular disease and hypertension) complicated by drug addition, in addition to excited delirium.

Floyd did not die because of the infamous knee. Only Chauvin knows how much pressure he did or did not apply. NO ONE can say otherwise. NO ONE! That is a FACT of reality.

Floyd died due to the speed ball he took complicated by his poor health and excited delirium. Period. Fact. Period.
Appeals to authority are rejected because they lied for the purpose of politicization of the case, and racial division.
It was agenda drive. The truth is hidden.

There's a few topics under discussion. Which one would you like?

JFC, you have a lot to spew here.

What, exactly, is your position here.

Please. One or two sentecnes.

-> The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.
You should read again in order. I referred to George Floyd as a breathing expert with x years experience (x=howevermany years he was alive), and Novice insisted I was lying by calling him black. He went into some rant about how George Floyd didn't really die, but was actually some white doctor who framed poor innocent Chauvin. It was weird, and to make proper use of the term, it was outright non-sequitur.

And yeah, I'm having fun with this as well. I of course do not respond to every line (comment discussions I do not take as seriously as real debates (I also don't respond to every line in debates, but I am sure to get thematic replies).

I'll mention that I am missing where you defended Zoya deserved being tortured for resisting. In the debate itself I outlined very clearly that when Chauvin lounged at her by surprise she instinctively pulled away; but all accounts agree that was the only moment of resistance (unless you count begging to not be tortured as resisting), and wholly disconnected from the literal torture which followed. The racism is inferred from Chauvin's repeated choice in victims for his violent outbursts in spite having greater opportunity with whites.

I'm 90% sure if you challenged him directly, he would accept.
You just keep postponing a debate that only takes 15-30 seconds to make. Lol

Novice.

You've spent 2 days talking this big game.
Either challenge him or admit you lack the courage.

Well, it seems like he is still just fleeing debate with me, and that is all I care about.

"This is the most fun I've had in a 2v2 in a long time. Maybe I should call in reinforcements."

You should.
Make it fairer on you two.

This is the most fun I've had in a 2v2 in a long time. Maybe I should call in reinforcements.

If you bring up a point, it gets refuted, and you don't bring it up again or defend it, I consider it as being dropped. In this case, you brought up Novice's other debates, I pointed out most of them were irrelevant (i.e., non sequitur), and you didn't bring it up again.

*bashes head into wall repeatedly*

*bash*

*bash*

*bash*

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way...

"I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath!"

I spent 30 minutes reading that debate, since I actually enjoy reading debates. Please respect my time by not lying.

"At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American.""

No, Novice was referring to the so-called breathing expert, who was called in court, and was not present during the actual event. The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.

""To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."

A non-sequitur by Novice that was rightfully penalized by the judges, but irrelevant to Novice's personal views.

""We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death""

Again, a non-sequitur does not equal white supremacy. Try again.

Sorry for your difficulty with basic reading comprehension. Let me repeat, and sure, a yes or no on if you're going to chicken out is fine:

Do I have your permission to open a debate challenge against your statements?

If you're neither schizophrenic nor faking schizophrenia for attention, you'll get a free win.

Novice, I'll overlook Barney's concrete evidence of you being racist if you simply accept my challenge.
But if you refuse, then that alone is enough justification for me to believe you hate black people.

--> clear pattern of racist ideations
-> plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.
You and I have a different definition of dropping, and of non-sequitur.

If you're not a white supremacist, you'll accept my challenge.

I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath! 🤯
At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American."

DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses[5].
To which Novice responded by repeating those racist cliches: "To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."

And denying there was a murder:
"We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death"
And FYI, this was a debate with a predefined cause of death, as opposed to being a debate about the cause of death "Derek Chauvin: man who killed george Floyd"

Yeah, look, this has been going on for a long time: privately, publicly, etc. I think a lot of the fear comes from the idea that he has never actually lost one of these "online" formal debates before on record (DDO and DART combined). But I never thought it would get to the honestly amusing gesture that someone is a white supremacist for disagreeing with him or something along those lines, while sadly, this is not exceedingly out of character for him.

Let's go, Novice.

You and me.
Name 3 resolution titles.

As stated above, and previously multiple times, I have given you a series of topics I would like to debate, many of which are your own positions.

If you think I will de-rail into some sort of meta-discussion you have no idea who I am. So, yes or no, are you going to debate me on those topics, or are you going to keep rambling to me about meta, and if I do not get a yes or no answer, I think I have wasted enough of my time with you.

Yeah, Barney is so scared of losing to a guy who gets smacked around consistently.

I agree with your assessment of this being a classic case of projection - Barney is so scared of losing, that he projects this fear onto you.

Too late to turn back now, Novice.
Should have accepted my challenge while you were still alive.

His claim was that:

-Zoya Code was resisting arrest (dropped by you)
-There was no evidence that it was racially motivated (also dropped by you)

Personally I don't really buy it, but if you wanted to really prove anything, you should have actually refuted that second point.

Also, still no evidence of white supremacy, plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.

Do I have your permission to open a debate challenge against your statements?

If you're neither schizophrenic nor faking schizophrenia for attention, you'll get a free win.

Linking a 28,000 character long argument, and then waving at it and saying, "see, Novice said Floyd's death wasn't murder," without giving any specific quotes, is not evidence. Nevertheless, I read through it, and I still found no evidence for your baseless assertion, unless you're going to give me a specific quote from Novice (which I know you won't).

That was his defense of why it's justified to torture already restrained black women for fun.

Again, he utilized a point of comparison that Chauvin did the exact same thing to one white person (the exact same thing was being rude, not violent... not torturing... not murdering... but just being rude to a white person is apparently the same as either of those other crimes).

Yeah, so this is when he insists that I am actually the one refusing to debate and not him. Ah yes, the classic "no you."

Psychologists call this projecting.

Oh and of course that by my estimate, around 98-100% of everything said by the person below are just lies about me, but I think most people can figure that out themselves.

Are you willing to actually to defend your claims yet? Or are you going to keep chickening out while sharing your paranoid delusions?

If Novice had said that Black people commit more crimes, therefore they should be more violently handled, then that would be a racist statement. However, it seems to me that he was putting forth that argument in order to support his earlier points about why Chauvin was arresting Black people at a greater rate than population demographics would suggest.

He insisted murdering George Floyd shouldn't count as murder due to blacks being criminals, literally in the case we've been discussing.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist?argument_number=5

I am surprised this conspiracy is still going on, I was away for a while. Anyway, these sort of confused ramblings are interesting, and I think they are good because they present the moderator in a light that I think more people should see him in. It is also good that this debate is in the "hot" category because it just adds the benefit of eyes on this sort of humiliating tantrum.

I will just remind everyone once again that this is an attempt to derail in order to flee from debate, and that he has been dodging me for a period of a year or more now.

-> Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that: -Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
He literally defended that Chauvin gleefully torturing a woman who was already restrained. If memory serves, this was at least in part on the basis that she deserved it for her skin color. Ah, here's an actual line from his defense of Chauvin from for that incident "According to FBI crime statistics, black people commit violent crimes are over 2 times the rate of white people"

I saw that comment, but I still don't get your point.

What you claimed it to be:

-Novice attacks voters for saying that racism is bad

What it actually is:

-Novice passively-aggressively criticizes voters for ignoring his main points

So it's really two different things.

"We're discussing someone who would insist such such a person can't be racist, because murder doesn't count as murder if the victim is black..."

LINKIES PLEASE FFS

This might be a semantic difference in scales. I can separate run of the mill white supremacist douchery, from full blown Neo Nazidom.

In your opinion, how many black people must a Klansman lynch before it's fair to consider them a white supremacist?
We're discussing someone who would insist such such a person can't be racist, because murder doesn't count as murder if the victim is black...

The closed minded quote is from:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415/comments/41911

I've said it before, I'll say it again - having wrong, unsourced, or biased opinions regarding controversial topics does not make you a white supremacist.

I read that debate, and it seemed to come down to semantics, as well as the reasonable burden of proof. Novice claimed that it needed to be shown that Chauvin acted with intentional racism in that moment - you claimed that a past history of racist actions was more than enough. Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that:

-Floyd deserved his death
-Chauvin's actions were justified
-Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
-etc...

I simply don't consider your claims of Novice being a white supremacist anything more than a baseless ad hominem.

"-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
-> Who in the hell are you even talking about here.
That was a conversation about if it's fair to call Novice a batshit crazy white supremacist, on account of him being verifiably batshit crazy, and very strongly implied by his actions to be a white supremacist."

Thank you. I guess I need to read more of his material to ascertain whether or not that is an accurate assessment.

-> Who in the hell are you even talking about here.
That was a conversation about if it's fair to call Novice a batshit crazy white supremacist, on account of him being verifiably batshit crazy, and very strongly implied by his actions to be a white supremacist.