Instigator / Pro
Points: 8

The White Male: America & The World's Original Terrorist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Phenenas
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
3
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
With so much chaos taking place in the US and around the world, it's very clear that white males are causing all of the problems. If you were to watch the local/national news or read random newspapers, white males dominate the headlines sections of the crime reports. Trying to understand these people is beyond comprehension because the majority of them are mentally disturbed to a degree. Is there some kind of mental imbalance that makes white males so evil or is it sheer stupidity of their intelligence...or lack thereof?
The biggest atrocities on earth were headed by yours truly...the white male. Murder, theft, ponzi schemes, larceny, sexual abuse, pedophilia, hate crimes, perjury etc...equals the white male. If you can't put up a rock-solid argument that proves me wrong, then Do Not accept this challenge. I'll easily make you look stupid via documented evidence.
Round 1
Published:
I'm still learning the ropes on this site so I'll present my case & see what's what.

Not to sound prejudice, but white males are the original terrorist, and all you have to do is look at their track record throughout history. This really isn't a debatable topic because the actions and evidence speaks for itself. I'm basically here to create dialogue rather than debate, but I've got to actually debate someone just to receive some dialogue. It's a catch 22 situation. As I said in my intro, "The White Male Is The Original Terrorist." They commit the most crime, and they get away with the most crime, but that comes from the privilege of white people who live in a white society. Yes, we all know how one-sided these societies are so be careful if you decide to go that route.

Nope, I don't want to hear faux stats that come from (.gov sites) because we all know how "ethical" and "honorable" the US government is...right?...Which backs up my claim even more because yours truly controls the government. If you decide to go the faux-government stat route, then I'll provide documented evidence of how crooked the government is. I'm not narcissistic as my buddy says that I am. I'm basically confident because I can backup my claims with factual evidence. He has endured a number of spankings on a previous debate site. I guess the ball's in your court.

P.S.  I'm not as bad as DarthVader1 says that I am. He just doesn't have enough factual evidence to bring to the table. 
Published:
Thank you for your opening argument. I’d be happy to engage with a dialogue about this subject with you, but I do have arguments of my own to make, and I take some issue with your logic. For example:

white males are the original terrorist, and all you have to do is look at their track record throughout history. This really isn't a debatable topic because the actions and evidence speaks for itself
So you are pointing out that white men have committed the most atrocities and injustices throughout history. Which is a premise I find reasonable. From the Inquisition to slavery to imperialism to the Holocaust, many crimes against humanity throughout history have been directly caused by white males. But you take this premise, and immediately jump to the conclusion that this means all white men are bad, all of them are criminals, all of them are stupid. That’s quite a leap. You say this topic isn't debatable, but your logic certainly is. You would really need more evidence to prove that. Of course, it’s possible that you know not all white men are evil, and your way of putting it was only rhetorical. Is this true?

I do have a response to your argument. If white men have been the cause of most genocide and oppression, it’s because for the past 300 years or so, they have held the most social power out of any group in the world. Every group is capable of committing atrocities. But naturally, the group which is in power will have the opportunity and the means to commit as many cruelties as they want in order to further their own interests. Things like imperialism and slavery didn’t happen because white men are inherently evil - they happened because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those who dominated the world at the time wanted to exploit those beneath them. In an alternate universe where, say, black women became the world’s dominant social group, I don’t doubt that they would oppress everyone else as well. I understand that this sounds flippant, but the point is, it’s not about a certain race or gender being evil. It’s about power. After all, those who caused the atrocities were those with social status and political influence, not your average Joe Sixpack. Sadly, when any person gains power, they will very often use it to exploit those weaker than them. The nobles exploit the peasants, the rich exploit the poor, and white men have historically exploited the rest. It’s a sobering truth about human nature.

I understand the sociological idea of power dynamics, and I don’t deny ideas like white privilege and male privilege. But this doesn’t mean white men are inherently more evil than anyone else. You make several extreme claims about white men, and I’d appreciate seeing your evidence backing them up. I can’t find anything substantiating your claim that “the majority of them are mentally disturbed to a degree”. And in response to your pondering about “the sheer stupidity of their intelligence”, scientists have already known for a long time that there is no genetic difference in intelligence between different races. [1] In response to your claim that “they commit the most crime”, I’m afraid you’re wrong. When it comes to the US, African Americans only make up about 13-14 percent of the population, yet committed 52 percent of homicides from 1980 to 2008, whereas whites committed only 45 percent. [2] I’m reluctant to give this statistic, as it’s often parroted by racists who don’t understand that the high poverty and crime rate among blacks is the result of gentrification, segregation, redlining, and Jim Crow Laws. But I would say this debunks your claim that white males “commit the most crime”. I’m actually willing to accept your claim that “they get away with the most crime”, but this is more a problem with the system than anything.

I’m very curious why you don’t trust anything that comes from a .gov website. Sure, the US government has behaved corruptly in the past, as all governments have. And honestly, the present too. But how do some corrupt presidents or some bad foreign policy have any bearing on agencies like NASA, NIMH, the NEH, and the NSF, which all make terrific advances in knowledge and are all populated by independent researchers and educators? Do you believe that all these people are in on some massive government conspiracy to manipulate their statistics and cover up the truth in order to keep white males in power? If so, then why are so many government grants and scholarships meant specifically for women and people of color? That seems counter-productive. If you think .gov sources can’t be trusted, then what sources can? You could use your argument to discredit just about any source you don't like. You have mentioned several times that you can back up your claims with factual evidence. If this is true, then I would like to see it.

But to get out of “debate mode” for a moment, I assume there’s a reason for your hatred toward white males. Perhaps you’re understandably furious about things you learned in sociology class. Or maybe it comes from a place of personal experience. I’m a white male myself, and I don’t bear any ill will against you for what you’re saying. It seems like you’re a big believer in diversity and social justice, and I am too. But I think you’re taking it too far. I’d mostly like to hear more about you and your personal experience, but because this is a formal debate, I have to scrutinize your logic and arguments instead. I wouldn’t mind having a less formal chat afterwards, if we aren’t enemies by then.

Sources:
1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-genetic-iq-differences-between-races-are-unlikely
2. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Round 2
Published:
Thanks for accepting, & I'll try to cover as much as possible.

 I wouldn't necessarily call my argument a premise. Yes, a premise is said to be a belief or argument, but it's also said to be a (theory). What I'm saying is absolutely factual because it's backed by proof. Of course, this is somewhat of a catch 22 situation, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. On the other hand, I disagree with you saying that my "conclusion is that all white males are bad, criminals or stupid." No, I never said that, and you're presuming that I think this way when I actually don't. You also said that "I need more evidence and that my logic is debatable."...I'll quote you. "It's a premise I find reasonable." So, you're basically agreeing with some of the things that I'm saying... Am I right? You also said that I'll need more evidence to prove it. I don't think that I'll have to prove it after you quote-on-quote said that "many crimes throughout history (Imperialism/Slavery/Holocaust) have been directly caused by white males." Did you not say that? Now please guide me to where I can find black males who have pulled these schemes. You basically agreed with me without even knowing that you actually agreed.

I speak in-general...not absolutes.

I'm paraphrasing, but you said that "the past 300 years, white men has held the most social power, and that every group is capable of committing atrocities. The group that's in power has the means to commit as many cruelties as they want to further their own interests."... Yes, if you have the power, then you could do as you please, but that sounds like an excuse. You have to be careful with what you say because you just emphatically stated the reason to why white men have committed the most humanitarian crimes. I don't think that this is even a debate because your answers are perfectly proving my point...You said "the nobles exploit the peasants, the rich exploit the poor and white men have (historically) exploited the rest."...Need I Say More?

You say that I make extreme claims about white men and that I need to prove it. OK...I'm aware that all races commit crimes, but can you equate something that one black male has done that equates to Hitler? How about King Leopold II of Belgium? Was it black people who committed genocide of the Aboriginal people of Australia? The French Conquest in Algeria? Just look at what whites have done to the Native-Americans. You befriended them, learned about the environment from them and massacred them. On top of that, whites creates a fake holiday (Thanksgiving) to cover-up the crime. Really? In addition to that, you're now claiming to be the very people ($5 Indians) that you purposely wiped out...Show me anywhere else in history that equates to that? https://americanvision.org/14932/teddy-roosevelt-whites-commit-genocide-indians/. There you go. Right from the horse's mouth.

Uugghhh...Here goes the faux statistics of black crime vs white crime in America. I knew it wouldn't be long before this popped up. I'll just say one thing about this topic because no white person has been able to (Logically) give a factual/rock-solid answer...If Blacks make up 14% of the population & whites make up 60% of the population in the US, then do you really think that the 14% is committing more crime than the 60% ?? Please give me a (Logical) answer without actually sounding illogical...I'll wait...…...You then went on to accept that whites get away with more crimes, and you said that the problem is with the system...Huh? So...who has control of the system...Whites or Blacks?...I'll wait...…..

I can't speak on NASA, NSF etc... because I don't know enough about distinct topics. You asked "why do women and people of color receive so many grants and scholarships?"...Well, I'm sure you've already answered your own question from your previous statements of (whoever has the power does as they please). Just so you know, white women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Yeah, I know it was designed for black people since white people purposely denied us jobs, (which is another crime), but whites have swindled their way into that program. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action. Yep, the government/congress, (which is controlled by whites) keeps flipping-the-script and you wonder why no one has faith in the US government. 

Dude, that's only Round 1. Do you really want to continue because I got plenty more documented facts in the pipeline. 

In conclusion, I Do Not hate white people. I'm just pointing out and exposing the hypocrisy. 






Published:
You seem to think that I’m supporting your point somehow. Even to the point of just quoting what I said and stating “Need I say more?” You’re doing this by taking my quotes out of the context of their actual arguments. As I’ll further explain, I accept the idea that white males have done many terrible things in the past, but I don’t think it’s because they’re white males, and I don’t think white males deserve hatred because of it.

No, I never said that [white males are bad, criminals, or stupid].
I’ll just leave some of your quotes here:

“Is there some kind of mental imbalance that makes white males so evil or is it sheer stupidity of their intelligence...or lack thereof?”

“white males dominate the headlines sections of the crime reports”

“Murder, theft, ponzi schemes, larceny, sexual abuse, pedophilia, hate crimes, perjury etc...equals the white male.”
You most definitely said that white males are evil, stupid criminals. I’m surprised that you tried to deny it, considering all this is only a small page-scroll away. Maybe you don’t think these things are true, but this is most definitely what you said. Also, if your argument is not that all white males are evil, then I’m wondering what exactly the premise of this debate is, as it was never really clearly defined.

You also said that I'll need more evidence to prove it. I don't think that I'll have to prove it after you… Now please guide me to where I can find black males who have pulled these schemes. You basically agreed with me without even knowing that you actually agreed.
I don’t think you understood the point of my argument. See, the point I agreed with you on was that white males have caused many atrocities throughout history. I disagree with just about everything else you said. I don’t think the crimes of past white males can be put on the heads of modern white males. Nobody should be blamed for the sins of their ancestors. And the thing I was asking evidence for was your repeated claims that all white males are evil and stupid. I hope that you either show me your evidence behind these things you said, or admit you were just deliberately using exaggerated and inflammatory language.

Of course black males have caused many atrocities throughout history: the Rwandan genocide, for example. And you could argue that that doesn’t equal the casualties of Western imperialism in scope - but that was one of my main points last round. Every ethnic group has nefarious people who would kill others for political gain. It just so happens that, from the time of Napoleon to around the Second World War, almost the entire world was held in the iron grip of Europe’s colonial empires, and ruled over by a culture in which white men were supreme. It’s not that white men are inherently more evil than anyone else. It’s that greedy, selfish people, as there are in every race, found it much easier to carry out their cruelty because they had the equipment and the power to do it. If Arab or Chinese great powers had ended up taking over the world in the same way, I don't doubt that the same things would have happened, because they all had slavery, imperialism, and genocide of their own. The only difference is one of scale.

I’m not making excuses for atrocities - I’m saying it’s fallacious to think that these atrocities in any way proves that white men are more evil than anyone else. You remind me of religious people who say “Atheism is evil because Hitler and Stalin were atheists”. It’s debatable in Hitler’s case, but if they were, then that doesn’t mean anything - they didn’t kill people because of atheism. You could just as easily say that silly mustaches are evil because both Hitler and Stalin had them. In the same way, you’re just name-dropping a bunch of crimes committed by white men, but failing to convince me that it’s because they’re white that they happened, or because they’re men, or how that has any bearing on white men today. But I have to ask: what exactly is the crux of your argument here? Tell me, in a sentence, the main point you’re getting across in this debate. Because again, I’m not exactly clear. I thought when I accepted this debate that it was about all white men being evil, which it isn’t (despite you saying so several times). Is your argument just that these atrocities happened? Because that’s not a debate topic, that’s a statement of fact.

I see little point in responding to your paragraph which name-drops more genocides. I’ve already made clear my stance on the atrocities caused by white males, and acknowledging your examples would just belabor the point. I’ll just wait for a rebuttal to what I’ve already said.

Uugghhh...Here goes the faux statistics of black crime vs white crime in America.
So...you’re going to accuse my sources of being wrong, without even taking a look at it? Generally, in debates, if you want to critique an opponent’s source or statistics, you have to actually explain why they’re not worthy of trust. Because what you’re doing right now is calling my source a lie only because it undermines the points you’ve made. You can’t just plug your ears and pretend you don’t hear me when I say a fact you don’t like. You’re going to have to either convince me that my source is unreliable, or revise your argument and admit that white men don’t “dominate the headlines sections of the crime reports”. You can’t just rely on your own intuition that “the 14% is committing more crime than the 60%” sounds unrealistic, and therefore it’s untrue, because we have well-documented evidence that it is true, and you’re not even acknowledging it. If you’re going to discredit every source you don’t like, without explaining why, then it’s going to be impossible to have any sort of logical discussion. I understand that you’re still learning the ropes, but what you’re doing right now is arguing in bad faith.

Affirmative action has always been meant for women as well, because after all, women have faced plenty of problems entering the workforce too. It’s not a case of “swindling” at all. Of course, you could argue that white women are getting very preferential treatment as compared to people of color. I'm certainly not going to deny that systemic racism exists. I can honestly understand why some people feel antagonistic toward white males. But it's foolish to take the crimes of some and blame all of them for it.

Dude, that's only Round 1. Do you really want to continue because I got plenty more documented facts in the pipeline.
Of course I’d like to continue. So far, you haven’t really proved anything to me this round, just made the same points which I’ve already acknowledged from the beginning. I’m still waiting for your “documented facts” on, for example, how the majority of white men are mentally disturbed. And if I find a problem with your evidence, I will give you a detailed explanation as to why, which is a courtesy you haven’t been giving me.

Round 3
Published:
First of all, you keep saying hatred as if I hate white people. No, I'm just pointing out the facts of what many white people have done throughout the years. I'm basically looking at what's going on today and comparing it to things that happened in the past. The common denominator just so happens to be white people. There's an old saying that goes, "once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a trend." 

You displayed some of my actual quotes, but have you noticed that there's a (question mark) at the end of the sentence? That means that I'm asking a question rather than making a definitive statement. After that, you displayed another one of my statements which says "white males dominate the headlines section of the crime reports."...The fact is that white males actually dominate the crime reports on any given day. It doesn't take faux stats from a government website to see who's doing what. The local/national news & newspapers will show you exactly who's doing what, when and where.

Sir, the title of the debate, "The White Male: America & The World's Original Terrorist," is the actual premise. As I said earlier, I speak in-general and not in absolutes. You also keep saying that this is "definitely what I said."...Nope, because this is definitely what I (asked). Did I not use a question mark at the end?

Did you not make this statement? "From The Inquisition To Slavery To Imperialism To The Holocaust, Many Crimes Against Humanity Throughout History Have Been Directly Caused By White Males."...Who made that statement; was it Me or was it You? Hmmm...If you don't believe me, the scroll up to your previous argument & read the sixth line... As I said earlier, you're basically agreeing with me, and you don't even know it.

Show me exactly where I said the word "all?" You can't because I never said it. You're assuming that I said all, which is another blunder on your behalf. Now that I caught your blunder, let's move on...Dude, who's blaming you for what your ancestors did? Yes, I already agreed to the fact that every race of people has dominated its own race so there's no argument to make. On the other hand, I want to quote you again because you said that "from the time of Napoleon to around the Second World War, almost the entire world was held in the iron grip of Europe’s colonial empires, and ruled over by a culture in which white men were supreme. It’s not that white men are inherently more evil than anyone else. It’s that greedy, selfish people, as there are in every race, found it much easier to carry out their cruelty because they had the equipment and the power to do it.".....Whether white men were evil or not, during that specific period of time, white men were committing more crimes because they were in power. Am I correct?...So, who exactly has been in power ever since that period in time? Need I say more?

The Arab & Chinese didn't take over the world so that's a hypothetical statement, & you're once again (assuming) that they would've done the same thing. I'm paraphrasing, but you also said that "other races practiced slavery, imperialism etc, and the only difference is one of scale."...Yes, I agree, but the Magnitude of other races who practiced slavery, imperialism etc  Was Not Equal to Caucasian Slavery. If it wasn't equal, then that proves once again that whites committed more crime...I'm just basically sitting back and letting you destroy your own argument. 

Now, you're saying that you're unclear of what the debate is about. Really? You must be running out of material. Despite what you say, I'm not trying to convince you of what happened in the past and what's happing now. I'm simply using documented facts to support my case. You can believe what you want to believe, but reality is the proof. Trust me, I've looked at your sources about the IQ differences, (which is a deflection tactic) and the fact checking, but you're assuming that I didn't...The answer to your question comes from the question that I previously asked you...Logically explain to me how 14% of the population is committing more crime than 60%? This  is the backbreaker that no white person has logically answered and we all know why. You said that it's true but you fail to actually prove it. This is why your source is 100% faux.
1. Child Pedophilia cases: White
2. Theft: White
3. School Shooters: White
4. Hate Crimes: White
5. Discrimination Crimes: White
6. Sexual Assault cases: White
7. School Teachers Sexually Assaulting Students: White
8. Tax Evasion: White
9. Job Site Shootings: White
10. Serial Killers: White
11. Mass Murderers: White
12. Nightclub Shootings: White
13. Bribery: White
14. Multimillion Dollar Ponzi Schemes: White
15 And on and on...

In conclusion: Affirmative Action was written for Black people in the Civil Rights Bill, not for white women. Lumping everyone together as a minority is how the government destroyed that Bill and that's a fact. 


Published:
First of all, you keep saying hatred as if I hate white people.
From the beginning, you’ve said nothing about white people except how horrible they are. If you tell me you don’t hate them, I’ll believe you, but I certainly had every reason to assume you do.

Anyway, it seems like we’ve reached the point in the debate where we’re just going to squabble over semantics. I was hoping for a productive conversation, but I guess this is the way it’s going to have to be. Just because you used a question mark doesn’t immediately invalidate everything you said. Your question reads “Is there some kind of mental imbalance that makes white males so evil or is it sheer stupidity of their intelligence...or lack thereof?” That question is loaded with the assumption that white males are indeed evil. You’re not asking whether or not they’re evil - you’re stating that they are evil, and asking why. For example, let’s say I asked “Why do Christians want to burn heretics alive and execute gays? Is it because they’re stupid, or just crazy?” And let’s say a Christian person responds that not all Christians want to do these things. And I say to him “Whoa there bucko, I never said Christians want to kill people. I used a question mark, after all. That means I didn’t say it.” And this is basically the conversation we’re having right now.

The fact is that white males actually dominate the crime reports on any given day. It doesn't take faux stats from a government website to see who's doing what. The local/national news & newspapers will show you exactly who's doing what, when and where.
Can you give me an example, then? Any link would do. Also, if we’re going to talk about which sources are reliable and which aren’t, what makes you think that newspapers are more reliable than .gov sites? Newspapers are notorious for only reporting on the stories that will make for a juicy headline and push a certain narrative. For example, go to any right-wing news source, like Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, or Fox News, and I guarantee you’ll see that their front pages are dominated by reports of violence from blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and “Antifa”. While more mainstream news sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post are certainly more reliable in terms of journalistic integrity, they also have their fair share of bias. And since all these news sites are rapidly losing money, they’ll resort to whatever gets them a click. Meanwhile, government sources don’t have to worry about getting clicks, because they already have their funding, which allows them to better report on objective facts and statistics. Indeed, national newspapers completely rely on government statistics and cite them in almost every story.

Sir, the title of the debate, "The White Male: America & The World's Original Terrorist," is the actual premise.
That’s not really a premise. There’s a difference between a title and a premise. A title is something meant to grab your attention and make you interested in reading. The premise of your debate is what you’re actually going to be talking about, and most people give a clear statement of this at the beginning, sometimes called a thesis. Most debates on here tend to put the thesis in the title. For example, if I made a debate and titled it “Coke is better than Pepsi”, you immediately know what it’s gonna be about. You opted to do the attention-grabbing title instead, which would be fine if you had a thesis somewhere...except you don’t. What am I supposed to gather from that title? Is your main argument that white males were the first terrorists? Clearly not, because you haven’t made a single reference to terrorism. Terrorism doesn’t just mean “something bad” - it has a clear political meaning, and doesn’t include genocide, slavery, or imperialism. So now, I’m not totally clear on what the debate is even about. And you haven’t exactly been helpful to me in learning.

What did you expect your opponent on this to do, argue that white males have never committed any form of murder or crime ever? I’m not going to do that. Because that is, as we both know, a ludicrous position to take. The difference is what we infer from the already established fact. And I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make. I asked you if you believe white males are evil, and you said no. So I said that all races are equally capable of being evil, and you said no. What position are you taking here? Are all white males evil or not? You have shown no interest in actually talking about the deeper reasons behind our philosophical positions. Instead, you seem to believe that, because I acknowledge that slavery and imperialism happened, that means I agree with you.

When this debate began, I was really hoping for an interesting, profitable conversation. I didn’t listen to what the commenters had to say, because I wanted to give you a chance. But I now see that they were right. Throughout this whole debate, you’ve been taking this tone of “I’m going to destroy you with facts and logic”, yet you haven’t been providing me with either. You seem to be treating this like a game that you have to win, so you won’t acknowledge anything you’ve gotten wrong. When I point out the faulty statements you made before round 1, you ignore me. When I give a source that you don’t like, you call it “faux”. When I agree on you with any point, you eagerly take it as a victory for yourself. Even when I point out a basic contradiction in the things you’ve said, you won’t acknowledge it exists, because “you used a question mark”. Listen - a good debater always knows when to admit when they’re wrong. It’s not going to count against you. In fact, by your strategy of doubling down on every single statement you’ve made, you’ve guaranteed that the rest of this debate is just going to be nitpicking about minor grammatical errors. Which saddens me. I was hoping we could actually talk about what we believe, and why, and maybe even try to find a compromise. But instead, you haven’t even been focusing on the topic so much as trying to one-up me in everything. Debates are about honestly sharing our views about a subject, and backing them up with facts and evidence. It’s about allowing your beliefs to be challenged, in the hopes that you can grow and profit from the experience. But I see that you’re not interested in sharing your beliefs, because you refuse to tell me what your main argument even is. And if you continue to approach debates the way you do, I guarantee you’ll never learn anything from them.

Whether white men were evil or not, during that specific period of time, white men were committing more crimes because they were in power. Am I correct?
So, you’re saying again that my acknowledgement of the existence of atrocities committed by white men is a victory for you. From this, am I to assume that you really do expect your opponent to argue that slavery, imperialism, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust never happened? Is that the thesis of your debate? “White men have committed genocide in the past, change my mind”? If so...wow. I would have never accepted it had I known that. Using a topic that’s so easy for yourself, and would force your opponent to deny reality, without even explicitly stating what your topic is...that’s very poor conduct. I hope the voters will keep this in mind when casting their ballots.

Now, you're saying that you're unclear of what the debate is about. Really? You must be running out of material.
You’ve never explicitly stated your position on the subject. You’ve forced me to guess what it is. And as for “running out of material”, this isn’t really about material anymore as far as I can tell. I see no point in looking for sources when you’re just going to call them fake or “a deflection tactic” and not acknowledge anything they say. I see no point in trying to make arguments when you won’t tell me your main argument, and prefer to nitpick at grammar rather than respond to what I’m saying. At this point, I’m just going to respond to what I can and see if it goes anywhere. You've given me one interesting question to latch on to:

Logically explain to me how 14% of the population is committing more crime than 60%?
That I can do. It’s well-established that poverty is linked with crime [1], and this is true for all races. Poor people are more likely to be driven to shoplifting, robbery, and gang membership in order to meet basic needs like food and money, are more likely to use illegal drugs, don’t receive good education, have higher rates of untreated mental illness, and other factors leading to crime. And it’s also true that there is a racial wealth gap in America: in 2013, the average amount of wealth for white households was $656,000, while for black households it was only $85,000 [2]. And the gap seems to be widening. Why do African Americans make so much less money? Because, as I have mentioned before, of our history of discrimination against blacks. Black people were historically prevented from building wealth by the Jim Crow laws, which of course no longer exist, but poverty carries on through generations. When moving to cities in the early 20th century, blacks were forced into the bad, poorly funded parts of town, a process known as redlining, which created what we call the ghetto. So when you take into account this historic poverty, and keep in mind the link between poverty and crime, and add onto that the police’s disproportionate attention to African Americans, it makes perfect sense why 14% of the population is committing more homicides than 60%. I believe that if the racial wealth gap were somehow closed, this disparity in crime rates would also disappear.

I'm sure my arguments will be dismissed. You’ve shown nothing but hostility towards any form of argument or sources. Rather than keeping an open mind and considering the possibility that you're wrong, you immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or lying. Hopefully you see the problem with that. If not, then there isn’t much more I can say.

Sources:
Round 4
Published:
After reading your last argument, I can see where you may have felt misled by the title. Maybe I write my questions a bit too blunt & I see your point. In my defense, I will say that I'm not a professional debater and I don't really know how debates are technically structured other than arguing back & forward. Thesis, introductions etc,...I try to get straight to the point in my arguments, which happens to be blunt, because most people aren't going to sit and read a full novel. This is just something I do in my free time but you do have a point on what you're saying. I'll try & finish this as simple as possible.

Ok, when I reference local/national news & newspapers, the citizens in their towns/cities can actually see what's happing in their immediate area. Example: If someone robs a bank in my city & gets caught, then it will definitely see it in the newspaper or on the local news. Whether it's petty crimes or full-blown homicide, people can get the scoop about what's happening in the area. That's as basic as I can state it...On the other hand, I've noticed that white people put all of their faith into what the government says. I fully understand that this is a white-run society & white people get preferential treatment, but that's the downside of getting preferential treatment because you've become jaded to what's actually happening. Yes, news syndicates can & do push narratives, but are you aware that you're falling for a narrative that isn't logical? i.e. the 14 vs 60 crime percentages.

You're basically praising a government that has a documented history of corruption, which can't be denied. The freaking nation was founded on slavery for God's sake. I want to ask you a few questions about your ethical government.
1. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the government blatantly stated that Iraq possessed?
2. After slavery, what happened to the 40 acres & a mule for the freed slaves?
3. Why do the government not punish cops & put policies in place to protect people when they're literally being murdered on camera?
4. Why did the government give white people millions of acres of free land in America, but denied black people the same benefits?
5. Why does the government allow banks to redline Black neighborhoods after the gov. has purposely stripped away the funding?
6. Why is the gov. fighting to keep immigrants out of the US, but the gov. opposes Africa for kicking immigrants out its land?
7. Why did the government take the hundreds of thousands of Black people's money from the Freedman's Bank?
8. Why is the gov. paying Billions in reparations to the fake Jews & Natives but refuses reparations for the people who didn't get a dime for building this country.
9. Do You See Where I'm Going With This?

And you expect people to believe what this government says. All those lives lost in foreign wars over absolutely nothing. As a former soldier of the USAF for nine years, I can tell you personally that this government started wars over natural resources because my boots were on the ground.

Next Topic: You said that I haven't made a single reference to terrorism & that terrorism doesn't mean something bad? So, try telling that to a gay person who was beat/killed by a homophobe. Tell that to people who had groups of men that put burning crosses on their property. Tell that to an unarmed citizen who gets shot by a cop that wasn't provoked. Tell that to a little kid who's getting bullied by a bigger kid. 

Like I said in the introduction, I honestly see where you're coming from and I can see that I wasn't as fair toward you as I should've been. I do apologize. My topics are generally controversial. I choose these topics to get a better understanding of how people think. Yes, I'd like to win in a debate, but I'm well-aware that the demographics are not in my favor, especially on these topics. I've been called a racist for simply exposing the obvious. On the other hand, I've been called every racist word in the book, but it doesn't bother me because people's true colors shine bright behind these computer screens.

I'm off-topic, but it is what it is.

Published:
Thank you for understanding my points. If you’d like to learn how debates are generally structured on this site, I’d recommend checking out this document, especially section IV. The problem isn’t that you’re blunt. Bluntness is fine. The problem is that you never clearly stated the terms of the debate, and when you don’t have a resolution clearly spelled out, the debate is going to be directionless and lack any sort of rules to guide it. Which is why this didn’t really go anywhere.

Ok, when I reference local/national news & newspapers, the citizens in their towns/cities can actually see what's happing in their immediate area. Example: If someone robs a bank in my city & gets caught, then it will definitely see it in the newspaper or on the local news.
But how would you really know that the bank was robbed? Most of the townspeople wouldn’t be present at the scene, so they wouldn’t know. And I could just accuse all the witnesses of being crisis actors paid by the city council to stage the robbery as part of a government conspiracy. If that sounds silly, I’m just using your logic of doubting .gov websites and applying it to newspapers.

The thing is, not all white people think the same way or hold the same opinions. For example, I have very little faith in the government. Especially right now. But the government isn’t some shadowy, monolithic organization. It’s made up of people, like us. People who think independently, often disagree with each other, and very often make mistakes. Still, most government-funded studies are just reports of objective facts, and they will tell you clearly where they got the facts from. There’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. It’s good to question everything. But what you’re doing is selective skepticism. You assume that sources which disagree with you are wrong, before so much as taking a look at them. And yet you’re happy to fully trust any source that supports your existing notions about the world. It’s important to be consistent and fair when trying to think critically.

are you aware that you're falling for a narrative that isn't logical? i.e. the 14 vs 60 crime percentages.
So then, do you not accept my explanation for why that’s the case? This is what I’m talking about. When faced with something you don’t want to hear, you reject it, and say it “isn’t logical”. That goes against the entire point of debate. Just because you don’t like a certain fact doesn’t mean you get to say it’s wrong. You have to prove it, preferably backed up with evidence.

You're basically praising a government that has a documented history of corruption... I want to ask you a few questions about your ethical government.
Please tell me: at what point did I ever praise the government or say it was completely ethical? I'm going to assume that this particular statement isn’t addressed to me, but to white people in general. I will say, as I have from the beginning, that the U.S. government has done bad things, as all governments have. I don’t know why you expect me to defend them. I understand that you’re angry and frustrated about these things, and you have a right to be. But ranting about it isn’t going to help. When someone lashes out and attacks people for their skin color, those people tend not to listen to the rest of what they have to say, whether or not their emotions are justified. I think it would be better if you put your energy into helping to teach and educate people about these things. A lot of white guys don’t know about the effects of segregation and redlining. They think racism ended in the 1960s, and believe black people are whining over nothing. I assume you’ve come in contact with plenty of these ignorant types online. But if you want to have a chance at changing their minds, it’s best not to take this hostile tone. Most of these guys aren’t racist - just uneducated and misguided. If you were to actually show them the facts and evidence, you might actually help them get “woke”. If you insult them, they’ll only dig in their heels in their current beliefs. Or worse, you’ll give them a negative perception of black people and “SJWs”, which could be just enough of a push to send them down the pipeline toward white nationalism and the alt-right.

I understand if this is just something you do in your free time. But hopefully you understand why I think this is so important. There’s more to debating than “gotcha” moments and “destroying” your opponent. I’ve had many debates back on DDO, and the ones I enjoyed most were the ones where we had an intense discussion, but kept a sense of civility and politeness. I think you would enjoy it a great deal more too, because if you’re not hostile, people will be way more willing to listen to what you have to say. I get that you’re on the defensive because of your experiences online, but what you’re doing is taking the fun out of debate for everyone, not just yourself. If you have any questions about debating in general, don’t hesitate to let me know over a message or something.

As one last response, I’ll say this: a homophobe who beats a gay person to death isn’t necessarily a terrorist, a cop who shoots an unarmed citizen isn’t a terrorist, and a common playground bully definitely isn’t a terrorist. According to Oxford Dictionaries, a terrorist is “A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” The above examples don’t involve political aims, like deliberately trying to create panic or terror in a country, or trying to force a certain political ideology. Your example with the Klan could arguably count, though, because there are many white supremacist groups which I would consider terrorists. Right now, they’re a far bigger threat to the Western world than the Muslims they fear so much. Point is, terrorism is a more nuanced concept than just “people being bad to each other”.

Don’t worry about getting off-topic. This was more of a dialogue than a debate, as you said it was going to be. I guess for the last round, we can just respond to whatever we will, sum up our points, and say why we should be voted for.

Round 5
Published:
No problem man. I little constructive criticism doesn't hurt, but I got to address some of the illogical inconsistencies that you're spewing below. This is the conclusion so I'm more so going to finish with a closing argument rather reply to random questions.

My example of a bank robbery is just basic knowledge because a high majority of bank robbers tend to get caught either during the act or after the fact. You know it, I know it and everyone knows it. You're right about most people wouldn't be on the scene, but with so much technology in place, there's a great chance that a bank robber will get caught. The point I'm making is that the robbery will get media attention whether it's tv, newspapers or radio...This media attention will display the person's image, race, age etc...Media is all around the world and era's of the past have documented evidence of what people have done. Though it's wrong, but this is why I came up with the title of this debate. 

I'm not going to be blunt, but I'm going to tell the truth on how things are and how they've always been in the US. The point I'm making is that we all know each other's history to a certain degree. We all know that one group gets better treatment in society than another group. We all know that one group seems to have a messiah complex despite have numerous shortcomings. This one group is going to do everything possible to retain power while portraying to have on angelic façade. No matter which way someone try's to spin it, Caucasian people have done the most dirt on earth. History proves it and we can't change the past. I don't believe that people are born evil/racist, but I know for a fact that it's taught. If it wasn't taught, then there would be any evil/racism today. 

Society tries to convince the masses that Muslims or the Islamic faith are the posterchild of evil, but reality proves that Christians or the Christian faith has done the most devilish things. There's no was to argue it because history speaks for itself. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone specific, but entire races or ethnicities of people have been wiped out by Christians. From Australia to Africa, there's a dated-time stamp of evidence that is on display at museums or shown in documentaries. I think that we all should stop pointing the fingers and really start to taking a look at ourselves. 

The media has probably done the most damage, and the media has a purpose. If you control the information, then you control the people because you'll have the power to control the images of what the masses will see. The same group of people who controls the media are in control of the government. These media and government figures are the descendants of the people who colonized the world. There's no amount of money that will get these people to show who they really are because it could cause global anarchy if the truth ever reaches the masses...Here in America, this is exactly why our history classes in school are teaching have-truths and full-fledged lies. This is why the image of Christ is passed as European even though this image is a complete contradiction to what the Bible actually says he looks like. This is why Africa is nothing more than a Eugenics project that's disguised as missionary work. 

This concludes my argument and reasoning. If anyone thinks that I'm lying, then all you have to do is research what I've said in this last paragraph. The information is in plain sight, but it's not my place to hold your hand and guide you to it.          Thanks to my opponent for the discussion.


Published:
I don’t think I have anything left to respond to this round, so it’s mostly just going to be a final summary.

This debate was all over the place. There wasn’t really a consistent order of arguments and rebuttals. And this all stems from a fatal mistake: the instigator forgot to give the debate a clear resolution. The title doesn’t state it clearly, and when asked repeatedly, he never gave a clear answer. Because there’s no point in arguing when we don’t have a clear topic to argue about, you’ll see that I mostly gave up on trying to do that in later rounds. Instead, I decided to take the opportunity to talk about some of the basic principles of formal debate, many of which my opponent wasn’t aware of.

I also focused on my opponent’s poor conduct and logical inconsistency. He has berated white people all 5 rounds, but refuses to admit it when questioned. He has accused any source which disagrees with him of lying. He believes that a well-documented statistic about race and crime is false, and gives no evidence for thinking so other than that it’s supposedly “illogical”. When he did make arguments, it seemed to be addressed at strawmen rather than me. He has refused to admit he’s said anything wrong, such as his denial that he ever called white males evil despite it being in the description for all to see. He has contradicted himself many times - for example, in the last round claims that he’s “not pointing the finger at anyone specific”, and then immediately points the finger at Christians for doing “devilish things”. And the paragraph before that, he pointed the finger at white people for doing “the most dirt on earth”. And all this is ignoring the numerous ad hominem attacks in the debate and in the comments. I wouldn’t even take issue with his comments about white males if he would just own up and admit that he’s prejudiced. But the hypocrisy makes my opponent’s conduct all the worse in my eyes.

I think conversations about race are necessary and important to have. The more controversial, the better. The problem here wasn’t that my opponent was being racist; it was that he didn’t know how to debate. It was a tricky situation, but I hope I handled it well. To my opponent, I know that my comments above may sound harsh, but that’s truly the way I saw this debate. I’m happy we were able to find some common ground, but I can’t let you off the hook for your behavior. Thank you too for the discussion.


Added:
"But the government isn’t some shadowy, monolithic organization. It’s made up of people, like us. People who think independently, often disagree with each other, and very often make mistakes."
This quote is brilliant. It perfectly summarizes what the government is.
#65
Added:
--> @mairj23
Your right facts are facts the fact that blacks commit more crime
#64
Added:
In-fighting happens with every race on their native land.
For Example: You can argue with family members on your property and it's a simple family dispute, but if a random stranger steps on your family's property and causes trouble then it's definitely a problem. .
Instigator
#63
Added:
Facts are facts. Italian servants on the East benefited under these systems so that eradicates your story. I'd probably make up a "I worked hard" excuse also if I received freebies.
Instigator
#62
Added:
--> @mairj23
Considering that many Native Americans and tribal Africans stole land from each other on a regular basis and only won any land in the first place through bloody conquest and political marriages and trades, it is ridiculous to claim that the invading whites have any less right than the more local invaders.
#61
Added:
--> @mairj23
If you're going to go the "stolen land" route then absolutely any non-Native American person in the United States who is a landowner is equally culpable. You have large numbers of Asian-American immigrants who came voluntarily, and in any case as for, say, blacks, whether or not their ancestors came voluntarily doesn't change the fact that anybody born here today was born here involuntarily. As for the Homestead Act, that's irrelevant for me personally. For starters, my family lives too far east, and in any case I doubt you have any large number of cases of "we've been living on the same plot for 150 years" over in, say, Nebraska. Families expand, which means each new generation needs to find their own place. My dad, when he married my mom, found his own place, a trailer somewhere. Whatever level of prosperity that his parents had managed to accrue did not benefit him in that instance. He never went to college, so the "his rich parents helped him get through college so he was the next generation of highly paid skilled laborer" argument also doesn't apply here. Likewise, he did not get his career job as a result of nepotism. As a young adult he had very little and he worked his way up until he succeeded. As far as I know no member of my family (or at least not on my dad's side) was ever in the military so the G.I. Bill is also irrelevant. There was little in way of "freebies" involved there.
As for me myself, well, of course I'm enjoying freebies. I'm living well as a result of his hard work. I'm not going to argue otherwise. But your overall point falls flat.
#60
Added:
--> @Bazza97125
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
RFD: Eminem is the best
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
#59
Added:
--> @mairj23
You actually can control who votes. If you select "Judicial Decision" and select the people you want to vote. That being said, we discussed the option of blocking people from voting on debates. It was almost unanimously voted down.
#58
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
The voting process is flawed. I can't control who votes, and it was clearly a con job because the voter left a ridiculous reason to why he voted the way that he did. My opponent gets 7 pts? Oh well, on to the next topic.
Instigator
#57
Added:
--> @Swagnarok
The North was always industrial even during slavery. Cotton and other natural resources didn't just manifest into actual products. Yep, farm-based economics which were mainly destroyed.
Yes, Freebies...White wealth came from owning land. Am I correct? Now...tell me how much Free Land that white people received from the Headright System and Homestead Act? The G.I Bill was another freebie also in which all freebies transferred into generational wealth that was passed down. Don't let your pride cause you to get embarrassed.
Instigator
#56
Added:
--> @Ad_Infinitum
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ad_Infinitum // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: Con was interested in the spirit of debate, and used logical processes to explain their argument, while pro resorted to Ad Hominem arguments and flagrant personal statements. In addition, pro failed to address their own original claim, and argued semantics.
Reason for mod action: This voter is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#55
Added:
--> @mairj23
By your own admission also, the Southern economy was decimated during the Civil War, in large part due to the actions of such war criminals as General Sherman. The rebuilt economy of such, therefore, could not have had as its foundation unfree black labor. A large Southern middle class did not fully ripen until the economic boom of the 1980s and 90s (well over a century later), which explains their switch to Republican in 1994 (middle class people have always tended to vote GOP).
#54
Added:
--> @mairj23
Freebies? You mean the good life I now enjoy because my father spent his entire adult life working hard?
Your comment is non-sequitur. The fact that there are poor and unskilled people in prosperous countries (though on a per capita basis China is a middle-income economy) does not in any way prove your claim. The North surpassed the South because by 1860 it was an industrial powerhouse whereas the South was still agricultural. Farm-based economies will always be at a critical disadvantage compared to modern ones, which've moved beyond mere resource extraction. I think virtually any orthodox economist would agree with me here.
#53
Added:
--> @Swagnarok
By far the dumbest comment of the 21st century...China has a large, skilled workforce and many areas in China are poor....in the modern-era.
I'd think that since the North beat the South mainly on the South's turf then all of the destruction in the South would cause the North to excel.
If it's ludicrous, then give back all of your freebies that you enjoy today.
Instigator
#52
Added:
If slavery made a country rich then Mauritania would be a superpower by now. If anything it hinders the long-term growth of a nation by artificially deflating the value of labor, driving up profit margins well beyond what's normal for a business and so killing incentive for investment (since easy money is guaranteed no matter what basically). It also renders a large portion of the potential workforce unable to do anything beyond menial labor, though we now know that a large skilled workforce is needed for a country to thrive in the modern era.. The North overtook the South economically for a reason, and so the very idea that a prosperous modern society can be "built on the backs of slaves" is ludicrous in and of itself.
#51
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I find this debate a little frustrating.
Pro lists specific examples of harms against the world, and society. It con accepts this, and largely accepts issues of privilege, generalized racism, etc.
Con frames the argument fairly succinctly. He attributes these actions to be due to them being the group in power. Not necessarily the fact that they were white. Con gives some specific example (such as the Rwandan genocide and others), relating to social power dynamics.
Pro mostly and validity cites accurate statistics about atrocities and crimes of whites, but falls foul of this framing.
Given that the resolution appears related to the whiteness of the individuals, given the description, and cons argument that frames it, I have to side with cons framing:
Everything pro said was true - yet it doesn’t show the resolution as con framed it, as pro appears to attribute it to whiteness not the power dynamic issues.
In these debate, the instigator needs to be super explicit in terms of what the resolution means, and whenever challenged they must staunchly defend that resolution: in this case, con made a better appear to the reasonable interpretation of the resolution and as a result, I must award arguments to con.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro starts out with statements like " "[White males] commit the most crime, and they get away with the most crime." This statement whether true or not, fail to support the claim, that white males are the ORIGINAL terrorists.
A. Crime and terrorism are not synonymous. Terrorism means "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
B. Even if white males were the WORST terrorists, that doesn't automatically make them the ORIGINAL terrorists.
The title claim also includes America for some reason, which doesn't make any sense if we assume that America in this context means the U.S. not the continental landmass. It is quite obvious, since the U.S. is less than 250 years old, that it can't have anything to do with the original terrorists.
The rest of the debate is hot air, as far as the title is concerned. Crime and America and Whites in America, but no terrorism, no Original Terrorism, and definitely no white original terrorism. I'm giving arguments to con since he successfully brought this up in saying " Is your main argument that white males were the first terrorists? Clearly not, because you haven’t made a single reference to terrorism. Terrorism doesn’t just mean “something bad” - it has a clear political meaning"