Instigator / Pro
8
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#961

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Phenenas
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1522
rating
18
debates
58.33%
won
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.

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:

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.

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 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"