"Says the guy who does his research from Wiki. lol"
Another useless ad hominem attack with zero relevance to the subject at hand.
"I don't mind entertaining trolls. It let's me know that I've ruffled some feathers."
I've asked you multiple times to provide evidence, which you have failed to do. That isn't trolling.
"Just think about. A few basic questions obliterated your entire argument on a public forum & that speaks volumes."
My argument is: You have not provided sources, therefore I can dismiss your entire claim.
If this were a debate, I could literally say "no" and win.
Let me boil it down into a single question:
Do you have sources? Yes or no.
If so, then present them.
If not, then your entire argument can be dismissed via Hitchens' Razor.
"Lol. Says the guy who changes his thumbnail every two weeks."
What does this have to do with anything?
"Dude, I've already flamed your nonsensical argument with 3 basic questions. Remember...….the ones that you refuse to answer"
The only thing my argument utilizes is Hitchens' Razor, and right now it's working like a charm. The only way to "flame" it is to PROVE YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM...
unless you are unable to, which is completely understandable.
"If the various sources haven't proved it,"
What sources? Please enlighten me, if you can.
"then why did the DOJ state that white people have committed nearly ever domestic-racial attack in the US over the past year?"
When did the DOJ state this? What documentation can you produce to support this statement? Again, sources plz.
You were the one who stated that the US Department of Defense labelled White Americans as terrorists. The burden of proof is on you to prove this using a source, to show that you didn't just make that up.
"You would have to speak to the US Justice Dept. because they've labelled white Americans as Domestic Terrorists."
Can you show me any sources pertaining to this?
"As the "good book" says,"
What is this "good book" you are talking about? Please clarify.
"people are judged as a nation, not individually."
This is what is known as national stereotyping, and it leads to gross oversimplifications of large groups of people. What country someone lives in is not at all representative of their character, nor should it ever be taken into account when finding out what someone is like as a person. Also, America doesn't contain only white people, so by using a stereotype of Americans, you are putting Caucasians, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. into the same group.
Ramshutu stated that it is intellectual dishonesty at worst, to which I added it would commit debate-ending fallacies. I shared Ram's stance that AT WORST, it is intellectually dishonest. I guess I should've clarified that, to which I apologize.
What's wrong with a high character limit? It's a character cap (which can actually stop someone from putting forth their argument in their entirety), not a minimum requirement, and your argument can be as many or as few words as you want.
Addendum to round 1 argument:
My third point is actually arguing that KCA begs the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning, but I just wanted to state that to avoid any confusion
I was going to accept this debate just to see what it's like to argue from the theistic perspective, but then I realized...
you know what, I wanna keep my 1500+ rating.
Mutilations, by definition, require the loss of blood. You can't rip a body part out without expecting some bleeding. In these cases, it's just that the animals already bled out
Did the Department of Homeland Security OFFICIALLY label an entire race of people as domestic terrorists?
If yes, then please provide evidence.
If no, then stop talking.
"Nope, a generalization doesn't mean everyone. It's a broad or vast majority instead of certain individuals."
In that case, show me one piece of official documentation labelling OVER 50 PERCENT of white people as "domestic terrorists".
"You know good and well that every white person doesn't fall under the category."
Yes. I know that. It's almost as if that's what I was trying to say all along.
"If white people practice white supremacy in the US & since white supremacists are committing acts of terror in the US, then who do you think are being labelled as domestic terrorists?"
The white supremacists committing acts of terror in the US would be labelled as domestic terrorists. You said that white people in general (meaning everyone who is white) has been labelled as domestic terrorists. Big difference.
"3 white people committing three-seperate mass shootings in the past 90-ish days"
=
the government (or any other official institution) has labelled every single white person as a domestic terrorist
Definitions:
White People (caucasians):
1. White-skinned; of European origin.
(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/caucasian)
Officially:
1. In a formal and public way.
1.1With the authority of the government or other organization.
(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/officially)
Your argument is: White People Have Been Official[l]y Labelled As Domestic Terrorists
Your argument means: All people of European origin (those with white skin) have been formally labelled, by an official institution (government or otherwise), as a "domestic terrorist".
As far as I am aware of, no decree has been made, by any official institution, that labels EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN as a domestic terrorist. Yes, some white people have been labelled "terrorists", but this does not mean ALL HAVE BEEN.
This is what the CoC says:
"In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts."
@RM
There is no end to 0.999... or 0.333...
It literally goes on forever (the definition of a repeating decimal)
Also there is no such number as 0.0...(0 repeating forever into infinity)...1
because the 1 would literally be in the ∞ + 1 digit.
∞ + 1 does not exist
you need math help:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/arith-review-decimals/decimals-to-fractions/v/converting-fractions-to-decimals
(play the video at 1:11)
"Says the guy who does his research from Wiki. lol"
Another useless ad hominem attack with zero relevance to the subject at hand.
"I don't mind entertaining trolls. It let's me know that I've ruffled some feathers."
I've asked you multiple times to provide evidence, which you have failed to do. That isn't trolling.
"Just think about. A few basic questions obliterated your entire argument on a public forum & that speaks volumes."
My argument is: You have not provided sources, therefore I can dismiss your entire claim.
If this were a debate, I could literally say "no" and win.
Let me boil it down into a single question:
Do you have sources? Yes or no.
If so, then present them.
If not, then your entire argument can be dismissed via Hitchens' Razor.
"Lol. Says the guy who changes his thumbnail every two weeks."
What does this have to do with anything?
"Dude, I've already flamed your nonsensical argument with 3 basic questions. Remember...….the ones that you refuse to answer"
The only thing my argument utilizes is Hitchens' Razor, and right now it's working like a charm. The only way to "flame" it is to PROVE YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM...
unless you are unable to, which is completely understandable.
As for me, the only thing I need to deal with you is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
"I'll wait"
Literally me right now
"If the various sources haven't proved it,"
What sources? Please enlighten me, if you can.
"then why did the DOJ state that white people have committed nearly ever domestic-racial attack in the US over the past year?"
When did the DOJ state this? What documentation can you produce to support this statement? Again, sources plz.
My point is: Prove your statement (that the US Justice Department has labelled white Americans as domestic terrorists) with a source
You have yet to do that
My point still stands. Show me a source to prove your (currently) unsubstantiated claim. This should be easy, if you didn't make it up.
You were the one who stated that the US Department of Defense labelled White Americans as terrorists. The burden of proof is on you to prove this using a source, to show that you didn't just make that up.
My questions, which ask about stuff that YOU said, aren’t supposed to be “refuted”, they’re supposed to be answered.
Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours
"You would have to speak to the US Justice Dept. because they've labelled white Americans as Domestic Terrorists."
Can you show me any sources pertaining to this?
"As the "good book" says,"
What is this "good book" you are talking about? Please clarify.
"people are judged as a nation, not individually."
This is what is known as national stereotyping, and it leads to gross oversimplifications of large groups of people. What country someone lives in is not at all representative of their character, nor should it ever be taken into account when finding out what someone is like as a person. Also, America doesn't contain only white people, so by using a stereotype of Americans, you are putting Caucasians, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. into the same group.
It's not a mystery for people who actually understand the math.
A preeminent determining factor is the degree of one's education.
You’d be surprised how many people disagree with it
May I ask what percentage of Caucasians are “White Terorists”?
You sir, are a genius
It could be billbatard's evil/nice cousin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Piece of advice for the future: Try to make your time for argument at least one week.
Ramshutu stated that it is intellectual dishonesty at worst, to which I added it would commit debate-ending fallacies. I shared Ram's stance that AT WORST, it is intellectually dishonest. I guess I should've clarified that, to which I apologize.
"It’s intellectual dishonesty at its worst"
It's more than just intellectual dishonesty. It's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and arguably an Argument from Personal Incredulity as well.
What's wrong with a high character limit? It's a character cap (which can actually stop someone from putting forth their argument in their entirety), not a minimum requirement, and your argument can be as many or as few words as you want.
Addendum to round 1 argument:
My third point is actually arguing that KCA begs the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning, but I just wanted to state that to avoid any confusion
There are still many YECs out there, son
SEMANTICS YEEEEE
Thank you so much
Welp...
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1790/in-depth-voting-guide?page=1
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I was going to accept this debate just to see what it's like to argue from the theistic perspective, but then I realized...
you know what, I wanna keep my 1500+ rating.
god dammit you beat me to it
Mutilations, by definition, require the loss of blood. You can't rip a body part out without expecting some bleeding. In these cases, it's just that the animals already bled out
Did you seriously post an online article 3 times and call it your opening argument?
WOW YOUR STUNNING LACK OF EVIDENCE HAS ME SHOOK 🤯🤯🤯
oh wow no response...
“Who founded and made up the overall majority of White Supremacist groups?”
White Supremacists
Did the Department of Homeland Security OFFICIALLY label an entire race of people as domestic terrorists?
If yes, then please provide evidence.
If no, then stop talking.
Let me make this 10x simpler for you:
Who labelled white people as domestic terrorists?
"Nope, a generalization doesn't mean everyone. It's a broad or vast majority instead of certain individuals."
In that case, show me one piece of official documentation labelling OVER 50 PERCENT of white people as "domestic terrorists".
"Dude, how old are you? Really?"
16
"You know good and well that every white person doesn't fall under the category."
Yes. I know that. It's almost as if that's what I was trying to say all along.
"If white people practice white supremacy in the US & since white supremacists are committing acts of terror in the US, then who do you think are being labelled as domestic terrorists?"
The white supremacists committing acts of terror in the US would be labelled as domestic terrorists. You said that white people in general (meaning everyone who is white) has been labelled as domestic terrorists. Big difference.
"3 white people committing three-seperate mass shootings in the past 90-ish days"
=
the government (or any other official institution) has labelled every single white person as a domestic terrorist
???
Definitions:
White People (caucasians):
1. White-skinned; of European origin.
(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/caucasian)
Officially:
1. In a formal and public way.
1.1With the authority of the government or other organization.
(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/officially)
Your argument is: White People Have Been Official[l]y Labelled As Domestic Terrorists
Your argument means: All people of European origin (those with white skin) have been formally labelled, by an official institution (government or otherwise), as a "domestic terrorist".
As far as I am aware of, no decree has been made, by any official institution, that labels EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN as a domestic terrorist. Yes, some white people have been labelled "terrorists", but this does not mean ALL HAVE BEEN.
What fact? As far as I am aware of, no official institution has labelled all white people as domestic terrorists
I don't think you entirely know what your own proposition entails
This is what the CoC says:
"In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts."
Just make 100 forum posts.
Easy.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@RM
There is no end to 0.999... or 0.333...
It literally goes on forever (the definition of a repeating decimal)
Also there is no such number as 0.0...(0 repeating forever into infinity)...1
because the 1 would literally be in the ∞ + 1 digit.
∞ + 1 does not exist
@RM
Did you watch the video?
So you're saying 1/3 doesn't exist...
you need math help:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/arith-review-decimals/decimals-to-fractions/v/converting-fractions-to-decimals
(play the video at 1:11)
@RM
Three people are in a room. One person is wearing an orange shirt. What percentage of people in the room are wearing an orange shirt?
@RM
You're hopeless.
I'll just leave you with this (it's proving 9.999...=10, but it's the same concept as 0.999...=1):
M = 9.999999... <--- All 9s forever
10M = 99.999999... <--- All 9s forever
10M = 99.999999...
- M = 9.999999...
--------------------------------
9M = 90.0000000... <--- All 0s forever (9 - 9 = 0)
9M/9 = 90.0000000.../9
M = 10.0000000... = 10