White-On-White Crime: America's Hidden Epidemic

The question I'm asking from the beginning of the debate remains the same as at does at the end: if the FBI statistics are flawed to the point that there's no reason to believe them at all, then what should I believe? Assuming I buy the entirety of Pro's argument, that alone is not sufficient to affirm. By Pro's own admission, his burden was to prove that white Americans commit the most crimes. That requires more than just assertions or even logical analysis (which I also felt was lacking from Pro). It requires that Pro provide evidence, solid numbers that support his point. The FBI source (though, surprisingly, not the numbers themselves) is the only one given in this debate, and both sides agree that it supports Con. That means the sole evidence that actually applies to the question of crime statistics is the very one that Pro is railing against. Assuming I buy any bit of it whatsoever (and I'm finding it very easy to do so, despite Pro's protestations), I vote Con.

However, let's assume I don't. It's Pro's burden to support the resolution. Without any evidence to support his case, he simply fails to affirm the resolution he's created. I could write off every word Con said in this debate and still find myself negating on this. If Pro wanted to use this debate for the sole purpose of challenging the accuracy of these statistics, his argument would have made more sense. But that wasn't what he did, and his tactics did nothing to aid him in winning this debate.

I didn't really understand what Pro was trying to prove here. When naming debates, he makes their names sound like book titles instead of the topics of the actual debates. However, I'm going to assume that Pro was trying to prove that African-Americans do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States, and that the statistics that support that idea are false. If that were the case, Pro failed miserably.

Round One:
Pro says he notices a lot of high-profile and low-profile crime happening recently, all of which was commited by whites. He provides no statistics WHATSOEVER, just personal anecdotes and a few bizzare stories with no sources to back them up. Pro concludes that because of these anecdotes, the statistic that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is false. He then asks if white people are mentally disabled and genetically more likely to commit crimes.
Con says that Pro refuses to trust official FBI statistics about blacks commiting a disproportionate amount of crime, and asks Pro why this is so. This is a valid question, as Pro has not provided any facts that prove the FBI statistics are false.
This round goes to: CON

Round Two:
This round starts off with Pro commiting a number of logical fallacies. First, he engages in an ad hominem fallacy and says that Con does not posess enough logic to even present an argument. Then, Pro assumes that Con said all FBI statistics are 100% truthful, even though Con never said that in this debate. Pro then gives two links about the misconduct of the FBI.
Con investigates the two pieces of evidence provided by Pro, and finds that they both do not prove Pro's statement. The first link concerns a isolated case of misconduct by an FBI agent. As Con rightly said, this isolated case is completely irrelevant. The second link is a web page with a list of summaries. Con rightly points out that Pro should present each summary separately, and that it is Pro's job to provide sources for his claims.
Round goes to: CON

Round Three: Pro again engages in a logical fallacy, the strawman fallacy. He claims that Con said all his evidence are isolated cases, which Con never said in the debate. Pro then says that because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, ALL OF the Bureau's statistics must be false. This is a non sequiter, the logic does not follow. Pro then accuses one of the FBI founders, Theodore Roosevelt, of racism, and calls most politicians of the USA criminals. The only source Pro provided was some bizzare "Global Research Center for Research on Globalization", which I couldn't find on the Internet no matter how hard I tried.
Con absolutely destroys Pro in the third round. He points out that just because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, does not mean that all of FBI statistics are completely false. He points out that Roosevelt's quote is from over a hundred years ago, and ideas like Roosevelt's were normal in the past. Now, the government and the FBI no longer hold these outdated, racist ideas. Con also exposes Pro's lie about the Global Research Center, proving that the report Pro presented was not talking about the FBI as an institution.
This round goes to: CON.

Round Four:
Pro accuses Con of not bringing any argument to the table. Yet in the following sentence, he says that Con's main argument was about FBI statistics. Pro then accuses Con of only talking about FBI statistics, when this was the topic of the entire debate. It seems to me that Pro is trolling at this point. Everything else in Pro's final argument is simply ad hominem attacks against Con and white people. Pro needs to understand that just calling someone names and blaming whites for everything is not an argument, you need things like sources and quotes as well. Pro is just stating his own opinions, he is not making arguments to disprove what Con is saying.
Con summarises this whole debate with this quote: "Pro lies and continues to troll". All the debates of Pro can be summarised as lying, trolling, and being an ignorant idiot.
This round goes to: CON

Round One

-The burden was on Pro construct the debate, but they provided nothing but a commentary on racism and other stuff (Jeffrey Epstein?) in the news. I was expecting some type of constructive argument with sources but Pro did not provide this. Therefore Con was forced to fish for some type of argument or source. The best Con could do was go to the Debate description where they found some mention of the FBI And in the last line Con was promised "rock solid facts." Again, which Pro had not provided.

Advantage - Con

Round Two

--Pro starts out in their first line by throwing an insult at Con. This is a pet peeve of mine. Whenever a debater starts making ad hominem attacks it usually is evidence that they have none. Pro then provides two links that they clam was just "sh*** & giggles," when it's clear that Pro's burden is to support the Pro side of the resolution - it's not just for "sh*** & giggles." Con, on the other hand, did not lower themselves to ad hominem attacks but attempted to bring some organization to the debate. Con shows that the sources Pro provided were not specific enough to prove Pro's side.

Advantage- Con

Round Three

-Pro opens up with an appeal that they cannot be expected to rifle through the source they provided to find specific evidence. Pro then brings up irrelevant data from decades ago that are pertinent to the standing debate. Pro keeps trying to make Con prove that the FBI is not 100% factual when that is not their burden to prove. Con admits as much in their response.

Advantage - Con

Round Four

-Pro argues that since Con cannot prove that the FBI is 100% truthful that means they can not be trusted and therefore should win the debate. Con counters that "Pro failed to present any evidence indicating that the FBI lacked credibility." This true and it was on Pro's burden to provide, which they did not.

Advantage - Con

Both pro and con appear to agree that the FBI stats disprove the resolution. Noting this, con turned the burden of proof to pro, by highlighting those stats as valid governmental data for which pro must pro must provide a good reason to exclude. Imo governmental stats should be presumed accurate unless given reason to believe otherwise.

Given that the only way con is able to refute the contention is to provide governmental stats - it’s up to pro to show these stats are inaccurate. Pro throws a couple of anecdotes that imo fall well short of being able discount them due to being piecemeal examples of misconduct of individuals rather than the systematic dishonesty of the organization as a whole that would be required.

I side with cons position here that the remainder of the points are largely irrelevant as they don’t cut to the core of the debate. Specifically, pro meanders off the rails in the last couple of rounds; asking questions that are largely irrelevant or unrelated to the resolution rather than attempting to engage directly on his burden.

If your going to make substantial claims, and base your debate off these claims: you must be able to justify them, rather than simply assert they are true and offer little more than anecdotes and incredulity.