Should the White American Male Not Be Labelled As A Domestic Terrorist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The title of this debate speaks volumes, especially with all of the white-male violence that's occurring. West Texas just experienced another mass shooting as of August 31, 2019, and the culprit is yet again another white male. There really isn't too much to say about the topic in general because anyone who has common sense can see exactly who's causing the problems in American and abroad. At this point in time, the white-American male should definitely be considered as a domestic terrorist, and the mass shootings proves my point to the highest degree.
If you think otherwise, then you're more than welcome to take this challenge, but I highly doubt that you'd be able to present a solid argument... Good luck.
- Introduction
- Premise
- What Exactly is A Domestic Terrorist?
- Argument
- Rebuttal
- Conclusion
- Sources
Before the trolling starts,
I'd like to say that the "domestic terrorist" label doesn't apply to every sing male because every single male isn't committing mass shootings or other terroristic crimes. If you try to go this route, then I'll simply dismiss it by referring to this particular statement.
Yes, I just preempted your strike because I already know that this is the angle that you'll try to argue.
Another white male has committed another mass shooting for no apparent reason.
for no apparent reason. Then again, we all really know what the reason is, but that's a topic for another discussion
At this point in time, the white male has solidified himself as the face of domestic terrorism in the US,
and all anyone has to do is to look at current events.
The violence has gotten so out of hand to where International Travel Warning have been put in place.
Trying to argue against factual evidence is quite ridiculous because the shootings are taking place in real-time. This topic is similar to "beating a dead horse."
Trump is basically trying to blame mental illness as the issue, which is ridiculous.
The US government, including the FBI/Law Enforcement, can easily shut a lot of this nonsense down by actually targeting the people who are committing the crimes
but this government has never practiced any ethical/moral behavior.
The government should investigate all right-wing organizations and Rico Act them to the fullest.By doing so, the perpetrators and their accomplices will be effectively removed from society. On top of the Rico Act, mandatory life sentences should be proposed to every individual that's involved.
I can guarantee you that people will start thinking twice before engaging in domestic terrorism.
Of course, this will never happen because the crooks who run the asylums don't want to see a reflection of themselves in the asylums.
Trump is basically trying to blame mental illness as the issue, which is ridiculous.
- Introduction
- Rebuttal
- Sources
I would first like to say that my opponent has structured his arguments very professional
but there's too much irrelevant material here.
1. Are mass shootings against innocent people considered to be an unlawful use of violence & intimidation?
2.If white-American males are mass murdering their fellow countrymen of the same nation, isn't that considered to be domestic terrorism??
Anyone who reads this can see that (Pro) just destroyed his own argument by giving the official definition of what domestic terrorism is.
Facts show that over the past month or so, White-American males have committed four separate mass shootings in the US, and these white-American males have used unlawful violence/intimidation against civilians of the same country"... Isn't that the epitome of what domestic terrorism is???
My opponent now provides random demographics of the white-male populous in the US. Pro doesn't seem to understand what the term "in general" means. He doesn't even realize that (people are judged on a collective level) because it's impossible to judge an entire race off the actions of a few.
When white people label black people as thugs, don't you think that lowers our value as a person? Hmmm...So it's ok when you do it to others?
If you're so worried about your personal value, then you can simply stop committing mass murders...Am I correct?
White males have been the perpetrators of that country's last four mass murders in which you can't refute...
So now that the heats under your feet; you've seemed to have found religion all of a sudden.
Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.
My opponent is now quoting Martin Luther King Jr. I'm going to shut this nonsense down by asking one simple question...Where is MLK today & which race of people sent him to his current position?
Since we all know that MLK was hated by whites of the US,was mistreated by whites of the US, was being investigated by whites of the US, was being verbally/physically assaulted by whites of the US, then isn't that the epitome of what domestic terrorism is?...I'll wait...……………..
All of the other nonsense of being judged by your character and not your skin color is "blah blah blah" because it's your people who've built an entirey lifestyle via racism....By the way, you're off-topic.
Yet again; no, no and no...because I never said (All). Did I not? You yourself actually said (ALL) which can be found underlined right above this sentence. Yep, I caught you in another lie.
Your numbers are completely off and terrorism consists of more than just deaths. Muslim-related terrorism in the US don't even come close to white-male terrorism. Ok, so a Muslim man blew up a night club in 2016 which killed 52 people. Compare that to the Oklahoma City Bomber "Timothy McVeigh" in which he killed 168 people & injured 680 in one event. Since whites are the biggest serial killers, do you really want me to go this route?
Wasn't it the government that instituted slavery? The FBI, which is a government organization, was founded by well-known racists, but you're saying that the FBI isn't biased?
Huhhh...Yes, the media can twist stories. Easier Solution? Just read the crime report/sheriff's log of any given city and white people will dominate the crime section on any given day of the week.
Well...I'm quite sure the travel warnings were put in place because of three mass shootings that happened over a one-week span.
Well, how about this...Over the past 30 to 60 days, was it black males who committed the last four mass shootings or was it white males?...I'll wait...……………...
In conclusion, my opponent's arguments were easily shutdown by simple facts.
. He starts babbling about white inventions as a reason to not punish white-American terrorists despite the fact that black inventions are just as important.
I highly doubt that a steam engine or a printing press (via white) is more important than a traffic light or the first open-heart surgery (via black)
.Since mathematics was created in Ancient Kemet Africa, no one today could even be referring to statistical numbers & Ancient Kemet was around before any white people ever existed.
Class Dismissed
- Introduction
- Rebuttal
- Sources
As we all can see, he's starting to play semantics because the title clearly states "Should the White American Male Not Be Labelled As A Domestic Terrorist." So, where is the confusion?
So, if you agree that mass shootings are a crime and that you never doubted it...why are you even arguing against the topic??
As the viewers can see, this doesn't make sense, and this is the epitome of what semantics is.Pro is basically arguing that white males shouldn't be labeled as domestic terrorists even though it's white males who have killed dozens of people via four mass shootings over the past 45 to 60 days. Since he's playing dumb all of a sudden, let's see what he actually stated.
Wouldn't four mass shootings from white males that happened in the US fall under your definition of domestic terrorism?...I'll wait...…..
Your very own lips are testifying against you at this point in time...Am I correct? Do you understand that your argument is invalid at this point?
No disrespect, but I simply took your information and smacked you across the behind with it.
First of all, I'm not psychic, and I can't read someone's mind
On the other hand, since the definition of domestic terrorism includes political aim...I can easily tell you why white-male terrorists do what they do. "The fact of the matter is that white people feel as if they're losing control of the country/politics.
The white populous around the globe has a higher death rate than birth rate, and you're simply having trouble reproducing.
Dude, didn't I say that people are judged on a "Collective Level" rather than an individual level?"
It's a general statement that's not targeting every single person and I never said (All).
No, I don't agree because nothing has changed.
Ok, so if that was in the 1960s then why are white people still shooting/killing unarmed black people who aren't threatening?
.Remember, MLK was nonviolent during the 1960s and he got murdered. Modern-day black people have been nonviolent and have still gotten murdered...I guess times have changed huh?
You don't have an argument either route you take because most of the shootings against unarmed black people was (((recorded))). So, how are you going to argue against documented evidence?...I'll wait...…….
No sir, I'm not mocking MLK, I'm mocking you with the "blah, blah blah" because you're not making any sense.
After MLK wised up, he also said that "I may have integrated my people into a burning building" which can be found
Did you not say that? I guess you are right about the media because (All) of the news channels failed to release the "burning building" speech until recently...
Well, it's not the first time, and it sure won't be the last time...Since Pro's argument is getting crushed, he's reverted to shaming tactics. Lol.
My opponent boldly states that Muslims killed 3,000 on 9/11. Pro doesn't understand that the US isn't a homeland of Muslim people even though some of them citizenship. 9/11 was nothing more than a retaliation from a foreign source.
Yes, 3,000 people is a lot, but I'm sure the Native Americans would think otherwise after they were massacred by the "hundreds of thousands" by yours truly...Remember, whites are ranked #1 in serial killings & mass murders so do you really wanna go down this road??
The FBI was founded by well-known racists, and the racist principles still exist to this day. For Example: You and the majority of whites today weren't around hundreds of years ago, but you still benefit & take part in racism that was instituted hundreds of years ago.
Where are you getting these mysterior murder statistics from especially when over 90% of the murder cases in Chicago have gone unsolved?
So, if the murders are unsolved, then it means that (((No One))) has been charged for committing the murders...If No One has been charged, then how can law enforcement pinpoint the crimes on a black person & use it as a statistic???.
Correction, the Blackamoors from Africa saved white people during the "Dark Ages" via medicines. Yes, the word "Moor" describes the color black, which is why the original name was known as "Blackamoor.
- Introduction
- Rebuttal
- Conclusion
- Sources
A barrier between the Tucson, Ariz., sector and Nogales, Mexico, was erected in 2000. That year’s 616,346 arrests plunged to 38,657 in FY 2017 — down 93.7 percent.A fence installed at the border between Yuma, Arizona, and Los Algondones, Mexico brought apprehensions from 138,438 in FY 2005 to 12,847 in FY 2017 — down 90.7 percent.“Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area,” then–acting homeland security secretary Elaine Duke wrote in USA Today in August 2017, “and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.”
• A 150-mile barrier between Israel and southern Egypt cut the number of illegal-alien entrants from 17,000 in 2011 to 43 in 2013, after the fence’s completion, Israel’s Ministry of the Interior states — down 99.7 percent.{1}
one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class. While academically gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not enough to satisfy the demand of top schools.{2}
"Hey, if it's not too much trouble; could you teach me how to debate like you? IF so then would you message me some techniques?
I've read some of your debates and you've basically ended everybody's career. Hit me up."
This...THIS is going in the best quotes by DARTERS
By voting for the clear winner of a debate, I got exposed? Oh no!
Trying to do damage control with these long, redundant comments because your boys got caught cheating with the votes again? Yes, your little click has been exposed.
Just proves that I've done my job perfectly. Peace
out what you meant. Disregarded. Queen Elizabeth II's jewelry choice means black people had a big impact on Europe...
Pro: Defaming 104 million people because of 4 people will have serious bad consequences. White people have done tons of good, so this title is not merited. Walls don't point to losing political power, they have other benefits to explain the push for one. Correctly points out that he (as well as I) don't have to read the opponent's sources to figure out their argument. There aren't a lot of black statues, contrary to Con's claim. We should focus on terrorism rather than labeling to fix the problem.
Verdict:
Arguments: I will say this debate was difficult to vote on. So much talking past each other and Con trying to contradict the name of the debate. Pro provided some pretty good claims and backed them up with evidence. Pro did pretty well, but essentially won by default due to Con's inability to cite anything of (even remote) value until the last round.
Grammar: Both sides had some spelling and grammatical errors.
Sources: Con didn't use sources for 2 rounds, used a poor source for round 3, and some okay ones for round 4. Pro used decent sources the entire debate and substantiated almost every claim with them. Win for Pro.
Conduct: Both sides had mediocre conduct.
are judged on a collective level. Tries to parallel nonviolent protesting blacks in the 1960s to black people now. He doesn't mention if the victims of these mass shootings are black. Didn't substantiate that no news outlets mentioned the "Burning building" speech until recently. Brings up Pro's shaming tactic of misspelling. I agree it was irrelevant, and voters can spot it by themselves. Then says white people are the biggest mass murderers without any citation. States 90% if murder cases in Chicago are unsolved. Doesn't cite. Also doesn't say that the murders mentioned by Pro were included in that stat.
Pro: Again casts down the claim that 32% of an entire country should receive a label based on four people. Mentions similarities again between races to say no meaningful difference could lead to such a classification. Proves that whites still run the country, meaning these shootings couldn't be because of losing political power. Proved that economic factors drove differences in populations and that they will level out, leaving nothing to fear, supposedly. Also throws out how judging on a collective would apply since only four guys committed the crimes and there are 104 million of them. Disproved the claim that more unarmed blacks were shot than unarmed whites. Showed how national emergencies aren't unique to things committed by white people. Said disease killed the Natives, not the white people's purposeful action. Combats the #1 serial killer/mass murderer claim with Mao as well.
Winner: Pro because he again cited sources and rebutted claims effectively.
R4
Con: All races have invented things. Building walls, voter supression, and gerrymandering are apparently proof of white people losing political power... Black people apparently didn't benefit from civil rights laws because other people benefit as well... Gave sources for the blacks' supposed saving of Europe. Didn't explain the points, and it is not my duty as a voter to read your sources and find
without substantiating. Counters claim of Muslim terrorism with mentioning the Oklahoma City Bombing. Says that the government was founded by racists without substantiating or stating relevance over a hundred years in the future.
Pro: Brings up again that people are not commiting terrorism because they are white, which throws doubt on the sustainability of Con's stance. States that only half of mass shootings are perptrated by white people, showing that it isn't specific to the race in question. Also shows how Muslims commit dispropportionate amounts of terrorism. Labels the opponent's posititon as racist for judging people by race. Brings up the valid fact that Con cannot see Pro's knees, and therefore couldn't know they are buckling. Shows how Con's argument that MLK was assassinated by whites is non-unique since people of other races do it too. Brings up the necessity for Con to defend calling all white men domestic terrorist based on Con's wording. Shoots down Con's Timothy McVeigh point by showing even worse terrorist events by Muslims. Shows how the FBI was created after slavery was abolished, which throws doubt on the FBI being founded in racism. Brings up why it is inconsistent to only view mass shootings when considering people as terrorists.
Winner: Both sides are kind of talking past each other. Saying that Muslims commit terrorism is irrelevant. Saying that calling black people are thugs is irrelevant. If white people are domestic terrorists, having Muslims also be domestic terrorists is a red herring. So is saying that people belittle blacks while your ENTIRE stance is to do the same to whites. Since Pro actually had some decent points and gave EVIDENCE for them, he wins the round.
R3
Con: Argues again that white men should be considered domestic terrorists because four white guys committed domestic terrorism in about a month span of time. Blames domestic terrorism on declining white birth rates.... Again doesn't substantiate why or how people
Arguments:
R1
Con:Says "facts speak for themselves" without citing a source. States that because another white guy committed a mass shooting that they are now the face of domestic terrorism. Says a travel warning was put in place. Dismisses mental illness as a cause without evidence.
Pro: Gave definition for domestic terrorist. Pro enumerates many good things that white people have done, including ending slavery. Also brings up the infeasibility of labeling all of them in a certain way. This was an important point that Con tried to throw away. Pro also brought up the impossibility of defining white vs black people because there is no huge difference between races of people. This means that all races act the same, so it would be illogical to label just white people as "domestic terrorists". In rebuttals, he once again throws out the claims of Con that not all white men are terrorists despite the fact that this is exactly what they are debating. Con brings up that other groups are committing even larger amounts of terrorism, proving that white people commit proportionally low amounts of terrorism. Pro then also brings up that the travel ban is a farse. It doesn not relate to white people and other groups, such as blacks, even have higher amounts of gun crime, meaning white men are not a group that can be singled out. Pro argued that any mass shooter likely has mental issues. Threw out the RICO suggestion by Con as being an explicit infringement of the 1st Amendment. Brings up moral things the US has done.
Winner: Pro. Provided verifiable points and thoroughly rebutted Con's points.
R2
Con: References four white male domestic terrorists who perpetrated mass shootings. Says people are judged as a collective without substantiating the claim. Made claim about how calling black people "thugs" devalues them. Pro didn't do this, nor did he give evidence of people saying this. While true, it is irrelevant. Says white people built their entire lifestyle via racism
THIS COULD BE VOTE BOMBED!!
You didn't destroy any trolls.
What happened to all of the trolls in the comment section? I replied to there nonsense but their accounts have disappeared.
yup, ended kaput goodbye
Oh man! I'll never be able to show my glorious jowls around here anymore!
Probably, LOL ended careers, like we have debate CAREERS??
Lol, are you a mairj 2nd account?
Your votes are removed as you are ineligible to vote. Trent's vote is removed since CVB are removed
Awwwwwwww,sorrry but there's rules on this site, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I dstroyed him, he started replying with Need I say More because he didnt have an argument,!!
I LOVE IT, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks. I really don't have any special techniques but I can give you a few tips. I'll message you.
Hey, if it's not too much trouble; could you teach me how to debate like you? IF so then would you message me some techniques?
I've read some of your debates and you've basically ended everybody's career. Hit me up.
I fully agree with you. Most of your argument was on point. The other guy is completely lost. I like how u you ended his career with the first few questions in round 1 and it was pretty much over after that.
LOL, you are not a good debator then
Dude, I've lost more than I've won but there's a method to the madness. Lol.
Actually I have beaten you twice now
Stop da Madness. U know that I'm da G.O.A.T.
Haha, very funny I destroyed you
I tend to have that affect on my opponents.
How?
Begging for votes when the demographics are already in your favor speaks volumes & is a dead giveaway that you're not confident.
Who was getting crushed?
No nerves struck. Yes, we did evolve from you people.
Don't be mad because you don't even know the origins of AIDS, which can be found from a single google search.
Struck a nerve didn't I?...
Then again...Europeans do have the same genes as the Rhesus monkey which can't be disputed. Lol
Most modern-day diseases are man-made and used as population control. An animal is basically the scapegoat.
You're right about white terrorism. They're now panicking because everyone can see their motives and true colors.
I'll get one in tomorrow homie
Uhhh, that's my plan of attack, beat them in the core arguments and make them go off track
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.
2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).
3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.
6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.
6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.
Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).
Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.
thx
I'll get you this weekend, my dude
:)
Wouldn't mind a quick vote :)
Y'all got it from chimps.
https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0
So, even though almost half of Africans can't read, you're trying to say how they are so smart? Nice one lol.
I'd say that we underestimate the scale of far right violence, I'm glad Trump doesn't excuse those "conservatives". But, it is a problem.
it came from monkeys i thought
the problem i would say is that , we did a good job dealing with islamic extremism and ignored far right extremism because i think for a significant level, white privilege , yeah i said it. white people feel entitled, when they get violent they are being patriotic you know FREEDOM@@@! braveheart moment , its only terrorism when those brown people do it or those spoiled white lefty types .. no one wants to notice the huge white Elephant in the room, angry white men have the biggest body count, synogies , mosques blac churches, garlic festivals, attention wal mart shoppers@!!! we have to aknowledge that the reaon is so bad is that we neglected to call it terrorism and of course it is
Since statistics are formed from mathematics & mathematics comes from Kemetic science & kemetic science comes from Kemet Africa....
You do the math but I'm sure that statement flew over your head......Didn't it?
How can someone claim to be so intelligent & think that AIDS come from an animal?
Google the word "Beastiality" and see which race pops up on the screen. Pow Pow!
Also, since you mentioned the ability to read.... here are some illiteracy rates:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 40.1%
Europe and Central Asia: 1.8%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262886/illiteracy-rates-by-world-regions/
I said "Indians" as in referring to Native Americans. So.... no.
Also, AIDS comes from monkeys. Maybe stop committing bestiality, and then it wouldn't be a problem.
They are still plenty of accidents with traffic lights, also the steam engine made the car which lead to the traffic light