Can America's White Domestic Terrorists Ever Clear Their Violent Image?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
As we all are aware of in 2019, the White-Domestic Terrorist is reaping havoc on society. White people, in general, seem to can't suppress their deviant mind-state and the Dark Age behavior has resurfaced at an all-time high. Today, a white supremacist's plan to blow up a synagogue was thwarted by the FBI. A few days ago, a White-Domestic terrorist threw acid in the face of an Hispanic man for no apparent reason.
To make matters worse, Politician Katie Hill of California (a White woman) has resigned for affairs with men/women, fornication with goats & white supremacy tattoo. To add insult to injury, a number of white-female teachers have continued their sexually deviant interactions with underage boys around the country...At this point in time, there is no hope for the White-Domestic Terrorist...Anyone who thinks otherwise can definitely take debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass."
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll debate per the definition provided in the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations. Article 3 sub-section 3 designates three categories of troll debates. One of these categories reads:
"Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content."
While not humorous, it is axiomatically true that the debate is facetious in nature. Additionally, the topic is designed to incite and annoy. It, purely and simply, is a troll debate. Thus, it is not moderated.
************************************************************************
Honestly, I don't have a clue how you became a moderator.
I agree 100%...When someone can't handle the truth or gets exposed, vote bombing will take place.
I've literally embarrassed the so-called "best-of-the-best" debaters and vote bombing began as soon as the debates were over.
I take it as a badge of honor.
As I've stated earlier, this topic has been all over the news and I've listed numerous sources. I've noticed that it's considered a "troll debate" when a certain demographic gets exposed. Yes, fornication with goats but don't forget about the white supremacy tattoos also.
Of course, the mainstream news has stopped reporting on it because this is a white-run society that's trying to protect a white woman who just so happens to be a congresswoman.
Note that I consider this a troll debate, and still voted based on debate content. I have long disliked that comedic debates are outright non-moderated. However, that they are non-moderated is the current standard; a standard you knew both when you accepted the debate with that facetious description, and ended it with a cheeky declaration of love.
If this is a troll debate, you will be okay with everyone votebombing against me then? Just stop that bullshit.
If this was not a troll debate, please provide a link to any respectable news site verifying the "fornication with goats" mentioned in the description.
...
Admittedly, I am still new to the whole modding thing here. I meant to call this a troll debate in my vote as a matter of my opinion as a voter; not make any official proclamation.
This is not a troll debate.
If you have a problem with this label, then you'll need to speak to the Justice Department.
1350
YOU ARE NOW A WHITE DOMESTIC TERRORIST!!!
-mairj23
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. As this was already designated a troll debate by another moderator, and seeing no reason to counter that decision, this vote ought not be removed.
************************************************************************
You've demonized yourself by your actions.
Who isn't a terrorist? Black Americans, Asian Americans Hispanic Americans
You are not just talking about current events in usa, because you referenced historic violence going back to europe. Your topic tries to demonize white people in general.
My question remains. If a few terrorist examples can label a whole race or ethnicity as terrorists, who isnt a terrorist?
If what I'm saying is hearsay, lies or propaganda, then why are some states trying to pass legislation about this topic?
I'm just stating and debating current events. Nothing more, nothing less.
This discussion is about US terrorism, not other areas of the globe.
Are you aware of why the Justice Dept. labelled white people as domestic terrorists? If not, then wouldn't 3 consecutive mass murders within 1 month by the same ethic group be considered terrorism?
As you can see, you have no argument what-so-ever.
Let me see if i understand you.
Because a group of white people were labeled (by mostly other white people) to be one of many terrorist groups, therefore white people in general are terrorists?
But terrorist groups exist in all parts of the world, therefore arent all people terrorists?
And if your statement about white people is true for all people... what's the point?
Unfortunately your research is hearsay, and you refuse to provide evidence, as evident by your exchange with pressF4.
You are confident in your "research" about the same as your flat earther, holocaust denier, or any other conspiracy theory under the sun. Perhaps one day you will open your eyes, til then your hopeless.
Yes I'm right and I'm very confident because I've done the research long before creating this debate.
I've posted authentic links and this subject has been displayed all over the news. No matter what the scoreboard says; I'm coming out the victor either way.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Pro; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
AntonZenz123
51 minutes ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
it is the height of hypocrisy to say a whole race is racist, thats racist isnt it? so you lose
compared to what? look at the coloured monkeys they do worse and they arent even smart like whites are
Speaking of learning how to take an L, you should take your own advise. Your so convinced you are correct before the debate even starts you dont realize how you fail to support your claims.
I asked you a simple question, to which you still haven't answered. Unless and until you do so, by providing sources to your claim, my point (any claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence [Hitchens' Razor]) still stands.
Dude, at least have some dignity with your concession.
You're not the first person to take an "L" and you certainly won't be the last.
“I've posted links”
Where did you post the link to the US Department of Justice statement labelling White Americans as domestic terrorists? I have yet to see it.
“& we've all seen it on the news.”
Can you show me a news article stating that the US DOJ labelled White Americans as domestic terrorists?
So far everything you said is fluff, and you’re still dodging my original question:
Do you have sources? Yes or no
the only ting white people are guilty of is superiority, and that has put us in a position to abuse weaker monkeys
what can be more racist than to accuse a whole race of being racist
I've posted links & we've all seen it on the news.
I'll take that as your concession speech.
Do you have sources? Yes or no
You can't be mad at me because your race of people are the face of American Domestic Terrorism.
I should've been a lawyer because my questions can literally shutdown any argument.
The ball is in your court. Do you have the confidence to take the last shot?
"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.
Says the guy who does his research from Wiki. lol
I don't mind entertaining trolls. It let's me know that I've ruffled some feathers.
Just think about. A few basic questions obliterated your entire argument on a public forum & that speaks volumes.
"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.
Lol. Says the guy who changes his thumbnail every two weeks.
Dude, I've already flamed your nonsensical argument with 3 basic questions. Remember...….the ones that you refuse to answer.
I'll break it down for you since I personally have a few years of undergraduate law studies.
The DOJ is (Not) speaking about specific groups/organizations. They're using an ambiguous approach for white people as an "Ethic Group." It's basically a generalization that law enforcement uses when a certain "ethnic group" of people are repeating certain acts or behaviors.
The mass shootings/random killings were race-based because white people perpetrated the crimes & left manifestos that stated that the violent acts were about race.
"I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.
It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime."
I am aware of that. However, it would be pointless for the DoJ to label organizations according to something that isn't a crime. I have looked on the DoJ website. I have searched for domestic terrorist groups. They do not have a list of domestic terrorist groups. Thus, whites are not a domestic terrorist group according the the DoJ, and you are making this up. In fact, I'm guessing that you know you are making it up and are lying because you are trying to troll us to see what kind of outraged reactions you can get. Am I right?
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.
I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.
It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime.
If the various sources haven't proved it, then why did the DOJ state that white people have committed nearly ever domestic-racial attack in the US over the past year?
I'll wait?
No, you didn't say it was a crime, but that's not the point. The DoJ doesn't label any group as a domestic terrorist group because domestic terrorism isn't an official crime. In other words, the fact that it isn't a crime proves you made it up.
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
Did I ever say that it was a crime? Of course, it's not a crime because the same people who create the laws are the same people who are committing the actual crimes. https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/08/white-supremacists-responsible-for-all-race-based-domestic-terrorism-incidents-in-2018-doj-blocked-report/
https://www.businessinsider.com/white-supremacy-linked-to-race-based-domestic-terrorism-data-shows-2019-8
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/09/trumps-doj-hid-shocking-report-on-growing-terror-threat-from-white-supremacists/
The state of New York is also looking to pass legislation.https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/460460-states-should-follow-new-yorks-lead-in-the-fight-against-racial
Your point has already been obliterated which is why you have failed to answer my previous basic questions.
No, it hasn't been all over the news. In fact, I found quite the opposite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-domestic-terrorism-understanding-law-and-fbi-definitions-terrorist-activity-in-the-united-states/
While domestic terrorism does have an FBI definition, it is not technically a crime. This article specifically mentions that they can't single out white supremacist groups, let alone whites in general. In other words, you are making this up out of whole cloth.
Prove it or retract your claim. Stop trying to avoid the question.
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.
Lol. Yeah....sure...…..ok
It's been all over the news buddie so try a new tactic.
I just looked up "Justice Department labels white americans as domestic terrorists." The only result I got that was remotely similar was some guy in a blog complaining that one branch of the DoJ used the term "domestic terrorists" because that somehow targeted white Americans.
You have the burden of proof. Present your evidence, or admit that you made it up. Stop trying to avoid the question.