Prove that "white supremacy" exists as such

1. PROVE [transitive verb] is "to demonstrate that something is true or viable; to give proof for"
   
2. WHITE SUPREMACY is "the racist belief that white people are superior to those of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. White supremacy has roots in the now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism and often relies on pseudoscientific arguments, and was a key justification for Colonialism. It underlies a spectrum of contemporary movements including neo-Confederates and neo-Nazism."
   
3. EXIST [verb] is "to be; have existence; have being or reality"
   
4. AS SUCH [determiner, pronoun, often with negative] is "in the exact sense of the word."
   

• "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
  
• CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims and as such bears the entire burden of proof in this debate.
  

• No, thank you.
  

• CON has failed to define the terms of his thesis, particularly the term WHITE SUPREMACY.  Importantly, CON is counting on the exploitation of a semantic bait and switch to win this debate.  To illustrate, let's take a look at the Wiktionary definitions for the word SUPREMACY.
  

• CON's description suggests that CON expects PRO to prove the second meaning of the word, "power over all others."  However, the third usage is clearly the usage suggested by the thesis.  Not only is the word SUPREMACY used in combination with a specified group, the dictionary example provided is exactly the same as CON's - WHITE SUPREMACY.  When combined with a specified group, and most particularly when combined in reference to the racial phenotype WHITE, the word SUPREMACY refers to an ideology regarding power and not an existing condition of complete power.
  
• Let's note that the extraordinary claim amounts to disproving a truism. 
  
• It is obviously true that not each and every white person has power over each and every non-white person.
  
• For example, Tucker Carlson has no possible influence or authority over Morgan Freeman.
  
• Let's recall that CON finished his thesis statement AS SUCH, meaning the exact sense of the word.  The most exact sense of the word WHITE SUPREMACY is the ideological racist sense and not the absolute interpretation of "power over others."
  
• The effect of this semantic shell game is to disprove another truism: that WHITE SUPREMACY exists.
  
• CON asks VOTERS to buy to proposition that unless PRO can prove in absolute terms that the least of white people holds power over the greatest of black people then WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist.'
  
• What is the value of denying the truth of WHITE SUPREMACY's existence except to offer advantage to racists and racism generally?
  
• CON's attempt to ignore the commonplace usage and require PRO to prove the extraordinary claim suggested by a different meaning of the word is rejected.  CON must prove that there's no such ideology as White Supremacy.
  

• A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism.  That White Supremacy exists is a truism.
  

• The FBI reports that white supremacists represent the majority of domestic terrorism arrests:
  

• In a recent Brookings Institute interview Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan confirmed:
  

• The FBI concluded in a 2017 joint intelligence bulletin that "white supremacists, including neo-Nazi supporters and members of the Ku Klux Klan, are in fact responsible for the lion’s share of violent attacks among domestic extremist groups. White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement.”
  
• A 2017 ABC-Washington Post poll taken just after the Chartlottesville riots of 2017 found that 9% of Americans said neo-Nazi or white  supremacist views were acceptable.
  
• Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Elizabeth Neumann reported to Congress:
  
• "We know the rise in violent white supremacy is partly fueled by their use of social media platforms that connect like-minded individuals who are geographically isolated to share hate-filled, violent material."'
  
• "An analysis by The New York Times of recent terrorism attacks found that at least a third of white extremist killers since 2011 were inspired by others who perpetrated similar attacks, professed a reverence for them or showed an interest in their tactics.  The connections between the killers span continents and highlight how the internet and social media have facilitated the spread of white extremist ideology and violence."
  
• "In a manifesto posted online before his attack, the gunman who killed 50 last month in a rampage at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, said he drew inspiration from white extremist terrorism attacks in Norway, the United States, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom."
  
• White Supremacy represents the sinful bedrock of American history- Slavery and Civil War and CIvil Rights. 
  
• White Supremacy is so deep rooted in American society that it influences the death rates and social norms during the current pandemic. 
  
• This summer's civil unrest is frequently framed as a response to White Supremacy.
  

• That "White Supremacy exists in America" is so manifestly true that it hardly bears proving.  CON wants to use a semantic bait-and-switch to deny the obvious, racist truth but PRO and VOTERS are free to ignore this tactic in favor of honesty.
  

So this means each so called non-white person is a prisoner in a prison system, Called the system of "white supremacy".

You can't do anything, Go anywhere as a "non-white" person without the say so of a "white supremacist".

Being a "non-white" person, You don't own anything or control anything of constructive value ultimately. Basically the definition of "white supremacy" truly means what it is on every sense of the word. It means SUPREME, Total authority and an unjust system during it's dictation, Directly or indirectly.

Present evidence for this, What appears to be theory, Hypothesis of a world government system.

• PRO has ignored the whole of CON's argument.  PRO lacks any grounds by which to demand reply or dictate the nature of that reply in this or any future argument.
  
• Toothless behests are not rendered less toothless by use of all caps.
  

• PRO's job is to prove that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist.  CON's job is prove PRO's thesis false.
  
• Even if CON were willing to prove PRO's argument on his behalf, CON still could not achieve this because the truth of WHITE SUPREMACY is so obvious as to be irrefutable.  PRO's demand is not just unactionable, it's impossible.
  
• As in R1, no thank you.