Instigator / Con

Mall

1389

rating

413

debates

44.55%

won

Topic

#2206

Prove that "white supremacy" exists as such

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 07.28.2020 05:31PM
Last updated date: 08.18.2020 01:53AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

oromagi

1922

rating

117

debates

97.44%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.
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.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1

Mall

08.01.2020 12:53PM

Con

Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.

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".

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

oromagi

08.04.2020 03:33AM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

PROVE THAT WHITE SUPREMACY EXISTS as SUCH

DEFINITIONS:

PROVE [transitive verb] is "to demonstrate that something is true or viable; to give proof for"
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."
EXIST [verb] is "to be; have existence; have being or reality"
AS SUCH [determiner, pronoun, often with negative] is "in the exact sense of the word."

BURDEN of PROOF:

WiKiPEDiA advises:

"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.

PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that there's no such ideology as White Supremacy. If PRO can show that there is an ideology called White Supremacy, then CON's proposition must fail.

CON1R1:

Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.
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.

No, thank you.

OBJECTION:

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.

SUPREMACY [noun] is
The quality of being supreme.
Power over all others.
(in combination) The ideology that a specified group is superior to others or should have supreme power over them.
white 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.

PRO1R1: WHiTE SUPREMACY EXiSTS

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:

"On July 23, 2019, Christopher A. Wray, the head of the FBI, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the agency had made around 100 domestic terrorism arrests since October 1, 2018, and that the majority of them were connected in some way with white supremacy. Wray said that the Bureau was "aggressively pursuing [domestic terrorism] using both counterterrorism resources and criminal investigative resources and partnering closely with our state and local partners," but said that it was focused on the violence itself and not on its ideological basis. A similar number of arrests had been made for instances of international terrorism. In the past, Wray has said that white supremacy was a significant and "pervasive" threat to the U.S."

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

In our modern age,” he said, “the continued menace of racially based violent extremism, particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation, the struggle and unity of its diverse population, and the core values of both our society and our department. It has no place in the United States of America, and we will work to defeat it.

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.

SUMR1:

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.

SOURCES:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prove#Etymology_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exist#English

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/such

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29#Holder_of_the_burden

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supremacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

https://www.brookings.edu/events/dhs-strategy-for-countering-terrorism-and-targeted-violence/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/14/fbi-and-dhs-warned-of-growing-threat-from-white-supremacists-months-ago/

https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1190a1TrumpandCharlottesville.pdf

Round 2

Mall

08.05.2020 11:00AM

Con

"Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.

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.

No, thank you."

This instantly concedes your side of the debate.

Let me ask, why would you accept this debate when you refuse to take the premise as is?

You saying "no" concedes you cannot or will not prove what you've ACCEPTED the challenge is for you to do.

If you refuse the description then don't accept the debate. This debate is for those that can prove what is being asked for.

But to DELIBERATELY come in and dictate how things are going to be, well I'm not even surprised. For some reason I suspected this.

The challenge is not for me to appeal to your setup. That's why you set your OWN debate up for that. This is MY challenge I laid out .

Now either present examples as I requested or admit that you can't.

By the way, if you simply just don't want to, it's conceding just the same. You should of thought of this beforehand.

oromagi

08.06.2020 05:38AM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH

DEFINITIONS:

By lack of response, CON agrees to PRO's definitions as proffered

BURDEN of PROOF:

By lack of response, CON accepts the full burden of proof in this debate as the maker of extraordinary claims. PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that there's no such ideology as White Supremacy. If PRO can show that there is an ideology called White Supremacy, then CON's proposition must fail.

CON1R2:

Please present examples that all "non-white" people are being dominated and mistreated on a global scale on the basis of skin color.
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.
No, thank you.
This instantly concedes your side of the debate.

Nonsense. PRO presented six pieces of evidence demonstrating the self-evident truism that White Supremacy exists. So far, CON hangs his hat wholly on one obvious, weak, and false semantic trick. CON has not bothered to address even one of PRO's arguments.

Let me ask, why would you accept this debate when you refuse to take the premise as is?

Because demonstrating the fallacy of one or both of an opponent's premises is an excellent way of demonstrating the falsehood of that opponent's conclusion.
PRO objected to CON's definitional Three-card Monte in detail and at the earliest opportunity. Why is CON asking PRO a question already answered in detail in the last round? I assume CON has failed to digest the gist of PRO's gripe.

Let's go over it again-

PRO's thesis statement is perfectly straightforward

Prove that "white supremacy" exists as such

Let's note that PRO placed WHITE SUPREMACY in quotes.

[Quotation marks] "placed on either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name."

Here, PRO's clear intention is to highlight the most literal sense of WHITE SUPREMACY

Let;s note that PRO added a determiner pronoun- AS SUCH which is used to emphasize "the most exact sense of the word"

As in, he's not a doctor, as such.
PRO has double-emphasized that he want to debate the most exact meaning of "white supremacy"

PRO the offered three different, super sloppy and hard to parse definitions of WHITE SUPREMACY in his DESCRIPTION.

"white supremacy" truly means what it is on every sense of the word"

disregarded as unparseable

[white supremacy] is "an unjust system during it's dictation, Directly or indirectly."

disregarded as unparseable

[white supremacy] means SUPREME, Total authority

Well, that not right. That's "supremacy" as such and NOT "white supremacy" as such. PRO double-emphasized in thesis that he only wanted to discuss the most exact meaning of the word and then failed on three attempts to define the most exact meaning of WHITE SUPREMACY, obligating PRO to set down the objective, authoritative meaning of the term at the expense of PRO's room for argument.

If PRO had referrenced a dictionary, PRO would have discovered that the most exact meaning of WHITE SUPREMACY amounts to something more specific and quite from either definition of just SUPREMACY.

SUPREMACY [noun] is
The quality of being supreme.
Power over all others.
in combination) The ideology that a specified group is superior to others or should have supreme power over them.
white supremacy

When used in a combination with a group (the group WHITE, for example) the word refers to an ideology of superiority to other groups relevant to that group. The dictionary even uses WHITE SUPREMACY for its example.

CON complains that PRO doesn't respect CON's definition of WHITE SUPREMACY which amounts to two blobs of gobbledygook and one highly inaccurate definition.

Rangar's Kritik Guide advises:

"...in cases where a phrase is poorly defined, or defined in such a way that is unfair, a semantic Kritik can be used to convince voters that the resolution is better fulfilled using another definition of a word."

PRO's definition of WHITE SUPREMACY is both poorly defined and unfair because it ignores the most exact meaning of the word and demands that we rely on a different, misleading alternative definition.
PRO is now required to either defend the definition as accurate or apologize for the inaccuracy and accede to PRO's correction.
Simply demanding that PRO use CON's fake definition because he put in the DESCRIPTION harms the spirit of honest engagement. Are we really supposed to pretend there's no such thing as WHITE SUPREMACY for the sake of CON's benefit?

If CON's thesis was "prove white power exists as such" and then insisted in the Description that the meaning of power was "electricity" so that CON could argue that electricity is invisible, not white and so there's no such thing as white power, would that not be a malign interpretation in need of challenging?

How is PRO's definition any less misleading?

Furthermore, the attempt to promote the deception that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist can only advantage the White Supremacist movement which evil PRO condemns as a citizen in a democracy and an American.

Again, 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.

PRO1R2: WHiTE SUPREMACY EXiSTS

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.

If PRO concedes truism this debate is over. PRO must show how White Supremacy's obvious, well documented existence is false.

PRO has failed to reply.

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

PRO ignored the FBI.

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

PRO ignored the DHS.

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.”

PRO ignores more FBI.

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.

PRO ignores the polls.

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."'
PRO ignores more DHS.

"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."
PRO ignores the New York Times.

SUMR2:

If CON's argument dishonestly depends on the malign definition of SUPREMACY then PRO kritiks that definition as sloppy and racist and contrary to the spirit of debate.
If CON's argument honestly defends the notion that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist, then CON has idled away the first half of his debate and so far failed to offer any argument supporting this notion in any way while also ignoring mounds of evidence that WHITE SUPREAMCY does exist. Does CON believe that WHITE SUPREMACY exists? yes or no? So far, CON has failed to say even as much as that.

SOURCES:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supremacy

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPsCqhJTfkhFxQKblrsbKxjunKfnQUlUG59B5h1XWuI/edit#heading=h.lfl5ex6r463f

Round 3

Mall

08.07.2020 09:20AM

Con

Is it true that all "non-white" people are dominated and mistreated on the basis of skin color in a world government, a prison system called the system of "white" supremacy?

If YOUR ANSWER IS SIMPLY "NO" AND THIS WAS YOUR ANSWER BEFORE ACCEPTING THE DEBATE, I WOULD ADVISE YOU NOT DO LIKE THIS AGAIN FROM THIS POINT ON INTO THE FUTURE.

You got this mixed up maybe out of habit. Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE.

oromagi

08.07.2020 08:46PM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH

DEFINITIONS:

CON agrees to PRO's definitions as proffered

BURDEN of PROOF:

CON accepts the full burden of proof in this debate as the maker of extraordinary claims. PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that there's no such ideology as White Supremacy. If PRO can show that there is an ideology called White Supremacy, then CON's proposition must fail.

CON1R3:

PRO ignored all of CON's strong and repeated objections to PRO's false and misleading misuse of the term WHITE SUPREMACY

Is it true that all "non-white" people are dominated and mistreated on the basis of skin color in a world government, a prison system called the system of "white" supremacy?

Called by who? Nobody except PRO defines WHITE SUPREMACY as a 'world government prison system.' That is a fantasy exclusive to PRO's rhetorical need to deny the existence of WHITE SUPREMACY. Just because debaters offer a definition up front doesn't immunize that definition from challenges on the grounds of woeful inaccuracy or racism. If PRO continues to be unwilling to defend his entirely unique and self-serving usage of a racially charged term while also leaning the whole of his argument on our blithe acceptance of that misuse, PRO must expect this argument will fail.
Let's note PRO's careful shift in quotation marks. In all 7 prior usages of the term in thesis, description, and R1, PRO put quotes around both words of the the term. i.e. "white supremacy" Now in R3, PRO changes to just emphasizing white- as in, "are white people really 'white' as such?"- emphasizing the most precise meaning of the word "white."

This shift suggests that PRO has understood CON's argument that highlighting white supremacy with quotes indicates the most literal meaning of the term but has elected not to refute the point. Rather, PRO just moves the quotes without comment, hoping the change in original thesis might produce some rhetorical advantage.

CON calls PRO's attempt to change the subject of the debate from "white supremacy" to "white" supremacy tacit concession that quotes indicate the most literal meaning in contradiction to PRO's tailored definition.

CON2R3:

If YOUR ANSWER IS SIMPLY "NO" AND THIS WAS YOUR ANSWER BEFORE ACCEPTING THE DEBATE, I WOULD ADVISE YOU NOT DO LIKE THIS AGAIN FROM THIS POINT ON INTO THE FUTURE.

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.

CON3R3:

Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE.

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.

PRO1R2: WHiTE SUPREMACY EXiSTS

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.

If PRO concedes truism this debate is over. PRO must show how White Supremacy's obvious, well documented existence is false.

PRO has failed to reply.

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

PRO ignored the FBI.

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

PRO ignored the DHS.

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.”

PRO ignores more FBI.

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.

PRO ignores the polls.

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."'
PRO ignores more DHS.

"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."
PRO ignores the New York Times.

SUMR2:

We've established that CON's argument dishonestly depends on the malign definition of SUPREMACY alone. CON exhibits no intention of actually arguing that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist or explaining why no document or reference reinforces his definition of that ideology as some kind of global prison. Furthermore, the documented concerns of reliable sources for information like the US Government's FBI and DHS as well as leading US news sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times directly contradict PRO's definition. CON ignores all attempts to engage these questions and simply demands that we accept his problematic lie as truth.
VOTERS will note that CON instigated a debate titled PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH but by the end of R3, has not yet even stated his own position regarding the existence of WHITE SUPREMACY. How can such an approach to argument hope to prevail?
PRO looks forward to CON's conclusion.

Round 4

Mall

08.10.2020 10:50AM

Con

What a waste a time .

When a person is so hung up in technicalities, formalities to the point that they can't adhere to something simple, it's fascinating. Severely "conventionalized", routinized of a kind makes a socialized mind.

This is either a "yes" or "no". If one of those answers is not made, that indicates an automatic conceding to you being unable to prove what I've stated in the description is true.

Is it true that all "non-white" people are dominated and mistreated on the basis of skin color in a world government, a prison system called the system of "white" supremacy?

If you say no , there's the DEBATE. If you say yes,now you have to prove it.

NO WHERE, ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE IN THE DESCRIPTION DOES IT SAY I PROVVVE ANYTHING.

I THANK YOU NOT TO MOVE THE GOALPOST ON THAT .

The "white supremacy" I'M REFERRING TO IS SPECIFIED IN THE DESCRIPTION. I ALSO STATED IT WAS A THEORY CHALLENGED TO ANYBODY THAT CAN PROVE IT AS FACT.

My position is neutral, in the middle looking to be convinced.

Somebody was going to accept this debate but they backed out. That was because they had decency and sense to only argue based on the terms of the description. I understand you rather just take this opportunity to come in, dictate things according to your views, but you're wrong for doing so. This is not the place, setup up your own place for that.

oromagi

08.11.2020 01:53AM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH

DEFINITIONS:

Definition of WHITE SUPREMACY is contested.

CON maintains that WHITE SUPREMACY means a global government's prison system which is not a valid interpretation of the term. There is no global government so CON's definition cannot be true. PRO objected and offered the Wiktionary definition in its place. PRO advises VOTERS that acceptance of the invalid term serves as evidence that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist. Since WHITE SUPREMACY is a social evil that can't be addressed or improved if fake news promoting the non-existence of WHITE SUPREMACY is allowed to stand unchallenged, PRO asks VOTERS to only accept the standard, encyclopedic, honest, and true definition of the term WHITE SUPREMACY and reject CON's proffered term as a customized semantic trap out of agreement with any dictionary or encyclopedia and false.

CON had no problem with PRO's other definitions.

BURDEN of PROOF:

CON has now conceded that he never had any intention of disproving the existence of WHITE SUPREMACY.

My position is neutral, in the middle looking to be convinced.

CON instigated a debate called PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH, and accepted the CON position but now states that he is not convinced that his position is true. We have to wonder at the honesty of that statement considering that CON is unwilling to use an honest definition of the subject in the examination of that question. If we accept CON's definition of WHITE SUPREMACY as one world government in the knowledge that no such government exists, then we force a false conclusion and deliberately conceal the truth. If we accept CON's statement of neutrality, then CON ought to have no legitimate objection to employment of a legitimate encyclopedia definition of WHITE SUPREMACY.

CON shouldered the full burden of proof in this debate as the maker of extraordinary claim that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist. PRO interpreted CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that there's no such ideology as White Supremacy. Because PRO demonstrated that there is an ideology called White Supremacy, and CON was not interested in arguing otherwise, CON's proposition failed.

CON1R4:

CON never acknowledged all of PRO's strong and repeated objections to CON's false and misleading misuse of the term WHITE SUPREMACY. CON never offered any amendment or correction or clarification for his fake and wrong definition.

CON2R4:

CON dropped PRO's counters

CON3R4:

Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE.
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.
NO WHERE, ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE IN THE DESCRIPTION DOES IT SAY I PROVVVE ANYTHING.
I THANK YOU NOT TO MOVE THE GOALPOST ON THAT .

We can prove that night is day if we but call the Moon the Sun but to what end?
A false conclusion predicated upon a false premise is worthless to any honest inquiry,

CON4R4:

Somebody was going to accept this debate but they backed out. That was because they had decency and sense to only argue based on the terms of the description.

Pretending there's no such thing as white supremacy is neither decent of sensible or fair to the victims of white supremacists, the most violent and deadly terrorists in US history.

PRO1R4: WHiTE SUPREMACY EXiSTS

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.

If PRO concedes truism this debate is over. PRO must show how White Supremacy's obvious, well documented existence is false.

PRO has failed to reply.

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

PRO ignored the FBI.

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

PRO ignored the DHS.

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.”

PRO ignores more FBI.

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.

PRO ignores the polls.

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."'
PRO ignores more DHS.

"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."
PRO ignores the New York Times.

CONCLUSION:

We've established that CON's argument exclusively, dishonestly depends on a false definition of WHITE SUPREMACY. CON exhibits no intention of actually arguing that WHITE SUPREMACY does not exist or explaining why no document or work of reference reinforces his definition of that ideology as some kind of global prison. Furthermore, the documented concerns of reliable sources for information like the US Government's FBI and DHS as well as leading US news sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times directly contradict PRO's definition. CON ignores all attempts to engage these questions and simply demands that we accept his problematic lie as truth.
VOTERS will note that CON instigated a debate titled PROVE THAT "WHITE SUPREMACY" EXISTS as SUCH but in R4 claims to have no position regarding the question.
PRO asks VOTERS to award arguments to PRO.
Furthermore, PRO asks VOTERS to award sources to PRO in light of CON's refusal to accurately source his definition of WHITE SUPREMACY, which refusal amounted to the whole of CON's efforts here.
Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate.
Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

oromagi

08.16.2020 10:13PM

#22

-->

@Barney

@seldiora

thanks for voting!

oromagi

08.16.2020 03:43PM

#21

-->

@Intelligence_06

thx 4 vote, intel!

Intelligence_06

08.16.2020 03:34PM

#20

-->

@oromagi

You're welcome

oromagi

08.16.2020 03:11PM

#19

bump

Intelligence_06

08.07.2020 11:30PM

#18

-->

@Mall

"Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."

Uh no. I don't think that is what you are supposed to do.

vector

08.07.2020 11:18PM

#17

"Overkill" is quite fitting for this debate. Mall doesn't even have much of a case. In my opinion, this is one of those troll debates. Enjoy the free win!

RationalMadman

08.07.2020 09:24AM

#16

-->

@Mall

"Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."

I love your debating style, very dramatic.

oromagi

08.06.2020 06:19AM

#15

I failed to attribute this sentence:

[Quotation marks] "placed on either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English

I apologize for the oversight.

Death23

08.05.2020 01:22PM

#14

-->

@oromagi

His working definition was discernable from the debate description. He seemed ignorant rather than deceptive because, well, look at how he rights. I wouldn't put it past him to make the mistake. That, and the term itself is susceptible to being misunderstood in the way that he misunderstood it. Don't worry about me though. I'm too lazy to vote.

oromagi

08.04.2020 08:51PM

#13

-->

@skittlez09

oromagi is the Yoloxóchitl-Chalcotongo word for "overkill"

oromagi

08.04.2020 08:43PM

#12

-->

@Death23

I started to compose a defense but I'm not sure any defense in comments would be fair to Mall. I think my reasoning as laid out in CON1R1 is quite explicit, rational, and justified. I'll be happy to revisit the question with you in PM or in comments after the debate.

Intelligence_06

08.04.2020 08:10PM

#11

-->

@skittlez09

No. His opponent isn't even trying.

skittlez09

08.04.2020 08:00PM

#10

-->

@oromagi

bruh overkill much? lol

Death23

08.04.2020 07:28PM

I do not see a good reason to use Pro's definition rather than the one implicated by the debate description.

oromagi

08.04.2020 03:51AM

I failed to attribute this sentence:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

I apologize for the oversight.

Intelligence_06

07.29.2020 09:01PM

I am not taking this debate. It is just not worth it. Proof that white supremacy exists, but again mall will probably either lawyer me or obscure his own definition to a point where no fun is produced whatsoever.

Mall

07.29.2020 07:56PM

To those who get confused about definitions, I'm not giving THEEEEE definition of so called white supremacy or the so-called correct definition.

This is just a premise . Sometimes you have to just go with something being aware you can disprove something.

Death23

07.29.2020 06:02PM

-->

@Mall

White supremacy is a belief, not a state of affairs. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/white_supremacy https://www.britannica.com/topic/white-supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/white-supremacy https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/white-supremacy

Mall

07.29.2020 09:38AM

The description is clear, it's the terms, it's the criteria, basis and premise. Arguments must be made according to it or else it defeats its purpose .

When the description is not clear to anyone, ask as many questions as warranted for clarity. That's why I always extend that.

So that means you don't accept a challenge until something that is not clear is.

Intelligence_06

07.28.2020 10:32PM

-->

@Barney

His descriptions are inconsistent at times. In the title it says just prove something and done, but the description sometimes say that you must prove a worldly basis heavily within said thing.

RationalMadman

07.28.2020 10:16PM

-->

@Barney

he 100% of the time does his Round 1 in debates as 'the description will serve as the first round'.

Barney

07.28.2020 06:54PM

-->

@Mall

Is that description your first round again, or the terms of the debate?

If it's the terms of the debate, then this is a meaningless truism. If not, then I can easily prove that various racist ideologies exist and even dominate certain areas.

seldiora

08.16.2020 08:04PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

pro was the only one who used sources, didn't act angry, and reasoned out with multiple ideas supporting his idea

Barney

08.16.2020 05:39PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The instigator tried to write a truism, as I warned in the comments, these are meaningless.

The contender ran a multi-point Kritik, first that rules may be overridden to maintain the spirit of debate, then an inverse semantic...
https://tiny.cc/Kritik

Then of course, cited evidence of white supremacy existing. For which Department of Homeland Security source was particularly effective, and nothing about the point was challenged.

Con's case on the other hand was that pro conceded by bringing the debate out of the mindless truism area. I do however give con credit for catching that the goalposts had indeed been moved (getting more advanced on fallacies, that something is the form of the fallacy does not mean it is assured to be fallacious: e.g., Trump is the president, so while quoting him is an appeal to authority, he may be a valid authority on the topic). Sticking with what's been proven meaningless, is non-ideal; in such cases, a reason why that would be a debatable topic under those limits needs to be shown (that it's debatable, does not mean it needs to be fair, just debatable).

Intelligence_06

08.16.2020 03:19PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Sources: Pro. Pro is the only one who used sufficient sources. Con used none for anything.

Args: Pro. Con dropped most of Pro's points and at the later two rounds he just gave up proving that White supremacy does not exist. Con, meanwhile used various approaches for the topic, such as governmental reports, News, etc. Con moved the goalpost from just saying white supremacy exists to all Whites are privileged, which is not what the topic means at the start.

S&G: Pro. CAPITALIZING PARAGRAPHS FOR NO REASON IS NOT FUNNY. Format is very disorganized compared to Pro.

Conduct: Pro. Con is not constructive in any way in the later two rounds. His attitude of being angry of the opponent using a reason within his invisible barriers is not that of a civil debate.