Instigator / Pro
4
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#2506
There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
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.
Saying, supporting and or acting in the name of "white power" has no wrongdoing there as demonstrated as such.
Same goes for "black power" or pretty much anything of the sort. I notice there are those that build up a stigmatizing case behind such saying. The correct approach is to allow whoever it is in support of such to build their own case behind whatever it is that means all the world to them.
It comes down to what a person means when they say anything. You ask what they mean specifically about anything and how it affects you.
Will it affect you in a constructive or destructive way?
Depending on what it is, it may be much needed to verify if there will be a non-constructive/stalemate result.
So it's not so much in the words that people use but more important in the meaning of those words.
For any questions, particularly regarding the title, send comments or messages in order to avoid confusion.
Round 1
Saying, supporting and or acting in the name of "white power" has no wrongdoing there as demonstrated as such.
This pretty much means the person can explain what they mean by saying "white power" or anything. They can explain their entire position. Whether it's about "white power, white nationalism, white freedom, black freedom, black liberation, black power, black lives matter, blue lives matter, all lives matter, black government, american power", the list can go on and on.
Always take the road of challenging, not judgment.
More on so called black power below.
Same goes for "black power" or pretty much anything of the sort. I notice there are those that build up a stigmatizing case behind such saying. The correct approach is to allow whoever it is in support of such to build their own case behind whatever it is that means all the world to them.
It comes down to what a person means when they say anything. You ask what they mean specifically about anything and how it affects you.
Will it affect you in a constructive or destructive way?
This is always the bottom line to anything. There is no exception to this because we live by the results of all things. The next moment, minute, hour, day is the result of what was before. Tomorrow will be the result of today. So hopefully you can live with what happened today or else take your self out of here to avoid living with something the rest of your life.
Depending on what it is, it may be much needed to verify if there will be a non-constructive/stalemate result.
If you're not the complacent type for being in a plateau state, you better consider carefully about this type of result.
So it's not so much in the words that people use but more important in the meaning of those words.
So drop the habit of consensus and yes this means not always going the conventional route and understand that a person is an individual. A single mindset, with individual thoughts, modus operandi, individual views and understandings. You will have to tailor your conversation for each and every individual.
This is why "going off the cuff"is very useful.
Humanity has survived for hundreds of thousands of years, but one of the most common topics has been their abuse of power, "white" or not. We see it throughout history: dictators claim power, and oppress the people below them. "Masters" claim power, and oppress slavery, reducing people to mere property. So today we come here to talk about "white power", to see if it is truly dangerous, and already there is a problem merely from the name. They talk of power from race, your looks, which you cannot change. Imagine I told you I have power because I am 5 feet 5, and only people this tall have power. *chuckles* Or perhaps, because my eyes are brown. Are you shuddering in your seat yet? Applauding me? No, of course not. I haven't demonstrated either being worthy of this "power".
We humans value worth by consequences and ideals most of all. We claim our righteous freedom, dignity, and love, because they are common to all humans, not just white. And when we praise a specific group of people, it is because of their accomplishments. Scientists develop cure to vaccines. Firefighters save people from their burning houses. Even the gender specific "Mother is best" is only due to human biological restrictions, that they have to personally carry the baby for 9 months, not an easy job at all. I am sure fathers would willingly carry instead if they could. Granted, it's possible that most accomplishments in a specific field are accomplished by white people. But perhaps this is a mere coincidence. Perhaps it is something that white people tend to do. Either way, it's not as convincing as a career, something that requires immense dedication and shows your skills and accomplishments in the end.
So let's throw away the idea of "white power". Humans work best when working together, this is indisputable. Even scientists had to be non-scientists at some point, firefighters had to be non-firefighters, and mothers had to be prepared to become a mother before being a mother. There is no need to find yourself superior to another. In times, we find we need a leader to guide us, but at the same time, leaders must also work with us. They may be more ingenious, more skillful, but more "powerful" seems a misled ideal. We gave them our trust. We gave them this power. So in a way, the true idea is "people power". Because this is the best power of all.
Round 2
To fully unpack the meaning of "people power",does this include everyone?
Presumably this includes people who are called white folks.
So by your demonstration, you have broadly described for the lack of a better expression, goodness out of a powerful people.
You just didn't describe the people specifically and physically .
By your explanation, "white power" means the virtue inside. You could say "world power" that's made up of "multinational power" which can be made up by "ethnic power". Then to continental, regional and so forth.
Think of it. We can go to culture to religion, etc. We have "christian power", "Buddhist power", the power of philosophy, power of freedom, justice and nevertheless the power in defense. If you ever heard of the slogan "strong, then there's army strong", it's indicative of something very powerful.
So basically this is what I've been saying all along. Any expression only has as much wrong with it as its meaning.
We ought not underestimate what we see at face value in order to be sure of true value.
Again, by your presentation, "white power" is a constituent of what you call people power.
You don’t understand, we unite all together as people because we share that in common, because all people have potential. The “white power” only focuses on what you look like and excludes others based on a random trait. Remember what I said about 5 feet 5 being powerful having no sense. There is no need to even have a continent consider itself more powerful than another.
Round 3
"You don’t understand, we unite all together as people because we share that in common, because all people have potential."
Just because we can unite, it doesn't mean we don't have differences as well as similarities. It doesn't mean without different colors of skin
" The “white power” only focuses on what you look like and excludes others based on a random trait. "
It only focuses on that when you define it that way. Don't forget that it's about the meaning behind the words. As shown by your presentation, you defined "people power" without speaking to any specific groups within the people of the planet.
I can be a "white person of power" on the planet or " black person of power" on the planet. How can this be? Based on your demonstration, the power is in the "person-hood" of whoever that is that just happens to be so called black or white or whatever.
So you've demonstrated nothing wrong under those terms. There's nothing wrong based on you demonstrating there's nothing wrong even though I assisted in some elaboration.
"Remember what I said about 5 feet 5 being powerful having no sense. There is no need to even have a continent consider itself more powerful than another."
Well what do you say african or Africa power means? What about american power?
See , anybody having individual power doesn't necessarily mean it can't unite with other powers. It doesn't necessarily mean more powerful. Depending on what you mean by power, it could be electrical power, financial power, voting power, manpower, it goes back to definitions. In this case, it's based on the one using the terms.
For feminism, some have the idea that it's about one gender, excluding the other. But it comes down to the individual support for feminism. To others, it simply means equality and at the same time, it may be referred to as feminine power or the power of femininity.
There was much support in the 1960s for "black power". At least to some , it meant uplifting empowerment against oppression. It didn't mean supremacy or superiority. It was not about hate towards a group but love for yourself in spite of being hated.
So it may be hard but you have to try to throw out what the words mean to you and let the person explain the meaning.
Whether you say "people power" , "white people power", " white power", "the whites of people power", it'll be known that none of these conflict only , only upon demonstrating that they don't whatsoever.
You gave an excellent basis indirectly, in a broad fashion of what "white power " can mean as being ***** part ***** of a whole . That whole being that powerful kind of creature on the planet called mankind.
The thing about feminism and black power is that they felt like they were oppressed. Remember that the black lives matter movement is very controversial as they have rioted and called for the police to be defunded. While well meaning I believe the “power” they give themselves make them lose their minds and act rationally. Power corrupts, and so this is a bad mindset to put yourself into. Remember how I said masters rule over slaves, dictators claim right over the people, and all of that had resulted in dystopias we now hate. I think that “power” can only work if everyone has it. Even American power as an idea is dropping down, we valued freedom and rights so much that we forgot some diseases simply don’t care, and wearing masks, along with quarantine, would greatly reduce impact of this. The idea of specific people having power for physical trait or location falls apart because you become arrogant and feel entitled. That is why only People Power is valid, as it gives everyone equal ground and makes each individual matter while giving them hope.
Round 4
I think you can understand what I've been saying.
When you're so into what words mean to you, you can't see what they mean to somebody else .
"Remember that the black lives matter movement is very controversial as they have rioted and called for the police to be defunded. "
This is another example of what I'm talking about and it goes back to the other social cases I mentioned.
Folks have different ideas of what this entity is or what it stands for. Who or what is "black lives matter"? What do they stand for?
I understand some support them, some don't. Why? Some support for the idea of justice. Some don't due to a perceived hostility towards law enforcement.
So we can argue what's right or wrong with supporting based on what the support means to the individual. I can say it's wrong for these reasons and right for these other. It's all based on the definition of a person's position .
Likewise with "white power" , it may mean to me , strong "white" families of integrity inside or a part of the human family. So as a collective with everyone else, makes human power or humane power, whichever preferred way of saying it.
"Power corrupts, and so this is a bad mindset to put yourself into."
What kind of power? Not all , I take it. We just went over the origin of what's called black power.
Let me tell you, power in a woman against an attacker, what bad is that?
Please elaborate what you mean specifically.
"Remember how I said masters rule over slaves, dictators claim right over the people, and all of that had resulted in dystopias we now hate. "
You can pick the negative lights while I pick the positives. Understood to be the most powerful and highest office in the U.S., the oval office. The idea is that this office is in place to assure a conducive, civilized, productive society, reducing harm, issues and struggles.
Parents having power over their children enabling protection, guidance and cultivation is very positive.
You really want to avoid keeping a myopic view of things.
"I think that “power” can only work if everyone has it. "
Here again, I don't know what you mean by "power" and under what context.
A parent's power works over the child all while the child is powerless. Now that's when we're just talking about domination. The child can have power in other things so it pays to be specific.
To your point about everyone having power, sure . It's harmonious with having "white " power, " black" power and etc. to make up what "people power" is.
Mind you again, I just went specific into describing the people of power. They're "white", "asian", "mexican" and so on people of power.
Listing one group or more doesn't necessarily mean " only" if you define it that way. "Chinese" people power, "white" people power, "christian" people power, either of these , get an understanding of what everything is supposed to mean and most definitely how it affects you.
"American power as an idea is dropping down"
Has it dropped completely? For the folks that would say this means something to them, that's where you have to start.
The idea of it to you may mean the present state of things in the land. To me, it means citizenship rights such as voting, being qualified to run for POTUS and so on.
This is why it is true that anything said is only as right or wrong as its basis.
If I said this is a "black " only health, disease , research and study laboratory, no doubt some at least will be feeling discrimination. Those non-black folks so called, will think here's a medical and science lab for "blacks" only and I have blood work prescribed due to a disease diagnosis, it's unjust. A disease clinic or lab with a policy that states admittance is only allowed to a specified group . But the basis is 100 percent justified. The laboratory was setup and funded for greater research and treatment for diseases exclusive to a group like for instance, sickle cell anemia.
"The idea of specific people having power for physical trait or location falls apart because you become arrogant and feel entitled."
It's like you want to force color blindness. Being able see and identify what you are can have a constructive meaning. I acknowledge that I'm of Indian culture. We have strong or powerful family values, traditions and customs. I'm entitled to what I was born into, a birthright. That's not to be boastful, not in that context.
With all that collectively, makes us a powerful people and or nation.Therefore , embracing "people power".
Once more in explaining what you mean, "feel entitled" to what? Is it opinion, speech, what?
"That is why only People Power is valid, as it gives everyone equal ground and makes each individual matter while giving them hope."
Each individual that is what? That is "black" so multiple "blacks", we have "black " power. To each that is Indian, with multiple Indians, we have Indian power. Of course to those that are "white" , having multiple "whites", "white power".
We have what you call people power, made up of all these people with different physical characteristics and backgrounds.
So in defining it that way, it still comes out valid. You started off broad, I went into specific description. Nothing is changing a thing.
This is why this is a plentiful topic as it shows many us will stick hard to the negative side of things.
It pays at times to be neutral until it's known what the end result will be.
I don’t think mall understands. In round 1 I said dictators and masters unfairly claim power. But leaders like president have people’s trust. You must earn the power from others. White People have no such grounding, merely from skin color. Vote con.
I agree with the voters. There is plenty wrong with the phrase "white power" upon demonstrating so . That's the whole point. The truth is what it is each and every time.
Vote
welcome to my Ted talk
***
Regarding #24 being reported...
No action beyond this reminder to whomever filed said report, to report CoC violations instead of posts from people you dislike.
From the CoC: "However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
There is further no rule that specifies everyone must be perfectly polite at all times.
Continued frivolous reports, will result in revoking of quick report privileges.
-Ragnar, DM
***
let's see if I can win this using only I can I BB style of arguments, since Mall's debating style is similar to that Chinese Entertainment show.
Where there's no controversy, there's no disagreement.
Well this topic I guess is incontrovertible but there's enough controversy in the comments, that's for sure.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?"
I'm sorry I can't have a better response than what I gave.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?"
I'll answer in this way this time in that in general the topics I choose are based on common sense. Not much involves research for that you know.
"And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
I just do the best I can with the truth. I may not be understanding all that you're asking.
When you say semantics, does that mean paying attention to all words instead of just some not worrying about specificity?
I think based on recent accusations that you're a Nazi sympathiser as well as some devil's advocate positions you've taken in order to question people on their views, you should take this debate down and tone it down with the extreme positions you take just to question someone with a politically correct and (dare I say) sane outlook.
This is advice to you because I know that you're making these debates just to question people and make them think, as well as to better understand why the mainstream loathing of something like Nazism and white supremacy exist. You are using a debate website to make your opponents debate and that's fine but I highly recommend that you think a little bit about how far you're going with your devil's advocate positions and questioning and how this reflects on the views that you, the user, actually hold. At some point trolling isn't lighthearted fun anymore.
Being "open" to questions and such means literally nothing if you only answer things semantically and with very clear non-sequiturs, For example; Oromagi asked the following question;
"why do you never use sources?"
And you reply:
"I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on. So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable."
The first thing to point out is that given the context, Oromagi was most likely using the word "never" colloquially as a stand-in for general. Probably in order to get your attention and for you to provide a proper response.
Second of all, your answer is practically a nonanswer. "they'll get link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on." Except that presumes that every link on the google page would agree with your claim, and whenever a person makes a claim, the BoP lies on them to justify said claim. Therefore it would be your "burden" to provide the specific source that backs up or justifies your claim.
So because you didn't answer these questions for Oromagi:
Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?
Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?
And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
Are there any further questions?
Even though I'm trying to hide something by offering the opportunity for questions and answers.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
Waaaahh! Don't try to interpret my meaning using English, all meaning that I am willing to acknowledge originates from me and is subject to reinterpretation at my whim. Waaaah! No opinion is based in fact. Mommy, ask me more questions! Because I says so, Mommy! Waaaah!
An outlook less useful to humanity's pursuit of knowledge will not be found.
Look man, I'm just trying to help you and I'm not accusing you of being deliberately dishonest. The people on here are getting a little miffed about this obscure method of having to pry the debate meaning from you when everyone else just puts It up available to anyone immediately. This is just a particularly provocative title, and there is just no way to interpret the resolve other than, "if (white) people are better than non-(white) people, then it's alright to act on that."
The point is that you could just put the descriptors in the description. But instead of just arguing the resolve and it's descriptive constituents, we have to go on an adventure to pry the hidden double meaning of your phrasing before the debate, otherwise we are going to attack the obvious interpretation of the resolve, and you'll be like, "but you're not reading into it enough." But really, you just weren't upfront about your side from the start.
I wouldn't be honest and open to questions right now if I was attempting to be disingenuous.
That's why we ask questions. It's to get clarity.
You folks act like I'm going to say one thing now and say another later.
I'll say this over and over again. You're asking questions to get clarity. You continue to ask until understanding is reached.
So the point about there being no transparency or no opportunity to obtain such of a topic is false.
If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.
Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.
There is*
literally every aspect of the title of the resolve can only be interpreted to mean that white people are better than non-white people and others nothing wrong with believing and acting on that
And the description doesn't help to clarify because the description always says ask questions before accepting. but why would you make it so that we have to relearn definitions of a ton of words we already know before we can have a debate with you about the resolve.
"What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean"
This is exactly the problem because you're vague language makes it impossible to argue with you because nobody knows what you're arguing about. all we have is the resolve and if the resolve doesn't mean what the resolve says then you're not being an intellectually honest debater
"why does your topic sentence lack a noun?"
I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.
"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"
I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.
"why do you never use sources?"
I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.
"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"
I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.
First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.
So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.
I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.
"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"
This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?
deliberate bunk
It is like you are allergic to nouns because nouns makes sentences you might have to justify.
So, you are saying we know that there was nothing wrong with 9/11 because we can only know the harms of 9/11 by means of whatever 9/11 is. Meaninglesss.
What is meant by "upon demonstrated as such"?
It's good that the words are being paid attention to.
When there is nothing wrong with a certain thing, we would only know when it can be shown that there is no harm by means of whatever that is.
He thinks that because in one case racism is beneficial racism would be overall beneficial.
why does your topic sentence lack a noun?
why do you never use dictionary definitions?
why do you never use sources?
why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?
White power " is an expression primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints. It is also a slogan used by the prominent post-Ku Klux Klan group Stormfront and a term used to make racist/racialist viewpoints more palatable to the general public who may associate historical abuses with the terms white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist."
So the expression should always be interpreted as intentional racism.
Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?
What do you mean by "upon being demonstrated as such"
Does anyone have any questions?
Sure the title is correct...there is nothing wrong with being a tad bit obsessed with skin melanin section of the biology textbook. At least they are not focused on the reproductive section...
To Truth!
-logicae
The entire existence of this guy is a giant fallacy by ignorance.
Almost tempted to take the low hanging fruit. But this is just....woof.
I think we've established that you're perfectly capable of writing a sentence clearly. Therefore, all the broken clauses and unparseable salads of non-agreement that are the hallmark of your offerings are probably tactical.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the topic is, the only engagement we'll see here is about how your foggy writing doesn't mean what anybody but you might interpret it to mean and you'll only ever want to talk about why we don't endorse your sloppy thesis, right?
I'm not sure that I buy that you endorse White Power so much as enjoy the use of words of maximal offense like a shiv to discomfit your fellows online. Cheers for that.
to be fair, a debate in the spirit of death penalty, except saying "we should punish assault with assault" would be a viable debate topic not violating DART (because Death Penalty with firing execution can be argued to be violence, otherwise)
FYI, you are stepping close to a hard line:
"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
&
"Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#violence-and-criminal-behavior
to be fair, debaters on the level of Mikal could potentially win on pro's side
yikes