There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such.

• What is "white" history? 
  
• How does white history differ from non-white history?
  
• Citizenship is legal membership in a state.  
  
• No national citizenship is contingent on race
  
• The notion of white supremacy contradicts the equal status of non-white citizens
  
• The principle of egalitarianism contradicts the notion of white supremacy.
  
• Therefore, white supremacy never improves citizenship and very likely conflicts with core national principles such as egalitarianism and fraternity.
  

• POWER is the "ability to coerce, influence, or control"
  
• Where is the virtue in on family controlling another?
  
• Likewise, where is the virtue in some people exerting control over other people?
  

• The idea of a white race is a relatively recent invention brought about by colonialization as part of the classification of and justification for the slavery and genocide that made colonies profitable enterprises.
  
• There are no distinct geographical or biological traits that distinguish white people from non-white people.  Even white skin is a highly relative and debatable notion.  
  
• What one group of white people calls white varies considerably from what other people call white and mostly just reflects personal preference.
  

• PRO argues that honoring one's ancestry is a virtue but only honoring white ancestors excludes the majority all white people's non-white ancestors.
  
• The two genes most commonly associated with lighter skin color originated in the Middle East 22-26,000 years ago
  
• But human ancestry stretches back much farther than that.  In fact, the most recent woman from whom all modern humans descend is estimated to have lived about 150,000 years ago. 
  
• PRO only honors the most recent thousand whiteish generations and excludes the non-white 5 or 6 thousand generations of ancestors before those.
  

• As PRO notes, the ultimate justification for white power is power itself.  The drive to control other groups of people to the advantage of your group of people is older than humanity.  The massive labor demands of colonization required massive violence to force large populations to work themselves to death without compensation.   The idea of a racial hierarchy was innovated to justify that massive violence.  Although the demand for modern labor is rapidly shrinking, the employment of that old justification lives on as an excuse for attacking strangers.
  
• 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:
  

• "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."
  

• In R1, PRO failed to prove that  the ideology of white power is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect. 
  
• The virtues PRO cited were not particularly white nor particularly virtuous.
  
• In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age.
  
• CON looks forward to PRO's R2.
  

• In the absence of any objection, PRO accepts the entire burden of proof for this debate.
  

• R1: PRO should state the "strong valid" principles that uphold white virtue exclusively.
  

• R1: Self-respect and honoring one's ancestry are relatively easy virtues compared to most, insofar as both traits redound to one's personal advantage and the higher virtues are generally more selfless.
  
• Kim Jong-un is chock full of self-respect and family honor, for example, but few would call the North Korean dictator virtuous.
  
• PRO drops this argument
  

• Depends on the law.  HD Thoureau famously reminds us:
  
• "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,  the true place for a just man is also a prison"
  
• If the law applies specifically for whites (or exclusively of nonwhites) then the law does grievous harm against the disenfranchised.
  

• Essentially, the entirety of PRO's unimpressive argument is WHITE POWER is pure so long as we use PRO's definition of WHITE POWER which is uniquely PRO's invention, bears no resemblance to any scholarly source on the subject of WHITE POWER, and contradicts CON's definition which CON proffered first, that being :
  
• WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
  
• WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
  

• "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
  
• By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description and again in R1, and
  
• By asserting some personalized, non-dictionary definition,
  
• PRO has relinquished any authority in defining the term WHITE POWER
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  

• Circular doublespeak-
  
• white power is what makes your white family strong
  
• white family is what makes your white power strong
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  
• R2: VOTERS should recall that CON advised PRO in R1:
  
• "CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument."
  
• CON asks VOTERS to prefer CON's dictionary definition over PRO's late-breaking nonsense definition.
  
• CON's definition stands
  

• R1: "These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted.   CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences."
  
• PRO offered no clarification
  

• R2: Same as above,
  
• either PRO means that these are qualities special to members of the  white race or else PRO is just talking about people and families generally and unnecessarily adding the provocative racial modifier "white" purposelessly.
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  

• R2: Same as above,
  
• Don't nonwhite people do right too?
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  

• R2: If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
  
• Why?
  
• This argument contradicts all of PRO's prior assertions.
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  

• R2: So why reserve enfranchisement for whites exclusively?
  
• PRO dropped this argument
  

• R2: But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?
  
• If one calls the American Revolution "white history" then one defames the sacrifices and struggles of the black one-fifth of Americans who fought for freedom.
  
• If one calls the bombing of Hiroshima "white history" then one ignores the suffering and loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
  
• Why exclude nonwhite contributions from history
  
• PRO drops this argument
  

• R3: Essentially, the entirety of PRO's unimpressive argument is WHITE POWER is pure so long as we use PRO's definition of WHITE POWER which is uniquely PRO's invention, bears no resemblance to any scholarly source on the subject of WHITE POWER, and contradicts CON's definition which CON proffered first, that being :
  
• WHITE POWER [noun] is "white supremacy"
  
• WHITE SUPREMACY [noun] is "the ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others"
  

• "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." 
  

• VOTERS will note that PRO's outlook stands in direct contradiction to the spirit of any debate. PRO is saying "the only terms to which I agree are my terms, and those change from round to round."   
  
• CON hopes VOTERS agree that insisting on some dictionary sourced definition is  a minimal good faith gesture towards seeking honest engagement.  
  
• By failing to provide a definition for WHITE POWER in the debate description and again in R1, and
  
• By asserting some personalized, non-dictionary definition,
  
• PRO has relinquished any authority in defining the term WHITE POWER
  

• R2: VOTERS should recall that CON advised PRO in R1:
  
• "CON will argue against the words PRO writes here and presume no alternative meaning beyond the best ordinary, dictionary understandings in the context of PRO's argument."
  

• CON interprets this vague language to mean "[PRO alone} defines WHITE POWER and an ideal citizen"
  
• CON asks VOTERS to prefer CON's dictionary definition over PRO's late-breaking nonsense definition.
  
• CON's definition stands
  
• WHITE POWER means white supremacy by any ordinary interpretation of the words
  

• R1: "These sentences are so vague and generalized that no response seems warranted.   CON can't tell what noun(s) the 5 uses of the pronoun "it" point to in these sentences."
  
• PRO offered no clarification
  

• same argument, same drop
  

• same, CON asks "Don't nonwhite people do right too?"
  
• CON dodges
  

• another drop

• R2: If white people would be powerless in a society that denies criminals freedoms, doesn't that infer that all white people are criminals?
  

• PRO seems to be arguing that WHITE POWER is harmless because all harm done by white people is limited to prisons where white people are powerless and so not part of WHITE POWER
  
• Even using PRO's tortured logic, we have to assume that at least a few white people did some kind of wrong before they merited imprisonment, giving lie to PRO's assertion "nothing wrong"
  
• PRO failed to establish that there is no WHITE POWER in prison
  
• When CON argued further no body of law is free from the harms of some injustice, 
  
• PRO dropped the argument

• R2: But there's no part of history that concerns only white people, right?
  

R3: Do you agree that there's nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen?

• Right, because then PRO would change the definition of WHITE POWER to "decent people in the world that abide by those laws that PRO selects as just"
  
• PRO never explains how the term WHITE POWER can abide the law selectively
  

Would it matter if that citizen is "white"?

• PRO drops this argument
  

• PRO drops this argument
  

• PRO drops this argument
  

• PRO failed to prove that his ever-shifting ideology of WHITE POWER is faultless- never incorrect or immoral in any aspect
  
• PRO put all of his efforts into re-defining WHITE POWER away from any realm of  wrongdoing
  
• but even so, PRO never bothered to show how unincarcerated white people are blameless in all respects
• In fact, CON showed that the concept of white power is fairly fuzzy, disrespects nonwhite ancestors and is employed to justify acts of violence in the modern age
  
• PRO simply ignored CON's entire argument 
  

• CON asks VOTERS to award CON for ARGUMENTS
  
• Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate and
  
• Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration
  
• Please VOTE CON!