It's Proven True: White Americans Are Domestic Terrorists: Prove Me Wrong

Too much of this debate was taken lightheartedly by both sides. I avoid topics like this but given that I've read debates by the Pro side before, I was curious why he'd remake a topic twice implying he had a stronger case this time.

The word 't****ist' is not to ever be used lightheartedly. Pro seems to be confusing the term with criminal as well as corrupt. For instance, Pro alludes to systemic racism being proof of the resolution as follows:

"Not to forget, I was referring to COVID as a man-made virus because the natural version of coronavirus has always existed. As far as the royal family, I simply used them as an example of systemic racism because systemic racism is a form of terrorism. "

I don't even understand why these sentences are placed consecutively in the same paragraph but both are so shockingly ignorant that it's extremely difficult to be Tabula Rasa in this particular debate. Coronavirus hasn't ALWAYS naturally existed, this is actually what many conspiracy theorists are raising as points, even worse it did indeed appear before the Chinese outbreak in an Italian lab but that's another debate for another day.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/SARS-CoV-2-was-circulating-in-Italy-before-China-recognized-its-existence.aspx

The sentence that follows tells us that Pro has no true idea what t-ism is. It is of course true that in some cases the government itself were the t-ists, especially when enforcing systemic racism with intent (as opposed to incidental systemic racism). Con points this out many times:

"Pro has refused to offer any reason why a group committing lower rates of violence would somehow mark them so much more frequent at violence to be labeled to generally be a bunch of terrorists."

This is the clearest-cut rebuttal Con makes to the continual fusing of criminals, corruption and t-ism. Racist corruption isn't identical to t-ism, they can be intertwined in extremely tyrannical cases but Pro wasn't really implying that. What Pro's overall case seems to be is that it is in fact subtle and undercutting 'hits' to blacks that whites as a whole are committing, which is indeed unlike the 'burst damage' nature of t-ism, as con correctly points out many times, even citing definition.

As far as sources go, Pro's own source was used against him very obviously with the FBI data but also another time (it wasn't direct but it happened, I needn't cite it to justify the vote) and in general, he was using .com articles to back up some random statement that didn't hit home a point as much as add emotional emphasis to how important he felt his statement was.

In contrast, Con used .gov, .org websites on top of .coms and used them to back up statements and data, other than some unnecessary comedy here and there where, for instance, he used a source in the final Round to make fun of Pro. Throughout the debate, both debaters were snarky and severely condescending to one another, Ragnar/Con was just more careful and concealed with his barbed remarks on Pro's 'capacity for coherence' so on and so forth. Pro was more blatant and especially went out of his way to end each Round with a rude quip aimed at Con.

Therefore, the Conduct point is tied because both sides were ridiculous.

Pro failed to define the terms of the debate. What crimes, and committed at what level does it take to establish that white people are terrorists? Pro’s argument consisted of anecdotes which he never tied to an overall argument, and statistics which Con turned on him by pointing out that percentages are how we determine who is more likely to commit a crime. Despite Con asking multiple times “what is terrorism?”, Pro never offered a response to advance his case. Pro seemed to rely on the readers to just “get it”, but that’s not how debate works.

Conduct to Con, Pro repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and insinuations. One example was when Pro stated “Here's how Illogical my opponent is...”. Pro must focus on his opponents arguments, not his opponent. Pro should also refrain from insulting his opponents arguments, if the readers agree with his point nothing further needs to be said.

Sources to Con for not only providing sources but turning his opponents sources against him. Some of Pro’s sources were also questionable at best, providing examples what a politician says is never a great way to prove a point.

The only thing PRO has going for him is "style", which felt the mall placed since he was getting recked in every single category.

Arguments: PRO offered no coherent argument, that is, an argument where at least two premises could be maintained to support the argument.

Sources: PRO's argument that white people committing more crime means they are terrorists is not only non-sequitur but his sources back up CON, not PRO.

Conduct: PRO clearly being guilty of it himself, is constantly accusing CON of not making logical arguments - a blatant lie and also an overly critical attitude.

Legibility: "excepting" = spelling mistake ||| "Technically, this COVID issue is an act of terrorism" = false language technicalities ||| "gets him nowhere fast" = wrong
(PS: if this point feels nit-picky, it's because I am a white domestic terrorist)

Argument: Pro starts his R1 argument with a generalization, “My stance is that white Americans really are domestic terrorists in the US” as if this is descriptive of every white American. Con’s R10 effectively rebuts the argument by demonstration that while white Americans are over 76% of the US Population, they are responsible for 108:1,000 violent crimes, whereas all other races, combined, account for 651:1,000 violent crimes; a rate of increase of over 6x compared to whites by population on an even playing field of crimes committed per 1,000 in the general population [thus the given ratios]. Although Pro’s citation of the FBI’s Table 43 source indicates that there are fewer numbers of violent crimes committed by all other races than whites, the other races commit the greater number of crimes than the white population when the relative populations are normalized as a ratio of crimes per 1,000 in the relative populations, comparable to Con’s source citation. Pro introduces sideline arguments, such as a Pew Research claim that Hispanics report as whites on the Census, and comparing hoop shoots, and the Covid pandemic, then charges “Con doesn't even realize that I'm speaking in general and not in absolutes.” Seems absolutes are what make a debate. Generalization is fine in Forum, but that’s not what this is. Con adequately rebuts Pro’s generalizations. To a rebuttal by Con in R1 that Pro has not cited sources, Pro offered an R2 claim, "I don't even need a closing statement at this point,” as if sources to support an argument are clearly not necessary to his cause since even an argument conclusion is unnecessary. It is necessary to this voter. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro’s own sources do not support his resolution, as Con argued against Pro’s FBI sources. One Pro source, when accessed [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in..] results in “This page does not exist.” Further, a Pro R3 source [https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/opinion/liu-study-hispanics-favor-whiteness/index.html] says in its title that it is opinion, not factual reporting. More worthless generalizations from Pro. Finally, an article on a Pew Research item featuring the allegation that Hispanics are “identifying as white” includes a curious confession: “The second point of confusion is that the new research did not in fact find a Hispanic flight to whiteness.” Whereas, throughout, Con offers arguments with sources that support his BoP, such as the sourcing of the rate per 1,000 population of violent criminals by race, the Catch 22 argument, and Con’s own FBI table 43 source Con successfully rebutted by demonstration that the data actually supports Con’s BoP. Pro simply misreads what the data is saying, dismissing ratios and percentages as inconsequential to whole numbers. Yes, in whole numbers, there are more crimes committed by whites, but whites exceed the whole numbers of all other races, combined, in the general population by a factor of 3x, so that whole number is expected, and does not mean that, on point, one white person is more likely to be violent than one person of any other race. This is the point of Con’s BoP, and he succeeds in demonstration of it by supporting sourcing. Points to Con

Legibility: Leans to Con with unforced Pro grammatical errors, but legibility was still maintained. Tie.

Conduct: Pro’s assertion in the Description that previous debates Pro has conducted on the relative subject of racial animus have been “easily won” by Pro in the past [and Pro claimed in R1 that his Description was argument he would “elaborate a bit more,” making the Description fair argument assessment], is countered by Pro’s 5 debates on the subject on this site on just the first page of his 3 pages of debates. Pro has lost all five of these previous debates relating to this subject. Though I do not assess Conduct points on that basis, it does present an attitude that is prevalent throughout the rounds that is, in my judgment, poor conduct. Examples: R1: “Trying to debate something that's obvious is utter insanity.” Given Pro’s smugness in the Description, the “insanity” is directed inappropriately to Con. In R3: “this is quite funny coming from a guy who's descended from people who've committed the most crimes in world history” Again, directed to Con, a vindictive charge against Con’s heritage [by which none has any say in the matter, regardless, and Con is not personally responsible for any of it, so the slur is as unkind as can be demonstrated]. R4: “SMH.” The Urban Dictionary defines this as, “’Shake my head’ or ‘shaking my head.’ Used in reference to something that's pretty dumb or so silly it doesn't even deserve a response.” “SMH” is the response. Any one, other than the R3 comment, may pass on merit of conduct, but, collectively, and in particular the R3 comment, go beyond the pale. Pro needs to clean up the language and leave the trash-talk in his locker room. Point to Con.