Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#3609
Your best argument for any "white" person to be a "white " nationalist.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
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.
Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to be a "white" nationalist?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for a "white" person period to be a "white" nationalist/separatist?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?
Let's see.
Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.
Round 1
What is your best argument to be a "white" nationalist?
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
- The resolution states: "your best argument for any 'white' person to be a 'white nationalist.'" I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic.
- Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best. I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.
Round 2
This is funny as all get out. The burden of proof is on the positive claim maker.
What is your best argument?
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no description specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Dropped. Extend.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim maker.
- No one is making a positive claim in this debate. The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, it states: "your best argument for any "white" person to be a "white" "nationalist." With an absence of a propositional resolution or description clauses, we require interpretations. So the object of the debate is the presentation of my best argument for such. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one. In essence, I propose a shared burden.
I. Argument
- First, as a baseline, white nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity. My best argument for any individual person to become a white nationalist is this:
- p1. You should see the value of the preservation, development, and maintenance of your own identity within the context of your environment and within the progression of humankind.
- p2. White nationalism entails observing the value of the preservation or maintenance of your own identity within the context of your environment and within the progression of humankind.
- c1. You should see value in becoming a white nationalist.
- p3. You should internally actualize what you hold value for.
- p4. The internal actualization of white nationalism is both sufficient and necessary to hold its identity.
- c2. You should be a white nationalist.
- We can go through each premise and conclusion.
- Premise one is self-evident. Humans are rational creatures that show our values and temperaments through our various modes of identity. P1 establishes that in order to act in accordance with one's values, one must perceive their identity outside of the self.
- Premise two is definitional.
- Premise three is purely logical. Say I value being an astronaut, in order to meet the baseline of progressing to actualize my own values to ethically improve my utility, I must internalize my goals and said values I hold. Say I am poor and I can't afford to go to school to become an astronaut, the only reason I would even acknowledge the limitations to the pursuits of my aspirations is a result of internal acknowledgment of such. You see, internal actualization is not sufficient to be an astronaut but it is necessary. But for white nationalism, it is both sufficient and necessary as the position requires no formal stipulation or qualification. This establishes premise four as valid.
- Conclusively, this is my best argument that any individual white person should be a white nationalist.
Round 3
Thank you for finally presenting your positive claim to an argument, hopefully best at that .
Were you stalling trying to buy time?
Your first point.
"p1. You should see the value of the preservation, development, and maintenance of your own identity within the context of your environment and within the progression of humankind."
What is the value in skin color that should be seen?
Why is it in the context of humankind?
Shouldn't it just be one's " own kind "?
You're a "white nationalist", not a pure humanist.
"White nationalism entails observing the value of the preservation or maintenance of your own identity within the context of your environment and within the progression of humankind."
Rephrasing of the first point,ok, creative.
"You should see value in becoming a white nationalist."
"You should internally actualize what you hold value for."
Ok, ok. The value thing again.
"The internal actualization of white nationalism is both sufficient and necessary to hold its identity. "
" You should be a white nationalist."
Well that's not as in depth as I thought it would be. In fact this is rather shallow.
I should be something for the sake of "I should be" is one of your points.
Why should a "white" person be one?
I guess because it has some value that they also "should" see.
Why should they see it?
Well I guess because they're so called white .
I'm just bridging gaps .
So my friend what is this value thing you're trying to sell us on?
What effect is it supposed to have in terms of promoting, uplifting lives, "white" lives to be exact as oppose to tearing those lives down?
The idea of preserving a physical trait or traits like eugenics. For the sake of what?
The list can go on and on. We can go with height, nose shape, eye color. What would be the value?
I understand we have all these characteristics from not focusing on selective preservation via migration.
Now we have folks doing this nationalism thing. Well I guess all in evolution particularly socially.
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no description specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend. Mall does not challenge my framework meaning he accepts it.
- Upon repetition, I will remind the voters of this debate that no one is making a positive claim within its context. The resolution is non-propositional. It merely demands my best argument, which I have given, and this upheld my burden in its entirety. Now the object of this debate is for the contender to falsify such as my best argument. To do such, the better argument he proposes will simply become my best argument if it is proven to be superior. With the absence of any other specification or rule, this is the most basic interpretation of the resolution.
I. Argument
- Pro is yet to provide a better argument, so we tentatively conclude that this remains my best argument.
- Pro however attempts to engage with my argument (not very well I must add).
- Premise 1: Pro asks "what is the value in skin color that should be seen?"
- This is not a rejection of the premise, but simply a question of the true value of x trait embedded within its proposition. The answer is simple, identity is shaped and constructed by forces of culture, environment, ontology, and overarchingly: human rationality. Race has anthropological value because it indicates a long linage of shared experiences, culture, values, achievements, and origins. What is value if not a product of anthropological phenomena? Lastly, preservation. We can make a simple modus ponens case for this (P implies Q).
- If you value an object or category your value is contingent on its existence and in order to actualize your value you must value said existence. I value my family, therefore, they must exist by necessity in order for me to enjoy or experience my values as a rational, sentient being.
- Pro asks "why is it in the context of humankind?" This was already answered. Humans are rational creatures that show our values and temperaments through our various modes of identity. Consequently, humankind is the greatest epistemological boundary by which we can conceptualize similar formation of values and my logic must pertain to all entities of this threshold.
- Premise 2: Pro says "rephrasing of the first point,ok, creative." This shows his lack of understanding of the basic structure of deductive syllogisms. I am not responsible for pro's ignorance nor are our voters.
- Conclusion 1: See above.
- Premise 3: See above.
- Premise 4: Dropped.
- Conclusion 2: Stands un-refuted.
I.1 Analysis
- If premise one and premise two are true the rest of the syllogism is true as pro only vaguely contests premise one and drops all other premises.
The list can go on and on. We can go with height, nose shape, eye color. What would be the value?
- Value is subjective, I am simply giving my best argument for what people should subjectively implicate with value. There is a lot to value with height for most people for example, because of its cultural entailments: attractiveness, athleticism, practicality etc. There may not be the same for other listed characteristics.
Round 4
"Pro asks "what is the value in skin color that should be seen?"
That's my question.
Apparently your answer.
"The answer is simple, identity is shaped and constructed by forces of culture, environment, ontology, and overarchingly: human rationality. Race has anthropological value because it indicates a long linage of shared experiences, culture, values, achievements, and origins. What is value if not a product of anthropological phenomena?"
Tell you the truth, I wish it was simpler with shorter sentences.
The value of anybody's skin value has to do with their past when you say anthropological. Your answer doesn't explain what effect the skin color has on the person minute by minute, daily or currently that in which value serves.
Unless I'm a car collector, collecting historical value for profit, a car that can't serve a purpose now has no value.
You've failed to establish the value.
All I have here is that skin color is valuable because the ancestors had the same skin color. Big deal, so what?
Preserving a happenstance of biology, well to each its own.
"Pro asks "why is it in the context of humankind?"
That's the question.
Let's see what your answer is.
"Humans are rational creatures that show our values and temperaments through our various modes of identity. "
Still don't have a clue with what this has to do with being a "white" nationalist.
You're supposed to be explaining the value in whiteness, to be a "white" human being. Not a human being or having human pride but so called white pride. You're not trying to build a nation of human people. Narrow it down to "white " folks.
"This shows his lack of understanding of the basic structure of deductive syllogisms. I am not responsible for pro's ignorance nor are our voters."
Well explain it better. If you don't care for people to understand you, that sure is a long ways from the value you're talking about in being human. What value is there in being cold, callous and caring less?
"I am simply giving my best argument for what people should subjectively implicate with value. "
If this is your best, all I'm getting is, any so called white person to be a so called white nationalist is for the sake of being "white". The value that should be recognized is others sharing the same skin color for the sake of that.
Alright, that's fine, that's all you got it.
Debating an actual "white" nationalist, I would of gotten a run for my money.
But it can be tough trying to argue for somebody else's position. If anybody here on this website ever heard of a person by the name of Umar Johnson, you can say he's a bonafide"black" nationalist.
He'll explain why any "black" is to be a "black " nationalist.
Now the value, what is the value in being one?
In where it was poorly elaborated here, the value in being "black" and being about building a nation for those that are "black" of course has to do with preservation of so called black folk.
What's the correlation between preservation and the value?
There's value in preserving who's called the black man and the black woman. This is done by building "black" families, building and or maintaining an infrastructure that would have an affect on the current so called blacks in a melting pot of disenfranchisement , disadvantaged and impoverished conditions.
They would experience the effect, the effect, the effect of this built up infrastructure, built up nation of what's called the black economy. Keeping money in the hands of so called blacks, building " black " businesses, education systems purposely designed to benefit, empower, solidify the strength of a nation for "blacks". Not mankind, not anybody but certain,that is certain persons.
As it stands now in the so called United States, the " blacks" have been getting the short end of the stick , below par so to speak in a system not intentionally, initially designed for mankind in spite of what has been said to might have some believe but to the rest that would really know based on current events and political protests.
So it is valuable to be a "black" nationalist for an improved quality of life. Why live life without that if you're going to live it?
The value of "black " life comes into every aspect of it that you can control or improve .
If you're not improving the life, living a healthy life, why live? A contradiction comes in trying to live dying or helping to die slowly depleting the quality of your life if you are "black" tearing it down gradually.
That was one of the messages in the film "Lean on Me".
Morgan Freeman's character pointed out the contradiction in one of the kids that was thrown out of school.
The kid wanted to live life high . Freeman's character insisted to the kid to go jump of the school roof top.
Freeman's character: Go jump off, you want to kill yourself.
Kid: No I don't.
Freeman's character: Yes you do. You smoke crack don't you?
Do you know what that does? It kills your brain cells. Now stop messing around with death, to slow it down, do it expeditiously and jump.
Now let's bring this back to what the Pro side was supposed to do. You were supposed to establish what the value is in skin color, what it's supposed to mean and do for a so called white individual.
Now it's not my job to build your argument for you but I went way out of the way to mark an epitome of what was expected of you from my illustration.
But you said that's the best you got. So that means your done, you threw in the towel , you quit at that point. I accept that.
Thank you for trying. That's one thing I can say. I think you'll try any challenge just about that comes along.
Overview
- Note that con has not challenged the framework, and has also not put forth a better argument.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend. Con does not challenge my framework meaning he accepts it.
I. Argument
- Con is yet to provide a better argument, so we tentatively conclude that this remains my best argument. Pro has met his burdens, con seemingly has not. All that is required from con is to present his best argument.
- Premise 1:
The value of anybody's skin value has to do with their past when you say anthropological. Your answer doesn't explain what effect the skin color has on the person minute by minute, daily or currently that in which value serves.
- Something does not need to have a minute-by-minute effect in order to hold subjective value concerning a rational being. Most people value their family, and I argue they should, however, your family does not have a consistent minute-by-minute impact on you. Race, like family, is a product of human anthropology, and connects people by age and legacy of shared experiences. Con's counter is a non sequitur as far as I am concerned. Extend my argument from the philosophy of anthropological value.
Unless I'm a car collector, collecting historical value for profit, a car that can't serve a purpose now has no value.
- I am in essence stating that race is analogous to something that holds historical value that people should collect (in this case preserve) and that my best argument for any white person to be a white nationalist is that they should recognize this as a valued aspect of their identity.
You're supposed to be explaining the value in whiteness, to be a "white" human being. Not a human being or having human pride but so called white pride. You're not trying to build a nation of human people. Narrow it down to "white " folks.
- See above, my argument is for white nationalism and thus only applies to an individual white person, and is aimed to deductively show that it is plausible that they should subjectively implicate their race and the preservation of such with value, and internal actualization of such is already sufficient to make them a white nationalist.
Let's see what your answer is.
- The answer was that humankind is the greatest possible epistemological boundary for a man's interaction with their own values.
What's the correlation between preservation and the value?
- I will just quote the last round as you seem to have not read it. "We can make a simple modus ponens case for this (P implies Q). If you value an object or category your value is contingent on its existence and in order to actualize your value you must value said existence. I value my family, therefore, they must exist by necessity in order for me to enjoy or experience my values as a rational, sentient being."
- Premise 2: Dropped.
- Conclusion 1: Dropped.
- Premise 3: Dropped.
- Premise 4: Dropped.
- Conclusion 2: Stands un-refuted.
I.A.1
- Ignoring the rest of con's ramble, I am only interested in a rejection of my premises. Con drops all other premises and only seeks to respond to p1, however, he has made no sufficient counter to premise one. I hold that given all premises are true, a person who subscribes to such is already a white nationalist.
- Pro need only provide his best argument, and con has failed in every conceivable way to falsify such as his best argument. He speaks about black nationalism, but such would be predicated on historical experiences incongruent to white nationalism and read as irrelevant to our debate.
Round 5
"Something does not need to have a minute-by-minute effect in order to hold subjective value concerning a rational being. Most people value their family, and I argue they should, however, your family does not have a consistent minute-by-minute impact on you. "
The point I guess you're continuing to miss is the impact of how it affects a person.
So in regards to what you said about family, a father and son, the value that the father has on the son is there because of that impact. Not just for the sake of the father being the father for title sake. This is what I'm having you understand.
"Race, like family, is a product of human anthropology, and connects people by age and legacy of shared experiences."
All this mentioned for the sake of what though? Value is mentioned but the establishing of it is failing.
"Con's counter is a non sequitur as far as I am concerned. Extend my argument from the philosophy of anthropological value. "
I'm just trying to get you to explain more about how is this valuable. I'm getting empty rhetoric. For instance, you have not explain what this so called anthropological value is. Until you explain, you haven't developed your argument to suffice a valid point.
"I am in essence stating that race is analogous to something that holds historical value that people should collect (in this case preserve) and that my best argument for any white person to be a white nationalist is that they should recognize this as a valued aspect of their identity."
For the sake of historical value, ok. Why should it be valuable? You're just saying history is valuable and it should be. All this is an assertion on your part. Just something is because you say.
"The answer was that humankind is the greatest possible epistemological boundary for a man's interaction with their own values."
Ok we'll throw this out here but save it for a debate challenge about the best argument to be a human nationalist or humanitarian.
"I will just quote the last round as you seem to have not read it. "We can make a simple modus ponens case for this (P implies Q). If you value an object or category your value is contingent on its existence and in order to actualize your value you must value said existence. I value my family, therefore, they must exist by necessity in order for me to enjoy or experience my values as a rational, sentient being."
I'm not going to assume the correlation between preservation and value here. You could have specifically answered by saying" the correlation is this or that".
I don't even see the mention of preservation here in this response. I don't think you're paying attention to detail in my question.
But if you're closed minded such as it appears from your side, you're not looking to expand any further or elaborate or rephrase .
You'll say this is what it is , reread, reread.
But I'm having a good time with you. It's been interesting.
" Ignoring the rest of con's ramble, I am only interested in a rejection of my premises."
Accept a debate challenge then figuratively say to my face "I'm ignoring what you got to say."
Like I said, I'm having a good time with you.
Well looks like everything is in order.
I on the other hand established where value comes in with the point of so called black nationalism. Something you failed to do on your side to establish with so called white nationalism.
But I established that point which was not my burden to do so but it could help you for future reference.
You mentioned something I believe about having family brings value or a family has value. How and why ? What does it have to do with skin color ?
It's not just exclusive to being "white".
Anybody with any skin color would of had or has a family or else they wouldn't be here .
So this so called value doesn't center around "white" nationalism.
The closest thing you mentioned about the impact the value brings is enjoying the value. But what value? Well the value of a family. What is the value of a family?
You haven't established that.
At the most you've said you can enjoy it or experience it, whatever it is.
But again it's not centered around "white" nationalism.
You keep using broad umbrella entities that can apply across the board like when you say humankind. It's not about humankind because that gets everybody. It's not about the value in being a human. It's the value in being a "white " human. So far, you're saying the best argument to use in being a "white" nationalist " is because of the value of a family. What value and what family?
See, I can go on and on. You're just not expounding here. I showed you the value in which value is brought by impact and demonstrated what was in the best interest of a particular kind. Emphasis on particular kind, not just any kind of man.
Overview
- I will state this starkly. The object of the debate and the resolution is that I simply need to posit my best argument. I have done so, and con has continued to fail to contend my argument, and has not presented the better argument derivative of my framework that was continually dropped.
- Regardless, as long as I have given an argument, I hold that it is obviously sufficient for me to have won this debate by observing the resolution.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend. Con does not challenge my framework meaning he accepts it.
I. Argument
- Con is yet to provide a better argument, so we tentatively conclude that this remains my best argument. Pro has met his burdens, con seemingly has not. All that is required from con is to present his best argument.
- Premise 1:
For instance, you have not explain what this so called anthropological value is.
- Anyone who understands English can understand what these words mean. Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, cultures, societies, and linguistics, in both the present and past, including past human species. Value, being subjective, is the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. I previously argued that value is an amalgamation of various anthropological phenomena. Value is an aspect of behavior, culture, etc: "constructed by forces of culture, environment, ontology, and overarchingly: human rationality." Consequently, my best argument for one to be a white nationalist is to value race as an anthropological phenomenon because of how it pertains to a legacy of shared experiences, genealogy, etc.
For the sake of historical value, ok. Why should it be valuable?
- Because of said anthropological phenomena, shared experiences, culture, etc. attributed to race. While value is subjective, it is shaped by various cultural forces and parts of one's identity. It isn't that history objectively is valuable it is that it shapes subjective human values, and people should hold value for their experiences because they are what enable them to uncover the truth of/interact with reality (see: the power of presuppositions).
Ok we'll throw this out here but save it for a debate challenge about the best argument to be a human nationalist or humanitarian.
- How is this relevant to the epistemological boundary clause? This is to establish that one's value for shared subjective-cultural experiences maximally extends to humankind and not birds or pigs. So within humanity, people should implicate their race with value.
- Premise 2: Dropped.
- Conclusion 1: Dropped.
- Premise 3: Dropped.
- Premise 4: Dropped.
- Conclusion 2: Stands un-refuted.
II Experiences//Preservation
If you value an object or category your value is contingent on its existence and in order to actualize your value you must value said existence. I value my family, therefore, they must exist by necessity in order for me to enjoy or experience my values as a rational, sentient being.
- This is my previous assertion. In conjunction with my value argument, I argue that things should exist in order for you to value them, otherwise, it would be incoherent to possess values for ontologies that no object pertains. This is a modus ponens inference, and while my opponent seems not to understand it. He fails to even attempt to reject any statement as a proposition.
Conclusion
- I have given my best argument, that is all the resolution requires, so, I suggest a vote in pro's direction.
- The philosophical case was interesting but unnecessary. This debate was mostly for fun.
Obviously, I have around 6 minutes left now. I did ask a few people to vote on this, however, they seem to have declined so, I will appreciate the help from anyone.
19 minutes, can anyone vote? It is a simple decision. All I needed was to give an argument, and I did.
I am very pressed for time here, remembered about this way too late.
What is your definition of, or understanding thereof of the term "nationalism" or "nationalist"?