The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
billsands
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Belief in "white supremacy" is a religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2019 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 120603
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

mall

Pro

So in this context, The definition of "white supremacy" is the world, The earth in a prison, Ran and dominated by the prison masters, The so called white supremacists.

The world meaning the so called non-whites that are under complete domination by the so called white supremacists only. Now the opposing side that BELIEVES this to be true will actually have to prove that this is the case. See it plays as a religion because like many other religions, A lot is presupposed without actual evidence. I'll use factors to counter what most likely will be presuppositions. So not only we'll conclude that this is religious but by the end, It may be demonstrated that those that have this religion are in denial.

Many that believe or hold this worldview practice this religion by acting and behaving in a bias fashion towards those that are "white". They believe there is an automatic, Instant power dynamic and that one person is automatically dominated by the other. That is a "non-white" anywhere in everything is subjected to a "white". Also the idea is to always suspect that most likely every "white" that is able to practice so called white supremacy is practicing it. At least there's a 99 % chance that they are. Again nothing but a religious ideology. Really a religion in denial.

That is the context of this topic.

(Please be sure to understand the essence of the debate prior to accepting. Make a comment, Send a message, Etc. This shouldn't have to be noted but individuals will put the cart before the horse).
billsands

Con

It is more accurateley a mental illness such irrational baseless hatred can only be defined as a disease
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

I fail to see how this proves "white supremacy" in the context of this debate exists as it does.

What is your argument or evidence to prove it's existence?
billsands

Con

White Supremacy exists you want proof fine



A new terrorism database analysis shows almost two-thirds of the terror attacks in the United States last year were carried out by right-wing extremists.








Researchers and journalists for the news site Quartz said they used data compiled by the Global Terrorism Database that has tabulated terrorist events around the world since 1970. The database is supported by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Affiliated with the University of Maryland. You want proof? You want me to have you count the corpses?





Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

How does this relate to the definition I presented? The context didn't mention anything about terrorism or any political madness. Left wing/right wing whatever. The categories are "white, Non-white and white supremacists". No political parties, No U. S. Government but a world wide domination of non-whites.

Prove that a prison system, A global government, White supremacy so called is dominating, Subjecting mistreatment to all those that are "non-white" day to day all day.
billsands

Con

I don't have to prove that it is self evident why don't you just talk to non white people and hear their stories lynchings shootings it s in the news every day don't be stupid and you are being deliberetly obtuse, That all i need to say you are willfully blind, There i win thats your proof, You refuse to see reality
Debate Round No. 3
mall

Pro

No my friend, That's not how this works. You accepted the challenge, The burden is on you to prove the context of what I presented exists.

First you stated you were going to prove it in round 2. You didn't as it had nothing to do with the context. You presented irrelevant talking points. Now in the third round, You say don't have to prove anything. Your inconsistency is questionable.

This debate is about at least one person demonstrating evidence. It doesn't work by just saying it's "self evident". That's abandoning your onus of the argument and it's circular.

No you don't win as lynchings, Shootings and terrorism wasn't mentioned in the context. This is why I took the effort in explaining what I meant by so called white supremacy. You have not dealt with it at all in the context I laid out. So called whites get shot, Robbed, Killed, Raped and molested. But I'm obtuse. Corrupt things happen to them as well. Does that prove some type of worldwide dominated system that they're subjected to under mistreatment so that they're always disfavored? Not necessarily.

What you bring up are heinous deeds committed by people to others and I can do the same thing by broaching what people do to others. But is there a conspiracy to mistreat and to always disadvantage a group of people daily, All day, Without exception, So that this group that's ever involved in anything always or mostly fails? Is there a system such as that in place?

You have one more chance to deal with the actual context in this debate. It seems as though your neglecting or failing to comprehend the opening statement. The context of "WHITE SUPREMACY" for this discussion is supposedly a global prison system designed to tyrannize and to mostly serve in-justice to ALL people of "color/non-whites". What's going on in the news media is not indicative of this so called system. It is an indication of current events of everyday crime. So it's pointless in mentioning that as it won't help to prove it. You know this "system" is not designed to be proven superficially. It's supposed to be a very covert operation. So with all intents and purposes, It leaves a very thin almost non-existent trail to be verified. So many presuppose or only can presuppose it's existence.
billsands

Con

well sire what you proposed was absurd on its face. . Okay?
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
My debate challenge, Not yours.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
You do not get to change the meaning of words to argue your point.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
This debate is incoherent
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.