OF COURSE we are! You are totally unable to defend your claim! It's VERY simple: The article does not give the raw number of whites killed, but it does for the other races!
I not only gave you the numbers of unarmed Whites killed(Post #139), but I even showed you how the numbers were derived. But you are semantically right, the article did not list the raw numbers. But these numbers could easily be derived from the article. Now, if you ask me to provide the names, addresses, phone numbers, death certificates, or personal history of each of the White unarmed victims, THEN YOU WIN!! And, if I somehow I did provide you with all of these things, and you stated, "that this was NOT stated in the article", THEN AGAIN YOU WIN! It is possible to interpret things that are not always stated. We do this everyday of our lives.
Just ask yourself. Just what have I learned from you? What knowledge have you posited in the debate? What questions have you answered for clarity? What specific and objective evidence have you posited to support your claim? Winning an argument is only pertinent if some knowledge about a subject is taken away by us both. So what knowledge about unarmed Blacks not being killed 2-3 times more than Whites, can I take-away from the debate? What is YOUR OWN raw data that supports your claim? Who made this claim?
Without knowledge, experience, and the facts to support your claims, cracks in your argument will eventually expose just how shallow your depth of understanding really is. You don't have to defend being wrong. This is how we acquire new knowledge. For years I always believed that insulin was produced by the Beta cells in the liver. And NOT in the pancreas. Learning the truth about my mistake was very embarrassing. But I will never forget again!
