Instigator
Points: 0

Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed From Africa

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender
Points: 0
Description
This is a continuation of mairj23's debate "Africa & Why All Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed Immediately"
(https://www.debateart.com/debates/975).
No personal attacks or accusations of racism from both sides. Saying "What you're proposing is racist" is okay, calling another person racist (personal attack) isn't. Stay civil.
If you wish to provide statistics or quotes, cite your sources.
Round 1
Published:
My opponent believes that all people who live in Africa but aren't black should be deported. This is obvious from the two debates below:
I will try my best to argue against that idea.

Foreword:
I personally believe that my opponent is a racist. However, as I have stated in the description, this debate isn't about insulting each other. I will refrain from using any personal attacks, and I hope my opponent will do the same. The point of this debate is to challenge each other's viewpoints, not to insult each other. Good luck to my opponent, and I hope that he will change his mind. Let's begin.


ARGUMENTS:
Deporting someone because you don't like their skin color is racist. My opponent wants exactly that: deporting all non-black residents of Africa from the continent. He said, and I quote:

"Deporting people who live in Africa that aren't Black is exactly what I'm saying."
He attempts to justify mass deportations with the three following claims:

  • All non-blacks that live in Africa only do so for natural resources, eugenics, and sexual pleasure from children. [1]
  • Arabs, Europeans, and Asians have damaged Africa by colonizing it. [1]
  • North Africa was stolen by Arabs and belongs to Black Africans. [1]
Each of these claims is untrue, and I will debunk them below.

Non-Blacks in Africa Just Want Resources, Eugenics, and Sex With Children
This claim is obviously untrue, and just an attempt to villify the non-black residents of Africa. Assuming that millions of people are greedy, racist child-molesters solely because of their race is morally wrong. Hitler used the same tactic in World War 2: he painted all the Jews as greedy, subhuman spies because of the actions of a select few. Humans are individuals, not a homogeneous mass. The actions of a few people who happen to be white doesn't make all whites evil. The same is true with any other race. Anyone who blames an entire race for the actions of a select few is a racist.

Non-Blacks Have Damaged Africa in the Past
Again, my opponent blames millions of people for the actions of a select few. Just because some white people did bad things in the past doesn't mean that all white people are responsible for the actions of a select few. Africa now consists of free nation-states, not colonies. The descendants of colonizers aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

North Africa Was Stolen by the Arabs
The Arab conquest of Africa happened over a thousand years ago [2]. Nobody that lived back then is alive today. Arabs that live in North Africa today didn't steal land from anyone. Black Africans alive today didn't have their land stolen. People are individuals, not groups. Just because some Arabs in the past invaded Africa doesn't mean you get to deport all Arabs today.


SOURCES:


Published:
My opponent started out by saying that "this debate isn't about insulting each other and that he will refrain from using personal attacks." On the other hand, the first eight words that came out of his mouth is "I personally believe that my opponent is racist." You've already contradicted yourself, and if this is something that you personally believe to be true, then you should've kept an untrue comment like this to yourself.

Yes, I personally stated that all non-black people should be removed, and thanks for quoting me because my statement "never" said anything about disliking someone's skin color. If I said that, then please point to where everyone can find this false statement...My opponent is so hellbent on trying to prove to everyone that I'm racist to where he's clearly missing the point to why I think that all non-black people should be removed from Africa. If he would've asked me, then I'd simply tell him why.

Yes, I can easily and effortlessly justify why non-blacks should be removed, and I already gave you three reasons to which you can't debunk. My I ask you a question? 
1. Why is De Beers in Africa?
2. Why is Chromex Mining Ltd in Africa?
3. What is MMG Mining Group doing in Africa?
4. What is Kermas Investment Group doing in Africa?
5. Anglo America Corporation?
6. And on etc.,

Here's a list for more proof. https://www.miningafrica.net/mining-companies-africa/... My opponent may try to say that these swindlers are African-based, but the funding for these companies are all foreign-based. These swindlers are taking, taking & taking while never putting anything beneficial back in place. So, you actually think that foreigners go to Africa just so to mingle with the native people? Do you actually think that foreigners have the African people's best interests at heart?

It's all about exploiting the people while raping the land. I'll put in simpler terms...(Economic Interests)...If it's not about economic interests, then why does America, France, China etc., have a military presence in Africa? I'll wait...…………………………….So, what are these militaries protecting? Once again, as a nine-year vet with the USAF, I can personally tell you that most of Africa's/Middle East's conflicts are over natural resources. 

Case In point: You ever wonder why America has an opioid/heroin crisis? Did you know that Afghanistan's Poppy production supplies 90% of illicit heroin globally? Are you aware that America & Afghanistan has a close connection? So, America "supposedly" invaded Afghanistan to fight terrorism. Former-FBI contractor Sibel Edmonds report on natural-resource corruption can be found here https://www.activistpost.com/2018/03/before-us-troops-protected-poppies-in-afghanistan-there-was-no-opioid-epidemic-in-america.html  

It's a documented history of corrupt European missionaries in Africa from spreading diseases to sexual abuse of minors. I don't even have to post links to prove this because all you have to do is Google it. Missionaries have been conducting eugenics for decades in Africa. Wiping out the people to get the resources. Nope, I'm not assuming of who's doing what, and I never said all. You think that I'm speaking in absolutes in which I'm not...I speak in-general, and there's a big difference among the two. 

Now you're saying that Hitler painted all Jews as greedy and sub-human. I'm assuming your a white guy...Didn't white Americans classify black people as three-fifths human? In addition to that, didn't white Americans put this clause in the US Constitution?...I'm literally exposing your hypocrisy and contradictions with ease. There's an old saying, which goes "people who live in glass house should never throw stones."

I never said that all white people are evil. I said that the people who are causing the majority of problems in Africa are whites & Asians. You seem to forget that I said "non-Europeans who reside in Europe should be removed from Europe as well." Did I not say that? 

You just stated that Africa now consists of free nation-states. Africa was free before any colonizers arrived and divided the land. Yes, it's known as the Berlin Conference which was a bunch of European racists who superimposed their domain on another continent.  You can't unify something by dividing it. This is a practice that's known as "Divide & Conquer."...You are correct that the descendants of the colonizers aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors, but the descendants most certainly don't have a problem with benefiting from what their ancestors did. 

Last, but not least, you said "that the Arab conquest of North Africa happened over 1,000 years ago, and that they didn't steal the land from anyone"...Now would you explain to me what the term conquest means. I'll wait...………………...So, what you're saying is that Africans basically gave away their land for free.

You also said that Arabs shouldn't be deported either...At the same time, America is doing the exact same thing to Hispanics. Your hypocrisy is unreal. You'll need to come back with a better argument because your very own comments are destroying your argument.





Round 2
Published:
Racism - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

==================

ARGUMENTS: 

My opponent claims that he isn't a racist, and that his reason for wanting deportations isn't race. Really? Seriously? My opponent has stated that:

  • All non-blacks that live in Africa only do so for natural resources, eugenics, and sexual pleasure from children. [1]
  • All non-blacks living in Africa are leeches and bloodsuckers that have destroyed the great African civilizations. [2]
Wanting to deport someone only on the basis of their race is by definition racist. My opponent believes that just because some non-black people in Africa have commited crimes, all non-black people in Africa should be deported. The same reasoning could be used to justify any kind of atrocity. Why shouldn't Africans be all deported from Europe, Asia, North & South America, and Australia? Why shouldn't Europeans be all deported from Asia, North & South America, and Australia? Deporting billions of people because of opaque historical events is stupid and wrong. 

My opponent attempts to justify his outrageous and racist claims by pointing to many Western companies operating in Africa. Yeah... guess what? Companies can operate on different continents! Should Asians deport all Westerners because Nike and Adidas build sweatshops in Asia? Obviously not. My opponent's reasoning is faulty. Instead of blaming whites, why doesn't he move back to Africa and try to help it?

================

SOURCES:


Published:
I'll just respond quickly since I'm already logged in. I'll address the Blasphemy that this guy is speaking and show you how illogical he truly is.

My opponent, whom is a white person, is trying to school myself, a black person, on racism when it's his very own race of people who've built a privileged lifestyle by brutalizing others for having brown skin while trying to make the claim that I'm racist. Wow! 

If you haven't noticed...reverse racism doesn't work on me. I can most definitely love my race without hating another race...Now, can that be said about your race?

Here is what you said verbatim: "My opponent claims that he isn't a racist, and that his reason for wanting deportations isn't race. Really? Seriously? My opponent has stated that:"

  • "All non-blacks that live in Africa only do so for natural resources, eugenics, and sexual pleasure from children.
  • All non-blacks living in Africa are leeches and bloodsuckers that have destroyed the great African civilizations".
So, you're providing random quotes, but the random quotes are backed by facts and I'll easily prove it.

My reply is: If Europeans, Asians & Arabs are "Native" to other continents/countries, then why are they in Africa in the first place? That one question alone destroys your argument. I'll ask this question again, but in a different manner so that you're not confused.

Explain to me, why did these foreigners (Europeans, Asians & Arabs) leave their Indigenous lands to come to Africa? I'll wait...……………………..

Now, when you put those questions into context with my quotes from above, then you'll see that it can't be disputed. You also may be asking, why can't it be disputed? The reason to why it can't be disputed is because Europeans, Asians and Arabs have a (Documented History) of committing the crimes that I spoke about in which my opponent quoted...Sir, you just proved my point without even knowing it.

My opponent is trying to change the narrative because he doesn't have an argument. The reason he doesn't have an argument is because the crimes are 100% true, and all you have to do is research it. 

You're now asking me "why shouldn't Africans be deported from Europe, Asia, the Americas & Australia?" Sir, this is an African issue. To further answer his question...Give me a list of African Corporations that are mining the natural resources in these regions. After that, guide me to the fake missionary/eugenics programs that Africans are conducting in these regions. After you completed that, show me the hundreds of perverts who have been caught/charged with sexually assaulting underage children in these regions. I'll wait...……………………

And if you were as educated as you claim to be, then you'd know that Africans were in those regions before most races even existed. There are African skeletal remains that pre-dates the current natives of those regions. It's known as Forensic Anthropology.

Yes, you're right that companies can operate in other countries, but when you can't conduct proper business, then you should be removed.  You also spoke about Nike and Adidas sweatshops in Asia and should westerners be removed...The average Nike/Adidas "sweatshop" most likely won't have westerners working in them to begin with.

"Please bring some type of logical argument to the table next time"










Round 3
Published:
It's bad conduct to label your opponent's arguments as "Blasphemy". Remain civil.

===============

REBUTALLS:

"My opponent, whom is a white person, is trying to school myself, a black person, on racism when it's his very own race of people who've built a privileged lifestyle by brutalizing others for having brown skin while trying to make the claim that I'm racist. Wow!"
You don't know if I'm a white person or not, but you assume that I am just because I disagree with you. Is that not racism and identity politics? (I am indeed white, but you didn't know that when you made the claim).
Further, you claim that my race is responsible for horrible crimes. The way you put that statement is wrong. The white race isn't responsible for horrible crimes. Race is a skin color, it can't be responsible or anything. Bad people who happen to be white are the ones to blame. It's wrong to characterize a group based on the actions of a few individuals. It's like saying all black people are criminals, or that all Mexicans are drug dealers. My skin color only cannot and does not make my a hypocrite in any way or form. What matters is not the color of your skin, but the content of your character.

"Explain to me, why did these foreigners (Europeans, Asians & Arabs) leave their Indigenous lands to come to Africa?"
You're a foreign African living in the United States! Why don't you go back to your indigenous land? Can't you see how your argument is incredibly racist?
I'll tell you why non-blacks live in Africa:

  • They were born there.
  • They came to preach their religion.
  • They came to learn about the culture.
  • They came for work.
  • They came to retire. 
  • They came to get an education.
And many other perfectly normal reasons! You, however, claim that all non-blacks live in Africa because they are greedy racist pedophiles. This is laughably untrue and cannot be proven. 

===================

ARGUMENTS:

Saying that all members of a race are responsible for crimes commited by a tiny number of members of that race is, by definition, racist. It's like if I were to call all black people criminals: racist and untrue. My opponent can call me uneducated, illogical, say that I don't have an argument, or use other ad hominems. However, the following remains a fact:

Even if all of Con's claims were true, that still doesn't justify the mass deportation of ALL non-blacks from Africa.

Please bring some type of logical argument to the table next time. TheAtheist out.
Published:
You said that "it's bad conduct to label your opponent's arguments as Blasphemy" despite, yourself, labelling your opponent as racist. Huh? The hypocrisy is unreal.

You then go on to claim that I wouldn't know if you are white...It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that your white. The very things that you're saying is blowing your cover. How many times are you going to keep saying the words race and racism? 

Nope, I didn't say that your race was responsible for horrible crimes...I said that Europeans/Asians were causing the majority of crimes in Africa. Yet again, you said that "the white race isn't responsible for horrible crimes." Is genocide not a horrible crime? Is genocide on multiple continents not a horrible crime? I'm not even going to entertain nonsense like that because all I'll have to do is start listing the actual crimes. It may fill up the entire page, but I'll do it if you want me to.

You said "race is a skin color."... Sir, race is an ethnicity and not a skin color. Not to be rude, but where are you getting your information from? You then go on to say that it's wrong to characterize a group based on the actions of a few. Yes, I agree, but didn't white people colonize entire groups just for being another race? Hmmm. That's racism 101, and it can't be disputed...Yet again, you continue to preach that it's not the color of skin, but the content of character.

I'll ask you again, when the white race held black people as slaves in America, did the white race hold and enslave these people because of their character? 

This is what my opponent said:    "I'll tell you why non-blacks live in Africa:"

  • They were born there.
  • They came to preach their religion.
  • They came to learn about the culture.
  • They came for work.
  • They came to retire. 
  • They came to get an education.
OK, so those who were born in Africa...where did their descendants come from?...Religion? Why would foreigners try to force a religion on another group of people who have their own religion?...Culture? That's laughable because after Europeans colonized Africa's civilizations, they took the artifacts and placed them in European museums, which generates millions annually. Work?...As in owning 90% of the fertile lands and wealth...Retire? Of course, if I owned 90% of the fertile land and wealth while indoctrinating the people with false idols, then I could retire as well...Education? Of course, education on how to maintain a racist system that can be passed down to the next generation.

My opponent said "Saying that all members of a race are responsible for crimes committed by a tiny number of members of that race is, by definition, racist."

May I ask, didn't King Leopold II (a European) murder/mutilate over 10 million Congolese (African) people? Here's a bit of proof http://www.digitaljournal.com/blog/11297 And Here's what the Dutch & British colonizers did in Namibia (Africa) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brutal-genocide-colonial-africa-finally-gets-its-deserved-recognition-180957073/ Wouldn't it be well-justified if black people were racist towards whites after that? 

Round 4
Published:

REBUTTALS:

You said that "it's bad conduct to label your opponent's arguments as Blasphemy" despite, yourself, labelling your opponent as racist. Huh? The hypocrisy is unreal.
I'm labeling you as a racist because you are one. Deporting people based on their race is by definition racist.

You then go on to claim that I wouldn't know if you are white...It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that your white. The very things that you're saying is blowing your cover. How many times are you going to keep saying the words race and racism? 
How many times am I going to keep saying the words race and racism? You're the one who wants to deport millions of people just because they're not black!

Nope, I didn't say that your race was responsible for horrible crimes...I said that Europeans/Asians were causing the majority of crimes in Africa. Yet again, you said that "the white race isn't responsible for horrible crimes." Is genocide not a horrible crime? Is genocide on multiple continents not a horrible crime? 
You say that the white race isn't responsible for horrible crimes, but then you say that it is responsible for horrible crimes in the following sentence! Like I said, the white race is just a skin color. Skin color cannot be responsible for anything. Individuals are to blame.

You then go on to say that it's wrong to characterize a group based on the actions of a few. Yes, I agree, but didn't white people colonize entire groups just for being another race?
You say that it's wrong to characterize a group based on the actions of a few, but then you do it in the following sentence. Like I said, someone's race has nothing to do with what they did. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm somehow related or agree with the white colonists.

OK, so those who were born in Africa...where did their descendants come from?
It doesn't matter from where there descendants came from. Their descendants are not them. Are you going to put a man in prison because his father killed someone? Well, you would do that, according to your logic!

"As in owning 90% of the fertile lands and wealth"
Sources, please. Provide sources for the claim that non-blacks own 90% of African fertile lands and wealth.

Finally, King Leopold's horrible crime is unrelated to this topic. Everybody who participated in that crime or was a victim of that crime is already dead.


ARGUMENTS:

My opponent thinks that pointing to other white people who do bad things somehow proves my hypocrisy. He says that because white people enslaved Africans hundreds of years ago, I'm a hypocrite. He says that because King Leopold murdered millions of people in his genocide, I'm a hypocrite. I am not a hypocrite, I do not hold any beliefs that contradict each other or have double standards.

My opponent says that because SOME white people were racist to SOME white people in the past, it's okay to deport all non-blacks from Africa. This is wrong and racist, and I already explained why multiple times.
Published:
Ok, so my opponent keeps labelling me as racist. It's laughable because it's his race of people who's historically brutalized people for having a different skin complexion. Well, if the shoe fits, then I'll wear it.

My opponent never really answers any questions what-so-ever because he's too busy trying to justify unjustifiable behavior of the perpetrators. He claims that I want to deport criminals just because of their skin color despite me telling him that they should be removed because of their actual offenses. He's also cherry picking through my quotes without giving the full quote.

He keeps saying that "skin color is a race," which it is not...OK, so if skin color's a race, then what's the difference between a white Australian and a white British person? What's the difference between a black American and a black Jamaican? As you can see, his logic makes no sense...

Sir, Ethnicity is a race, not skin color.

I keep trying to explain to my opponent, "TheAtheist," that I'm not blaming the actual descendants for what their ancestors did. I'm blaming the descendants for the crimes that they're perpetrating now. For some reason, he doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying. He asked me, "would I put a man in prison because his father killed someone?"...No, absolutely not...but I would definitely put a man in prison if (he) killed someone...

As you can see, my opponent perfectly proved my point with that question. This goes on to say that if these foreigners are causing problems on someone else's land, then they should be removed...My question to you is..."what's racist about that?" Did I judge the foreigners by their skin color?

He says that "I need to provide a source about non-blacks owning 90% of the fertile land and wealth." Ok...no problem. (South African Farmers.)

He goes on to say that King Leopold's crimes is unrelated because everyone is already dead...What my opponent doesn't seem to know that the descendants of King Leopold & his army are still there, and they're still causing problems on someone's land...How is that unrelated?

In conclusion, my opponent, "TheAtheist," can't make a solid case for the people who are committing the crimes, and I just proved it fairly easy with facts.

Round 5
Published:
I'm not justifying anyone's crimes. I'm saying that the people that you claim have commited crimes are actually innocent. NOT ALL non-blacks living in Africa are greedy genocidal child rapists. Therefore, not all non-blacks living in Africa should be deported.

Pro doesn't understand that just saying "South African farmers" isn't a source. Also, I'm asking for a source that says 90% of ALL of African lands are owned by non-blacks, not just South Africa.

You have no facts, only racist claims and blaming people just because they share the same skin color/ethnicity with criminals. You're commiting a fallacy called guilt by association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). 

You're racist because you accuse millions of people of crimes they didn't commit only because small groups of criminals of the same race commited those crimes. That is by definition racism.

God this debate was awful. Anyway, TheAtheist out. Vote Con.
Published:
Yet again, my opponent refuses to answer basic questions. He then goes on to say that the people who've committed the crimes are innocent even after I gave him the actual arrest records. Makes absolutely no sense.

South African Farmers is a source. If you've been paying attention to current events, then you'd know what's happening. It's not my place to hold your hand and guide you to the information. If you didn't know anything about the topic, then you shouldn't have accepted the debate...You'll find that 90% source if you would research South African Farmers.

Thanks for the debate


Added:
--> @mairj23
South Africa is true, but still cite your sources.
Instigator
#47
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
I hear ya man. I didn't think I needed to site S. Africa since it's been all over the news in the past year, but I hear ya.
Contender
#46
Added:
--> @mairj23
You need to cite your sources if you make a claim. Otherwise voters won't vote for you. And you will also lose points for bad conduct (not following rules of debate).
Instigator
#45
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
You said that it doesn't matter what DebateArt said and that I have to follow the rules of the debate? At the same time, I'm actually following the rules of the debate in which it says "debaters can choose to use links if they want to."
Contender
#44
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
I'm not demanding an argument from you. But if you signed up for a debate, please be so kind and post your arguments or you will lose.
Instigator
#43
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
What things did I say we should apply these criteria to? What are you talking abot?
Instigator
#42
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
So we should only apply criteria to the things that you say we can apply criteria to.
Are you actually Kim Yong-un?
And by the time you have read this I will have posted the argument that you're demanding, oh supreme leader.
#41
Added:
--> @mairj23
Well it doesn't matter what DebateArt said, you have to follow the rules of the debate or it's bad conduct.
Yeah, I'd like to have another round. Maybe in a few days, I have other debates to finish.
Instigator
#40
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
If you'd like, we can always go another round but we would need to agree on a topic. The ball's in your court.
Contender
#39
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Yes, I'm right & I'm pretty sure you've done the research on what I've said. I'm referring to South Africa with the 90% statement. I didn't go through the rules fully but I thought that DebateArt said that debaters can choose to use sources if they want to.
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @mairj23
Whether what you said was true or not doesn't matter. The rules of this debate were: you have to provide sources for claims. You haven't provided any sources for the claim that non-blacks own 90% of all land and wealth in Africa.
Instigator
#37
Added:
--> @mairj23
Are you mentally and/or physically disabled? Do you know what a source is? Do you know what citing your sources is? You can't just make up claims and then tell your opponent to google them when your bullsh*t is being called out.
Instigator
#36
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
You're on a computer as we speak so why not type South African Farmers into a search bar?
Should I just use https:www.southafricanfarmers.com?
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
I agree 1,000%.
Contender
#34
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
We shouldn't aply these criteria to any nation-state. And when are you going to post your argument for our debate about the Christian God?
Instigator
#33
No votes yet