Instigator / Con
6
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1043

Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed From Africa

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

mairj23
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
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The first rule of this debate is that no labelling of people as racist.

Con then starts the debate by labelling pro as racist - makes his second round about labelling pro racist, continuing onto the third, almost all of the fourth, and touches upon this in the fifth.

In fact; 80% of cons part of this debate consist of con arguing pro was a racist.

I’m not going to address the comments con is arguing pro made; any of the racism claims, or irrelevant side tracks such as why not deport Africans from Europe (why not?) as I don’t find these relevant to the resolution in the slightest.

Given all this, con offers almost no argument to contest why whites should not be deported. Other than touching upon it being unfair to those who are there now and haven’t done anything wrong.

Pros opening round spelt out the damage being done by western corporations and resource companies, and that whites and their descendent in general have come to steal their resources in the past.

Pros position appears to be an appeal to give the stolen land and resources back to their original owners.

This RfD was far shorter than I had expected it to be, just because con really does not offer anything close to a substantial case and mostly glosses over the issues pro raises.

I’m faced with a flood of information about everything that was stolen, and resources being exploited - and a half hearted appeal to fairness - that even though land, businesses, etc, may potentially have been acquired by genocide, brutality, colonialism, etc - that generations today should not give it back because It’s theirs now.

Pros justification was a bit flaky; he could have really hammered the point home, by addressing this issue head on (like the case of Nazi art and Gold, for example); but chose to mostly argue over con.

Given that neither side compares their harms, or gives me a value: I’m forced to weigh the impacts myself: and in this regard, con does much better quantifying the extent of the issue, and arguing how much has been lost to theft or brutality, than pro does simply appealing to fairness, with an abstract, rather than concrete numerical harm

Pros position is on very shaky ground, but cons argument was a half hearted attempt to appeal to this fairness; and repeated attempts to label pro as racist lost this one.

As a result therefore, arguments to pros

Conduct to pro also due to cons repeated rule breaking of “labelling racist”, as noted at the top of this RfD.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFY-LuLlhU08ws4Ar6sdAgUewikeYXmtCaYZiw98tSw/edit?usp=sharing