Instigator / Con
7
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#1481

Could The White Race Survive Without The Black Race?

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
1
2

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Nemiroff
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

The title speaks volumes because it's a well-known fact that white people have used murder, theft, slavery & cultural appropriation to build and maintain wealth. Many historians have stated that whites couldn't have survived if it weren't for black people. Whether it's America or Europe or anywhere else in between, white people have never truly practiced what they preach.

I'll be taking the Con side of the argument. If you're an emotional person then don't accept this debate because I'll be bringing in-depth and documented information to the table.

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 burden of proof here is clearly on con. To win, con must show an event, or time period in which “white people” or white civilization would be unable to survive without the intervention of black people. The only example pro gave was the Black Death - where con claims the moors saved all white people in Europe. Con claims they brought medicine, but doesn’t appear to claim that they cured the Black Death, or manages to support the contention that all white people would have died without the intervention of black people. As a result pros burden is clearly unfulfilled, and con wins by default.

However, pros rebuttal to this key point, explaining that the Black Death ended not by the moors but by everyone susceptible dying, is a better and more supported explanation.

Pros additional examples of white people being broadly successful before and since does far more to affirm the resolution than the sole half-point that con adds.

As a result, arguments go to con.

Conduct:

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:

This debate can be summarized with a single statement from pro: "White people survived very well and thrived for many millennia without consistent contact with black people. They worked their own lands, they built their own towns, and they made many scientific and engineering discoveries. Unfortunate as the history of imperialism is, you don't conquer people by being weak and helpless."
Which con's counter boils down to this statement: "My opponent is simply in denial at this point because he isn't making any sense what-so-ever." Which is no counter at all, merely a denial.

If con was correct, it would be a very easy thing to prove. Instead they talked about things like music, which do not relate to survival.

Conduct for claimed powers of mind reading, as exemplified with accusing pro of being "short-tempered" for the very act of arguing the other side; which on a debate is what the instigator requested he do.