Instigator / Pro
4
1384
rating
24
debates
25.0%
won
Topic

Removing Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough. Every Race Should Separate and & Live Amongst Themselves On Their Indigenous Land

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
0
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
1
3

With 3 votes and 17 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ragnar
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Education
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Required rating
5
Contender / Con
21
1760
rating
34
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 960 / 5,000

I've found the solution to society's problems. A great way to decrease most of today's nonsense is for every race of people to simply separate from each other & reside in their original homeland. Though some indigenous lands are highly debatable i.e. Turtle Island, every race should live amongst themselves. There should be No crossing borders & No interacting with each other. This means No mingling, No trading etc.

By implementing this doctrine, sabotaging via another race won't be possible & failure/success falls squarely on each nation unto itself. In other words, Asians in Asia, Whites in Europe, Blacks in Africa, etc etc. The so-called American continent is an x-factor because of its falsified history of who were here initially but I digress...

If you feel like this solution isn't the best idea, then you're more than welcome to take this debate
Disclaimer: Even though white people are the most racist people on the planet..."I Am Not White."

Round 1
Pro
Thanks for accepting,

As the title states, all races should separate and live amongst themselves on their indigenous land. Thanks to all of the hate, violence, sabotaging and nonsense that's going on in the US and abroad, the best solution is to simply separate...If the races separated completely, then racism would simply vanish for the most part. There are some societies/countries that have a racial cast system among themselves like India, but the major conflicts between living in a multicultural society would disappear.

This is simply the best solution because some races do not play fair when living amongst each other i.e. the US. Your failure/success will depend squarely on your race of people and your original homeland. The excuses and blame game would be nonexistent in these new societies. Each race/society will have to use their own ingenuity, natural resources and work ethic to survive. 

There really isn't much more to say until my opponent presents his/her argument.
Con
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on two fronts, which shall be given their own sections below:
  1. Why?
  2. How?
To quote myself [1], with regards to this being a proposal debate:
Something ought to change…

A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
  • If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
  • If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.

Burden of Proof
There is a dual resolution of:
  1. "Removing Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough." And
  2. "Every Race Should Separate and & Live Amongst Themselves On Their Indigenous Land" [sic]
To which I wholly drop the first, as removing that hateful Elk Statue really isn't enough [2], nor have BLM and Antifa explained the atrocities committed by member of the deer family to warrant the fiery lynching.

Therefore, my challenge shall wholly be based on the second part of the resolution.


I. Why?
The listed why of "hate, violence, sabotaging and nonsense" is incomplete to warrant the forced separation of families, economic hardships, etc. Not to mention, racially motivated genocide happens without racially diversity anyways, as seen in Rwanda. So no meaningful drop in hate and violence is offered by pro's proposal.

The fact is such separation was tried in the early days of mankind but Ancient Africans refused to abide by it, opting to instead force their way into Europe committing almost immediate genocide against the Neanderthals [3]. Within recorded human history, this division has again failed countless more times. This very debate is a result of people staying separate just not working.

Further, massive refugee problems have never been a good thing. Just look at how welcoming the Middle East is of Israel.


II. How?
Aside from the obvious logistical nightmare for transporting people not outright killed by this, I'll focus on those definitely killed by this...

To use anecdotal evidence, my girlfriend is of half Japanese and half African ancestry. The proposal seems to demand that she be cut in half and mailed to two different continents. She's a rather common example, within the USA alone, about 7% of the current population self-identify as mixed [4].


Conclusion:
No benefit has been demonstrated, but massive harm has been.

The means of separation has been shown to be an impossibility without greatly worsening the harms.


Sources:
  1. tiny.cc/DebateArt
  2. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/iconic-portland-elk-statue-removed-from-downtown-after-fire-set-during-protest.html
  3. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-extinction-due-human-cultural.html
  4. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201905/the-biracial-advantage
Round 2
Pro
My opponent is clearly dodging, dropping and refusing to admit that the Removing of Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough to improve interactions among people of different faces. Though the removal is good as far as symbolism, it still doesn't get to the root of the issue, which is Racism. This only scratches the surface of my argument so let's dig deeper.

My opponent (Con) goes on to say that "BLM and Antifa explained the atrocities committed by member of the deer family to warrant the fiery lynching"...My opponent mentions BLM and Antifa to support his case, but BLM and Antifa are reflections of society in which they reside. Let's look at the facts. The countless unarmed deaths of black men by white policemen is what started the BLM movement... Keywords: unarmed blacks, white policemen...Which is why separation is a great idea.

.Con is trying to compare a non-violent organization of black women & gays to a violent organization of white heterosexual males...Which further proves that separation is a great idea. 

Con says that "The "hate, violence, sabotaging and nonsense" is incomplete to warrant the forced separation of families, economic hardships, etc
My Response: If someone was sabotaging your success, committing violence against your people on a daily basis and hates you because of skin color, then your comment easily proves my point...Which is why separation is a great idea.

My opponent says "Not to mention, racially motivated genocide happens without racially diversity anyways, as seen in Rwanda. So no meaningful drop in hate and violence is offered by pro's proposal."...Yes, your are correct, but every race of people commits violence among themselves more than committing violence against people of other races i.e. white-on-white crime or black-on-black crime. That particular argument that you're making holds no weight.

Ancient Africans travelled all over the world before other races came into existence. If you're not aware...Africa and Europe are not too far apart geographically, especially the countries Morocco (Africa) and Spain (Europe). The oldest skeletal remains in the Americas are of African people. Nope, there was no genocide via the Africans vs who ever...If anything the African Moors saved Europeans with medicines during the Dark Age. 

Con says "Further, massive refugee problems have never been a good thing. Just look at how welcoming the Middle East is of Israel." 
My Reply: That's because the people, "faux Jews," who reside in Israel aren't the original people to begin with... Remember, Israel as a nation was given to Jewish people in (((1942))) by the UN. Those people are Khazars/Kazarian people from Europe... Which is why separation is a great idea.

You tried to throw in a hypothetical situation with the half Japanese/African girlfriend...but it falls flat once again...Who ever your half Japanese/African girlfriend identifies as is where her one-way ticket will take her...Half of the Hispanics/Latinos in the US identify as Caucasian, am I correct?

In conclusion, my opponent has made a variety of excuses that doesn't hold any weight. The fact of the matter is that people won't change and are not willing to change for the better, which is why separation is the best solution.

Why doesn't Con want the races to separate and live in their original homeland? I'm assuming that he's white, and white people clearly have a history of wanting segregation. Am I correct? What's wrong with living amongst your own people? Remember...the entire social construct of separating the races came from whites. If not, then what was the purpose of the Berlin Conference? What's so bad about Europe?

Every race on their original homeland can simply use their ingenuity, natural resources and work ethic to succeed. Why is that a problem? Just look at the news. Whites call the police on Blacks for no apparent reason. Look at what the so-called "Karen" meme is doing. I'm starting to get a notion that you don't believe that whites could survive on their own.

Con
To make things easy for the voters, my paragraphs are repeated in order from last round, merely with added sub-headings.


I. Why?
Rwanda
I have leveraged the Rwandan genocide to to show that con's promised improvements would not happen. Not only does pro concede this, but outright insists these issues would only be made worse by their proposal: "every race of people commits violence among themselves more than committing violence against people of other races."

Neanderthals
I have leveraged the fate suffered by the previous dominant race on this planet, in spite of better barriers than pro's proposal could hope to create; to which without evidence pro denies they went extinct... Extend.

Israel
Pro challenges if people have a right to return to their ancestral homelands, which is a pretty direct concession of this debate.
And yes, Jewish people lived in the Middle East prior to 1942, to which I'll support by quoting Harvard [1]:
Galut is the Hebrew word for “exile,” and refers to the repeated exile of the Jewish people from their homeland in Israel. Some Jews have chosen to live outside Israel for centuries; in ancient times they formed communities in the Near East and eventually around the Mediterranean. But the Jewish community has also been driven into exile by force, notably to Babylonia (first after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and, later, in a far more devastating move after the Romans' near-total destruction of Judea in 135 CE).


II. How?
Logistics
Pro has offered no possibility for anything about his or her proposal actually working, leaving the resolution as meaningless as saying on the average day we should each transform into a jet and crash in the sun for fun [2].

Mixed Ethnicity
Pro insists that mixed ethnicity people (such as my girlfriend and millions of others in the USA) are a hypothetical that do not exist, but offers no counter evidence to support this assertion. Pro then falls back to saying people should just go wherever they want based on how they choose to identify; which not only does not address the issue but is another concession of the debate, as it opens an obvious loophole for anyone not wanting to be forcibly relocated to merely say where they are today is their ancestral homeland.


Conclusion:
Pro has chosen to repeatedly concede the debate, and not bothered to even be a decent troll by saying something funny (save for the United Nations having apparently mastered time travel to reshape the world prior to their own founding in 1945).


Sources:
  1. https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/religions/judaism/diaspora-community
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c


Round 3
Pro
Mistake #1: Con refuses to answer the majority of the questions that's being presented. He knows that if he answers the questions; his entire argument will fall apart.

Mistake #2: Con is trying to change the narrative of the debate. The debate is about separating each race back to their indigenous land. It's not whether the logistics is possible. 

Mistake #3: Con is preaching concession, concession, concession...That's a direct implication that his argument is getting shutdown with logic. He's basically trying to gather some support.

                                                       Now, Let's Look at my opponents flaws, misconceptions, ignorance and lies.

1. Con keeps mentioning Rwanda (Africa) and the country's violence among its citizens, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand...On the other hand, he fails to mention all of the wars, genocide & in-fighting that has taken place throughout Europe. What about the Bosnia (Europe) Genocide? Citizens in European countries like France, Russia, Bulgaria etc., have all went to war with each other. 

As I stated before, "every race of people commits violence among themselves more than committing violence against people of other races." 
Con has basically proved my point without even knowing it.

2. Neanderthals??? Con says "pro denies they went extinct."...My reply: When & where did I ever say that Neanderthals didn't go extinct?...I'll wait.
Sir, the Neanderthals simply starved to death & cannibalized the dead bodies. Proof? https://www.livescience.com/1187-neanderthals-cannibals-study-confirms.html

May I ask, "What happened to the early settlers of Jamestown & other earlier settlers in America?"

3. Israel...Con says "yes, Jewish people lived in the Middle East prior to 1942, to which I'll support by quoting Harvard."...My reply: I highlighted "1942" because that's when Israel as a nation (((was given))) to Jewish people.  Sir, Are you aware that modern-day Jewish people are from Khazaria? Are you aware that Khazaria is located in Europe? Are you aware that Khazaria, Israel, Africa & Other countries are connected by the same landmass & separated by borders?? 

Con fails to realize that today's Jewish people "converted" to Judaism...You fail to realize that the real "Jews" are Hebrews & that there isn't a single white person alive that shares the Hebrew bloodline...

Here's what Gamal Abdel Nasser, the 2nd President of the United Arab Republic told Jewish people back in 1952..."“You will never be able to live here in peace, because you left here black and came back white.” http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread938705/pg1

For anyone who doesn't know..."Jew & Jewish" are not the same," which is why the suffix (ish) was added.

As you can see, Con has clearly dug his own grave by accepting this debate. He's going into topics that he clearly doesn't understand. Not only have I shutdown his arguments with facts; he fails to answer any of my questions.

As I stated before, the races should separate & live in their indigenous lands because history proves that today's formula isn't working.
Con
I. Why?
Rwanda
Pro brings up other genocides, but fails to show how his or her proposal would prevent any. Extend.

Neanderthals
This gets bad... Pro claims someone else wrote "there was no genocide via the Africans vs who ever," and proceeds to cite a study which further supports my claim regarding the fate of the Neanderthals, while failing to support their own that they peacefully ate themselves to death without human involvement, which to quote:
The study sheds light on how Neanderthals lived before the arrival of modern humans in Europe.

Israel
Pro makes long debunked anti-Semitic claims, but fails to connect them to the debate. I won't bother bringing out the evidence, because pro already insisted "who ever [they] identifies as is where [their] one-way ticket will take [them]." Therefore the treatment of refugees in the Middle East, remains proof against the resolution.


II. How?
Logistics
Pro seems to agree that it is impossible, but insists magical thinking should win... So to refute along those lines: It would be better if everyone spontaneously just got along regardless of ethnicity and culture... While stupid, this is a better magical world than pro suggests.

Mixed Ethnicity
Pro has wholly dropped this. Extend.


Questions:
Pro has Gish Galloped 19 questions at me [1]. They are either already thematically answered, or are Red Herrings [2] without relevance to this debate.

They are well exemplified with one of the first: "Why doesn't Con want the races to separate and live in their original homeland?"
Obviously my case against his fascist idea of rounding people up and shipping them wherever he or she wants without regard for the death rate and various other harms, is found throughout my above arguments. To answer outright: I'm not a fascist.


Conclusion:
This is the end of R3, and pro has still refused to offer any benefit to their plan. Whereas I have countered it thoroughly.


Sources:
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#How_to_respond
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring
Round 4
Pro
In conclusion,

My opponent, Con, has brought absolutely nothing to the table in this one-sided debate.

1.He has tried to change the narrative more than once, but I didn't let him, which is why he couldn't answer basic questions...For some strange reasons, he thinks that mysterious hitmen snuck into Europe and murdered the Neanderthals when the facts proves that they died from a combination of starvation & climate change. The same thing has happened throughout history i.e Jamestown settlers in America.

2. Con completely folded with his Jewish/Israel comment. Everyone knows that the Jewish people "converted" to Judaism & is not of the Hebrew bloodline.

3. His half Japanese/African comment made no sense. If someone is bi-racial, they'll tend to favor one side of their heritage over the other side depending on where they live and who they grew up with... It's not rocket science.

We are well aware that Con conceded back in the second round. Unlike Con, my sources are backed by documented history that can easily be researched. 
Con
I. Why?
History has repeatedly shown that separation not only does not work, but it also does not lead to decreased violence.

Rwanda
Pro has wholly dropped this. Extend.

Neanderthals
I showed in the first round they died as a result of humans [1], and my evidence was never refuted. Extend.

Israel
Pro drops that his or her proposal was tried in Israel and did not work well. Extend


II. How?
Logistics
Pro has chosen to drop both the superior proposal which harms no one via us just magically getting along, and the one which involves us becoming The Boss [2]. Both proposals are infinitely better for not depending on racism. Extend.

Mixed Ethnicity
Pro wholly drops that mixed people exist and are relatively common [3], invalidating the very notion of his or her plan to separate everyone by ethnic lines. Extend.


Questions:
Pro drops that his or her questions were all already answered, or were off topic Red Herrings [4]. Extend


Conclusion:
As promised in my preamble, I have proven my case using the simple arguments of How and Why.


Sources (all repeats from prior rounds):
  1. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-extinction-due-human-cultural.html
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c
  3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201905/the-biracial-advantage
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring