Removing Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough. Every Race Should Separate and & Live Amongst Themselves On Their Indigenous Land
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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."
- Why?
- How?
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.
- "Removing Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough." And
- "Every Race Should Separate and & Live Amongst Themselves On Their Indigenous Land" [sic]
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).
- https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/religions/judaism/diaspora-community
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c
The study sheds light on how Neanderthals lived before the arrival of modern humans in Europe.
Argument: Pro offered the seeds of his own failure in the very first sentence of the Description: "I've found the solution to society's problems," but Pro's arguments through all four rounds fought against having to demonstrate how the solution is implemented; a feature of argument Con presented in all four rounds. Merely stating the solution, i.e. separation of races, a logistic demands expression. Pro failed to offer it. By contrast, Con, recognizing the necessity, demonstrated by thoughtful argument how the logistics become uncompromisingly difficult to impossible. For example: the discussion of Con's girlfriend, a mixed ethno-racial identity, which the U.S. Census acknowledges, and must, therefore be a considered factor, chooses to live in a region incompatible with either of Pro's segregated territories. And therein is a further failure of Pro's proposed "solution:" the removal of choice. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered two sources in the entire debate, both in r3. The first, re: Neanderthals, was off-topic, describing a cultural phenomenon entirely void of relevance to the debate, and an opinion by an Arab about Jews. Not an academically sound argument as a source. Con offered sources relevant to his arguments, such as Con's r1 argument re: his girlfriend, who's mixed condition is supported by a relevant data source. Points to Con.
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro's r4 intro: "My opponent, Con, has brought absolutely nothing to the table in this one-sided debate," not to mention Pro's r3 "Let's Look at my opponents ...ignorance and lies," contribute nothing to the debate, and demonstrate Pro's disdain for his competitor. Pro lost this point.
Note: My best judgement of the debate is that citing Like a Boss automatically makes Con the winner of this debate. Best part of the whole thing, perfect comparison, deserves all the points. That being said, I'll give a brief RFD that involves less... awesome... analysis.
I could pick virtually any point Con makes and vote based on it, so I'll go through three.
On Israel... wow. Just... wow. Pro, you need to seriously rethink your opinions regarding Jews and Judaism. However, even if I bought your argument, your points only dig you deeper into troubled territory. The whole point was that living separately from the Arab cultures surrounding them proved impossible and resulted in clear and evident conflict. Your responses bite other arguments, but never really address that central reasoning. Hence, your argument that separation would result in some kind of utopia where terrible things don't happen is problematic.
I really don't get Pro's response to logistics. I understand that "should" can allow us to bypass questions of whether something is feasible, but it doesn't erase the harms of implementation, and Pro's unwillingness to address that his system would require a mass, forced export of people from innumerable countries back to other countries where they a) may have never lived, b) that may not have any opportunities for them, c) that may speak a different language than the one(s) they speak, and d) be required to shed themselves of and acquire brand new citizenship (this is a short list - there are so many other problems to overcome) is problematic at best. It looks as though this would cause incredible harm to make it possible. You can't just handwave that way. Even if you could, Con has a point: if we're talking about magical worlds where anything is possible, his solves all the problems better.
Finally, the mixed ethnicity problem stands. Either people get to identify as a portion of their racial profile based entirely on preference, which invalidates much of Pro's solvency, or people with mixed ethnicity get assorted by some unknown body, resulting in a system that allows the assortment itself to bias what is and is not a person of a given race.
Meanwhile, Pro's arguments are largely built on the following principle: things are bad with mixed race cultures, so let's separate them in the hopes that things will get better. He doesn't examine any circumstances where this worked out, Con analyzes many (Rwanda, Neanderthals) where it doesn't. The whole point falls apart quickly.
All this leaves me with little choice but to vote Con. Pro's implementation makes no sense, his understanding of his own case seems incredibly flawed, and he has not at any point behaved Like a Boss. I also award sources to Con for aforementioned reasons and because he simply understands and cites his history.
R1
Pro: Mentions that multicultural societies are rife with racial conflict, which seems to be true currently. Says your success in America is due solely to your race, which isn't substantiated by a source. Says every race will do fine when back in their homeland without substantiating this either.
Con: Points out large burden of proof for Pro. Points out that there is a lot of cons such as economic hardship resulting from this separation and that Pro must prove that a potential reduction in racial violence and treachery will outweigh this. Points out that genocide still occurs within the same race and that refugees might not be welcome abroad. Points out issue of mixed race individuals.
Result: Con's arguments were more well-thought-out and pointed out many holes in Pro's argument. Winner: Con
R2
Pro: Mentions that unarmed black men have been killed by White policemen. Says they are countless in number, but provides no source giving any estimate. But it is assumed that separation would prevent these deaths. Mentions sexuality of the groups for some odd reason, but doesn't prove Antifa is heterosexual or all white males (I highly doubt Antifa is mainly heterosexual, but I digress >:D ). Also says BLM is nonviolent without a source. Brings up how most violence is monoracial. Says Jews aren't accepted because they aren't ancestors of that region. Now saying chosen identity is where you get to go, but says Hispanics identify as Caucasian. (Would Hispanics go to Europe then?) Tries to connect White people wanting segregation to Con. Says White people call the police on black people, doesn't substantiate.
Con: Con points out that Pro said most crime is monoracial, which defeats his point of separating races having a good outcome for that race. Points out that Jewish people had lived in the Middle East and that issues were caused by this movement to their homeland. Points out that Pro hasn't given any logistics. Points out the obvious loophole that self-identification of ancestry lets you go whereever you want.
Result: Con used the monoracial crime point against Pro, points out unwelcome regression with Israel, and points out that mixed race people are a hole in the plan. The only point of Pro not touched was unarmed black men getting killed by cops. Since no ssource was provided nor was a number provided, this loses weight. Con wins.
R3
Pro: Says Europeans have gone to war with each other, essentially bringing up the same, now debunked point from last round. Says Neanderthals starved to death and actually provides a source this time (Good job, bud!). Says current "Jews" aren't Hebrews endemic to the Israel region. Gave a quote from a UAE president talking about the skin color of Jews, saying perhaps these are different Jews.
Con: Again says that European wars prove that separation won't prevent anything from happening. Doesn't prove Jews are same Jews as before, but points out the self-identification loophole that was never debunked. Calls out obvious Gish Gallop. Pro dropped mixed race argument. Neanderthals still didn't die without human involvement.
Result: Con wins again (I am noticing a trend here). Only lasting point from Pro was the color of Jews' skin, but the loophole defeated this. Neanderthal source didn't prove they died off from cannibalism. Gish Gallop doesn't need to be answered. Monoracial violence still an issue.
R4
Pro: Tries to bring up starvation cases around the world. I'm not sure what this has to do with racial violence anymore. Still sticking with the Jew claim with nothing other than a quote from an Arab president- still doesn't surpass the self-identification loophole. He even mentions picking what you feel more comfortable with in the very same argument.
Con: Rwanda point, Neanderthal point, Israel point (not working peacefully), mixed race point never adequately solved by Pro.
Result: Con wins. All points above uncontested, equalling a win.
Sources:
Pro: a quote and a source that was used against him. He misrepresented the message of the neandethal source.
Con: Harvard and Psychology Today were better sources. Adequately cited Rational Wiki.
Result: Con used more authoritative sources and cited them correctly. Con gets points.
Spelling and Grammar:
You both did well. Tie.
Conduct:
Pro: assumed Pro's race and projected desires of pushing segregation based on this fact. Also, Gish Galloping is rude.
Con: Dealt with the racist accusations professionally.
Result: Con gets the point
That was there already, and failed because everyone wanted to trade things.
Thank you for the vote. And yeah, that first sentence when compared with the debate content (no suggestion of it offering any improvement for anyone on any metric), it really did sow the seeds of destruction.
Thank you for the vote. It was hands down the most Boss vote I have seen, in that it made multiple references to Like A Boss, to which all other votes fall short.
I don't think I'll pull Like A Boss every time someone has a Should Proposal, but when they refuse to raise it above purely magical thinking, I might make it by go to superior counter proposal.
Yeah, I haven’t done much research as to if they are the descendants. It really seems unrelated, as Israel is connected to the Jewish religion more so than the genetic ancestors in this case. I felt in the debate that it proved the point that returning to areas without the express permission of the current residents doesn’t really lead to happy relations, and Pro didn’t offer much info on how to appease those people.
I was surprised he didn’t mention that Ghana is openly calling for the return of black Americans to their country. That would have at least added a little feasibility to the matter.
Thank you for the extremely detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved.
Regarding my tactic of how to argue Israel: It's something I left standing on one leg, largely because I eventually learned not to go down every rabbit hole on debates. That said, I do believe it's self-evident modern Israel is descended from ancient Israel.
The full picture is that America was a wilderness prior to slavery & the early European settlers Failed i.e Roanoke, i.e Jamestown etc.,
You can go through as many individual buildings as you want to, but it doesn't represent the full picture.
That's quite funny since one of the largest plantations was located in (NY), despite the fact that Wall Street (NY) was a slave auction. but I'm sure you knew that.
Wasn't the free-labor factories located in the (north)? Some of those Ivy league schools in the (north) were built by slaves.
I can go on and on.................
"You guys need to lighten up and have a little fun."
Says the guy who just unironically argued for a lite version of ethnic cleansing
Hardly the truth. While slave labor did eventually become the main economic factor of the South, initially this was not so and the North operated mainly independent of slavery in most respects. At no point in time did poor or middle-class whites hold slaves at a large scale. It was mainly the rich, especially those who owned plantations. And if you argue that the rich built America, I think you missed the whole "American dream" thing.
So, having a personality is considered a troll debate? As long as I'm bringing facts to the table, then a little humor/sarcasm isn't hurting anyone.
You guys need to lighten up and have a little fun.
You said that whites built America, explored etc., so why not prove it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Many of mairj23's debates are just troll debates, but this one does not seem to quite fall below that standard:
A troll debate is any
* Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
* Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
* Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
**************************************************
zedvictor4
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
A black v white thing in a phoney debate. Thank goodness for common sense.
What specifically?
Lol...Is that a trick question?
If you feel as if you have the knowledge to debate this particular topic, then why not simply create the debate & invite me???
I promise to take it easy on you.
What is a "white person"? In making this distinction you are the only racist.
Interesting debate (Mairj's always are). Very one-sided though (per usual) lol
Lol, making fun of European settlers?
Africans still don't have knowledge of agriculture lmfao. That stupid pos Mugabe BEGGED for White farmers to return because they were starving.
European-run Rhodesia: Breadbasket of Africa
African-run Zimbabwe: starves and has valueless currency
#GetRekt
Hey Einstein, free labor created the wealth which built the economy which payed for everything else.
You held yourselves back because the pilgrims/colonizers were actually European criminals, fools & rejects who had no knowledge of agriculture etc.
Mic drop............
Hardly free. Think of all of the food costs, healthcare costs, equipment costs, housing costs, and having to transport all of the slaves over. That costs tons of money. All it accomplished was holding our economy back and causing our bloodiest war.
You're right, it's made from free labor. There would be no infrastructure, political system & foreign relations without a foundation.
Am I Correct?
The country isn’t made of cotton. Most lasting infrastructure, the entire political system, all foreign relations, exploring and settling the wilderness, and conquering areas don’t by almost exclusively: Europeans.
Slavery held the country back
I've never made threats against anyone & haven't broken any rules.
I only speak facts.
If Europeans built America then why did the slaves do all the work?
I'll wait........................................
This is a comment notifying the respective parties that the debate deletion request is denied.
Here is the debate deletion policy found in Subsection B1: Content Deletion of the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations document:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions.
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
- Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
- Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
- Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
As this debate did not fall under any of these categories, the debate shall remain.
I've passed your request along to the moderation team. As I partook in this debate, my objectivity may be compromised.
If you get the time, a quick vote on this debate would be appreciated.
This debate is abhorrent and should be taken down. When BMDRocks supports your position in a debate with such zest it means that you are pleasing the isolationist right-wing bigots.
I didn't know that Mairj was a George Wallace supporter lol. Didn't strike me as the type.
"Indigenous land" doesn't quite encompass it. Europeans built America, so they shouldn't leave it to "Natives" who have contributed <1% to its success.
Other than that, I would agree that mutliculturalism is a failure. However, why wouldn't segregation/balkanization of America suffice? Just cutting off pieces and letting each group have a slice would seem sufficient.
Thanks for the fun debate.
Nahhh, I think that I chose a 2-day response time.
There’s a power outage in my neighborhood tonight, so my reply will not be as swift as I planned. Are there any refutation techniques you would like me to showcase for you?