Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 21
Description
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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.

Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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. 
Published:
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
Added:
--> @mairj23
That was there already, and failed because everyone wanted to trade things.
#35
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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.
Contender
#34
Added:
--> @whiteflame
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.
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @Ragnar
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.
#32
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
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.
Contender
#31
Added:
--> @christopher_best
The full picture is that America was a wilderness prior to slavery & the early European settlers Failed i.e Roanoke, i.e Jamestown etc.,
Instigator
#30
Added:
--> @mairj23
You can go through as many individual buildings as you want to, but it doesn't represent the full picture.
#29
Added:
--> @christopher_best
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.................
Instigator
#28
Added:
--> @mairj23
"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
#27
Added:
--> @mairj23
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.
#26
Added:
--> @Ragnar
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.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
You said that whites built America, explored etc., so why not prove it.
Instigator
#24
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
**************************************************
>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")
**************************************************
Contender
#23
Added:
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.
Contender
#22
Added:
--> @mairj23
What specifically?
#21
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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