Instigator / Con
1
1526
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#3451
None-White Demographic Change In The West
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mr.Demographic2050
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Description
(This is the second-half of a debate I'm continuously having with Mall in regards to this topic, the first debate took place on Debate.Org but due to the site shutting down on June 5, 2022, this format will have to do instead)
Responding more to your claims
"How is this bad, What harm happened to them as a result? Are they starving to death or something?" - to the 2011 census of white-British becoming a minority in the city of London
The harm that has been done to the very British culture by having it eroded and undermined by way of multiculturalism, plus London now has a Pakistani mayor who of course isn't going to stand up for the rights of the white indigenous people in the UK who make up what it's known as.
"Another claim not proven. Prove that I'm naturally biased. It's bias to assert that people you don't know are bias. That's prejudice or prejudgmental." - to the bias against minorities
You individually? How about the natural systemizing of human collectivism that has been going on since the start of mankind of having the majority prioritized as they are the ones who stitch the civilization stability rooted from that same majority. And striving away from such a fundamental aspect is why were witnessing these kind of civilizations consequences.
"No proof, Just an expression of perhaps fear. If you believe in a group that is supreme all around to others, You don't see any other groups outside of them to produce quality besides them." - to the overall decline of quality within White Western Society
Looking at the real-world context, the increasing minority populations taking place in the West primarily hail from third-world nations and importing these types of people who are not known/capable for having the same civilization development compared to the civilizations they migrate to and having them to be the new placeholders for White Western Civilization will see that drop in overall quality in the regions the white populations had built-up to be prosperous.
"But living nevertheless. "Best" is subjective. What is objective," to the white collective not living up to their best if reduced to a minority
I already described what's objective to what's best for a collective's living. The embracement towards Nation, Culture, Identity, things that are inherent to a group of people which ultimately makes up a country. Again in this case, the white populations becoming minorities in their own ancestral homelands having what's inherently meaningful to them stripped and eroded away from them as diversity were to outnumber and outrepresent them over time. A orca whale in aquarium captivity is still "living" but not to their standard conditions compared to being in the sea ocean, their best natural habitat to live in and your dismissal of these conditions makes it seem like you're fine with the kind of anti-nationalistic agenda that's being orchestrated against White Western Kind. The interpretation of "harm" here is lessening the white populations collective fabric that makes them who they are as, as a people. And that's just detailing the processing of what's currently happening and not yet getting into the hypothetical results if whites were to actually become minorities going off from current trends.
"A coach can be bias and not allow certain people on a sport's team. Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?" Again, this analogy is not the reality that's being observed, to break it down side-by-side
"Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?"
Except it's white people being displaced from their home countries on a large-scale, you don't see ethnic Indians or Chinese becoming minorities in their homelands, unfortunately that can't be said same for white nations if the factors contributing to the projections were to enable on.
What exactly is your justification of why it's alright to reduce the white populations in their ancestral homelands by your supposed basis?
Round 1
Con
#1
(oh sorry, didn't know how this debate format worked out at first, I'll repost my first arguments here)
Responding more to your claims
"How is this bad, What harm happened to them as a result? Are they starving to death or something?" - to the 2011 census of white-British becoming a minority in the city of London
The harm that has been done to the very British culture by having it eroded and undermined by way of multiculturalism, plus London now has a Pakistani mayor who of course isn't going to stand up for the rights of the white indigenous people in the UK who make up what it's known as.
"Another claim not proven. Prove that I'm naturally biased. It's bias to assert that people you don't know are bias. That's prejudice or prejudgmental." - to the bias against minorities
You individually? How about the natural systemizing of human collectivism that has been going on since the start of mankind of having the majority prioritized as they are the ones who stitch the civilization stability rooted from that same majority. And striving away from such a fundamental aspect is why were witnessing these kind of civilizations consequences.
"No proof, Just an expression of perhaps fear. If you believe in a group that is supreme all around to others, You don't see any other groups outside of them to produce quality besides them." - to the overall decline of quality within White Western Society
Looking at the real-world context, the increasing minority populations taking place in the West primarily hail from third-world nations and importing these types of people who are not known/capable for having the same civilization development compared to the civilizations they migrate to and having them to be the new placeholders for White Western Civilization will see that drop in overall quality in the regions the white populations had built-up to be prosperous.
"But living nevertheless. "Best" is subjective. What is objective," to the white collective not living up to their best if reduced to a minority
I already described what's objective to what's best for a collective's living. The embracement towards Nation, Culture, Identity, things that are inherent to a group of people which ultimately makes up a country. Again in this case, the white populations becoming minorities in their own ancestral homelands having what's inherently meaningful to them stripped and eroded away from them as diversity were to outnumber and outrepresent them over time. A orca whale in aquarium captivity is still "living" but not to their standard conditions compared to being in the sea ocean, their best natural habitat to live in and your dismissal of these conditions makes it seem like you're fine with the kind of anti-nationalistic agenda that's being orchestrated against White Western Kind. The interpretation of "harm" here is lessening the white populations collective fabric that makes them who they are as, as a people. And that's just detailing the processing of what's currently happening and not yet getting into the hypothetical results if whites were to actually become minorities going off from current trends.
"A coach can be bias and not allow certain people on a sport's team. Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?" Again, this analogy is not the reality that's being observed, to break it down side-by-side
"Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?"
Except it's white people being displaced from their home countries on a large-scale, you don't see ethnic Indians or Chinese becoming minorities in their homelands, unfortunately that can't be said same for white nations if the factors contributing to the projections were to enable on.
What exactly is your justification of why it's alright to reduce the white populations in their ancestral homelands by your supposed basis?
Pro
#2
"The harm that has been done to the very British culture by having it eroded and undermined by way of multiculturalism, plus London now has a Pakistani mayor who of course isn't going to stand up for the rights of the white indigenous people in the UK who make up what it's known as."
So to try to get to the bottom line, these people have not been physically harmed. They're still going about their daily lives in a constructive fashion. Confirm whether that is incorrect or correct.
"How about the natural systemizing of human collectivism that has been going on since the start of mankind of having the majority prioritized as they are the ones who stitch the civilization stability rooted from that same majority."
I don't naturally prioritize a majority as put forth here. As this reads, it comes off as attempting to validate making a group of people supremacists.
Is this suppose to be natural?
"Again in this case, the white populations becoming minorities in their own ancestral homelands having what's inherently meaningful to them stripped and eroded away from them as diversity were to outnumber and outrepresent them over time. "
I just get to the basic bottom line , no empty rhetoric. As long as people are living out their lives in a constructive fashion, we got no problems.
"A orca whale in aquarium captivity is still "living" but not to their standard conditions compared to being in the sea ocean, their best natural habitat to live in and your dismissal of these conditions makes it seem like you're fine with the kind of anti-nationalistic agenda that's being orchestrated against White Western Kind."
I'm just looking for what the harm is in terms of life and death. It appears that there's no harm in those terms. I believe you believe that. You mention about culture and all that. But culture essentially is whatever you're doing to live and continue to breathe . Just to have culture for the sake of having it, to make me and my people feel good about history and to be proud for the sake of, again more feelings.
"The interpretation of "harm" here is lessening the white populations collective fabric that makes them who they are as, as a people. "
What is meant by "lessening "?
I think if you elaborate on that word, it may take us directly to what you're arguing for.
"A coach can be bias and not allow certain people on a sport's team. Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?" Again, this analogy is not the reality that's being observed, to break it down side-by-side"
This analogy is not the reality that's being observe. Well , you can choose not to look at it or observe it but it's still true. It's explaining that a person is not necessarily bias naturally or automatically bias towards a minority. Coming up with asserting this natural thing appears to be another attempt at validating, justifying mistreatment.
"Where is the harm when those certain people not selected can just go to another team?"
Except it's white people being displaced from their home countries on a large-scale,"
The question wasn't answered. I will answer with saying there is no harm apparently just going else where in spite of an unfair situation, see.
"What exactly is your justification of why it's alright to reduce the white populations in their ancestral homelands by your supposed basis? "
I absolutely have no justification. I don't support anything unless it has a constructive effect meaning the promotion of life , not tearing it down , destroying it.
That's why I continue to reiterate about people, all people living in a constructive fashion.
Round 2
Con
#3
"So to try to get to the bottom line, these people have not been physically harmed. They're still going about their daily lives in a constructive fashion. Confirm whether that is incorrect or correct." - It has included cases of that which are one of the many negative side-effects of multiculturalism infused with society and will keep on increasing if diversity were to get overblown on the majority White population. Would you like examples?
"I don't naturally prioritize a majority as put forth here. As this reads, it comes off as attempting to validate making a group of people supremacists.
Is this suppose to be natural?" - I'm not referring to individuals such as yourself, I'm referring to the majority collectives and their innate ability to prioritize their own, and a group of people wanting to maintain their own kinship is considered "supremacy" to you? And as I stated in my first argument, being tribalistic is in-fact a natural instinct to living things in general and striving way from this fundamental aspect of nature is why the civilizational consequences from doing so are very much currently present.
"I just get to the basic bottom line , no empty rhetoric. As long as people are living out their lives in a constructive fashion, we got no problems."
"I'm just looking for what the harm is in terms of life and death. It appears that there's no harm in those terms. I believe you believe that. You mention about culture and all that. But culture essentially is whatever you're doing to live and continue to breathe . Just to have culture for the sake of having it, to make me and my people feel good about history and to be proud for the sake of, again more feelings."
- You seem to be tying what "harm" is as a Black-and-White view done in a purely physical detection, do you also account for the type of conditions being applied to the living that could effect them more then just a physical sense?
"What is meant by "lessening "?" - White people not being able to be in charge of the destiny of their own nations (being the rightful representatives of it and in-control of it's nation-state) by having their sheer numbers dwindled.
"Well , you can choose not to look at it or observe it but it's still true. It's explaining that a person is not necessarily bias naturally or automatically bias towards a minority. Coming up with asserting this natural thing appears to be another attempt at validating, justifying mistreatment." - I'm talking in terms of collectives prioritizing themselves here, which is a much more cohesive force then stand-out figures.
"The question wasn't answered. I will answer with saying there is no harm apparently just going else where in spite of an unfair situation, see." - So you think it's practical for millions of whites to just get up and go somewhere else? And you also concede the "unfair situation" being conjured up against Whites is legitimate and intentional?
"I absolutely have no justification. I don't support anything unless it has a constructive effect meaning the promotion of life , not tearing it down , destroying it."
"That's why I continue to reiterate about people, all people living in a constructive fashion." - So then you wouldn't mind groups of people advocating to nationalize themselves for their own self-interests as it's the most natural constructive fashion for collectives to live as unified nations?
Pro
#4
"So to try to get to the bottom line, these people have not been physically harmed. They're still going about their daily lives in a constructive fashion. Confirm whether that is incorrect or correct." - It has included cases of that which are one of the many negative side-effects of multiculturalism infused with society and will keep on increasing if diversity were to get overblown on the majority White population. Would you like examples?"
No, it's not necessary. Just confirm what I stated is either correct or incorrect.
"I'm not referring to individuals such as yourself, I'm referring to the majority collectives and their innate ability to prioritize their own"
Are you saying that most people put their socially constructed people group classification above others like they're superior or supreme?
"and a group of people wanting to maintain their own kinship is considered "supremacy" to you? "
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I haven't really got a good handle on what you've been trying to convey with this topic. I can't get enough direct answers. I don't know what is meant by "maintain their own kinship". People develop kinship of themselves just by reproducing period.
"And as I stated in my first argument, being tribalistic is in-fact a natural instinct to living things "
You continue to say natural but why isn't it in ALL living things? I say that I don't naturally prioritize as well as other individuals that don't. You've said you weren't referring to us so that doesn't mean all but yet it's natural.
We all have a natural hunger for nourishment, to survive and to slumber.
"- You seem to be tying what "harm" is as a Black-and-White view done in a purely physical detection, do you also account for the type of conditions being applied to the living that could effect them more then just a physical sense? "
I wouldn't know how to measure harm or detect it if it's not physical . To result in some tangible manifestation that damages , compromises living. If I'm alive maintaining as you are, where's the damage with me in comparison to you? Like the damage down to a car, you know by it's poor function perhaps . Where's the poor function in persons that are minorities? Are they poorly functioning, getting worse and worse to the point of no function (non-existence) or are they functioning in a productive fashion?
That's the range that harm or damage is detected in.
""What is meant by "lessening "?" - White people not being able to be in charge of the destiny of their own nations "
This is where you have to unpack what's damaging about this. I understand you call it bad I guess which would mean damaging. If it's bad but not damaging, that's a bigger gap you would have to bridge. But aside from all that, not being in charge of a nation, how's it damaging? Again with current minorities, some of them, what you call business owners, living constructive, not bias with their staff or are not for inequality.
This topic really seems like the exposure of fear for losing the "top of the food chain" status reigning oppression type thing. Also a fear of reverse mistreatment which there's no evidence for.
"I'm talking in terms of collectives prioritizing themselves here,"
If there is honestly no mistreatment intended by this, would these "collectives" prioritize who needs help the most even if that help is needed outside themselves?
"So you think it's practical for millions of whites to just get up and go somewhere else? "
No . I don't believe I ever put a number in this. Not millions, not thousands but the individual person can do what is best for him or herself. Each individual will have their own situation. Those I see thus far , like in government, politics or even on t.v. are not crying about this so called crisis you're raising up. Each individual has got something different going on with him or herself. When I go to the store, just out and about, I see everybody classified as white just living their lives constructive for the most part .
"And you also concede the "unfair situation" being conjured up against Whites is legitimate and intentional? "
I don't think I denied that mistreatment or unfairness exists.
Just look at history, not just in what's called the United States, but the world and the present day .
"So then you wouldn't mind groups of people advocating to nationalize themselves for their own self-interests as it's the most natural constructive fashion for collectives to live as unified nations?"
If it means the promotion of life, I don't mind. I don't mind promoting my own life which is doing things that won't kill me or deplete years off my existence. That's the opposite to a promotion of life.
The difference in my position is that I see this promotion of life now with things as they are .
Round 3
Con
#5
"No, it's not necessary. Just confirm what I stated is either correct or incorrect." - Well there have been heinous cases of damage, correlating a rise from it to the growth of diversity and such. Were you asking for more big picture group examples or?
"Are you saying that most people put their socially constructed people group classification above others like they're superior or supreme?" - Of course but not out of superiority all the time but to rather preserve/maintain their own uniqueness, it's suppose to be natural and if a society were to stray away from this fundamental aspect to our nature, is why were seeing these civilizational consequences in White Western Society. THIS is why were seeing a reactionary backlash against this kind of social depravity and it's the rightful instinct to react as.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I haven't really got a good handle on what you've been trying to convey with this topic. I can't get enough direct answers. I don't know what is meant by "maintain their own kinship". People develop kinship of themselves just by reproducing period." - You want a direct answer? I believe White People should be able to preserve what's inherent to them as it's what best for White Western Civilization, simple as that. And why I'm arguing against these none-white demographic changes occurring because it's being pushed by anti-white forces in positions of administration in an attempt to destabilize the white populations.
"You continue to say natural but why isn't it in ALL living things?" - It is a natural instinctive reflex but some living things simply can't comprehend of why these built-in programs are important to humans which leads to the bigger question, should society place your personal interests over it's collective prioritization? Since that's the kind of selfishness is why were seeing this societal decay of what's inherently valuable to a society's unification.
"Where's the poor function in persons that are minorities? Are they poorly functioning, getting worse and worse to the point of no function (non-existence) or are they functioning in a productive fashion? That's the range that harm or damage is detected in." - Well the range of "damage" I'm trying to elaborate here is if whites became minorities in their own homelands and the negative resulting effects arisen from that to them specifically. A range you've mentioned is "productive fashion" well, as they become more of a minority in their own ancestral homelands, the only place they get to call home for who they are known as a people is first having the identity which binds the fabrication of who they are as a people being eroded and stripped away from them thus starting a slow genocide of their existence as a people over time ultimately leading to the range of extinction. And remember, this is happening to White Westerns Civilization on a large-degree, you don't see this taking place on any other part of planet Earth.
"not being in charge of a nation, how's it damaging? Again with current minorities, some of them, what you call business owners, living constructive, not bias with their staff or are not for inequality. - It's damaging to Whites as them becoming a minority (in their own homelands) is essentially first damaging to the collective conscious of knowing who they are as a people by undermining (through normalizing diversity tolerance) what's inherent to a group (identity and such) and allowing the gates of whatever range of destruction to open for them coming later on. And you also mentioned inequality in there, you make it seem like equality is some universal standard that's abided by every aspect of reality. Well in this case it's not as it is the majority (white people) who are there for a necessary reason, as it's the majority who are the placeholders of the nation having the responsibility to maintaining it's functioning so of course the minority shouldn't be equalized to the majority for that sole reason or else there would be civilizational consequences that would stem from it such as a clash of various groups going at it we've witness in the last couple of years and presently.
"This topic really seems like the exposure of fear for losing the "top of the food chain" status reigning oppression type thing. Also a fear of reverse mistreatment which there's no evidence for." - It's moreso every group of people having a home for themselves and that's what I'm advocating for the White populations. And I've already pointed out and concluded how becoming/being a minority (especially in your own ancestral homeland) wouldn't be a good thing for the context of the people having minority status hovering over them. Care for me to re-explain?
"If there is honestly no mistreatment intended by this, would these "collectives" prioritize who needs help the most even if that help is needed outside themselves?" - If it's regarding foreign aid, globalized trading or international cooperation. You could make a list of pros from these proposals sure but I'm not equating a collective prioritizing themselves to that. What I'm getting at is White people being able to have control of their own destiny and not let the anti-nationalistic forces interfere with that.
"No . I don't believe I ever put a number in this. Not millions, not thousands but the individual person can do what is best for him or herself. Each individual will have their own situation. Those I see thus far , like in government, politics or even on t.v. are not crying about this so called crisis you're raising up. Each individual has got something different going on with him or herself. When I go to the store, just out and about, I see everybody classified as white just living their lives constructive for the most part ." - Again, this is a case of collectivism (neverminding the individual who fails to acknowledge the severity of the issue) that actually has been gaining more publicity to it. I suppose you haven't picked up on these issues gaining traction yet until you've discussed it with me then? And this crisis I'm raising up is a long-term projection, whites becoming a minority by the estimated year 2050 or so (hence by my username) and it's this short-term thinking that fails to grasp the long-term effects of what's at stake here and not addressing it now and letting it snowball even more will reach a point it'll be too late to fully reverse.
"I don't think I denied that mistreatment or unfairness exists.
Just look at history, not just in what's called the United States, but the world and the present day ." - And what if this existing mistreatment/unfairness condition against white people is driven by the increasing multicultarism that's happening in their very ancestral homelands, do you not acknowledge this factor?
Pro
#6
"No, it's not necessary. Just confirm what I stated is either correct or incorrect." - Well there have been heinous cases of damage, correlating a rise from it to the growth of diversity and such. Were you asking for more big picture group examples or?"
No, it's not necessary. No examples are necessary or being asked for. "They're(the classified white folks) still going about their daily lives in a constructive fashion. "
Do you say correct or incorrect?
"Are you saying that most people put their socially constructed people group classification above others like they're superior or supreme?" - Of course but not out of superiority all the time"
So you're saying most people are supremacists or part time supremacists.
"it's suppose to be natural "
Says who or what? Something that is natural just is. There's no dictation to naturalness or nature.
" if a society were to stray away from this fundamental aspect to our nature, is why were seeing these civilizational consequences in White Western Society."
First off, we have to distinguish "our" and the type of people that make up a society. I believe we've established that this tribalism thing is not innate in all people if really innate at all. Those who do not fit into being tribalistic will do of another nature.
You mentioned perpetuating uniqueness like the unique elitist tribe. You don't have to worry about tribes going away from what they do. You don't have to worry about supremacists going away from what they do and want. Particularly those filled with hate that can't stand the sight of others outside the klan . That's why I say, things as they are have been and look like they will continue as such.
" I believe White People should be able to preserve what's inherent to them as it's what best for White Western Civilization, simple as that. "
I believe classified white folks should be constructive as possible while they're here in existence. Now that maybe the end result of what you just said but it's direct down to the end result. At the end of the day, what are we talking about? What's bad or damaging for a people due to some sort of change. Let's get back to the topic statement.
Remember constructive is the opposite of damaging and destructive. I believe in these folks being that way now and can function that way just as the current minorities do now. So these folks don't have to be any different with a different outcome.
"And why I'm arguing against these none-white demographic changes occurring because it's being pushed by anti-white forces in positions of administration in an attempt to destabilize the white populations."
So these whom you refer to as anti-forces are plotting to make classified white folks minorities in order to be biased or execute mistreatment over them. Is that what you're saying?
Did these " forces " communicate this in a mission statement?
"It is a natural instinctive reflex but some living things simply can't comprehend of why these built-in programs are important to humans "
So something natural in all living creatures can be bypassed with an override by some due to a lack of comprehension of that thing. I wish I could do that with hunger. It would boost stronger willpower to fast and resist food cravings. I can't override that with a lack of comprehension. I just naturally have a hunger for nourishment.
I do agree it's a program, a social conditioning from the outside in. Not from the inside out. Where was it before the great human migration? It came along after social construction.
"seeing this societal decay of what's inherently valuable to a society's unification. "
I'll tell you this , society or people are decaying or whom suffer annihilation from doing things such as this bias of prioritizing a group of people over any other single person that needs priority. A person that needs that ambulance over all the people waiting in traffic. People are perishing for a lack of getting help to those that need it the most which is how a priority is justified.
"Well the range of "damage" I'm trying to elaborate here is if whites became minorities in their own homelands and the negative resulting effects arisen from that to them specifically."
They live in a functioning constructive fashion, they'll be alright. They'll still be in tribes too if they want that. That's alright.
"A range you've mentioned is "productive fashion" well, as they become more of a minority in their own ancestral homelands, the only place they get to call home for who they are known as a people is first having the identity which binds the fabrication of who they are as a people being eroded and stripped away from them thus starting a slow genocide of their existence as a people over time ultimately leading to the range of extinction. "
Huh, what in the name of logic did genocide come from in all that ?
Are these folks gonna turn homicidal?
"this is happening to White Westerns Civilization on a large-degree, you don't see this taking place on any other part of planet Earth. "
I don't see it period.
"It's damaging to Whites as them becoming a minority (in their own homelands) is essentially first damaging to the collective conscious of knowing who they are as a people by undermining (through normalizing diversity tolerance) what's inherent to a group"
In terms of damage, injury, something being broken, I'll just put it this way in this question. With them becoming a minority , this would mean they die off, not rapidly but slowly, is that it?
"And you also mentioned inequality in there, you make it seem like equality is some universal standard that's abided by every aspect of reality."
Like I say, unfairness exists. So somebody has to be for inequality. That is a part of reality just as those wishing to practice justice.
"so of course the minority shouldn't be equalized to the majority"
Does this translate to better priority treatment of one over the other?
"And I've already pointed out and concluded how becoming/being a minority (especially in your own ancestral homeland) wouldn't be a good thing for the context of the people having minority status hovering over them. Care for me to re-explain? "
I really don't because I still will have trouble connecting what the harm is and how whom causes to another by whatever means. Now I put forth some straightforward questions in this round. If you can answer directly to what they're specifically asking without deviation, that would help my understanding.
"If there is honestly no mistreatment intended by this, would these "collectives" prioritize who needs help the most even if that help is needed outside themselves?" - If it's regarding foreign aid, globalized trading or international cooperation. "
Is this a yes or no to the question?
"Again, this is a case of collectivism (neverminding the individual who fails to acknowledge the severity of the issue) that actually has been gaining more publicity to it. I suppose you haven't picked up on these issues gaining traction yet until you've discussed it with me then? "
No . Like I said, everywhere I see classified white folks, they're doing fine. But I guess where you see them, they're not. Each individual will have problems unique to him or herself. I wouldn't discount that. But you say there's this threat of a demographic change.
This change has to do with the majority not being in control anymore. So that would mean in order to keep control of a nation at least, use a system to control "non-whites/none-whites" particularly getting into offices of power, law and government. Everything else as a tier of authority under that like in big corporations and companies, keep a restraint on the current minorities from being elected, recruited, promoted into leadership opportunities. Reserve that power of control.
Now this type of system to accomplish all this, that issues superiority over another, whom runs it, what would that system be called?
"And what if this existing mistreatment/unfairness condition against white people is driven by the increasing multicultarism that's happening in their very ancestral homelands, do you not acknowledge this factor?"
I can't say as it is unclear how " multiculturalism" is synonymous with mistreatment. Unless you're saying people are forced to go along. No matter how much things are integrated, there's a ton load of folks that remain segregated to their tribes, in their communities and their churches.
Round 4
Con
#7
"No, it's not necessary. No examples are necessary or being asked for. "They're(the classified white folks) still going about their daily lives in a constructive fashion."
Do you say correct or incorrect?" - I don't think it's such a generalized framework the way you're asking this question. Again, there have been heinous cases of damage done to the white folks correlating with a rise in diversity. Is that good enough for ya?
"So you're saying most people are supremacists or part time supremacists." - No need for supremacy for preserving your own. Though do you want a discussion on justifying racial supremacy?
"Says who or what? Something that is natural just is. There's no dictation to naturalness or nature." - I'm not dictating that tribalism is natural, I'm pointing out that it in-fact is and how straying away from such a fundamental reflex has its societal consequences.
"First off, we have to distinguish "our" and the type of people that make up a society. I believe we've established that this tribalism thing is not innate in all people if really innate at all. Those who do not fit into being tribalistic will do of another nature." - It's White People's Aura that make up the ingenuity of White Western Civilization and are inherently responsible for retaining that. And I don't recall establishing tribalism not being a innate thing, I made the contrary stance rather backing it up with real-world notions of its necessity to human nature.
"I believe classified white folks should be constructive as possible while they're here in existence. Now that maybe the end result of what you just said but it's direct down to the end result. At the end of the day, what are we talking about? What's bad or damaging for a people due to some sort of change. Let's get back to the topic statement.
Remember constructive is the opposite of damaging and destructive. I believe in these folks being that way now and can function that way just as the current minorities do now. So these folks don't have to be any different with a different outcome." - And what if that best constructive lifestyle for a collective is what I'm advocating for? And change does not always equal to good especially given the context I've provided for what's happening to the White populations in The West. Plus I've already explained the negative outcomes if the White populations were to be reduced to a minority. Let's not go in circles here Mall.
"So these whom you refer to as anti-forces are plotting to make classified white folks minorities in order to be biased or execute mistreatment over them. Is that what you're saying?" - That's a whole nother separate topic of discussion I don't think we'll be able to get at considering the last few remaining rounds we have left in this debate. But let's just say that these people in various positions of power who are pushing these anti-nationalist forces in White nations are those of largely Jewish descent, enough said.
"So something natural in all living creatures can be bypassed with an override by some due to a lack of comprehension of that thing. I wish I could do that with hunger. It would boost stronger willpower to fast and resist food cravings. I can't override that with a lack of comprehension. I just naturally have a hunger for nourishment." - This specific natural act of tribalism has more to do with head knowledge in realizing the importance of why it's best to follow such a instinctive reflex then compared to your digestive system which is something much more reactive.
I do agree it's a program, a social conditioning from the outside in. Not from the inside out. Where was it before the great human migration? It came along after social construction." - A program that has been indebted in humanity since the dawn of mankind I see it as a naturalistic foundation in humans, which is why there is this reactionary backlash against these none-white demographic changes and expansion of diversity.
I do agree it's a program, a social conditioning from the outside in. Not from the inside out. Where was it before the great human migration? It came along after social construction." - A program that has been indebted in humanity since the dawn of mankind I see it as a naturalistic foundation in humans, which is why there is this reactionary backlash against these none-white demographic changes and expansion of diversity.
"I'll tell you this , society or people are decaying or whom suffer annihilation from doing things such as this bias of prioritizing a group of people over any other single person that needs priority." - Uh, it's actually the complete opposite of whats been happening, White Western Society being subverted in needing to prioritize those (minorities) who have no role in holding up the civilizational fabric of the nation instead of themselves.
"A person that needs that ambulance over all the people waiting in traffic. People are perishing for a lack of getting help to those that need it the most which is how a priority is justified." - My context of "priority" in this case is that the majority is a necessary group that needs to be prioritized. Why need be for the sake of it? Because they are the ones who maintain and represent the functioning of the country they've built up. Think of an ant hill (an earlier analogy I made in a previous argument) if you were to remove the ants who created the ant hill, the ant hill will crumble as the host of it's construction is no longer there to upkeep it.
"Huh, what in the name of logic did genocide come from in all that ?
Are these folks gonna turn homicidal?" - To define the word "genocide" in this case let's look at what the U.N. definition of the word genocide means↓
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
So the definition of "genocide" I'm contextualizing here is not some massive physical force destroying Whites. But it's imposing measures on Whites that'll erase their known existence over time as the highlighted C section states it as.
"I don't see it period." - Wait another 20-30 years and you'll probably start seeing it more. Either that or you can travel to the city of London to get a grasp of what I'm talking about here.
"In terms of damage, injury, something being broken, I'll just put it this way in this question. With them becoming a minority , this would mean they die off, not rapidly but slowly, is that it?" - Yes, a slow internal destructive White genocide as I put above.
"Like I say, unfairness exists. So somebody has to be for inequality. That is a part of reality just as those wishing to practice justice." - Inequality in this case is a naturally occurring phenomenon that's proved to be why it is that way.
"Does this translate to better priority treatment of one over the other?" - Well for starters, certain positions for example such as being some political representative I don't think should be expanded to minority types no
"Is this a yes or no to the question?" It can be either, depending on the collective's decision-making.
"Now this type of system to accomplish all this, that issues superiority over another, whom runs it, what would that system be called?" - That's called the majority being the rightful rulers of their inherent nation-states, I think that's called majority rule yeah.
"I can't say as it is unclear how " multiculturalism" is synonymous with mistreatment. Unless you're saying people are forced to go along. No matter how much things are integrated, there's a ton load of folks that remain segregated to their tribes, in their communities and their churches." - What this increasing multicultarism does to a countries majority host is taking away its rightful charge and representative of their nation-state.
Pro
#8
"I don't think it's such a generalized framework the way you're asking this question. Again, there have been heinous cases of damage done to the white folks correlating with a rise in diversity. Is that good enough for ya? "
No it does not answer the question as asked. But I guess you don't know which of those answer choices to pick.
Moving on though.
"No need for supremacy for preserving your own. Though do you want a discussion on justifying racial supremacy? "
Yes sir. A very important discussion.
"I'm not dictating that tribalism is natural, I'm pointing out that it in-fact is and how straying away from such a fundamental reflex has its societal consequences. "
Is a reflex not natural either?
"And I don't recall establishing tribalism not being a innate thing"
Looks like you were establishing it here.
"I'm not dictating that tribalism is natural, "
Meaning you stand firm authoritatively prescribing something in your position.
"And what if that best constructive lifestyle for a collective is what I'm advocating for? "
Ok it exists right now. As long as people continue to do what is healthy to promote years of living, go ahead and support that.
You know, anytime anybody does anything, raise the question, will it have a constructive effect ultimately?
As I mentioned before in what's called the northwestern hemisphere, I travel, I visit retail chains . I observe people at work. Many "white " folks living, working to support themselves. That's pretty constructive. Certainly keeps them breathing.
"Plus I've already explained the negative outcomes if the White populations were to be reduced to a minority. Let's not go in circles here Mall. "
Yes , right, let us not go into that. We can leave it alone. From what I can figure, being a minority, you experience bias or mistreatment. I just attempted to find out where the damage comes in at.
But let's leave it there .
"But let's just say that these people in various positions of power who are pushing these anti-nationalist forces in White nations are those of largely Jewish descent, enough said."
But we just don't know or you're not saying they'll execute mistreatment over "white " folks, ok.
"This specific natural act of tribalism has more to do with head knowledge in realizing the importance of why it's best to follow such a instinctive reflex "
I never heard of something that has to do with how well you understand it for it to function according to its nature. Understanding has to do with learning, education, being taught something. I can understand being taught , trained or programmed tribalism which lines up to be more consistent.
"A program that has been indebted in humanity since the dawn of mankind I see it as a naturalistic foundation in humans,"
I understand. What you call a program which is a social condition you see as natural. Now your position is adding up .
"Uh, it's actually the complete opposite of whats been happening, White Western Society being subverted in needing to prioritize those (minorities) who have no role in holding up the civilizational fabric of the nation instead of themselves."
Do you believe that if a "white" person/people didn't prioritize the "non-white"/person/people that needed the most help at any given time, it would not be mistreatment?
"Because they are the ones who maintain and represent the functioning of the country they've built up."
Are you certain they didn't purchase help?
Were those helpers ever compensated for their part in it?
Is that what it means to prioritize one group over another?
You usher injustice of paid wages, some unpaid .
" if you were to remove the ants who created the ant hill, the ant hill will crumble as the host of it's construction is no longer there to upkeep it. "
Well we're talking about demographic change. So I guess a more apropos example is just a change in ant "tribe" sizes if they have such a trivial thing and keep running those hills.
"So the definition of "genocide" I'm contextualizing here is not some massive physical force destroying Whites. But it's imposing measures on Whites that'll erase their known existence over time"
You may not like to answer one or the other but I have to ask this way. Will these folks be dead in numbers like a massacre in camps or not?
"Wait another 20-30 years and you'll probably start seeing it more. "
"More", I don't see a little of what you're referring to.
"Either that or you can travel to the city of London to get a grasp of what I'm talking about here."
Going somewhere will not solve people perishing. If there's a problem like that, the proper authorities there will have to rectify the situation.
Just like anywhere, people with any color of skin , civilized or maintaining civility as best as possible is essential.
"Yes, a slow internal destructive White genocide as I put above. "
Ok so what can these people or any people, what healthy things can be done of themselves to live a constructive life?
What can they do or will they not take responsibility for themselves?
They prioritize themselves. All their effort should be in high gear to usher royal supreme treatment.
"Inequality in this case is a naturally occurring phenomenon that's proved to be why it is that way. "
Are we sure it's not taught behavior?
At this point, let's give you this. It is justified due to it being natural?
Inequality is mistreatment, injustice. Opposite of justification.
"Does this translate to better priority treatment of one over the other?" -
"Well for starters, certain positions for example such as being some political representative I don't think should be expanded to minority types no "
You're saying no.
"Is this a yes or no to the question?"
" It can be either, depending on the collective's decision-making. "
I guess you won't speak for them . If you can, please do so with the yay or nay.
"Now this type of system to accomplish all this, that issues superiority over another, whom runs it, what would that system be called?"
" - That's called the majority being the rightful rulers of their inherent nation-states, I think that's called majority rule yeah. "
Now keeping in line with the context, many would call this system oppressive, domineering, subjective, dictating.
In summary, systemic racism. If those classified as white are running this system, it is alternately called the system of white supremacy.
Now I'm accusing nobody of anything or not calling names.
Be it as it may, I can understand your position as being a concern for preserving such a system. You feel the counter will happen. Am I right or wrong?
But my friend, whoever you are, with your feelings towards others, there's no evidence of a counter.
There's no evidence that people or all people are naturally set to practice inequality.
There's no evidence that a majority of people will mistreat a minority just because of those polarities.
"What this increasing multicultarism does to a countries majority host is taking away its rightful charge and representative of their nation-state. "
You don't have anything to worry about. The majority in the states at least hasn't changed. As I witness the news media particularly with police stop situations, the majority rules. The "white" police officer is commonly " justified " regardless of the situation as that officer is backed by a "white" system to run in their favor against the "non-white" victim.
The proper priorities according to the system, still in place like a royalist system to the owners , subjugators and dictators.
Round 5
Con
#9
"No it does not answer the question as asked. But I guess you don't know which of those answer choices to pick.
Moving on though." - Well just for the sake of continuing conversation, I'll put forth with a "yes" answer to damage being done on the White Populations.
"Yes sir. A very important discussion." - We could have a separate debate on that then later. And to restate the justification of my position again. I'm not arguing out of racial supremacy for why White People should preserve their own but rather a equal fairness for each group of people to have a ancestral homeland to themselves and how straying away from such a fundamental societal aspect has its consequences.
"Is a reflex not natural either?" - A reflex is a reaction of an instinct so no to your question.
"Looks like you were establishing it here." - I wasn't establishing that specific headline in the said statement, I was just pointing out how I didn't establish a side that you're now trying to claim I did. False interpretation on your end Mall. (I established the opposite claim in earlier arguments)
"Meaning you stand firm authoritatively prescribing something in your position." - Because it's correct from what's factual so I do stand quite firmly by my statement.
"But we just don't know or you're not saying they'll execute mistreatment over "white " folks, ok." - They (these people in positions of powers) are pushing these soft destructive powers on multiple fronts to slowly destroy White Nations from the inside out that I already described. It's not something instantaneous you're trying to tie in.
"I never heard of something that has to do with how well you understand it for it to function according to its nature. Understanding has to do with learning, education, being taught something. I can understand being taught , trained or programmed tribalism which lines up to be more consistent." - That's not what I'm trying to draw up, what I mean by my original statement is that this natural instinct (tribalism) takes head knowledge to understand and realize why it's important to be persistent with, not the causation for why it's a instinctive reflex.
"I understand. What you call a program which is a social condition you see as natural. Now your position is adding up ." - Expect I don't mistake it as a social condition of why it's natural, I see it as natural because it's an ingrained fundamental aspect that makes up a piece of the larger collective a person is a part of.
"Do you believe that if a "white" person/people didn't prioritize the "non-white"/person/people that needed the most help at any given time, it would not be mistreatment?" - In terms of keeping an upright society and not allowing any compromises which'll disrupt that then no.
"Are you certain they didn't purchase help?
Were those helpers ever compensated for their part in it?
Is that what it means to prioritize one group over another?
You usher injustice of paid wages, some unpaid ." - Even if there was some degree of "help" from the past involved how is it a "good" reason for why the majority should willingly disconnect from it's roots they primarily make up and let it roll over and die?
"Well we're talking about demographic change. So I guess a more apropos example is just a change in ant "tribe" sizes if they have such a trivial thing and keep running those hills." - But what if that certain demographic are not known for constructing the same civilizational landscape as the host nation they're replacing? Why should it be allowed to happen and what "good" will come out of it if that kind of transition succeeds?
"You may not like to answer one or the other but I have to ask this way. Will these folks be dead in numbers like a massacre in camps or not?" - That's not what I'm referring to in context of the word "genocide" so it's an absurd question that pivots away from the contextual case presented. Re-read my original statement to comprehend the definition of "genocide" I'm getting at here.
More", I don't see a little of what you're referring to." - Then you be patient right where you are then.
"Going somewhere will not solve people perishing. If there's a problem like that, the proper authorities there will have to rectify the situation." - I'm asking you to go there to witness the issue I'm raising with your very own two eyes and maybe then you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. And the "authorities" are actually the ones safeguarding this issue, allowing it to run its course ultimately normalizing that kind of slow destruction onto the White Population in the UK.
"Ok so what can these people or any people, what healthy things can be done of themselves to live a constructive life?" - This is not the time to be taking individualistic actions for yourself in response to a collective crisis. What needs to be done is:
getting organized into a tidal wave of ideological reactionary force that'll stampede these de-constructive evils at work.
"Are we sure it's not taught behavior?
At this point, let's give you this. It is justified due to it being natural?" - Yes it is in-fact justified because it's whats (naturally) fundamentally right for the majority (who regulate the larger society arisen from them) to do so.
"Inequality is mistreatment, injustice. Opposite of justification." - Here you're trying to imply that inequality is a injustice, an immoral principle not to be followed. but what if that certain "inequality" is justified by an intrinsic nature that propels it's usage? That's really a fallacy on your end in contexting that.
"I guess you won't speak for them . If you can, please do so with the yay or nay." - I really can't speak for a whole collective because I myself is not a collective. Just a puzzle of the piece to it.
"In summary, systemic racism. If those classified as white are running this system, it is alternately called the system of white supremacy." - And what you have here is using words with negative meanings to them in order to discredit the White Populations from prioritizing their own out of a Anti-White intention.
"There's no evidence that people or all people are naturally set to practice inequality.
There's no evidence that a majority of people will mistreat a minority just because of those polarities." All the "evidence" (it's moreso factual intuition opposed to a piece of information required) that you need is reasoning out the very way a society operates off the basis of human nature and how trying to disrupt the flow of running the country will cause unsettling changes for the nation-state as I already stated.
"You don't have anything to worry about. The majority in the states at least hasn't changed. As I witness the news media particularly with police stop situations, the majority rules. The "white" police officer is commonly " justified " regardless of the situation as that officer is backed by a "white" system to run in their favor against the "non-white" victim." - That's an anecdotal viewing that doesn't encompass the situation given towards the White World.
Pro
#10
" A reflex is a reaction of an instinct so no to your question. "
A reflex is not taught or programmed. It's an extension of something that is natural. As you say an instinct,which is natural.
"False interpretation on your end Mall. (I established the opposite claim in earlier arguments)"
I apologize. It does get somewhat challenging following everything you're saying.
"slowly destroy White Nations from the inside out that I already described. It's not something instantaneous you're trying to tie in. "
Yes described in an obscure like fashion.
I believe you mentioned via multiculturalism, loss of heritage or a shift of power.
That just brings back to how you particularly measure harm, damage or destruction.
I on the other hand I have cut it very precise with what it means to live opposite of destruction living constructive lives.
"Do you believe that if a "white" person/people didn't prioritize the "non-white"/person/people that needed the most help at any given time, it would not be mistreatment?" - In terms of keeping an upright society and not allowing any compromises which'll disrupt that then no. "
Your short answer "no".
This answer does indicate that your position is a proponent of supremacy. You may call it prioritization.
When you prioritize something that requires the least attention, urgency, etc. over something that truly does isn't justified.
No justification is an injustice which is mistreatment.
Which means this position is just a guise to protect or preserve the root to injustice. It's not really just simply what's on the surface of trying to protect people from some obscure imaginary like crisis.
I believe you wish to protect the position of power.
Why not?
When you have power, you can control, you can dominate, reign priority, render privilege, go figure.
"Were those helpers ever compensated for their part in it?"
I can't say. I've heard some say no. I've heard others say to move on and forget about the past and they'll never be recompense or reparations.
There's a person by the name of Neely Fuller Jr. that suggests that if anybody is going to seek any compensatory action, don't just limit it to financial terms. That's pretty unconventional and it's a start.
"Even if there was some degree of "help" from the past involved how is it a "good" reason for why the majority should willingly disconnect from it's roots they primarily make up and let it roll over and die? "
I can't say in that regard. But what I can say and is justified is that when a country is built up from multiple groups of folks, it's justified, poetically justified that all these groups have power or control over what they built .
Those that gave a hand can have a hand in power also. You expect those that couldn't do it by themselves to not delegate some authority?
Probably, that's the stance on priority you're taking.
I built up 50 percent of this successful profitable business, I will be made an equal partner in the share of the take.
You don't become the president and owner and I'm an employee.
"But what if that certain demographic are not known for constructing the same civilizational landscape as the host nation they're replacing? "
Well what if? I would want to look at precisely what would be taking place.
Do we know? Let's have those facts with no prejudices.
"Why should it be allowed to happen and what "good" will come out of it if that kind of transition succeeds? "
I don't know about "should it be " or should be anything. I'm just saying if something is going to happen, do your best to know what it is as oppose to prejudging prior to the knowledge of it.
"Then you be patient right where you are then. "
I'm telling you and I've been on this planet for a little minute, everywhere I go, who do I see are managers, presidents of these big companies? Not to mention the owners.
So if the rest of the world, you see more diversity, but nobody is actually being slaughtered by it, I think that's your whole concern.
Just seeing the diversity, what you may call multiculturalism.
I bet you see a lot of it in advertisements. Hence this debate topic.
"I'm asking you to go there to witness the issue I'm raising with your very own two eyes and maybe then you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. "
Right if people are perishing somewhere due to increased demographic change and or diversity, you're having a tough time drawing that cause and effect.
I can see in regards to natural disaster, drought, famine.
"This is not the time to be taking individualistic actions for yourself in response to a collective crisis. What needs to be done is:
getting organized into a tidal wave of ideological reactionary force that'll stampede these de-constructive evils at work. "
Whichever way you want to look at whether that's a group of individuals acting,individuals acting as a group or individuals acting individually in a group.
Now I hope this will be more elaborate or it's more elaborate in the minds of the individuals doing this because they're the ones doing it .
I wouldn't know what I be doing or doing along with others just reading this information here.
Just coming together getting organized as a people is a blanket expression.
Just as blanket as describing or identifying the source of trouble.
Slogans like that "coming together" stuff is a start like a title of a book. I just hope when I open that book, there are words on the pages.
Not just vague words or terms. Razor sharp specific details, instructions, directives, codified steps like in a cook book .
"Yes it is in-fact justified because it's whats (naturally) fundamentally right for the majority (who regulate the larger society arisen from them) to do so."
Just because something is natural so you say doesn't outright make it justified.
Any mistreatment associated in this surely is not justified.
"but what if that certain "inequality" is justified by an intrinsic nature that propels it's usage? That's really a fallacy on your end in contexting that. "
But what if that certain inequality is not justified?
By using the term " certain ", points out the selective context.
We can make an argument for each of our cases. But is my case invalid?
Something that is characterized by inequality will be found unjust or consist of injustice.
Something like what?
Something like what you were mentioning about safeguarding an issue or threat.
Not giving someone else an equal opportunity to defend against a threat/imminent danger due to some presumptuous characterization from a faulty ideology is injustice.
"I really can't speak for a whole collective because I myself is not a collective. Just a puzzle of the piece to it. "
I suppose that's why you folks can't come together with a common cause. Too many individual thought processes where no one or not enough can act together on one accord.
"And what you have here is using words with negative meanings to them in order to discredit the White Populations from prioritizing their own out of a Anti-White intention. "
Yes they are negative. I mean prioritizing a people versus human people period is questionable.
It's negative to say a place of business doesn't hire such and such a people because another is supreme, higher up on the totem pole taking priority.
The more mitigating way to put it is uplifting or empowering our people.
You can color it any delightful way you want to make it appear righteous.
"That's an anecdotal viewing that doesn't encompass the situation given towards the White World. "
Likewise with your anecdote.
Well it looks like we've covered everything throughout the duration of this exchange.
I guess we'll have to wait until 2050 for some validity.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Upon entering this debate I find this debate hard to decipher due to this apparently being a continuation of another debate on another site that is not available to the public anymore in an editable fashion, especially since no linkage has been given from this site to that place. I will be judging purely the confinements within this debate and the description will be treated as the R1 argument because it is the same thing.
In R1, Con opens up with that a forced multiculturalism has damaged British local culture, and why this bias matters. It appears that before R1, Pro believes that there is no "best" culture for any country or group of individuals, just like players can just switch teams and coaches. Pro in R1, on the other hand, believes that this outrage is simply useless due to the British although having a less exclusive culture are still living in constructive fashion and can keep living. Pro uses this point throughout the entire R1 as a rebuttal for everything due to none Con has stated has actually costed people lives aggressively.
Con pushes further on that white people having less importance in their home countries is a bad thing. Why? Con believes that they are the rightful representatives of these nations, not the immigrated people, and they deserve to have this piece of land more than else. Con believes that this is a normal act for a group prioritizing themselves rightfully. Pro, on the other hand, just further pushes on the doubt that this "multiculturalism" damages anything at all due to people still living.
This conversation continues for some time, with Con bringing up more examples, such as defending one's own rights, and natural reflexes, and Pro bringing up more defenses on why it does not matter.
The victor here is clear: Con. The reason is very simple: the BoP is not yet determined, as a result, the Pro side automatically would have to defend the topic, which Pro fails to do, as all Pro did was attempting to push the state of the debate arguments back to the equilibrium, disproving what Con said, while not exactly trying to prove why White people having less importance in the West is a good thing. Due to this BoP and Con actually bringing up constructive points(such as that White people defending their own importance is justified and natural), Con has generally acted a better role as what Con is supposed to do, while Pro not so much.
People vote on non evidence repeatedly here.
Would it not be better to make use of the quote feature in order to make the rebuttals more clear? It's hard for both readers and voters this way in my opinion.
What white nations have themselves as the minority. I don't think I know any.
Debate.org is finally being put out of its misery, huh?