Instigator / Pro
Points: 10

Africa & Why All Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed Immediately

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Alec
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
3
Contender / Con
Points: 21
Description
The title speaks for itself, the title speaks volumes and the African people should rid their land of all foreign invaders who are not native to the land. Though Africa is displayed in the media negatively, this huge vast land is rich in culture as well as rich in people. The most diverse people, some of the most diverse foods and very diverse animals reside here. The problem with Africa comes from the foreign invaders who have come in and caused carnage. The taking of land, colonization, murder and the white-washing of its history has been taking place for hundreds of years.
South Africa & Egypt are ground zero for the hyjacking of African culture and acheivements. Many uneducated people think that Egypt isnt even in Africa because of all the foreign invaders who reside there today. The Europeans in South Africa are mad because the native people of the land want their land back. These theives don't receive much sympathy from outside interests because everyone knows that this is not their homeland.
All fake missionaries should be physically removed immediately because they're not doing so-called God's work. From hunting the natural wildlife to the spreading of diseases, Africa has no choice but to rid all of these leeches before it's too late because the leeches have detsroyed the people & have destroyed all of the great African civilizations. If anyone can come up with a good enough argument on behalf of the bloodsuckers, then you may accept this debate.
Good Luck
Round 1
Published:
My first argument is basically the same as the introduction of this debate. Anyone who's trying to justify otherwise is setting himself up for a quick dose of reality. As stated above, Africans should rid their land of all foreigners because the foreigners aren't bringing anything to the table as far as tangibles. Debaters can try to pull the ridiculous Africa-wasn't-civilized crap, but you may want to do a little research before making a dumb comment like that. If you do decide to go that route, then best believe that I'll play the same game by showing facts that the other areas of the world wasn't necessarily civilized. 

The ball is now in your court.
Published:
==Arguments==

It is morally wrong to deport people because you don't like their skin color.  As MLK said "I have a dream, that one day, people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".  You are essentially proposing to deport people because they aren't black.  This is like me saying that we should deport all non Europeans from Europe.  For every 1 European in Africa, there are about 2 Africans in Europe, so the non Africans in South Africa(which make up about 20% of the population)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa#Racial_composition_of_each_age_group_in_2015_(estimates)) aren't a big threat to anybody.  Europe helped unify Africa into 54 countries, more unified then the thousands of cultures that existed in the region beforehand.  Europe helped provide many lingua francas to the region that have helped unify previously divided peoples.  While the Europeans committed genocide, virtually every civilization that has ever existed has committed genocide, so singling the Europeans as the sole race that commits genocide is inconsistent.  At least the Europeans stopped their genocide by themselves.  The Africans on the other hand are responsible for things like the Rwandan genocide, which happened recently.  The only reason why it stopped was because of a western program; the UN.  Slavery still exists in Africa today in regions that had they been influenced by the west, the slavery would have been over by now.  Western influence provides freedom to those who are genuinely oppressed.

The West liberates homosexuals and women from actual threats, like death threats or acid attacks.  South Africa is a better place for human rights then any other place in Africa.  

The BoP is ultimately on you to provide a reason as to why we should remove all non Africans from Africa.  Fortunately, you provide some arguments.

==Rebuttals==

My first argument is basically the same as the introduction of this debate.
Fine, so I'll analyze your introduction.

the African people should rid their land of all foreign invaders who are not native to the land.
The definition of invader is, "a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place." https://www.bing.com/search?q=Invader&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=invader&sc=8-7&sk=&cvid=46714CD38B22426C85984FB5310468EA.  The synonym that is closest to this in this context is, "occupier".  

There are no invaders anymore on the continent, only people who settled in the region when the area was actually invaded.  Moreover, for every non black person in Africa(I'm referring to those of European descent), there are way more blacks in Europe.  By wanting to send all non black people to their home country, your basically in order to be consistent, would have to do the same thing for Africans living in Europe.  I'm not one for feelings, but I am one for morality.  Is it justified to relocate millions of families, many of whom have mixed backgrounds, especially in South Africa, where about 1/2 of the people with any European heritage also have African heritage(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa#Racial_composition_of_each_age_group_in_2015_(estimates)).  Deporting everyone with even a hint of European ancestry will result in the breakup of about 2 million families in South Africa.

this huge vast land is rich in culture as well as rich in people
I fail to see how culture is important in general, but this might be off topic.  If by, "rich in people" you mean there are a lot of them, this becomes less so if you deport every non African on the continent since your population would fall if you did this.

The most diverse people
They are not racially diverse.  Almost everyone in Africa is Black.

The problem with Africa comes from the foreign invaders who have come in and caused carnage. 
If this is the case, then why do the areas that have the most western influence (like South Africa) have the most human rights in the continent, and they are the most western in policy on the continent?  The West brings human rights to the areas it conquerors.  In many African countries, you can get killed just for being a homosexual or an atheist.  In Islamic countries, converting from Islam, even if it's to Christianity, a fellow Abrahamic religion is punishable by death.  In North African countries, Christian girls are frequently acid attacked and raped.  Women get oppressed and are forbidden from going to school because of lack of western influence.  Africa is poor because they have failed to embrace capitalism, which has made the west great.  

Many uneducated people think that Egypt isnt even in Africa because of all the foreign invaders who reside there today.
You just need to look at a map of Africa to see that Egypt is mostly in Africa.  Very few people would seriously deny that.

The Europeans in South Africa are mad because the native people of the land want their land back.
They are mad because the Europeans, virtually none of whom committed genocide and virtually none of them actually stole land, but merely have bought or inherited it are having their land that they developed to be better taken away from them.  It would be like deporting anyone who isn't native American back to their home country.  If you did that, then America becomes virtually depopulated, same with Australia, and the economies of these regions get destroyed.  At the same time, Europe becomes very overpopulated and since they won't be able to manage all those people coming into the country at once, they would essentially become a worse place to live.

All fake missionaries should be physically removed immediately because they're not doing so-called God's work. From hunting the natural wildlife to the spreading of diseases
Spreading diseases is accidental.  I would like to see where the bible is against hunting, so them hunting is not against God's word.  Moreover, if you wish to make a religious argument, the bible says to treat the foreigner like the native among you.(https://www.biblica.com/bible/niv/leviticus/19/).  Treating the whites differently then the Africans on the basis of their race is anti biblical.

Africa has no choice but to rid all of these leeches before it's too late because the leeches have detsroyed the people & have destroyed all of the great African civilizations.
Africa is enhance because of the west.  GDP per capita, life expectancy, and literacy rates are much higher in western-influenced Africa (like South Africa) then in places like Ethiopia, which have resisted colonialism.

If anyone can come up with a good enough argument on behalf of the bloodsuckers
Europeans don't suck blood.  But cannibalism is more common in purely African societies then in South Africa and in Europe (heretical.com/cannibal/congo1.html)

Sources:

Round 2
Published:
Your argument is quite ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're joking or speaking from the heart. So, now you're quoting MLK to backup your agenda? Many of the people today, whom were alive during that time, didn't even like MLK. Let me ask you a few simple questions. Where is MLK today and who sent him to his current location?

MLK also said, "I've led my people into a burning building by integrating." He also said, "my dream has become a nightmare."... Need I say more?

No, I never said anything about disliking someone's skin color. The intensions is the problem. Yes, deporting people who live in Africa that aren't Black is exactly what I'm saying. Africa wouldn't have all of these problems if foreigners never showed up. I agree with deporting all non-Europeans from Europe as well as deporting all non-Native people from America. Everyone should live in their native homeland and do for self...So, the 20% of non-Africans in South Africa aren't a threat?...If you own 90% of the fertile land and I own 10% of waste land...how is that not a threat to my survival?...You may want to research the term "Apartheid." After you research it, come back and tell me how many Africans were murdered by foreigners.

You aren't making any sense what-so-ever. You said that "Europe unified Africa by dividing it into 54 countries." How can you unify something by dividing it? I think that defeats the purpose. All I'm hearing from you are excuses. You also said that, "I'm not one for feelings, I'm one for morality." Huh? But you previously said that (Dividing) Africa into 54 countries helped the people...So, how many times are you going to contradict yourself? Wasn't it morally wrong to divide all of those people? Yep, you put your foot in your mouth.

You then go on to say that "deporting everyone with a hint of European ancestry will result in the breakup of millions of families in South Africa?" OK....So, what about the millions of families that were enslaved and shipped to America over 400 years ago? Didn't they have families?...I'm paraphrasing, but you go on to say that "deporting non-Africans would cause the population to decrease." Sweetie...Africans are some of the oldest people on the planet who doesn't have any issues with reproducing. On the other hand, foreigners are the complete opposite. You may want to go and study genetics before making illogical comments like that.

You said that you fail to see how culture is important, but at the same time, your people are trying to force their culture onto everyone else. Word of advice: Everyone isn't in to Paganism. If Africa isn't diverse, then why are there so many different skin complexions, different eye color, different hair texture and different body types? I'm going to take a wild guess. I bet you think Europeans are diverse. I fail to see any diversity in Europeans because you all have pale skin. The same genotype flows through all Europeans and a person's Nationality has nothing to do with genetics.

The only difference between the Australian, British, Irish, German, Russian etc., are Accents.

You said that "the West brings human rights." Earlier you said that non-Africans make up 20% of South Africa's population. Now, where are the human rights when one group (who is the outside invader) possesses 90% of the wealth as well as 90% of the rich farming land? I'll wait...………………………

So, you being a part of the most genocidal group of people in history is trying to school me on human rights? Does that make any sense? If you don't want to accept it, then I'll gladly pull up your track record. You said, "In African countries people can get killed for being for being homosexual or atheist."...So what you're saying is that in Western societies like the US...homosexuals don't get killed??? Have Black people not gotten killed just for having brown skin in the US? I'll wait...……..

Most white people that I know didn't even know that Egypt is in Africa despite there being tons of black people's images painted on the walls of the pyramid. Despite the Bible specifically saying that Egyptians are Black. Who's been trying hard to change the image of Egypt?...Let's take a wild guess...Foreigners. i.e Europeans/Arabs.

All of the other nonsense you're speaking about the Bible, hunting and spreading diseases is nothing more than excuses. You hunt for sport, (which is not hunting for survival).  You've purposely spread diseases (in which you did to Native Americans & what your eugenics missionaries are doing in Africa). You speak about the Bible, (in which you don't practice what you preach). The Holy Bible and the Christian Bible are two different things. Here's some of your crimes in Africa for proof.



Published:
MLK also said, "I've led my people into a burning building by integrating." He also said, "my dream has become a nightmare."... Need I say more?
This might have been taken out of context.  It happens with a lot of quotes.

Yes, deporting people who live in Africa that aren't Black is exactly what I'm saying.

No, I never said anything about disliking someone's skin color. 
You don't like it when non Black people are in Africa as residents.

 Africa wouldn't have all of these problems if foreigners never showed up.
Virtually no African Country has a significant amount of foreigners in it, except for South Africa and maybe the Arab countries.  Both have a higher GDP per capita then the rest of Africa on average.

I agree with deporting all non-Europeans from Europe as well as deporting all non-Native people from America
As someone who is not native to America, but an American citizen, I think this would be a bad idea.  Deporting 320 million people to a continent that they have never known would cost about $640 billion if its $2000 per deportation.  Add in the Australians and the White Africans, and add in the black Europeans, it would cost about $800 billion to deport all of them.  If Africa wishes to do all of this, then it would cost about 40% of their GDP, making life there even harder to get then it currently is since they would have to subsidize deportations.

If you own 90% of the fertile land and I own 10% of waste land
The Blacks don't own waste land; they aren't like Native Americans that live on reservations.  They instead are living in cities and control much of the South African media and political influence; maybe not disproportionally the same as the whites, but they got Nelson Mandela, who became the leader of South Africa pretty much right after the apartheid was over.  One reason that whites tend to own more land disproportionally then blacks is because farmers tend to own way more land then city dwellers.  Also, the whites contribute more to South African society on average then blacks due to various factors, the apartheid was one of them, but that is done, another one is the fact that blacks are disproportionally more likely to grow up in single mother houses, resulting in poor kids due to a lack of a male role model(https://www.afro.com/census-bureau-higher-percentage-black-children-live-single-mothers/).

After you research it, come back and tell me how many Africans were murdered by foreigners.
This is judging someone by their group identity rather then by their individual character.  Anyone who murders anyone should get life imprisonment or the death penalty(different debate), but no one should get punished for being the same race as a murderer.  Otherwise, we would all get punished because there are white murderers, there are black murderers, there are Indian murderers and so on.  If you father committed murder, rape, and kidnapping, should you be punished for his crime?  I don't think so.  Since you did none of those things, you should not be punished for it.

You aren't making any sense what-so-ever. You said that "Europe unified Africa by dividing it into 54 countries." How can you unify something by dividing it?
By making it more united then it was before.  There were thousands of tribal nations in Africa before European influence.  Now, there are only 54.  What happened?  Unification.

So, what about the millions of families that were enslaved and shipped to America over 400 years ago? Didn't they have families?
Apart from the facts that their whole family got sent to America (so no family break up), and that Africans were responsible for the slavery too, by originally enslaving the Africans that were being shipped over, that was so long ago, that no one alive was responsible for the horrid slavery that happened in the US.  As a result, I should not suffer for the things that my race did, especially since most whites don't have family members that owned slaves and even those that did did not participate in the slavery themselves.  

Africans are some of the oldest people on the planet who doesn't have any issues with reproducing. On the other hand, foreigners are the complete opposite.
One reason why white people have lower reproduction rates then blacks is because they don't want to produce kids they can't afford.  Another reason is to help prevent overpopulation.  Why black people love reproducing, a black person would know better then I would.

You said that you fail to see how culture is important, but at the same time, your people are trying to force their culture onto everyone else.
It was because when trading with the locals, a common language needs to be established.  As a result, many Africans end up learning the language of their European colonial master and this helps unify the country.

Word of advice: Everyone isn't in to Paganism.
The West is not Pagan anymore.

If Africa isn't diverse, then why are there so many different skin complexions, different eye color, different hair texture and different body types?
In terms of how people look, both Africans and Europeans look diverse.

 I fail to see any diversity in Europeans because you all have pale skin.
Some Europeans look like someone in the link below:

Some look like this:
You said that "the West brings human rights." Earlier you said that non-Africans make up 20% of South Africa's population. Now, where are the human rights when one group (who is the outside invader) possesses 90% of the wealth as well as 90% of the rich farming land?
Having unequal amounts of money is okay.

So, you being a part of the most genocidal group of people in history is trying to school me on human rights?

Historically, other whites have committed genocide.  But almost no white person alive today is responsible for death based genocide.  Hitler is dead.  Stalin is dead.  The confederacy is dead.  The West has stopped it's genocide.  

So what you're saying is that in Western societies like the US...homosexuals don't get killed?
In the west, homosexuals not only don't get killed, but their sexuality is legal.

 Have Black people not gotten killed just for having brown skin in the US?
Within the 21st century, the only people that got executed solely for being black got executed by somebody that is getting severe punishment for his crime.  There are probably many examples, but the only one I know of is Dylan Roof.  He is a terrorist and deserves the death penalty he probably will receive.  But not all whites do that and it's dishonest to generalize all white people on the basis of Dylan Roof.

Despite the Bible specifically saying that Egyptians are Black.
Where in the bible does it say that?

Deporting people for being Arab-Africans will crowd Saudi Arabia, would be inhumane, would lead to a backlash against Africa, and would be a violation of human rights to deport much of Africa's population to Saudi Arabia.

All of the other nonsense you're speaking about the Bible, hunting and spreading diseases is nothing more than excuses. 
You brought up God first in R1.  You said,

All fake missionaries should be physically removed immediately because they're not doing so-called God's work.
 so I assumed you were Christian.

You hunt for sport, (which is not hunting for survival)
I don't hunt for sport and most white people don't.

You've purposely spread diseases (in which you did to Native Americans & what your eugenics missionaries are doing in Africa).

I've never purposely spread disease to someone, especially not to Native Americans and Africa.  I've never been to Africa, how could I spread disease there?

You speak about the Bible
Because you mentioned God.

==Conclusion==

You are assuming all white people think, act, and behave exactly the same way.  This is stereotyping.  Not all black people act the same and not all white people act the same.  Unless there is something that applies to every white person that can justify their deportation, I have yet to hear a good argument for your case that I haven't rebuked.
Round 3
Published:
You seem to be putting up a weak argument by saying that quotes are taken out of context in which you never answered my question of where MLK is today & who sent him to his current place? It's obvious that you don't want to admit to who the perpetrator is. You said that "no African country has a significant amount of foreigners." Since you're not aware, the Chinese are heavily populated in Africa as well as Arabs. 

You don't necessarily have to go into statistical figures about the deportation and population because this is just a hypothetical situation. Subsidizing etc., can be easily paid for since they're virtually living on the richest expansion of real estate in the world. Nelson Mandela was nothing more than a proxy. He was sent to prison for all those years (by foreigners) and he was released for specific purposes. Everyone knows this information, but you seem to be in the dark yet again. 

Now you're bringing up single mothers, which is irrelevant. Africa isn't America, and most of the men are present because their aren't racist laws to put them in prison. If you don't believe me, then look at the (1994 Crime Bill) that was written by Joe Biden. Blacks tend to be addicted to crack while whites tend to be addicted to cocaine. One crack rock could get you up to 15 or more years in prison while hundreds of grams of powder cocaine will get you sent to rehab...Of course, the law targets black people, which is why the black prison population is so high...You said "that the land is disproportionate because farmers tend to own more land than city dwellers"...You do know that Africans have been in Africa for thousands of years so they pretty much know how to grow food. 

Nope, I'm judging the character of the group rather than judging the group by their identity. Yet again, your hypocrisy is shining through because this is exactly what white people have done for hundreds of years. As I told you previously, "whites do not practice what they preach."...You said that "anyone who murders someone should get life in prison or the death penalty." You're being a hypocrite once again. You also boasted about the West having the best Human Rights, but we see  innocent black people getting murdered by racist cops. You can't refute it because many of the murders were recorded. That destroys you human rights nonsense.

You're now asking me if I should be punished if my father murdered, raped etc., someone...Well, since you spoke so highly of the Bible, why don't we follow what the Bible actually says? The scriptures state that "you will be judged by the sins of your forefathers." Well...…

You said, "there were thousands of tribes in Africa before European invasions, what happened?" Did you not previously state that Europeans divided Africa into 54 countries??…. I don't even have to say much because you're basically destroying your own argument. 

Yet again, you gave the typical Caucasian answer of "slavery was a long time ago & I shouldn't have to suffer for what my race did." My answer to that is....
If you don't have a problem with benefiting from what your race did, then you shouldn't have a problem with accepting the crimes."...Am I correct?...You also said that "African families weren't broken up during slavery." Huh?...Slavery started with the taking of males...So, how is that not breaking up families? I'll wait...….

Yep...another misstep under your belt.                 By the way; families were separated during American slavery if you didn't know.

I'm going to combine the rest of your nonsense because you're not making any sense...Nope, whites aren't choosing to not have kids. You are simply struggling to reproduce. I don't even have to post links because I'm pretty sure you've already researched it. If you didn't know...your death rates are much higher than your birth rates, which is why you people have reverted back to "Dark Age" behavior....not that you ever stopped, but I digress.

You said that the West isn't Pagan anymore. Lol...Well, if you're not Pagan anymore, then why are you still celebrating Pagan holidays? Yes, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Christmas etc., are all Pagan because there's no truth to them...As I stated earlier, there's no diversity in Europeans. I think that you're getting genotype and phenotype confused...Though some Europeans may have a slightly darker complexion, which comes from race mixing throughout the years. Ever wonder why Italians weren't classified as Caucasian back in the day? Travel to Spain and you'll see what I'm talking about. Yep, the African Moors ruled half of Europe for a very long time...……Egypt is a Greek word that means Black. The Bible says that both Egyptians and Ethiopians are Black because they're the descendants of Ham. If you actually read the Bible, then you'd know that Moses ran into Egypt for safety and his captures never found him...If Moses was Arab or White, then he would have stuck out like a sore thumb.....I'll just end it right there because you're clearly not equipped to put up a fight.
Published:
 where MLK is today & who sent him to his current place? 
An individual shot MLK, not every single white person.


You said that "no African country has a significant amount of foreigners." Since you're not aware, the Chinese are heavily populated in Africa as well as Arabs. 

Around 1 million Chinese are in Africa.  This is about .1 percent of the population.  I made an exception to Arab countries.  But that was taken out of context.


You don't necessarily have to go into statistical figures about the deportation and population because this is just a hypothetical situation.
I should go into the facts because you want to deport anyone not native to the area in which they reside.

Subsidizing etc., can be easily paid for since they're virtually living on the richest expansion of real estate in the world.
If it is so rich, then why doesn't Africa use these recourses to better themselves?

Nelson Mandela was nothing more than a proxy. He was sent to prison for all those years (by foreigners) and he was released for specific purposes.
He was sent to jail for terror attacks.  Look it up if you don't believe me.




Now you're bringing up single mothers, which is irrelevant. Africa isn't America, and most of the men are present because their aren't racist laws to put them in prison.
Around 1 percent of the US population is imprisoned.  If blacks made up all of the inmates (they don't) then at 12 percent of the nation, they would only have a 1 in 12 chance of being in jail.  In reality, it's close to 1/24 since assuming that 1/2 of blacks go to jail.  

If you don't believe me, then look at the (1994 Crime Bill) that was written by Joe Biden. Blacks tend to be addicted to crack while whites tend to be addicted to cocaine. One crack rock could get you up to 15 or more years in prison while hundreds of grams of powder cocaine will get you sent to rehab...
Although I don't like Joe Biden, maybe crack is a worse drug then cocaine.  I heard the punishment is the same.  What is your source?


You said "that the land is disproportionate because farmers tend to own more land than city dwellers"...You do know that Africans have been in Africa for thousands of years so they pretty much know how to grow food. 

Mixed race people are likely to be farmers which makes them tending to own more land.

Nope, I'm judging the character of the group rather than judging the group by their identity.
You shouldn't judge on character of the group because exceptions apply.  People are individuals.

Yet again, your hypocrisy is shining through because this is exactly what white people have done for hundreds of years.

The BoP is on you.  You try below to provide it but I'll get to it.

You said that "anyone who murders someone should get life in prison or the death penalty." You're being a hypocrite once again.
Since I have not murdered, I am not a hypocrite because of it.

You also boasted about the West having the best Human Rights, but we see  innocent black people getting murdered by racist cops.

Such examples are extremely rare, and aren't justification as to why the whole ethnic group ought to be deported.

Well, since you spoke so highly of the Bible, why don't we follow what the Bible actually says? The scriptures state that "you will be judged by the sins of your forefathers." Well...…
You brought up religion in your intro.

Inheritance allows one to reap economic benefits, while abstaining from any social rewards or punishments

...Slavery started with the taking of males...So, how is that not breaking up families? I'll wait...….
Either they took the whole family or the family was broken up by African slave owners.

Yep..  By the way; families were separated during American slavery if you didn't know.

Most whites didn't participate in this horrible act.
Round 4
Published:
In conclusion,  There's one fact that no one can refute and it's that foreigners want Africa's natural resources. Every other race try's to speak negatively about Africa, but you know what...………..Every other race can't seem to stay out of Africa. 

Since this is the conclusion, I'm proving to the viewers how my opponent (illogically) thinks.

My opponent has made every excuse in the book to why foreigners shouldn't be kicked out because he comes from the race of people who's frauding the most. As the old saying goes, "a fish doesn't know that he's in water." 

This is the same guy that didn't believe that Egyptians are black... He also preached about the Bible, but didn't even know that the Bible specifically says that Egyptians are black....He could argue against the Bible, but then I would've presented authentic artifacts. He probably doesn't even know that a lot of those artifacts are generating millions of dollars in European museums, which is why Europeans refuse to return what was stolen.  

This is the same guy who said that America isn't Pagan anymore, but he hasn't even realized that he celebrates Pagan holidays every year...Wow!

The same guy who's quoting MLK word for word, but it was his race of people who killed him...The same guy who's babbling about statistical numbers on population and costs of deportation after I told him that this was a hypothetical idea/solution.

The same guy who hasn't realized that some questions are rhetorical  and doesn't actually require an obvious answer...He asked "if Africa is so rich, then why doesn't Africa use the resources?"....Well, that's pretty much why I created this debate.

For Example: Did you know that you can do many things with cobalt? Did you know that 60% of cobalt comes from the Congo (Africa)? Five to ten grams of cobalt is used in smartphones & one ounce is used in lap tops...Did you know that 90% of China's cobalt doesn't even come from China? 

For Example: Ever heard of De Beers Diamonds? Did you know that De Beers gets about 90% of diamonds from Africa?
Do You See Where I'm Going With This?

All of the other nonsense ain't worth addressing, but at least South Africa has put the process of removing the invaders from their land.

Thanks

Published:
There's one fact that no one can refute and it's that foreigners want Africa's natural resources. 
Moving the goalposts.

Every other race try's to speak negatively about Africa, but you know what...………..Every other race can't seem to stay out of Africa. 
You have yet to state what is wrong with there being non Africans in Africa.  This may be a slippery slop argument, but if you aren't allowed to be in Africa if you aren't African, does that mean that only Zulus for example would be allowed in Zulu territory, or that only members of certain Zulu villages can be in that village?  If so, then your proposal eliminates trade opportunities with the greater world, if people can't freely move within their own country.  If not, it's kindof hypocritical unless you support open borders for everyone living in South African territory (I'm assuming your from South Africa).

This is the same guy who said that America isn't Pagan anymore, but he hasn't even realized that he celebrates Pagan holidays every year...Wow!
Off topic.  Even if the west hangs on to some pagan traditions, how is this a justified reason for deportation?

The same guy who's quoting MLK word for word, but it was his race of people who killed him.
Your race has done some pretty bad stuff too.  If we judge people by their group identity, then everyone is a criminal.  Everyone is a murderer.  Everyone is a rapist.  Everyone is a convicted felon.  However, if we judge people as individuals, then only murderers are murderers, only rapists are rapists, and only felons are felons.  Which seems like the better option for all of society?  To put them in all for jail for being the same race of a murderer, or even to kill them if you believe in capitol punishment, therefore destroying all of your country's population since they would have all been executed, or to only jail and kill the individuals that deserve it?  I would support individual justice over group justice/social justice and so should you.

The same guy who's babbling about statistical numbers on population and costs of deportation after I told him that this was a hypothetical idea/solution.
You want to make deporting non Africans a reality.

He asked "if Africa is so rich, then why doesn't Africa use the resources?"
They can.  They aren't under western rule anymore.  They anted independence, they got it.  Now they shouldn't blame western governments for their own problems.

All of the other nonsense ain't worth addressing, but at least South Africa has put the process of removing the invaders from their land.
Hopefully, they learn from Zimbabwe, which did that and now has a wrecked economy.  

Added:
The hypocrisy is the comment section is unreal.
Instigator
#47
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Yeah I don't think taking land away from people based on their race is good. It's textbook racism.
#46
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
It's basically taking land away from people of the wrong skin pigment... This includes vital farm land, without any skilled managers to replace them.
For a recent example: https://www.dw.com/en/zimbabwe-between-land-ownership-and-food-security/a-49056618
#45
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I don't know enough about Zimbabwe's land redistribution to debate about it. Maybe that's even a good idea. What I'm against is deporting all non-Africans from Africa.
#44
Added:
--> @TheAtheist, @mairj23
A decent topic might be "Zimbabwe: land redistribution is a good policy"
#43
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Just come up with a similar topic. I don't want to use the same title for the second debate.
Instigator
#42
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: TheAtheist // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: Pro's argument was flawed and was essentially removing all non-blacks from Africa.
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#41
Added:
--> @mairj23
Yeah, I’m ready. You can make the debate and challenge me.
#40
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Yeah, that's cool. Whenever you get ready, just let me know.
Instigator
#39
Added:
--> @mairj23
Could we have a debate on the same topic? I’d like do give some of my own arguments and hopefully change your mind.
#38
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Ok, I see what you're saying.
Instigator
#37
Added:
--> @Alec
Ok, Thanks man.
Instigator
#36
Added:
--> @mairj23
A debate I suggest studying is "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866)
While that debate was [no comment], the extreme scale of the proposal is similar. Note the big areas pro focused on in R1: Justification, followed immediately by Practicality.
#35
Added:
--> @Alec
ayyyyy, Milo, he got censored
#34
Added:
I'm in R3, and a debate this length should not take this long to read. For future debates, please use better organization: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
#33
#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:
Pro has the burden proof here. To start off with pro doesn’t really define the terms. He uses the word invaders, and foreigners interchangeably, and is using definitions more on the grounds of being emotive than to elaborate on what he means. Con picks this up.
I’m going to analyze this purely in terms of harms.
Pro argues that there is no benefit of having foreigners present. This is not in itself a reason to deport them.
Cons primary harm shown (appeal to fairness is not imo a harm, nor is whataboutism), is mostly arguing that it would constitute breaking 2 million families that themselves did nothing wrong.
Pro continues with exploring some of the unfairness in South Africa specifically, but doesn’t really link this to any benefit of
Deporting foreigners. At best it’s implicit. Talking about historical wrongs and murders is largely non-topical. It all could be true but wouldn’t change whether or not it’s better to deport non whites.
In his response; con goes back and forth on the irrelevant tangents pro raised.
However, con does point out that it is unfair for punishment to be levied on individuals just because they’re the same race. This is a follow on from his initial harm.
In round 3/4/5, pro and con both continue with the points that neither show harm in allowing foreigners to remain, or benefit in departing them. Rehashing grievance is not a harm, and going back and forward debating the harms of colonialism or deportating black people from the US is meaningless.
It all boils down to one harm on each side. Pro argues that effectively removing foreigners will give resources to black people, con argues that’s wrong because they haven’t done anything wrong themselves.
While I’m sympathetic to the overall inequality and colonial repercussion: pro clearly opts for an extreme solution, which seems to be on balance harmful.
Pro and con spent the overwhelming majority of the debate arguing about unrelated and non topical points, imo, and as such, I have maybe two reasonable sentences that really were relevant in the decision. However, cons argument was more intuitive, more objective and more quantifiable - and as such I must award him arguments
#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:
Pro's main arguments:
1. Missionaries and invaders are spreading diseases, raping, killing, and ruling most of the country.
Con's Response: modern statistics against all above claims.
2. The crimes of the past and of individuals condemns all whites.
Con's Response: Extends logic to make all races rapists and murderers.
3, Europeans have no genetic diversity.
Con's Response: shows diversity of different Europeans. (Note: Phenotypes are the expressions of genotypes. If people look different, they have genetic diversity. There is a HUGE difference between Irish, Italian, and Russian Europeans.)
Argument of Con: Countries with more whites have a higher GDP. Pro does not refute this as far as I can tell.
imo, arguments to Con.
(Note: "If you don't have a problem with benefiting from what your race did, then you shouldn't have a problem with accepting the crimes."
This was a comment Pro made in an attack against whites for having slaves over a hundred years ago. The obvious problem with this is that the native tribes of Africa fought and enslaved each other.)
Pro was literally racist the whole time.
"[Whites] are simply struggling to reproduce."
"you people have reverted back to "Dark Age" behavior....not that you ever stopped"
"whites do not practice what they preach"
Conduct to Con
#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:
Context plays a crucial role in interpreting debates. The resolution is technically true, if there’s people invading Africa right now (or anywhere else), they should be removed. However, this is not what the arguments proved to be about.
Gist:
Pro never attains BoP to show an actual benefit even for people who would be living in the content of African after all the human rights violations (their loved ones being kidnapped and deported, and a bunch of strangers who have just been kidnapped and imported from the rest of the world suddenly showing up). Nor even that there are any active invasions.
1. Tourists
I think this was pro trying to show a problem, which is vital for a problem needing to be solved.
Pro argues that Africans should get rid of any tourists (anyone visiting but not born in Africa) because such people are not contributing, they bring no money or other “tangibles” with them.
Con ties this back to the resolution by suggesting the related word of invader was intended, and showed the low likelihood of undocumented invasions happening right now; so turn suggested the word “occupier,” but then suggested that isn’t an active problem right now (at least not from those outside of Africa itself).
Con protests that he never mentioned skin color: “No, I never said anything about disliking someone's skin color. ... Yes, deporting people who live in Africa that aren't Black is exactly what I'm saying.” He then insists any black individuals living (and likely native) in places outside Africa, should be forced to relocate (kidnapped?) to Africa... Con goes on to make various racist Gish Gallops, including against blacks (apparently they breed like rabbits and will be too busy doing that to have any emotion about deported family members...).
2. Human Rights
Con interprets that pro wishes to deport people not based on if they were born in Africa, but instead based on if they have certain skin colors. He wisely used MLK as a source for authority against this racism. Mention of gay murders and acid attacks with the assertion of them being no problem (or less of a problem?) in South Africa where the European cultural influence is stronger.
The source on Cannibalism was from a /questionable/ site to say the least. Please don’t pull that ever again.
3. Rwandan genocide
Brief mention by pro, along with the UN stopping it. I expected con to do lovely things with this thread, given the history that lead to this, but the point was dropped leaving it actually in con’s favor...
4. Burden of Proof
Glad someone brought this up early... It gets the heart of what was missing across very well.
5. Vampires
Awesome. I wish pro was correct on this, and I am quite uncertain why con would want to refute it.
6. Egypt
I haven’t a clue why this kept coming up. Assuming pro is correct about people being that bad at geography, where was this point supposed to lead? The AND is missing.
7. Unification
One asserts that it is bad, the other that it is good. Strangely the person asserting that it is bad, is the one who wants to unify Africa by getting rid of anyone not pure enough...
8. Pagan Holidays
Not sure what this has to do with the debate.
9. Zimbabwe
Con brought this up in the final round, it would have been a seriously powerful point any time earlier in the debate, as it shows the damage done by the same brand of racism to which pro subscribes.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Pro did not prove a benefit to the proposal, and con proved massive harm.
Sources: tied
Both sides executed this poorly. Once when pro was trying to spam some quick links, he included one on Africans committing human rights violations as proof of African society being better than the oppressive rest of the world. Con used a source to which the website used a modified swastika for its icon...
Conduct: con
Pro accuses con of having personally murdered hundreds or thousands of people: “So, you being a part of the most genocidal group of people in history is trying to school me on human rights?”
I am trying to make sense of it in my head, but I think it goes back to the vampire point (did con could serve under Hernán Cortés? ... Or using the genocides listed in the debate, most happened so long ago that con is unlikely to be alive if human after partaking; the most brutal of these being the Rwandan, which was carried out by black people in the name of race against black people).
Pro even turned R4 into a string of Ad Hominems (earlier he was at least directing his attention to arguments, rather than the person making them).
The worst action of con was a certain link, which was in all likelihood accidental (and as he was not making the claims of that site, it goes to affect the reliability of sources, rather than his own conduct).