Instigator / Pro
10
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Topic
#975

Africa & Why All Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed Immediately

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

Alec
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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).