Total votes: 63
I must say: each side put forth equally convincing arguments. I simply cannot decide which was better. Tie!
Conceded, so giving arguments and sources to Con.
I personally think it is bad conduct to excite an opponent with a fun topic and then concede. Con built up a good case, the least you can do is give them a proper counterargument, even if you think you are going to lose.
R1
Pro: Mentions that multicultural societies are rife with racial conflict, which seems to be true currently. Says your success in America is due solely to your race, which isn't substantiated by a source. Says every race will do fine when back in their homeland without substantiating this either.
Con: Points out large burden of proof for Pro. Points out that there is a lot of cons such as economic hardship resulting from this separation and that Pro must prove that a potential reduction in racial violence and treachery will outweigh this. Points out that genocide still occurs within the same race and that refugees might not be welcome abroad. Points out issue of mixed race individuals.
Result: Con's arguments were more well-thought-out and pointed out many holes in Pro's argument. Winner: Con
R2
Pro: Mentions that unarmed black men have been killed by White policemen. Says they are countless in number, but provides no source giving any estimate. But it is assumed that separation would prevent these deaths. Mentions sexuality of the groups for some odd reason, but doesn't prove Antifa is heterosexual or all white males (I highly doubt Antifa is mainly heterosexual, but I digress >:D ). Also says BLM is nonviolent without a source. Brings up how most violence is monoracial. Says Jews aren't accepted because they aren't ancestors of that region. Now saying chosen identity is where you get to go, but says Hispanics identify as Caucasian. (Would Hispanics go to Europe then?) Tries to connect White people wanting segregation to Con. Says White people call the police on black people, doesn't substantiate.
Con: Con points out that Pro said most crime is monoracial, which defeats his point of separating races having a good outcome for that race. Points out that Jewish people had lived in the Middle East and that issues were caused by this movement to their homeland. Points out that Pro hasn't given any logistics. Points out the obvious loophole that self-identification of ancestry lets you go whereever you want.
Result: Con used the monoracial crime point against Pro, points out unwelcome regression with Israel, and points out that mixed race people are a hole in the plan. The only point of Pro not touched was unarmed black men getting killed by cops. Since no ssource was provided nor was a number provided, this loses weight. Con wins.
R3
Pro: Says Europeans have gone to war with each other, essentially bringing up the same, now debunked point from last round. Says Neanderthals starved to death and actually provides a source this time (Good job, bud!). Says current "Jews" aren't Hebrews endemic to the Israel region. Gave a quote from a UAE president talking about the skin color of Jews, saying perhaps these are different Jews.
Con: Again says that European wars prove that separation won't prevent anything from happening. Doesn't prove Jews are same Jews as before, but points out the self-identification loophole that was never debunked. Calls out obvious Gish Gallop. Pro dropped mixed race argument. Neanderthals still didn't die without human involvement.
Result: Con wins again (I am noticing a trend here). Only lasting point from Pro was the color of Jews' skin, but the loophole defeated this. Neanderthal source didn't prove they died off from cannibalism. Gish Gallop doesn't need to be answered. Monoracial violence still an issue.
R4
Pro: Tries to bring up starvation cases around the world. I'm not sure what this has to do with racial violence anymore. Still sticking with the Jew claim with nothing other than a quote from an Arab president- still doesn't surpass the self-identification loophole. He even mentions picking what you feel more comfortable with in the very same argument.
Con: Rwanda point, Neanderthal point, Israel point (not working peacefully), mixed race point never adequately solved by Pro.
Result: Con wins. All points above uncontested, equalling a win.
Sources:
Pro: a quote and a source that was used against him. He misrepresented the message of the neandethal source.
Con: Harvard and Psychology Today were better sources. Adequately cited Rational Wiki.
Result: Con used more authoritative sources and cited them correctly. Con gets points.
Spelling and Grammar:
You both did well. Tie.
Conduct:
Pro: assumed Pro's race and projected desires of pushing segregation based on this fact. Also, Gish Galloping is rude.
Con: Dealt with the racist accusations professionally.
Result: Con gets the point
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Full forfeit. Atrocious conduct on Con's part.
Full forfeit is bad conduct. Also, pro gets no points for plagiarized arguments.
Forfeiting half of the debate is an excellent example of poor conduct.
Full forfeit. Noice
That's a full forfeit, if I've ever seen one.
Full Forfeit. You got him good.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfff
Full forfeit. Another debater falls victim to the almighty.....TREEEEEENNNNTTTT
Concessiononononononon
Good job, good effort.
He mention me, and it made me happy! ^_^
Oh yeah, Pro also conceded.
Ragnar said I could.
Cool beans. FF
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Concession. Wowza
R1:
Paul: says what some other countries do. Actually mentioned some good examples of responsible people having AR-15's in Switzerland. I'm assuming these are people, so the "no one" claim makes no sense. Made general claim about society not benefiting without saying why.
Nihilist: Gave good points about the military servicemen needing it to defend us. Private individuals can need it to defend themselves. Constitution defends this right.
Nihilist wins.
R2:
Paul: Says the AR-15 is dangerous. Kinda the point of a weapon......
Nihilist: Debunks claim about being able to fire semi-auto weapons like full auto. I wasn't really sure about that point because Paul's made no sense. Also refuted claim that our ammo is the same as military rounds.
For actually addressing the other side's points and being coherent, I give the round to Nihilist.
R3:
Paul: Talks about not having full-auto snipers. Doesn't seem to have an argument about not needing an AR-15.
Nihilist: Rightfully pissed by Paul ignoring his points. I share this same anger for wasting 10 minutes of my life voting and reading this.
Round: tie. Neither brought any pertinent points to the table.
Arguments: Nihilist
Sources: No empirical data could really be used in this debate. Paul used Quora and YouTube. Not reliable. Nihilist used Youtube and a site with ammo. The ammo site was used to refute a blatant lie by Pro, so sources go to Nihilist.
Spelling and Grammar: Just about had an aneurysm reading Paul's points. Nihilist was articulate. Nihilist gets these points.
Conduct: Paul wasted everyone's time by not really arguing his side. Nihilist didn't use his last round. Let's call it a tie.
They conceded.
I believe we do need to change the second amendment. I want a Harrier jet with heat-seeking missiles!
I am only voting because it was a forfeit. Normal votes take too long.
Con made me do this!!!
Con made some pretty good points, but Trent's lion picture is pretty neat.
FoRfEiT? REREREREEEEEEE
Billbatard DESTROYED with LOGIC and FACTS!
Full forfeit. What a pity.
He knew he couldn't beat the legend, so he got himself banned to cover up the forfeit. Conspiracy.
El Fullo Forfeito.
Pro done goofed.
FF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Scared him off. NOICE!
Forfeited less. Well done.
FoRfEiT
Ragnar completely disproved Pro's case by providing a link to debate in which he did vote for him. Also no arguments for the "personal" point. Without any refutation, arguments must go to CON.
Links to voting history disprove that he isn't vote bombing or making it personal. CON actually gave sources to prove his point. Sources go to CON.
I could understand what both were saying. Tie on spelling and grammar.
Callout debate and then didn't even argue. Wasted CON's time, who actually went to the trouble to make points. CON gets conduct points.
Half forfeit. How rude!
RFD in comments
FF. Cats are trash, anyway.
Good job, my boy. He must have seen the Almighty Trent and decided debate was futile.
Full forfeit.
Not my favorite choices from the franchise, but Dark Souls OSTs always deserve the win.
FF
Here is a turtle for some reason ,=,e
Concession.... -_-
Another Full Forfeit. Hmmmm......
Concession. BOOO!!!