Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed From Africa
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
This is a continuation of mairj23's debate "Africa & Why All Foreign Invaders Should Be Removed Immediately"
(https://www.debateart.com/debates/975).
No personal attacks or accusations of racism from both sides. Saying "What you're proposing is racist" is okay, calling another person racist (personal attack) isn't. Stay civil.
If you wish to provide statistics or quotes, cite your sources.
The first rule of this debate is that no labelling of people as racist.
Con then starts the debate by labelling pro as racist - makes his second round about labelling pro racist, continuing onto the third, almost all of the fourth, and touches upon this in the fifth.
In fact; 80% of cons part of this debate consist of con arguing pro was a racist.
I’m not going to address the comments con is arguing pro made; any of the racism claims, or irrelevant side tracks such as why not deport Africans from Europe (why not?) as I don’t find these relevant to the resolution in the slightest.
Given all this, con offers almost no argument to contest why whites should not be deported. Other than touching upon it being unfair to those who are there now and haven’t done anything wrong.
Pros opening round spelt out the damage being done by western corporations and resource companies, and that whites and their descendent in general have come to steal their resources in the past.
Pros position appears to be an appeal to give the stolen land and resources back to their original owners.
This RfD was far shorter than I had expected it to be, just because con really does not offer anything close to a substantial case and mostly glosses over the issues pro raises.
I’m faced with a flood of information about everything that was stolen, and resources being exploited - and a half hearted appeal to fairness - that even though land, businesses, etc, may potentially have been acquired by genocide, brutality, colonialism, etc - that generations today should not give it back because It’s theirs now.
Pros justification was a bit flaky; he could have really hammered the point home, by addressing this issue head on (like the case of Nazi art and Gold, for example); but chose to mostly argue over con.
Given that neither side compares their harms, or gives me a value: I’m forced to weigh the impacts myself: and in this regard, con does much better quantifying the extent of the issue, and arguing how much has been lost to theft or brutality, than pro does simply appealing to fairness, with an abstract, rather than concrete numerical harm
Pros position is on very shaky ground, but cons argument was a half hearted attempt to appeal to this fairness; and repeated attempts to label pro as racist lost this one.
As a result therefore, arguments to pros
Conduct to pro also due to cons repeated rule breaking of “labelling racist”, as noted at the top of this RfD.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFY-LuLlhU08ws4Ar6sdAgUewikeYXmtCaYZiw98tSw/edit?usp=sharing
South Africa is true, but still cite your sources.
I hear ya man. I didn't think I needed to site S. Africa since it's been all over the news in the past year, but I hear ya.
You need to cite your sources if you make a claim. Otherwise voters won't vote for you. And you will also lose points for bad conduct (not following rules of debate).
You said that it doesn't matter what DebateArt said and that I have to follow the rules of the debate? At the same time, I'm actually following the rules of the debate in which it says "debaters can choose to use links if they want to."
I'm not demanding an argument from you. But if you signed up for a debate, please be so kind and post your arguments or you will lose.
What things did I say we should apply these criteria to? What are you talking abot?
So we should only apply criteria to the things that you say we can apply criteria to.
Are you actually Kim Yong-un?
And by the time you have read this I will have posted the argument that you're demanding, oh supreme leader.
Well it doesn't matter what DebateArt said, you have to follow the rules of the debate or it's bad conduct.
Yeah, I'd like to have another round. Maybe in a few days, I have other debates to finish.
If you'd like, we can always go another round but we would need to agree on a topic. The ball's in your court.
Yes, I'm right & I'm pretty sure you've done the research on what I've said. I'm referring to South Africa with the 90% statement. I didn't go through the rules fully but I thought that DebateArt said that debaters can choose to use sources if they want to.
Whether what you said was true or not doesn't matter. The rules of this debate were: you have to provide sources for claims. You haven't provided any sources for the claim that non-blacks own 90% of all land and wealth in Africa.
Are you mentally and/or physically disabled? Do you know what a source is? Do you know what citing your sources is? You can't just make up claims and then tell your opponent to google them when your bullsh*t is being called out.
You're on a computer as we speak so why not type South African Farmers into a search bar?
Should I just use https:www.southafricanfarmers.com?
I agree 1,000%.
We shouldn't aply these criteria to any nation-state. And when are you going to post your argument for our debate about the Christian God?
Do you know what a source is? A credible link. You broke the rules.
Now you're just resorting to ad hominems. Saying that I'm too obsessed with winning debates is bad conduct. My conduct has been awful? Somehow, me calling you out on your bullsh*t is bad conduct? You're the one who didn't follow the rules of the debate.
All non First Nations people should be removed from North America.
All people of Hispanic/Portuguese decent should be removed from South America.
All non Aboriginals should be removed from Australia.
How many modern Nation States could we apply these criteria to?
You're too obsessed with trying to win debates. From what I've seen, most people just read the debates, but never vote. Your conduct has been awful especially when your arguments were getting shutdown.
South African Farmers is the source. The arrest records, crimes etc., is right there.
Dude, what else do you want me to do?
Pro has violated the rules of this debate. The rules say that "If you wish to provide statistics or quotes, cite your sources". Con has claimed that 90% of ALL African land & money is owned by non-blacks, and then outright refused to provide a source for that claim. For this reason, vote for Con when voting for conduct.
"I gave him the actual arrest records."
Arrest records? What arrest records? You don't have a single source in any of your arguments!
That's because black people aren't immigrants to America unlike the foreigners who chose to live in Africa.
I know..Im playing marjis game
Pro is a hypocrite. According to his own logic, since black people have commited crimes in America, he is a criminal and should be deported to Africa. Wonder why he doesn't leave America and move back to Africa, though?
My bad.
I never said that you did. I was talking to Dr Franklin.
Are you going to answer the question?
I never said that skin color determines who's most likely to commit crimes.
That's not because they are black, though. Skin color doesn't make you more likely to commit crimes.
"My opponent says that because SOME white people were racist to SOME white people in the past"
I made a typo. The second "white people" should be changed to "black people".
Ok so accept the fact that more blacks=more crime. Im not racist. Its truth.
"Truth isn't necessarily racism."
But what you're saying is not true.
So what? Just because you're a descendant doesn't mean you built anything yourself.
Truth isn't necessarily racism. Is it mentally disturbing for someone to walk in a school and open fire? Is it mentally disturbing for someone to hang someone and burn them alive? Is it mentally disturbing for someone to get fired from a job, then go back to the job and open fire?
Just think about, either way you answer the question, you'll still prove my point.
But I'm a descendant of them.
You ARE RASCIST.
"Trying to understand these people is beyond comprehension because the majority of them are mentally disturbed to a degree. Is there some kind of mental imbalance that makes white males so evil or is it sheer stupidity of their intelligence...or lack thereof?"
"Murder, theft, ponzi schemes, larceny, sexual abuse, pedophilia, hate crimes, perjury etc...equals the white male."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/961
You weren't one of them.
Would that be the American economy that black people built? Lol
Exactly! Aren't you using the American economy to further yourself? Why don't you follow your logic and return to Africa?
I barely get emotional. I'm basically calling you a hypocrite. If you want non natives to get forcefully relocated back to their home continent, you should lead by example.
Are you getting emotional because your lack of arguments are getting crushed?
Lead by example and get out of Florida.
I don't have the power. If I had the power, then I'd make sure that everyone is out of here.
If your from Florida, your black and you want anyone who isn't native to America to be deported to their homeland, why aren't you leading by example?
What lie? Native Hispanics aren't deported. Only those who illegally immigrated are deported. Those whose grandparents or ancestors did so aren't.
Who told you that lie? Hispanics have been immigrating to America since Fidel Castro began his reign whether it's through the southern border or just south of Florida from the islands. I'm from Florida and if Cubans, Dominicans etc., reach shore, they weren't deported.
You seem to forget that the southern-border states of the US was actually Mexico, which is North America.
The difference between deporting "Arabs" from North Africa and deporting Hispanics from the U.S. is that Hispanics are immigrating NOW. The Arab conquest of Egypt, Morocco, etc., took place long ago, and the "Arab" inhabitants are now just as much African as the Hispanics in South and Central America are native to their own countries.