Removing Hateful Statues/False Images Isn't Enough. Every Race Should Separate and & Live Amongst Themselves On Their Indigenous Land

Argument: Pro offered the seeds of his own failure in the very first sentence of the Description: "I've found the solution to society's problems," but Pro's arguments through all four rounds fought against having to demonstrate how the solution is implemented; a feature of argument Con presented in all four rounds. Merely stating the solution, i.e. separation of races, a logistic demands expression. Pro failed to offer it. By contrast, Con, recognizing the necessity, demonstrated by thoughtful argument how the logistics become uncompromisingly difficult to impossible. For example: the discussion of Con's girlfriend, a mixed ethno-racial identity, which the U.S. Census acknowledges, and must, therefore be a considered factor, chooses to live in a region incompatible with either of Pro's segregated territories. And therein is a further failure of Pro's proposed "solution:" the removal of choice. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered two sources in the entire debate, both in r3. The first, re: Neanderthals, was off-topic, describing a cultural phenomenon entirely void of relevance to the debate, and an opinion by an Arab about Jews. Not an academically sound argument as a source. Con offered sources relevant to his arguments, such as Con's r1 argument re: his girlfriend, who's mixed condition is supported by a relevant data source. Points to Con.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro's r4 intro: "My opponent, Con, has brought absolutely nothing to the table in this one-sided debate," not to mention Pro's r3 "Let's Look at my opponents ...ignorance and lies," contribute nothing to the debate, and demonstrate Pro's disdain for his competitor. Pro lost this point.

Note: My best judgement of the debate is that citing Like a Boss automatically makes Con the winner of this debate. Best part of the whole thing, perfect comparison, deserves all the points. That being said, I'll give a brief RFD that involves less... awesome... analysis.

I could pick virtually any point Con makes and vote based on it, so I'll go through three.

On Israel... wow. Just... wow. Pro, you need to seriously rethink your opinions regarding Jews and Judaism. However, even if I bought your argument, your points only dig you deeper into troubled territory. The whole point was that living separately from the Arab cultures surrounding them proved impossible and resulted in clear and evident conflict. Your responses bite other arguments, but never really address that central reasoning. Hence, your argument that separation would result in some kind of utopia where terrible things don't happen is problematic.

I really don't get Pro's response to logistics. I understand that "should" can allow us to bypass questions of whether something is feasible, but it doesn't erase the harms of implementation, and Pro's unwillingness to address that his system would require a mass, forced export of people from innumerable countries back to other countries where they a) may have never lived, b) that may not have any opportunities for them, c) that may speak a different language than the one(s) they speak, and d) be required to shed themselves of and acquire brand new citizenship (this is a short list - there are so many other problems to overcome) is problematic at best. It looks as though this would cause incredible harm to make it possible. You can't just handwave that way. Even if you could, Con has a point: if we're talking about magical worlds where anything is possible, his solves all the problems better.

Finally, the mixed ethnicity problem stands. Either people get to identify as a portion of their racial profile based entirely on preference, which invalidates much of Pro's solvency, or people with mixed ethnicity get assorted by some unknown body, resulting in a system that allows the assortment itself to bias what is and is not a person of a given race.

Meanwhile, Pro's arguments are largely built on the following principle: things are bad with mixed race cultures, so let's separate them in the hopes that things will get better. He doesn't examine any circumstances where this worked out, Con analyzes many (Rwanda, Neanderthals) where it doesn't. The whole point falls apart quickly.

All this leaves me with little choice but to vote Con. Pro's implementation makes no sense, his understanding of his own case seems incredibly flawed, and he has not at any point behaved Like a Boss. I also award sources to Con for aforementioned reasons and because he simply understands and cites his history.

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