It's not necessarily wrong to be against dating and marrying outside the tribe or "race".
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 22,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
If you're against or refuse to do what is called intermarrying or just plain anti-miscegenation , no need to have anything bad there .
If you see this as controversial, please participate, offering your thoughts, points and food for thought.
Questions and more, please drop a comment or send a message.
I think its very controversial mall. I know for a fact its racist to necessitate someone being the same race as you to date them, its hard to articulate why i feel that's wrong though. As its much deeper than it appears on the surface.
It doesn't matter the rules except for just proving the point.
Do I have any takers?
I'm starting to think this is a non controversial topic.
Mall has never posted a single source in his entire time debating, I believe.
Can we agree to:
1. no sources
2. 100% theory
3. 50/50 BoP
?
Yes, the Con side stance is about it being wrong to oppose outright.
So, just to be clear, for con, that means the person believes that yes, it is wrong for someone to be against dating outside their race or tribe?