From looking through some of your previous post and a past debate, I think you have a well intention but misguided stance to deal with racism and in fact your position only unintentionally spurs on more racism. First round for acceptance the rest for argument.
First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting, now, to get on to my argument. It is obvious you have a very firm anti-racist stance; I believe that is both good and bad. Good in that you only look at people's characters when judging them yet, bad in that you seem to feel the need to exterminate racism in its entirety. This will never happen and it is only self-defeating to try. The best we can hope for is a world in which people's racist ideals do not interfere with the lives of others yet these very same disgusting ideal will never go away as humans are individuals with their own thoughts an come to their own conclusions about things. By trying to force others not to be racists you are only spurring them on. From other websites I have browsed, such as stormfront.org, these people seem to have a paranoid mentality that everyone around them is trying to destroy their race. This is of course nonsense but, when legislation is passed such as preventing people from refusing service to people of different races, this behavior which was suppose to lessen racism, has actually increased it. They feel and rightfully so that no one should be able to tell them how to run their business. One can hope that the people around them would not want to go to a racist establishment, they loss business, and change on their own but, if they don't and people still see fit to go there no one should shut the business down. So long as no one is murdering anyone or assaulting them verbally or physically, I believe it is best to leave them with their racist ideals. Then hopefully, their children will see it for the garbage it is and not take up such beliefs.
The debate topic limits the argument to contemporary racism. For this purpose, I have provided statistics indicating the growing success of the campaign to fight bigotry associated with racial heterogeneity. This evidence will prove conclusively that the only acceptable attitude toward racism is a declaration of all out war.
Between 2006 and 2010, the GALLUP polls showed a significant increase of 5% in the societal acceptance of interracial marriage.
The statistics indicate that 84% of white Americans approve of interracial relationships.
It should be noted that an incredible 96% of black Americans approve of interracial relationships, which is an increase of over 11% in less than 4 years.
In 2002, almost 33% of Americans opposed the union of mixed couples. Within five years, that percentage dropped down to 17%.
The campaign against racism is pervasive and aggressive. The American justice system is proactively legislating to advance the cause for racial equality.
The battle against racism has become so powerful, that white supremacy groups often encounter violent opposition during public rallies. This is a modern phenomenon and accurately reflects the mind-set of the modern American.
Racism is being rooted out. While it may never be entirely successful, I believe it is incorrect to claim that "Anti-racists are fueling racism today".
Well now, that certainly is an impressive bit of information and very comforting. But, not really what I meant. I should have been more specific. You, see I believe Pro takes an over zealous approach to fighting racism that to some and mostly probably many would seem as anti-white. Now, I am sure pro is not anti-white or hates being white, but, from my searches on stormfront and youtube, these racial realist or white nationalist or whatever you want to call them only get spurred on by approaches like his. A common quote I see them spam is "Anti-racist is a code for anti-white." As I mentioned above I believe these people to be extremely paranoid in that they see anything that might possible help non-whites or potentially detract something from whites unintentionally, as a deliberate attack on them for being white. These kind of people are whom I was referring to. Calling out every little stupid racist joke (as in pros last debate) only spurs them on. As long as people take those things seriously and treat them like full on hate crimes the "racial realists" will just increase in number. In this way does anti-racism fuel the very racism it sets out to destroy. Thank you.
My opponent wasted his round with speculative rhetoric. Please take note that my opponent did not offer a single source to refute my argument. I would also like to point out, that my opponent insinuates that I am a self-hating Caucasian. I would ask my opponent to explain his profile name. It seems he is self-saturated in the stigma of "light-skinned" is better that "dark-skinned".
See sources (Included are statistical and cultural references):
My opponent lacks an argument. He accuses me of being a zealot, yet his entire argument is based on emotional appeal. I admit to arguing with passion but that is not a measure of merit or demerit when debating. It has no bearing on the topic. I also don't hate my own race. I am proactive in the repair of the damage it's caused.
I refuse to be the "everything is fine" ostrich. Head in the sand, rear-end sticking exposed. I challenge my opponent to bring some real competition next round. Where is your data?
First off, I did not state that con was a self-hating Caucasian, I explicitly stated he was not, but that racists would refer to him a such. It seems that con is the one implying that I am a self-hater. My profile name has nothing to do with me thinking I am better than dark-skinned people, it is just a simple description of myself based on how others have described me, without me even bringing it up. I never stated that con should be the "everything is fine ostrich", simply that there is no need to overreact to every single racist joke that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Honestly though, I no longer understand why I asked con to the debate in the first place.
Reasons for voting decision: This was a wasted debate on a possibly useful subject - can activism against racism (or pro-feminism, pro-choice, etc.) in fact help motivate the other side to "do battle," as it were. There is evidence that it can happen, and more good than harm is caused by too much activism. But pro didn't say anything like this, in fact failed to produce a single coherent point so 0 points seems perfect right now for him.
Reasons for voting decision: Well it didn't seem that Pro had a solid idea of what he wanted to debate. Con also destroyed Pro with his inclusion of statistics SPECIFICALLY refuting what we assume Pro's position was. In addition, Pro's user name did NOT help and will not help in any further debates on racism. In fact, when i first read the user name, Pro totally lost all credibility when speaking on 'racism'.
Reasons for voting decision: I give Con the arg. points only because of the fact that he refuted, and provided positive evidence, whereas Pro neither supported his position nor effectively refuted Con's case. Not only that, but all evidence was anecdotal on his part--sources to Con, too.