The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Koopin
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,871 times Debate No: 14173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Rule: To be Con you must fully oppose my position, arguing that both divorce and interracial marriage should be legal.

Reason Applied to Both:

King Henry VIII embarked Britain on a bold social experiment with legalized divorce that eventually spread to her colonies and is now even embraced by most Catholics as acceptable.

This changed the definition of marriage. Traditional marriage was 1 man, 1 woman, same race for life. They changed it then to 1 man, 1 woman, same race for life unless they get a divorce.

Then, centuries down the road in the 1960s with Loving v. Virginia America embarked on a bold social experiment.

Loving changed the definition of marriage to 1 man, 1 woman of any race for life unless divorced.

People back then argued this would be a slippery slope to other deviant forms of sexuality in marriage, such as marrying your dog.

As we can see from recent political developments they're right!

Divorce lead to interracial marriage and then Interracial marriage turned out to open the floodgates for gay marriage, and now there are even people who argue that consentual incest & even incest marriage should be allowed.
http://abcnews.go.com...

People are marrying themselves!
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

People are marrying animals!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Looking at the historical trend with the huge gap of time between the legalization of divorce and the legalization of interracial marriage, and now the short amount of time between the legalization of interracial marriage and the present when the nationwide legalization of gay marriage is nearly inevitable we can expect that these future developments such as incestuous marriage and human-animal marriage will come even faster.

We must arrest and turn back this slippery slope now before it is too late!

A Reason More Specific to Interracial Marriage:

Furthermore, because of white racism opposite-race couples are more likely to be incompatible and get a divorce.

http://isteve.blogspot.com...

It clearly shows the difference in divorce rates is only significant between white/white couples and white/any other race couples. This shows that the main reason for divorce is unconscious racism in the white member of the couple, not necessarily in all divorce cases but in the ones making up the difference between the rates.

It is unfortunate, but because white people are still racist we must ban interracial marriage to lower the divorce rate and protect children from the chaos of divorce.

Banning interracial marriage is the kind, antiracist thing to do, because it protects minorities from having to suffer through a white racism-motivated divorce.

A reason more specific to divorce:

Divorce hurts families. Children need a mom and dad and they need structure. A divorce is very disruptive in the life of a child and can throw them into emotional turmoil. Furthermore it is often only one person in the marriage who wants to get a divorce, which is unfair to the other person who was essentially promised they would be together for life and may be left all alone in sadness and sorrow and possibly financial ruin and poverty as the result of a sudden and unexpected divorce. Marriage should be for life. Many people would argue that many married people don't really belong together, but if it was understood that marriage was for life and was unbreakable then maybe people would be more careful about getting married.
Koopin

Con

===========================================================================

INTRO:
Before we engage in this debate, I would like to first thank my opponent for starting this, and the audience for reading.
I hope we can both enjoy ourselves.
My opponent has asked that whomever CON may be, that he or she opposes the position fully.
I believe you could not find a better CON than me.
I am bi-racial, black and white through marriage.
My Parents were married twenty-one years and had me and three other children before getting a divorce.
I give my opponent permission to argue based on my story if he wishes.
I will not get offended if my opponent chooses.

===========================================================================

DEFINITIONS:

Marriage: The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (1)

Interracial marriage: Interracial marriage occurs when two people of differing racial groups marry. (2)

Divorce: A judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in whole or in part, esp. one that releases the husband and wife from all matrimonial obligations. (3)

ARGUMENT:
Allow me to jump right into this.
If things were going your way, if interracial marriage were illegal, I would not be here to accept this challenge.
As a matter of fact, lots of people would not be here.
If you go back far enough, you will probably find some mixed blood in your genes (though not through marriage, if you know what I mean.)
If things were the way you wanted, Obama, Norah Jones, Greg Louganis, Chuck Norris (yes I said Chuck Norris,) Tiger Woods, and many more would not exist today. (4)
Love is not bound by color as we can see from all the interracial marriages in the United States.
And although I sound cheesy, love follows no rules.
First we must look at the cons of banning interracial marriage.
Then I will cover the divorce subject.

1A. People who are already married.
There are millions of interracial marriages in the United States alone.
If interracial marriage were banned, a countless number of people would have to get divorced.
This is very amusing, since you are the one against divorce.
Families would be torn apart, all because of this law.
Children would have to choose which parent they have to live with, even though they love both.
Your argument fails here, simply because you contradict yourself.

2A. Biracial would be looked down upon.
Biracial children are everywhere.
If the way those children were conceived were illegal, they would obviously be looked down upon.
They would be assumed to be lower than everyone else.
Their self confidence would hit rock bottom.

3A. Biracial children would have to marry biracial children.
The title says it all.
I am Biracial, black and white.
If interracial marriage were illegal I would have to limit myself to marrying a girl who is black and white.
Not black and Asian, not White and Hispanic, simply white and black.
This of course, would limit me extremely.
And if I might add, that would suck.
What if you fell in love with this woman, but then the government found out she had some Cherokee blood in her and banned your marriage?
Again this would not work, which brings me to my third point.

4A. Dating couples.
There are plenty of people who are dating others of a different race.
Many of these people are engaged to be married.
These people would have to give up on their hopes of marriage and abandon their love.
This of course is unethical and simply cruel.

5A. Government.
The government already has enough power.
Giving the government the power to tell a black man he can't marry a white woman is too much.
These rights should belong to the people.
Many of our laws today depend on the peoples votes, such as proposition 19 for marijuana.
The day you show me proof that the majority of people want same race marriage is the day you win this debate. Otherwise, you have nothing.

6A. Human Rights.
The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Here is where your whole argument falls apart.
All people are equal, therefore you cannot label and limit them by their race.
No one can help the way they were born.

Now on the subject of divorce.

1B. Abuse to the spouse.
Millions of people who are married are being abused by their spouses. (5)
It is not fair to tell a woman that she must stay married to her husband who hits her, calls her ugly, spits in her face, ect…

2B. Abuse to the children.
Lots of children are being abused by their parents.
This leads to many divorces.
It would not be right to tell a mother that she must stay married to the man who raped their son.

3B. Money/drugs/alcohol.
Self explanatory.
Who wants to stay married to a spouse that spends all their money on drugs and alcohol.
My parents were in love, my father is white and my mother black.
After years of marriage, my father started to blow all his money instead of buying food or paying rent.
He began to take less and less care of us.
After trying to work it out for years, my mother finally had enough.
We were being kicked out of our home, so we left and started a life of our own. Would you rather us have stayed with my father and live on the streets?
Later on, we had to visit my father.
He punched me in the face, threw me to the ground, then called the police and said I attacked him.
All in front of my frightened little brother.
Would you rather have had our family stay together?

You say that outlawing interracial marriages would lower the divorce rate.
For your "source" you give me a blogger's website that has twelve year old material.
A lot has changed in the past twelve years, and I would appreciate some recent material.
Anyway, the blogger even admits that the difference is not really that big.
For every same race marriage, 3 of 10 people get divorced. For every interracial marriage 4 out of 10 people get divorced.
That one extra person is not enough to start a crazy government take over on marriages.

I also ask that you provide me with up-to-date proof that interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets.

There is much more to say, though I will wait for the next round.

Thank you.

Sources:
(1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.knowledgerush.com...
(5). http://www.professorshouse.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

"If things were going your way, if interracial marriage were illegal, I would not be here to accept this challenge."

And yet because interracial marriage is legal there are lots of other people who aren't here. If interracial marriage was illegal different people would've gotten married and had different kids. These people would not be better or worse people than the people we have now.

But regardless the past is the past. Nobody is saying we should go back in time and replace people. We must consider the welfare of future generations.

"1A. People who are already married."

I said interracial marriage should be banned, not that couples already married should have to get divorced. In fact I think that for those already married it should be illegal for them to get divorced(along with it being illegal for everyone else to get divorced). Proposition 8 in California banned same-sex marriage, but it did not dissolve the marriages already conducted.

2A. Con says if interracial marriage was illegal biracial children would be looked down upon, but then how do people know their parents are of different races and not both biracial themselves?

Furthermore, banning interracial marriage would decrease the number of children born biracial. Biracial children are often the targets of teasing and bullying, and often victims of hate crimes.

3A. Con contends that if interracial marriage is illegal biracial children will have to marry other biracial children. That children are not (though they might be if we allow this marriage-redefinition slippery slope to continue) allowed to marry aside, historically the law did not do this.

The laws banning interracial marriage in America had the 1 drop rule, which treated anyone with even a slight amount of non-white blood as "colored".

Now, I'm not saying we should go back to this policy, but my point is that requiring people to be the same race does not have to be 100% precise in order for it to work.

Rather than going on ancestry, appearance should be considered. The judge will look at the applicants. If their skin color and eye shape is close enough they can get married.

"4A. Dating couples.
There are plenty of people who are dating others of a different race.
Many of these people are engaged to be married.
These people would have to give up on their hopes of marriage and abandon their love.
This of course is unethical and simply cruel."

They would not have to abandon their love, just forgo marriage, similar to how gay people in most of the country right now still stay together even though they aren't allowed to marry.

We could even have interracial civil unions.

5A. Con contends this will give the government too much power and instead the people should decide. I agree, let the people decide. But we are debating whether this policy should be put in place not whether it is feasible to do so immediately. This policy is ultimately for the good of society, so it should be in place, but getting it in place will take work convincing the public just like trying to get any other policy in place.

6A. "All people are equal".
Yes, all people are equal. And banning interracial marriage doesn't change that. Then everyone will have an equal right to get married to someone of the same race.

" therefore you cannot label and limit them by their race."

We label people by other things they do not choose. A person's "sex" has legal significance and is even considered a factor in what positions a person is allowed in the military and in most of the country still what sex(the opposite) someone is allowed to marry.

Furthermore the human rights of the children must be considered. Children born to interracial couples face more racism, bullying, and hate crimes. Their right to a secure ethnic identity should also be respected, because that has implications for self-esteem.

Now on to the arguments about divorce-
Someone who abuses their spouse and their children is mentally ill. It is not their fault. They are sick. Divorce is uncompassionate in this case, because it could lead to them winding up in a number of dire outcomes as the result of their chemical imbalance. By banning divorce we would force families to deal with these problems instead of running away from them.

I am by no means saying a wife who is being beaten should just let her husband keep beating her, but instead of divorce she should get him help. In fact in today's environment it's understandable that people would want to get divorced. But there are policies we could put in place to make any demands for divorce unreasonable. We should pass a law requiring all domestic abusers to be treated at mental health facilities until they are well. In this case it would not only be immoral to get a divorce, but it would harm the healing process. A good wife who understands that her husband was ill and needs to get better would want to visit him once in a while (under supervision) and work with the mental health workers to get him well so they can finally live like a normal family.

This can be applied to the rape example and the drug and alcohol example too. These behaviors are the manifestation of a sick mind that needs help. Even in cases like rape where the spouse should be in for life because of the low chance of rehabilitation and the greater consequences if they were erroneously released then the spouse should remain married and if they really care visit them from time to time in prison. When people get married they say "through sickness and in health". A person who does the things Con listed is sick.

"I also ask that you provide me with up-to-date proof that interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets."

It's obvious if you just look at history. King Henry VIII legalized divorce. Before that the institution of marriage was understood to exclude the possibility of divorce. Then hundreds of years later we legalized interracial marriage. Now, they've legalized same-sex marriage in some states.

This is part of a historical trend to widen the definition of marriage. Why should we assume that after same-sex couples are allowed to marry that it is going to stop? The historical trend is against that. We see a much smaller gap between when people were fighting for interracial marriage to be legal and people fighting for gay marriage to be legal than the gap between King Henry VIII legalizing divorce and people fighting for and winning interracial marriage.

The only way to save us is to turn the clock backwards by banning interracial marriage and banning divorce.

I do not know if marrying your pets will be next, but based on history we know something will.

Currently there are many people making arguments that incest and incest marriage should be legal.

http://www.time.com...

The slippery slope is slipping us towards legalizing and accepting incest marriage right now. The only way to stop this trend is to go back in the opposite direction and restore marriage to its traditional parameters, that is to say no divorce, same race, opposite sex, & no family members.
Koopin

Con

================================================================

INTRO:
Before I start, I would like to ask my opponent to use some sources.
His arguments are nothing if he cannot back them up.
I could say that biracial children live three hundred years longer than the average white child, this does not make it true.
My opponent has said things about biracial children that I laugh about.
Simply because I know he gets it from the media.
As a biracial child myself, I rarely am subject to racism.
I am six foot four inches, so I never really face bullying.
Anyway, being a biracial child has many benefits that people who are just one race will never experience.
I can hang out with both races without a problem.
I can joke, and take jokes about racism without getting offended.
I do not feel out of place anywhere I go.
I think that my opponent has been raised with the mentality that biracial children have a bad life.
Maybe things are different for him in Kentucky, with a 9:1 ratio of black children.
What my opponent must realize, is that the world is changing.
Racism is dying out, and limiting personal freedom is dying with it.
We don't want to "turn back the clocks" as you said.
Well, let's continue with this debate.
As a side note, I would appreciate it if you would write words of your own instead of simply quoting me.
There is no need for it, and it just fills up your characters.
The readers don't want to have to read the same debate twice.

=====================================================================

ARGUMENT:
In your first argument, you originally said that interracial marriage should be banned.
I went back and checked, and nowhere did you say that it did not affect those who are already married.
You are not sticking to your original resolution.
You must keep to the resolution "Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage."
Therefore, your refutation of my first argument 1A is useless.
If you wanted it otherwise, you should have stated.

In your attempt to refute my 2A argument, you again contradict yourself.
You say that the biracial children would be fine, and then in the next sentence you say biracial children are often the targets of teasing and bullying, and often victims of hate crimes.
Do you think that all the biracial children born from interracial marriage are just going to disappear?
Do you believe that they just do not matter?
Turn a blind eye and look towards the next generation?
No.
This refutation is weak and unsupported. I again ask for sources.

Refutation on argument 3A is just a dumb idea in general.
I think I would rather go with the one drop rule.
Do you know how sad that sounds, a judge telling a woman that she cannot marry the man she loves because his eyes are not the right size?
Also, judges cannot always tell someone's race simply by looking at them.
I am black and white, if there is a girl who is Hispanic and black they will probably look like me.
What separates me from marrying her and marrying this girl who is Hispanic and White?
Are you saying that I am not good enough to marry a girl with some White blood in her?
Appearances do not last, so it is not a good idea to marry on appearance alone.
Forgive me for saying so, but that argument fails.

You say that the people who are dating just could not get married.
This is also a bad idea.
The moment we do that it the moment we put others high than others.
A white couple can get married so why can't the mixed couple who is in love get married too?
I know you say that your resolution is anti-racist, but I can't help but to laugh at that.
It is extremely racists to tell a mixed couple they do not have the same marriage rights as the white couple.

You simply brush over my argument about big government, yet it is a big point.
My conclusion is that you cannot accurately refute my points about the matter.
You say that since it is good for society (which it is not) then it should be put in place.
Let me ask you this, there are more black criminals in the world than whites.
Because of this, it would be ultimately for the good of society to kill every black man woman and child in the world.
So, should we kill every black person since it would help society?
For once these black people are gone, the whites would be society.
Obviously not, but that is the side you are arguing from.
You must step out to see the big picture.

You also ignore my argument about everyone being equal.
Since there is nothing that separates a White man and a Hispanic woman from each other except their skin, they should be allowed to marry.
I need not say anything more on that matter.

I also find it amusing that you talk about human rights, when you are the one who wants people to try to take those rights away.
As I said before, as a biracial child I never went through any hardships due to bullying/racism/hate crimes.
On the other contrary, many people from both races get along with me and me with them.
I feel no hostility from people I am around.
Yes I admit every now and then I will get a mean glance from some old white guy.
But only because I am not white. My self-esteem's very high, and I do not think of myself any lower than you.
I do not think that you should have the right to marry someone of your race, but I would have to go beg a judge to let me marry this girl because she looks like me.

Now, on with your attempts at refutation of divorce.
I cannot stress how much I hate the subject of being "mentally ill."
So, if I simply decide to pull out a gun at a police officer, I can blame it on being mentally ill.
Well, I will for once accept this argument of yours.
Let us say that they are mentally ill because they "have a chemical imbalance in their brain."
You say that banning divorce would force families to deal with the problem.
I cannot stress how wrong this statement is.
Not all women who want a divorce would simply want to get the guy help.
Yes, there may be some, but there are plenty who do not.
Also, you must realize the costs.
Many women do not have the money to get their husbands mental help, that kind of treatment can get up to the thousands of dollars.
You say that a "good wife" would visit her husband in the mental hospital once a week to start the healing process. You must realize that not every wife is a "good wife" as you would say.
After my father hit me, the police had to hold my mom back from going to beat up my dad.
The last thing she wanted to do was get him help.
If things were the way you wanted, the wives would be the ones who need physiology!
Same goes for the rape example.
What if an eighteen year old marries a nineteen year old, and few years later when they have a kid the husband rapes the child.
The woman would have to stay married to a rapist who is in prison.
She could not get remarried and get the child an actual dad who loves her.
Could you really look in a woman's eye and tell her she is stuck with the man who raped her son?
It is unethical and cruel.
What you must also look at is the mental part of it.
If a woman realizes that the only way she is going to get out of marriage is for the man to die, what do you think is going to happen?
I find it funny how you are always talking about King Henry VIII.
Since he could not get divorced and marry another woman, he simply had his wives killed.
Men and women would start killing if things got bad, which they obviously would.

I asked for some up-to-date- proof interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets, and you simply went even farther back in time to King Henry VIII!
You must give me some hard proof to base your arguments on.

I will stop here, since I am running out of Character spaces.

I thank my opponent for his argument and look forward to his next post.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

I have provided sources. Read the articles I have posted in the hyperlinks in my arguments in the above posts.

I will add more though.

Biracial people face racism from both sides. Here's an example of a biracial girl facing racism from black people:
http://www.seeingblack.com...

The article identifies other biracial people struggling with racism and even mentions that Obama himself struggled with racism from both sides for being biracial.

Biracial people are frequently victims of race-motivated crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Multiracial people are the victim in 6.1% of the cases third only to blacks (69.2%) and whites (18.3%), but multiracial Americans make up only 2.3% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also it has been identified by researchers that biracial children have problems identifying who they are in our society. Nobody should have to endure this worst of all pains, the pain of not having a secure identity, a secure understanding of the self.
http://www.cehd.umn.edu...

At least when non-mixed race minorities face discrimination they have a large community to back them up. Multiracial people just get hated on from the other side too. Not being white, black, asian, or any single race they have no group to appeal to.

Con states "As a biracial child myself, I rarely am subject to racism.
I am six foot four inches, so I never really face bullying."

This is telling. Con's height advantage shielded Con from having to deal with much racism. But that is not the circumstances of must biracial people, and it is the good of the whole that must be considered in setting public policy.

CON says not affecting those already married contradicts the original resolution. The original resolution is to "Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage". A person who is already married is not committing an act of "marriage" they had committed it in the past, and would only be breaking the law if at the time they married their marriage was illegal. Since I never said the ban would be retroactive it would not apply to marriages already performed. It would be just like when Prop 8 was passed, that didn't annul previous marriages.
http://www.lifesitenews.com...

But the resolution would ban the act of divorce, which protects biracial children already here. Interracial couples, particularly black man/white woman couples are more likely to divorce.
http://isteve.blogspot.com...

Divorce hurts children. Banning divorce would provide stability to children including biracial children. Statistics don't lie.
http://www.heritage.org...
Children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer abuse, do poor in school, go into poverty, and lose their faith.
Con brings up examples of divorce because of child abuse, drug problems, and neglect of finances. These are real problems, but this study shows these problems increase after divorce so banning divorce will reduce these problems in society as a whole.
When this happens in a marriage they can put the offender in jail where he can no longer hurt his spouse. As to neglecting finances, new laws could be passed against family financial neglect.

Con states "It is extremely racists to tell a mixed couple they do not have the same marriage rights as the white couple."

Con misses the fact that they do have the same marriage rights, the right to marry someone of their own race just like gay people have equal rights because they are allowed, like straight people to marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Let me ask you this, there are more black criminals in the world than whites.
Because of this, it would be ultimately for the good of society to kill every black man woman and child in the world.
So, should we kill every black person since it would help society?"

Your assertion here is wrong. Killing all black people would involve more crime(murder) than is committed by black people so no this would not be good for society.

Con says nothing separates opposite-race people besides their skin but this is wrong. They are separated by a different history and culture that because of human nature leads to racism and a chaotic homelife.

Con states that not all women would just want the guy to get help. But that's the problem. That IS what they should want. The poor guy can't help that he has faulty wiring. His abuse must be stopped, but she should be compassionate enough to want to do all she can to get him well again, so they can have a normal family.

Con says that many women don't have this kind of money. If this is a significant problem then people will just vote for laws so the government pays for it and the problem is solved.

You say that a "good wife" would visit her husband in the mental hospital once a week to start the healing process. You must realize that not every wife is a "good wife" as you would say.

Con states "Since he [King Henry VIII] could not get divorced and marry another woman, he simply had his wives killed."

King Henry VIII started a whole new church, the Church of England to allow himself to get divorced. He had his wives executed for adultery and incest. It is often claimed that he did it because they wouldn't bare him a son, but with his new church he was head of he could've just gotten a divorce. Most likely the reason he executed his wives was because they were actually guilty. Not that this was just, but back then the death penalty was used far more often than today.

Con wants proof that interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets. This shows a poor reading of my argument that having divorce and interracial marriage legal has over the years lead to the breakdown of traditional marriage.

To put it simply, any change to the definition of marriage invites more changes, it makes the institution's definition and its purpose(to promote sexual morality and family stability) less clear. Divorce changed the definition of marriage. Interracial Marriage changed it again. Now people want to change it to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. It's a clear slippery slope, and there is no logical reason to think it's about to stop after same-sex marriage is legal.

What's next? We don't know. I pointed out there are already people debating that as long as it involves "consenting adults" incest and incest marriage should be legal. Then there was that woman who married herself I liked to in the first post. This seems innocuous, but in fact this cheapens marriage by reducing it only to an expression of love(in this case self-love). If self-marriage were ever institutionalized our society would crumble. The other example, the woman marrying a dolphin thankfully was not official either, but shows what could come to pass. At the worst we have organizations like NAMBLA arguing that pedophilia is OK, but that kind of relationship is so immoral it's likely we'll see incest marriage, bestiality marriage, and self-marriage legalized before we ever get to the point. However, if we don't stop this slippery slope now and reverse course back to traditional marriage it could happen at some point in the future.

This is ultimately the crux of why we must ban divorce and interracial marriage. If we don't then we will continue down this slippery slope of marriage redefinitioning, throwing our entire society into a moral abyss like the one of the late Roman Empire, sending us into a new Dark Age or bringing on God's wrath as happened with Sodom and Gomorra.

We must defend marriage to defend society. Vote to return marriage back to what it originally meant and was meant for.
Vote PRO!
Koopin

Con

==========================================
FINAL INTRO:
I would like to thank my opponent for posting his last argument. Although my opponent has finally started to use sources, I am disappointed in his selection of them. Especially the repeats he has already used. Throughout my last argument, I will be using more reliable sources (unlike Wikipedia.) It is plain to see that my opponent has not really refuted my points. Instead, he has used most of his third argument quoting me, then saying a little something on the side. For this round, I will mostly be recapping and clearing things up with real sources. Not a lot needs to be said.

==========================================
FINAL ARGUMENT/RECAP:

My opponent gives one little article about a Biracial girl being abused by blacks. This proves nothing!

August 2009, Whites beat up a black man because he was black. (1)
March 2009, Racists attacked a Russian. (2)
September 2010, Kids graffiti the word "Nigger" on school property (3)

Your source proves nothing! Every race, no matter what color is going to be subject to racism. There is nothing we can do that is going to stop that.
You think your source (which is nothing but a Wikipedia link) proves that there are a lot more crimes against Biracial children then black and white. You say this because there are fewer biracial than other races. This is a very bad use of this source. I will provide official government sources about the matter. (4)
By looking at either source, you can see that the percentages of the crimes are lower in general with the biracial kids! This shows that the crime rate is just about the same.
Either way, it is not enough to stop people from getting married.

You claim that biracial children have problems identifying themselves. This is funny, because pretty much every child has trouble identifying themselves. I would appreciate if you would have used sources, not bloggers. Please see source (5) to see the myths of biracial children identifying themselves.
It is clear to see that they do not have a problem. And if they did, it is not a huge one that concerns human rights. On the other hand, biracial children can actually fit in more because of their race. They are able to learn about both races and cultures through their parents, and can apply it in the real world. (6)

Sadly, you have barely touched on my points about biracial children. Therefore, we shall move on to the subject of divorce.

You claim that divorce makes children fall into a bad life. Your sources states that some of the children do. I do not know if you have gone through a divorce as a child, but if you did you will know that this source is not right about everyone. I and my siblings turned out fine. In some states, if the parents request it the child will be taken to physiology courses. This can help the child through their hardships. Think about how hard it would be for the child to have to live with the guy who abused them. You ignored my point about abuse not being reported. You must take this into account. Sooner or later, that man will get out of jail. And will have every right to come into the children's home. Another thing to consider is proof. How could one get proof that their husband is abusing them? If not, the husband could continue in his crimes without going to jail. I mentioned that my father abused me and then called the police on me. I could do nothing to make the police believe me. You say we can make laws to help couples out. Yes, we could do that. And we can also make laws to help kids out after the divorce. Though your points there are irrelevant, since we are not debating about what we could do. Instead we are debating what we should do.

The point I made in the example of killing black people is missed. Instead of comparing it to your own argument, you attempt to attack the example. You completely ignore what I said about the overall good of society. I do not even have to explain this, for it is plain to see.

You say that because someone has a different skin color, they have different cultures. This can be true, and false. For example, my mom is black and my dad is white. They both went to the same school together. They both lived in Georgia, they both dressed in the same style of clothing. Their cultures were not really that different. On the other hand, a Japanese person marrying a Chinese person can experience different cultures. Though this is not enough to make someone not marry. Of course there are going to be differences, it is going to be like that with any couple. One white man may have had eggs, bacon, and toast for breakfast when he was growing up while a white woman may have just had cereal. This is not enough to separate them. Same goes with cultures. That is the point of marriage, to come together and learn to deal with each others differences. Cultures start by mixing other cultures!

Pro ignores my point. I said that not every wife would want to go visit the man who raped her son. He simply says that it's what they SHOULD do. This proves nothing. My point remains that not every wife will do this, therefore his plan would fail. America SHOULD stop buying ice-cream and feed the countries of Africa. Just because they SHOULD do that does not mean the Africans are now no longer hungry.

When my opponent talks about just voting a law in that would make the government fund physiology, he forgets where he lives. First of all, the government would not pay for millions upon millions of people to have physiology courses. My opponent assumes that the whole world has money for this, which they do not (America is not the only one who has marriages and divorces.)

On the subject of King Henry, we can never know why he truly killed his wives, though my point about spouses killing each other is completely ignored. Pro does not even mention it!

For what my opponent has to say about me "poorly reading" his arguments, I have come to the conclusion that he cannot find any sources. I have twice asked for him to show me sources of interracial marriage leading to marrying your pets. He has failed to provide any, but instead shows unverifiable examples. Just because something changes, does not mean that it effects other things in a big way. A few decades ago blacks could not ride on the front seats of the bus. Years later blacks were allowed to have this privilege. Today, gas prices are going through the roof. Both gas prices and blacks effected the buses, though they have nothing to do with each other.

Audience, my opponent has failed to refute my argument. He has failed to provide good sources, or defend his own arguments. In the end he claims that we must do this before God's wrath turns on us. I would remind my opponent that Mosses in the Bible was married to a black woman, who was approved by God. (7) Audience, for these reasons I urge you to vote CON.

The resolution has been negated.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:
(1). http://www.examiner.com...
(2). http://www.opendemocracy.net...
(3). http://www.kctv5.com...
(4). http://www2.fbi.gov...
(5) http://www.defendernetwork.com...
(6). http://racerelations.about.com...
(7). http://www.alliancenet.org...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mall 1 year ago
mall
Yes from pro's side is plenty of shortsighted and biased information . So much can be invalidated and a lot has been contradicted in of itself. With a person like that, big question to ask is how the person feels towards other classified groups of people.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Gives gun*
Go ahead
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
@dinokiller
Lets pwn that fool . . .
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Hes our racist, we must destroy them :P
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
lmao.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Koopin said Chuck Norris . . .
KOOPIN WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://thelostjacket.com...
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
lol
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Pro, please start using sources to back up your argument.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
I thought MasturDbtor was serious until I read his fetus debate. Now I am not so sure.
Posted by darceem 6 years ago
darceem
I get this odd feeling that the motivation or his debate is out of irony and to prove a bigger point. I can't put my finger on what it is though...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by WhoDaFoo4 6 years ago
WhoDaFoo4
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MitchyMill 6 years ago
MitchyMill
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by negrodamus 6 years ago
negrodamus
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
MasturDbtorKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05