Blacks should be lynched
Debate Rounds (3)
I am supposing that lynched, in this instance, denotes the forced rounding-up and public killing of a person or persons.
As Pro has given a short overview of his argument, I will do same.
Blacks should not be lynched. Pro's argument states that "[blacks] have caused irreparable damage to western society...Everywhere you go in the west, be it America or Britain, there prevails the same gang culture all over."
Pro's argument doesn't stand up to reason or fact, and it has a lot of ground to cover logically for him to prove it to be true. First, he would need to prove that not only are blacks solely responsible for gang culture, but that they have a propensity to commit gang violence or participate in such a culture BECAUSE they are black, and for no other reason.
Go to an area of London where nigs are the majority; go to Detroit or Baltimore. The evidence will be right in front of you. Blacks have an average IQ of 80, 20 points below the average! It goes beyong culture, blacks are genetically inferior to other races (esp. whites). They're 'superior' in testosterone levels, which is part of their innate voilence and by extension gang culture. They are a cancer to the west and I pooped my pyjamas. However many affirmative action programs the western world tries to implement, blacks are inherently unable to assimilate to white society because of genetics. The cure for the cancer is to lynch 'em all.
This doesn't mean anything. You have yet to prove that the reason they are the way they are is BECAUSE they are black rather than because they are culturally disposed to violent behavior, and that such a culture is exclusive to blacks and cannot and does not occur in other races.
"Blacks have an average IQ of 80, 20 points below the average! It goes beyong culture, blacks are genetically inferior to other races (esp. whites)."
Not only have you no sources (reputable or otherwise) for such a statistic, you cannot prove that blacks have an average IQ of such BECAUSE they are black. Your initial claim was that we need to "lynch the blacks", but that claim involves all black people of all ranges of intelligence, wealth, and behavior. You have attributed as your reasoning for why we should "lynch blacks" as "the cure for the cancer is to lynch 'em all", but not only is that realistically unfeasible, you have not once in your argument proven that blacks are the way they are solely because they are black (if we are to believe that all black people are truly the exact same or even similar, which they aren't).
"They're 'superior' in testosterone levels, which is part of their innate voilence and by extension gang culture. "
No evidence to point to the idea that black people have higher levels of testosterone, or that they have higher levels of testosterone BECAUSE they are black, or that such a higher level is innate, exclusive, and without exception in blacks, or that such a higher level thereby causes violent behavior and "by extension gang culture".
"They are a cancer to the west"
You'll have to define what you mean by this.
"...and I pooped my pyjamas"
"However many affirmative action programs the western world tries to implement, blacks are inherently unable to assimilate to white society because of genetics."
This happens to be thoroughly untrue. The reason why we call people "black" in the first place (rather than Moroccan, Sudanese, Somali, or West African [in general]) is because blacks these days are so ethno-nationally homogeneous that their is no longer a distinction between people who came from former like Mali and Jolof and the Funj and Ethiopia and the Congo. Those regions, which all had vibrant and distinct cultures which would rival that of Europe (see: the differences between Polish, British, and Spanish culture), have descendants who no longer can identify with such cultures because they've assimilated to an entirely different, humanistic culture founded and developed in the west by descendants of Europeans. To say that they are unable to "assimilate to white society", especially "because of genetics", is unequivocally false.
You can just google the stats on everything I've mentioned about which you've enquired. They're cancerous because they've spread across the west with all their violent genetically informed culture. One last thing: however "vibrant and distinct" those other brown countries are, look at this picture:
This picture speaks volumes to Africas rather niggardly IQ performance. Is it any surprise that a group of people descended from Africa would be so deficient? Of course, there are several parallels with regards to GDP and most other metrics here as well. In such deprivation, depravity hath spawned thusly.
You make this almost too easy for me. Africa is a continent that thoroughly lacks efficient education resources because of virulent corruption, lack of industrialization, and a sustained multicultural tendency like no other peoples on the planet. A map of Africa split up by its cultures would include almost 5,000 different countries, many of which have had hundreds and thousands of years of tension and strife that they have not yet overcome. This is the result of many civil wars in which religion, ethnicity, and culture fuel civil conflict that regresses Africa's ability to sustain an effective education infrastructure. Your argument is so thoroughly mediocre so as to jump to the conclusion that "since lots of Africans are black, and Pro thinks blacks are bad, Africa must be bad and it must be bad because it's a black continent".
"Is it any surprise that a group of people descended from Africa would be so deficient? "
Every group of people ever descended from Africa.
"Of course, there are several parallels with regards to GDP and most other metrics here as well."
Stark ones, at that. These aren't close comparisons here. You're comparing countries that have a $900 per capita GDP with countries that have $50,000 per capita GDPs.
" In such deprivation, depravity hath spawned thusly."
Sure. But the source of such deprivation isn't the fact that they're black. You've failed to prove that consistently throughout your argument. You've also not shown why the blacks should be lynched, which was the topic of the argument in the first place. The depravity and dilapidation from which Africa has resulted is a consequence of post-colonial-independence civil wars and decreasing resources like food and water and oil, as well as a lack of stability that their European counterparts tend to enjoy in a great amount.
Pro has failed to establish his claim, has failed to prove that the blacks are the way they are solely because they are blacks, failed to prove that such a behaviour is exclusive to blacks, and failed to prove that lynching all blacks solves any issue regarding the crime he supposes they commit, or the gang violence that results thereof. As he has done so, I humbly instruct the voters to choose the argument which was the most effective and thorough.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.