The Instigator
GMZ3R00
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anjou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Blacks should be lynched

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 90004
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

GMZ3R00

Pro

They 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. Once they're lynched, we can live in white harmony.
Anjou

Con

I accept the argument. I will posit that blacks should not be lynched.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
GMZ3R00

Pro

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.
Anjou

Con

"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."

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"
How unfortunate.

"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.
Debate Round No. 2
GMZ3R00

Pro

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.
Anjou

Con

"This picture speaks volumes to Africas rather niggardly IQ performance."

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.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
The standards for votes are applied to every reported vote regardless of the number of other votes on the debate. I don't personally report them, but I do address every one.
Posted by beanall 9 months ago
beanall
What's with the mods removing every vote? I mean I can understand some but now we are having debates where no one wins because no one can cast a vote without it getting removed.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MaxLamperouge// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con, Pro used various racial slurs and racial arguments that were unfounded. Con refuted every argument accurately and exceptionally, and provided his own rational arguments. However, sourced go to Pro because he did cite the map of IQ, whereas Con did not cite an sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate, not just state that one side had them while the other didn't. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess individual arguments made by both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: datGUUYY// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Wow. This wasn't even a fight, it was a slaughter. One side says "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.", and the other side says "They are a cancer to the west and I pooped my pyjamas". (what the f*ck do your 'pyjamas' have to do with this debate anyways?). Con makes valid points and reasons against the argument, and doesn't even have to cite sources. Pro cites no sources, despite having numbers, and just says "You can just google the stats on everything I've mentioned about which you've enquired"; He provides no evidence, and further, at risk of making an ad-hominem fallacy, has pooped his 'pyjamas'. This, as pro states, is unfortunate. Very unfortunate

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G or conduct. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Giving sources to a side that presented none is a strange choice, but it can only be justified by stating how Con effectively demolished Pro's sources, or if Pro's sources were actively offensive. Neither is established in this RFD.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.