The Instigator
Charlester
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
VocMusTcrMaloy
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,752 times Debate No: 17715
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (9)

 

Charlester

Pro

You recently challenged pro-whites to a debate on http://www.stormfront.org...

Here I am.So let`s debate.
VocMusTcrMaloy

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate challenge; to welcome him to debate.org (also known as "ddo"); and to accept this challenge.

In all fairness to my opponent, since he is new, I would like to make him aware of some of the things expected of debators on ddo. Ad hominem attacks will count against the "conduct" point on the ballot, and will cause voters to lose respect for the debator's position. (Those attacks also don't help one's argument). From my discussion with leaders on ddo, I have come to understand that ddo welcomes ALL viewpoints as long as the members are respectful of other members.

My opponent made two statements in his title:

1. "'Celebrating Diversity' is a program of White genocide"
2. "Anti-racist is code word for anti-White."

I recommend that he choose one of those statements as the resolution for this debate in the next round, as using two statements makes for a broad resolution that may be more difficult to prove in 5 rounds. He may want to use one of the statements as a supporting statement for the other or to save it for another debate.

Since my opponent did not know to do so, I shall organize the debate along the lines of a typical debate organization for ddo:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Arguements

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Responses to Rebuttals

Round 5: Summary/Conclusion

No new arguements will be admitted in the final round, as they can not be answered.

I recommend my opponent structure his second round thus:

Resolved: XYZ

Definition of terms:

X- asdfjkl;
Y- qwertyuiop
Z- zxcvbnm,./

Opening Argument:

Paragraph

Contention 1
Contention 2

etc.

I shall reserve the right to accept or not accept the definitions provided by my opponent since he did not provide them in the first round.

I wish my opponent good luck.



Debate Round No. 1
Charlester

Pro

I thank my opponent for his advice,but I believe that the following will make things much clearer for him:

This piece of text I will now offer is known as "The Mantra".It describes the basic operation of the white genocide program that so-called "anti-racist" elites have imposed on every "Western" i.e traditionally white country.These so-called "anti-racist" elites say that we must "Celebrate Diversity",even though this "Celebrating Diversity" results in fewer and fewer white people in existence.

The Mantra:

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
VocMusTcrMaloy

Con

Since my opponent did not declare a resolution for this debate, I am going to assume it to be, "'Celebrating Diversity' is a program of White genocide" from his opening argument. I will assume that "'anti-racist' is a code word for 'anti-white,'" to be more of an exclamation, rather than a debate resolution. I would like to ask voters to be lenient with my opponent on the conduct vote for his failure to declare a resolution, as this is his first debate here.


Con's Opening Argument

First of all, I would like to post the official definition of "genocide" as given by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[1]

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin right after the Holocaust to describe it's atrocities.[2].


Both sets of my grandparents lived through the Great Depression in the United States and bore my parents right at the end of the Depression era. My parents were raised in poverty and had to work 12-14 hours per day, every day, in the hot sun in the cotton fields of Louisiana to survive. When I was a young man, our family would be working in the yard a couple of hours and I would complain to my parents that I was tired. My mother would tell me, "Son, you don't know what 'tired' is!" I'm sure the survivors of the Holocaust and the Tutsis of Rwanda would tell my opponent, You don't know what 'genocide' is!"

White people on the other hand have been exempt from the atrocities that people of other races have endured because of race. As a White person, I don't know what it is like to live in fear that I will be killed, harassed or abused because of my race. I challenge my opponent to document the suffering of White people in any way because of our race!



Rebuttals

My opponent argued:
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


The first response I have to this statement is that there is no such thing as a "White country." I challenge my opponent to produce documentation in any nation's constitution that declares the nation to be a "White country." Now my opponent may wish to point out the countries where White people originated and call them "White countries." If he does so, I would remind him that prior to Columbus' discovering the Americas in the 1490's, one might rightfully have called European states, "White countries" by virtue of the fact that they were either 100% White or at least almost 100% White. Since that time the planet has become "assimilated" because of the actions of WHITE people! John Rolfe left Europe to found Jamestown and the first thing he did in his new home was to "assimilate" Pocahontas, a Native-American, to be his wife.[3] Then the austere, ultra-conservative Puritan Pilgrims settled at Plymouth and had a big multi-cultural feast they called, "Thanksgiving."[4] History shows that "assimilation" and multi-culturalism has been a big pastime of White people for the last 500 years. The English and French just had to "assimilate" what is today the United States. The Spanish "assimilated" Central and South America and produced the "Latino" people. Then Australia, South Africa and New Zealand were all "assimilated" by White people. At one point Earth was neatly divided into what my opponent calls "White countries," "Black countries," "Asian countries" etc. before White people mixed it all up over the last 500 years. "Celebrating diversity" is celebrating the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years, not some new program that liberals imposed in the last 60 years! If anyone is committing "genocide" against White people it is White people themselves!

My opponent:

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."


In the case of one of the nations that White nationalists refer to as a "White country," the United States, in it's Statue of Liberty has the following words displayed,

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
[5]

The (allegedly White) United States thus opened it's doors to those third world people. If those people were not invited by White people with open arms, you might have a slight chance at having a point. Beside that, those words were not penned by some recent liberal, they were penned in 1883! Notice how from John Rolfe until today, White people have been pro-multi-cultural all along! Why stop now? White people invented multi-culturalism and have been its greatest proponents! "Anti-racist" and multi-culturalism is PRO-White!


[1] http://www.preventgenocide.org...
[2]http://en.m.wikipedia.org... and http://www.preventgenocide.org...
[3] http://www.preservationvirginia.org...
[4] http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com...
[5] http://www.libertystatepark.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Charlester

Pro

Rebuttals

My opponent argued:

"First of all, I would like to post the official definition of "genocide" as given by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:"

Yes,that is the relevant international law on genocide.

(a) Killing members of the group;

Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population.That is indisputable.

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Here we have the first non-violent act of genocide mentioned,that of serious mental harm.For decades,the anti-white politicians,media executives,educators and academics have been engaged in a coordinated campaign to demonize white historical achievement,to revel in crimes committed by whites(ignoring the similar crimes of other groups),to attempt to eliminate white racial identity,even going so far as to claim that white people are not members of a distinct racial group.

In tandem with this white demonization,there has also been a glorification of non-whites and their history,and also a heavy promotion of inter-racial sex and marriage.

This is clear evidence of a deliberate infliction of serious mental harm on members of my racial group.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The imposition of mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" on all white countries(and ONLY white countries) has had a detrimental effect on conditions of life for my racial group.If immigrants are invited to colonise my group`s territory and my racial group ordered to "assimilate" the physical destruction of my racial group(in whole or in part) is the logical and predictable outcome.

My opponent argued:

"The first response I have to this statement is that there is no such thing as a "White country." I challenge my opponent to produce documentation in any nation's constitution that declares the nation to be a "White country."

My opponent has spoken of white people but will not acknowledge that these white people inhabit their own countries that their ancestors created in which they are the majority of the population and therefore deserving of the description "white countries"? My opponent knows what a white country is,the same way he knows what an Arab country is,the same way he knows what a black African country is.

My opponent argued:

"the planet has become "assimilated" because of the actions of WHITE people!"

Really? There are no identifiable racial or ethnic groups in the world because of the actions of white people? If the planet has become "assimilated" as you claim,why do non-white governments not impose mass immigration and "assimilation" on their citizens like governments in Western(read white) countries do?

My opponent argued:

"History shows that "assimilation" and multi-culturalism has been a big pastime of White people for the last 500 years."

Even if true,that has no bearing on whether "Celebrating Diversity" as practiced today in "Western"(read white) countries is a program of genocide as per the genocide convention,does it?

My opponent argued:

""Celebrating diversity" is celebrating the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years, not some new program that liberals imposed in the last 60 years!"

The phrase "Celebrating Diversity" as used today in "Western"(read white) countries is certainly not used to describe "the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years".It is used to describe the situation of a shrinking white population and a growing non-white population in "Western"(read white) countries that white people are ordered to accept or be labelled as "haters" "racists" "white supremacists" leading to personal harassment,loss of livelihood,official sanctions etc
VocMusTcrMaloy

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal to my opening argument.

Genocide definition(s) Rebuttals:

My opponent:

"'First of all, I would like to post the official definition of "genocide" as given by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:'

Yes,that is the relevant international law on genocide.

(a) Killing members of the group;

Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population.That is indisputable."

Please forgive my opponent for insulting your intelligence. Members of ddo know the difference between someone killing a person to get $100 out of his wallet and a government or other large group killing "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a ...racial...group." Members of ddo also know that crime is commited by members of all racial groups including Whites. The absence of non-Whites certainly does not insure the absence of crime!

My opponent:

"(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Here we have the first non-violent act of genocide mentioned,that of serious mental harm.For decades,the anti-white politicians,media executives,educators and academics have been engaged in a coordinated campaign to demonize white historical achievement,to revel in crimes committed by whites(ignoring the similar crimes of other groups),to attempt to eliminate white racial identity,even going so far as to claim that white people are not members of a distinct racial group.

In tandem with this white demonization,,and also a heavy promotion of inter-racial sex and marriage.

This is clear evidence of a deliberate infliction of serious mental harm on members of my racial group."

Demonize White historical achievement? Every child in the public schools of the Western world takes history classes. They recieve text books that are filled with the names and faces of White people. The few non-White people in these books are often named as enemies. Only until the last few decades has there been an attempt to correct this text book problem.

"revel in crimes committed by whites(ignoring the similar crimes of other groups)" ...for example...?

As far as a White racial identity, 500 years ago there were Englishmen, Frenchmen, Italians, Germans, Irishmen, etc. When members of these groups emigrated to America, they inter-bred with each other and lost their ethnic distinctions; so, they then called themselves "White" people. In America, this label was a distinction from the slave class whom they called (when they were being less demeaning) "Black" people. The label "White" has historically been used to denote privilege, not ethnicity, as the labels, "Irish," "English," or "French," did this in prior times. Why didn't the Americans simply call themselves "Americans," rather than "Whites" if it weren't a class/caste distinction?

"there has also been a glorification of non-whites and their history" As I stated above, history books are full of the achievements of White people...other races should have a fair representation of their histories! Black History Month is unfair to Black people; because, their history is only taught one month out of the year.

My opponent:

"(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The imposition of mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" on all white countries(and ONLY white countries) has had a detrimental effect on conditions of life for my racial group.If immigrants are invited to colonise my group`s territory and my racial group ordered to "assimilate" the physical destruction of my racial group(in whole or in part) is the logical and predictable outcome."

Once again, please forgive my opponent for insulting your intelligence. First of all, as stated in the second round, I don't know how other nations do; but, Americans invite immigration. Secondly, if non-Whites live in the same communities, that doesn't mean anyone is forced to marry interracially...much different from true genocide!

Rebuttal Responses:

"'The first response I have to this statement is that there is no such thing as a "White country." I challenge my opponent to produce documentation in any nation's constitution that declares the nation to be a "White country."'


My opponent has spoken of white people but will not acknowledge that these white people inhabit their own countries that their ancestors created in which they are the majority of the population and therefore deserving of the description "white countries"? My opponent knows what a white country is,the same way he knows what an Arab country is,the same way he knows what a black African country is."

Once again, legally, there is no such thing as a "White country." Yes, there are countries that have historically had populations which are predominantly "White." Those countries could only legally be called "White" countries if their laws forbade the immigration of non-Whites into their borders. Yes, I know what you are talking about, but no, they are not "White" by definition of their laws. There is a big difference in what you are talking about and those nations that are called "Muslim countries." "Whiteness" is not enforced in what you call "White" countries; however, the Muslim religion is certainly enforced in those nations that are known as "Muslim countries."

My opponent:

"My opponent argued:

'the planet has become "assimilated" because of the actions of WHITE people!'

Really? There are no identifiable racial or ethnic groups in the world because of the actions of white people? If the planet has become "assimilated" as you claim,why do non-white governments not impose mass immigration and "assimilation" on their citizens like governments in Western(read white) countries do?"

Because "White" governments WANT to be "assimilated" and immigrated! Governments in the Western world are democratic and are elected by the White people in them. You are proving that "anti-racist" is indeed "anti-racist," and not "anti-White" because White people VOTE otherwise. If White people agreed with you, there would be more racist elected officials! White people in the nations you refer to are in the majority and can vote however they wish. They CHOOSE "assimilation" and immigration.

My opponent:

"My opponent argued:

'History shows that "assimilation" and multi-culturalism has been a big pastime of White people for the last 500 years.'

Even if true,that has no bearing on whether "Celebrating Diversity" as practiced today in "Western"(read white) countries is a program of genocide as per the genocide convention,does it?

The phrase "Celebrating Diversity" as used today in "Western"(read white) countries is certainly not used to describe "the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years".It is used to describe the situation of a shrinking white population and a growing non-white population in "Western"(read white) countries that white people are ordered to accept or be labelled as "haters" "racists" "white supremacists" leading to personal harassment,loss of livelihood,official sanctions etc "

"Celebrating diversity" in no way comes close to the atrocities mentioned in the genocide convention definition! As I mentioned in the second round, "you don't know what 'genocide' is!"

I see my opponent conveniently dropped the following argument from the second round:

"In the case of one of the nations that White nationalists refer to as a "White country," the United States, in it's Statue of Liberty has the following words displayed,

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


The (allegedly White) United States thus opened it's doors to those third world people. If those people were not invited by White people with open arms, you might have a slight chance at having a point."
Debate Round No. 3
Charlester

Pro

Reponses to rebuttals

My opponent argued

"Please forgive my opponent for insulting your intelligence. Members of ddo know the difference between someone killing a person to get $100 out of his wallet and a government or other large group killing "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a ...racial...group." Members of ddo also know that crime is commited by members of all racial groups including Whites. The absence of non-Whites certainly does not insure the absence of crime!"

My opponent acknowledges that killings of whites has occurred as a direct result of non-white immigration and "assimilation" being imposed on the white population.The genocide law has no stipulation that a "government or other large group" must carry out the killings. My opponent seems to be insulting the intelligence of ddo members by implying that killings of whites by non-whites is only ever a by-product of acts of robbery.

My opponent argued

"Demonize White historical achievement? Every child in the public schools of the Western world takes history classes. They recieve text books that are filled with the names and faces of White people. The few non-White people in these books are often named as enemies. Only until the last few decades has there been an attempt to correct this text book problem."

For the largest majority white country on Earth it would be right and proper if the children receive books filled with the names and faces of white people,the same way that Chinese history books are filled with the names and faces of Chinese historical figures.

White historical achievement such as colonialism,industrialism, and even the creation of this country are never presented as "white achievements",they are often presented as negative impacts on non-whites and on the environment.My opponent acknowledges that for decades "a text-book problem" has been perceived by so-called "anti-racist" educators and that there has been "attempted" "corrections".

My opponent argued

"First of all, as stated in the second round, I don't know how other nations do; but, Americans invite immigration."

You claim that white Americans invited mass non-white immigration upon themselves? That would only be true if there had been a national debate and democratic choice on the matter.In fact it was never put to a vote,not just in the USA,but in every "Western"(read white) country on Earth.

My opponent argued

"Because "White" governments WANT to be "assimilated" and immigrated! Governments in the Western world are democratic and are elected by the White people in them. You are proving that "anti-racist" is indeed "anti-racist," and not "anti-White" because White people VOTE otherwise."

From my round two opening paragraph:

"the white genocide program that so-called "anti-racist" elites have imposed on every "Western" i.e traditionally white country."

It is good that my opponent agrees with me that the governments/elites of white countries DO want their white populations to be "assimilated and immigrated" by non-whites i.e white genocide.As already mentioned,there is a severe democratic deficit if all the political parties refuse any debate and democratic choice on "Celebrating Diversity".There is no "democratically authorised" clause in the genocide law that allows one section of the population to vote for acts of genocide for all.A democratic vote does not in any way make an act of genocide lawful.

My opponent argued

"Celebrating diversity" in no way comes close to the atrocities mentioned in the genocide convention definition! As I mentioned in the second round, "you don't know what 'genocide' is!"

I put it to you,that it is you who does not know,or will not admit,what does or does not constitute an act of genocide.

Maybe an analogy will be helpful to you.Imagine that there is a small island nation inhabited exclusively by one racial group.Imagine that the governing elite of the island who call themselves "anti-racist" then start a program of continuous colonisation of the island by people of another racial group.The elite describes this new demographic reality as "Celebrating Diversity".
The island elite tell the "old islanders" that even though this colonisation will result in their eventual extinction as a group they must not object,and if they do object they will be called "evil racists" and suffer official sanctions.

The deliberate attempted replacement of the original islanders with "new islanders" is an act of genocide.

The deliberate attempted replacement of whites with non-whites that is taking place in every "Western"(read white) country is also an act of genocide.
VocMusTcrMaloy

Con

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent this debate and for staying with this debate these four rounds. In my two previous debates on race, my opponents have either forfeited or given meager attempts at debating the topic. My current opponent has both stayed with the debate without forfeiting and he has put forth an effort to debate this topic.

Final Argument:

During slavery, African-Americans were subjected to very cruel conditions. They were sometimes branded by their owners, so that other slaveholders could not "steal" them. Female slaves were sometimes raped by their "owners," and if the male slave significant other had objections, he was subjected to flogging. One slave had tar smeared on his face which was set to flame. [1] During the Jim Crow era, African-Americans, although they had been part of the United States since its inception, were not allowed access to the same public facilities, public education, and rights of citizenship that other Americans were. They were terrorized through the Ku Klux Klan by school burnings, personal attacks and by lynching when they protested the inequity of the Jim Crow laws. [2]


Most of us are aware that one of the most vocal White Nationalists and a leader of the movement, David Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. What has happened, the same ideology that victimized the African-American race during slavery and Jim Crow wants to turn around and play victim now that they are no longer allowed to torture other races. The Ku Klux Klan may have been the Big Bad Wolf, now the White Nationalist movement is playing Dear Old Grandma. "My what big eyes you have, White Nationalists, and what big ears you have." I'm not buying the "victim" role of the White Nationalist movement! I feel the reader will not either. "Genocide" is certainly not appropriate!

Here are a couple of REAL life examples of genocide:

After World War II began, the Nazis ordered Jewish people to leave their homes to go live in small apartments in the ghettos. The Jewish people were trapped in these ghettos and were not allowed to leave. In time the Nazis would tell some of the Jewish people that they were being transferred to another location, but would instead send them to either concentration camps where they would be worked and starved to death or to extermination camps where they would be forced to strip naked to "take a shower" and be sent into gas chambers. [3]

In the months of April-July of 1984, 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis were killed
"using physical characteristics as a guide " in Rwanda [4]

Whites have certainly not undergone anything near the atrocities of these two groups of people; neither have they suffered anything like the members of the African-American race has. I'm sure survivors of any of those horrid events would laugh at the idea of racist White people claiming genocide for themselves. "Poor babies," they might sigh, "aww, is it really that bad. Let me give you a band-aid for your bo-bo." As a White person, I have never suffered because of my race. I challenge my opponent to document the suffering of White people that has come exclusively because of race!

My opponent is building a semantic argument for genocide rather than giving us examples of true genocide. In other words, he is taking the square peg of the current circumstances and is trying to make it fit the round hole definition of the word, "genocide." I pointed out that the official definition of "genocide" by the Genocide Convention states:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
"

My opponent replied "Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population. That is indisputable." "Killing" does not constitute genocide unless it is "with intent to destroy in whole or in part a...racial...group." Sporadic murders against White people by non-Whites is not the same thing as what happened in Rwanda!


Rebuttals from Round 4:

"My opponent acknowledges that killings of whites..."

Well, that is a gross misrepresentation of my position! I certainly did not say that the killings of whites by non-whites is ONLY EVER a by-product of robbery, I was pointing out that "intent to destroy in whole or in part" was not the motivation for those killings.

"
For the largest majority white country on Earth it would be right and proper if the children receive books filled with the names and faces of white people..."

So, the White children are the only children who should know the history of their people? There are children of other ethnicities in their classrooms. African-Americans have been in the area that is now the United States since 1619. [5] They have a history that mostly goes untold in the American history books. As for his statement, "
White historical achievement such as colonialism, industrialism...are often presented as negative impacts on non-whites and on the environment," my opponent is merely pointing out that history books are becoming more accurate and less "rosy." Colonialism did have negative impacts on the natives of the colonized lands. Industrialism has had negative impacts on the environment. What is wrong with the truth? "Truth" does not equal "genocide."

"You claim that white Americans invited mass non-white immigration upon themselves? That would only be true if there had been a national debate..."

America is a nation of immigrants. America doesn't invite immigration, America IS immigration! For America to discriminate as to who immigrates here, would be hypocritical since the Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." To avoid hypocrisy, all Americans who agree with my opponent should leave the United States and go back to the country of their origin; otherwise their presence in the States agrees with immigration!

"It is good that my opponent agrees with me that the governments/elites of white countries DO want their white populations to be "assimilated and immigrated" by non-whites i.e. white genocide..."

My opponent is arguing that White people should not be allowed to celebrate diversity even if the majority of White people wish to do so (via their vote). A democratic vote does not in any way make an act of genocide lawful.No, it does not, but we are certainly not dealing with true genocide of White people; and, in democratic countries, "lawful" is determined by democratic vote! I would challenge my opponent to run for a political office if he does not like the law as it is. His opportunity to be elected is equal to that of any other law-abiding citizen. The reason why that might be a problem for him, is that the majority of other White people do not agree with him! That being the case, the majority of White people have the government they want which includes "assimilation," immigration, and the celebration of diversity.

"The deliberate attempted replacement of whites with non-whites that is taking place in every "Western"(read white) country is also an act of genocide. "

My opponent is being overly dramatic here. No one is replacing White people. Immigration and assimilation is adding to, not replacing. In order to replace White people, there would need to be a deportation or killing of a White person for every immigrant that comes within the borders of a "White country" as my opponent claims.

Thank you for reading.

[1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com...

[2] http://www.encyclopedia.com...

[3] http://history1900s.about.com...

[4] http://www.gendercide.org...

[5] http://www.pbs.org...

Debate Round No. 4
Charlester

Pro

I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate.

Summary/Conclusion

My opponent still claims that deliberate demographic replacement policies such as mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" which are only targeted at white countries,and which everyone including the United Nations agrees are making white people a steadily-shrinking proportion of the global population,are not acts of genocide.The international genocide law that my opponent has confirmed that he is aware of is very clear on the matter.Any policies targeting a group for destruction are acts of genocide.

If my opponent`s position is correct any government on Earth can target their population for acts of genocide and as long as they can misinform and/or coerce their populations into not opposing the government`s genocide program they would not be violating the international genocide law.No group of people anywhere on the planet would have any international legal protection from a corrupt and tyrannical government using it`s state power to target them for genocide.

Speaking on the government policy of assimilation from the 1880s to the 1960s, Sir Ronald Wilson, President of Australia's Human Rights Commission, said,

It clearly was attempted genocide… It was believed that the Aboriginal people would die out.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com...

So-called anti-racists say that white people dying out as a result of "Celebrating Diversity" in all white countries and ONLY white countries is a good thing.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
VocMusTcrMaloy

Con

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic for 5 rounds without forfeiting and for giving an honest effort to debate this topic. Unfortunately, I have not had an opponent on the topic of race who has debated the topic as my opponent has. I would like to commend him for his efforts. I hope that the voters will give detailed reasons for their decisions so that my opponent and I may be more effective debaters in the future.

Summary

Pro's position:

My opponent opened this debate with a mantra which mourns the alleged "genocide" of the White race. This mantra was more poetic than argumentative; thus appealing to emotion rather than intellect. Throughout the rest of the debate, my opponent has defended his use of the word "genocide" to describe the condition of the White race as a result of "celebrating diversity." I would like to summarize his allegations that White people are experiencing "genocide" according to "who, what, when, where and why" he says "genocide" is being committed against the White race:

Who?

My opponent's position is that governments in "White countries" (according to him, countries that have predominantly White populations) are committing the genocide. I would like to remind the reader that these governments are also predominantly White and are elected by a predominantly White population. This allegation is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. My opponent has not proven a conspiracy to destroy the White race by governments of "White countries," he has only presented conjecture.

What?

My opponent's position is that genocide is being committed against White people through the

1. Violent crimes of non-Whites. I pointed out that this did not fit the definition of "genocide," to which my opponent insisted otherwise.

2. Demonizing of White achievement (colonization and industrialization). My opponent then said that current history books point out that colonization had negative impacts on non-Whites and that industrialization had a negative on the environment. He did not refute these claims by history books, he merely complained that those claims were there. Since he did not prove those claims were false, then he has no argument. His claim is that this "demonization of Whites" has "inflict[ed]...serious mental harm on members of the [White] racial group. He did not give any evidence for this claim. If this were true, should there not be records from mental health facilities to substantiate this claim?

3. Preventing White births through giving Whites the option to intermarry. This is ridiculous at best. Any reasonable person would conclude that giving someone more options for marriage does not constitute genocide! I'm sure the survivors of the Holocaust would have preferred this form of "genocide." Interracial marriage is not required of any White person!

4. Immigration. Immigration only enhances the cultural experiences of Whites; it does not eliminate or "replace" White people as my opponent claims. I pointed out in the fourth round that in order to replace Whites, a White person would have to be deported or killed every time a non-White person immigrates to a "White country." That is certainly not what is happening.

When?

My opponent has not told us when the alleged genocide of White people occurred or if it is occurring now when it started. That, of course, is because it did not/is not happen(ing).

Where?

My opponent claims the alleged genocide is happening in "White countries." I have pointed out that these "White countries" have populations and governments that are predominantly White. If White people are destroying White people, then it could not be classified as genocide, it would rather be suicide.

Why?

My opponent did not give a motivation for the "genocide" he claims has/is happen(ed)(ing).

Con's Position:

My opening argument was to give the official definition of "genocide" from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I then pointed out that White people have not suffered any of the above atrocities "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the White]... rac[e]."

I have repeatedly pointed out that real genocide like that of the Holocaust and Rwanda were very different from my opponent's alleged "genocide" of White people. Let's look at those events and answer "who, what, when, where and why?"

Who?

Holocaust (H): Hitler and the Nazi Regime

Rwanda: (H) Members of the Hutu tribe.

What?

H: Ghettos, gas chambers and concentration camps

R: Mass killing

When?

H: During World War II

R: April-July of 1994 (1984 in Round 4 was a typo)

Where?

H: In Germany and German occupied territories

R: In Rwanda

Why?

H: Hitler had a bad experience with Jewish people as a child and hated them. (More reasons could be listed, I'm sure.)

R: A history of tension between Hutus and Tutsis

Genocide during the Holocaust and in Rwanda are historically documented, unlike the alleged "White genocide." I will repeat to my opponent, You don't know what genocide is!

Conclusion

My opponent stated that "'Celebrating diversity' is a program of White genocide." He has not proven his resolution with documentation or with logic. This debate has a clear winner!

Acknowledgments

Thank you Charlester, for this debate and for your diligence in pursuing your resolution. I hope that you will continue to debate on ddo and that you and I will have the privilege of debating again. You have been a great opponent. If the voting results of this, your first debate on ddo do not meet your satisfaction, I hope that you will not be discouraged and that you will learn from any mistakes you have made and try again.

Thank you readers and voters for following this debate through all five rounds.

Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mall 10 months ago
mall
The one that takes the con position "took the debate". Please consider this as an extra point to that person. Of course the better arguments with definition of genocide. Clearly the person in the pro position wanted to add their on definition based on what they feel . Also whatever biases, hang ups and oppositions they currently have about "race relations ". The only example presented on genocide from the pro side was concocted and labeled as such. Like urine throne into a fire and calling it water . Totally erroneous in attempt to prove a point. The rest of the arguments were just either hear say, third party information and unsubstantiated claims. It has been proven that this is all prejudice intent with a fascade of being a martyr. Good job, well done on the con side.
Posted by mall 10 months ago
mall
Fvg
Posted by peacemymind 4 years ago
peacemymind
In relation to the debate, can anyone provide me with input on the significance of skin colour in relationship to culture identity? On an evolutionary darker skin due to increased melanin was less susceptible to skin cancer caused by the sun. Lighter skin colour evolved to optimise vitamin D production at higher latitudes. Other than that, there's no relation to skin colour being correlated with other hereditary traits. The term "white culture" shouldn't be generalized to all white people. Skin colour doesn't necessarily determine culture. Isn't the term "white genocide" undermining cultural genocides and sometimes consequently extinction of cultures? These are just me speculating ideas, and I'd like to know your opinions. Please share some facts and ideas.
Posted by peacemymind 4 years ago
peacemymind
In relation to the debate, can anyone provide me with input on the significance of skin colour in relationship to culture identity? On an evolutionary darker skin due to increased melanin was less susceptible to skin cancer caused by the sun. Lighter skin colour evolved to optimise vitamin D production at higher latitudes. Other than that, there's no relation to skin colour being correlated with other hereditary traits. The term "white culture" shouldn't be generalized to all white people. Skin colour doesn't necessarily determine culture. Isn't the term "white genocide" undermining cultural genocides and sometimes consequently extinction of cultures? These are just me speculating ideas, and I'd like to know your opinions. Please share some facts and ideas.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Sorry guys I'm on my phone world Jew should be worldview. Auto-correct fail.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Thank you Charlester for coming on and debating. While I disagree with your world Jew (as I do others) as long as you debate respectfully you are welcome. It takes some cajones to come here and defend a minority opinion as you have. Welcome to DDO!
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Randolf, I did see that in my research.
Posted by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
Good afternoon entertainment, I must say.
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
Uh oh. I seemed to have called ReformedArsenal "RoyLatham," instead. I DO hope you can forgive my mistake.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
It should be pointed out that the hutu/tutsi animosity was generated by colonists for their own purpose.

Charlester I think is missing the boat in thinking that because of interracial marriage there is genocide, thus diluting the gene pool. Even if I agreed with that it would *only* be genocide if it was forced. Charlester failed to prove this or even attempt to.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
Rhodesia79
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was amazing! Totally destroying Con!
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly lopsided, mostly because Pro gave himself one hell of a burden of proof. If he was just arguing for the second art of the resolution, than perhaps he would've had a chance (I do believe that some "anti-racist" programs are inherently racist against whites), but genocide? Sorry, but I don't think a white person voluntarily engaging in xenogenesis can be compared to mass murder, and Pro didnt give me any reason to fall into his way of thinking.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Everyone else spells it out very nicely
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling sources is for having the world's hardest case to follow. Pro argued diversity leads to violence, con argued this wasn't necessarily true. Pro should give specific examples to support his case like con did, and be sure to back up all of his arguments with analysis. Con shouldn't change the font. I hated reading his last two rounds. Con's constructive case was weak and fell out of the debate. Nevertheless it was convincing enough. Neg win.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Admirable effort by Charlester but could not overcome the arguments made by Con. Con was only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were stronger, used more sources, and defined terms better. Voc FTW!!!
Vote Placed by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did much better research.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with RoyLatham's vote for very similar reasons. What I do want to point out though is that Pro asserted the resolution with arguments that weren't supported by any sort of hard facts. Charlester needs to bring out more solid evidence in his future debates.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
CharlesterVocMusTcrMaloyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should perhaps read a few debates before engaging in his next one. He demonstrates a lack of understanding of burden of proof among other things. Lost points or conduct by misusing terms, lost S&G for consistent formatting problems, and lost sources by not using any.