The Instigator
Iamaconfederate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pokemonzr
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Pokemonzr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,262 times Debate No: 49528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Iamaconfederate

Pro

I believe that cultural and racial interbreeding is a bad thing because it mixes cultures and races, obviously, but it also kills diversity.

I await an opponent.
Pokemonzr

Con

They said that cultural and racial interbreeding kills diversity. I disagree because interbreeding cultures and races only create more diversity. Think of it this way. There are many diverse cultures and races on this planet. When one race has a baby with another race, take a Chinese and an American for example, you have a Chinese-American kid, thus increasing the diversity and variety of culture and races.

I believe that cultural and racial interbreeding is a good thin because it creates a more diverse population, as I have stated above. More races mixing with other races just creates a new spectrum of race combinations, therefore resulting in more diversity.

For the reasons I have stated, please vote for the con/opposition side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Iamaconfederate

Pro

I see where your coming from, but it kills your race, and if continued throughout many generations, we would eventually have just one race and one culture. We would just be humans. We would'nt have Chinese, Polish, German, Brazillian, American, etc.

I could possibly agree with interbreeding on a small scale. That is how the Mexicans got started, by mixing Spaniards and the native people.
Pokemonzr

Con

I see where you're coming from on this one. However, you're forgetting one important thing: nationality.

Your assumption is that if we interbreed, we will all morph into one race, one kind, just plain humans. However, we would still have our nationality. We would still be Chinese, Americans, Brazilians, etc.

Also, I would like to bring up a new argument. I believe that interbreeding is a good thing because humans deserve to experience new things and breed with who they choose. If a person loves a person of a different race, it is not necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't restrict interbreeding because it is a bad thing. We should allow it. I understand that isn't necessarily what this debate is about, but, in this case, interbreeding is a good thing.

For these reasons, I believe that cultural and racial interbreeding is not a bad thing, or isn't not a good thing.
Debate Round No. 2
Iamaconfederate

Pro

Nationality does not define a nation. A nation, in Biblical terms, is a group of people who all share the same language, culture, history, and ethnicity. And if we all interbred into one race, then we would most likely share one culture and the world would not be diverse at all.


And yes, people will be people and do what they want, but that will lead us to be one boring race.

Thank you for participating in this debate.

And to the audience, please don't be biased, or call me a racist just because I want to keep ALL races, not just white.
Pokemonzr

Con

Nationality does not define a nation. A nation, in Biblical terms, is a group of people who all share the same language, culture, history, and ethnicity. And if we all interbred into one race, then we would most likely share one culture and the world would not be diverse at all.

And yes, people will be people and do what they want, but that will lead us to be one boring race.

Thank you for participating in this debate.

And to the audience, please don't be biased, or call me a racist just because I want to keep ALL races, not just white.

Audience, I would like to point out that my competitor is using the definition of a "nation" in Biblical terms. I believe that this is an invalid source since billions of people in this world reject the thought of Christianity, including me. Don't call me biased or sacrilegious; it's the truth. I believe that any religions book or teaching is not a reliable source to use for something that's a factual matter. For example, creationism versus evolution. I vote evolution, considering there is hardcore scientific evidence backing it.

Now that that's out of the way, I would like to state that the true definition of a nation is, according to dictionary.com, "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax."

Okay, so if we interbreed, we may become one glob of a race, just simple humans. However, this is just a ridiculous idea because this would take millions of years to happen, and EVERYBODY would have to interbreed. Not everybody interbreeds. In fact, only 15.1% of all new marriages in 2010 are interracial marriages. So, I believe that we should reject your one and only argument, that everybody would become the same, because of the facts I have stated.

Because of the rejection of this argument, I believe that I have one this debate. Please vote for the con side. :)
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mall 9 months ago
mall
Yes just admit that you have prejudice. You may not want to face it due to the negativity but it is what it is. And saying being from the south , "proud southerner" where a lot of prejudice history was made is no coincidence. Really weak fallacious agruments from the pro side. "Boring and diversity" fail so far to associate with anything bad. On top of that, it seems as though we are not all considered one race of humans. I don't care if we all have one color of skin like lions , what is destructive about that? Just admit that people such as this refuse any kind of association with any other group of persons. Most likely aspiring nationalists kind of folk . Oh and "the greatest of all time " had some class and values but his religion taught him "racism". He was just spewing it out on that talkshow. I sincerely hope he has wised up since then. I believe he may have recanted . There's no strong valid argument for opposition
Posted by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
I should have mentioned in my final round that he said that everybody would become white... but that's a recessive trait... everybody would become black... LOL

And, this guy seems racist. Doesn't get him anywhere with this debate.

Thanks for all of the compliments/constructive criticism in your votes. I am used to speaking in teams of three in debates, so I will have to adjust my debating style a bit to match this website.

:)
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Yep. Looks like Muhammad Ali said something racist (I never liked the term "a racist" as a noun).
Posted by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
And you also stated in your last argument that we will somehow never all be one race. And your definition of nation was very similar to mine.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
I meant Biblical AND historical. And over time, everyone would interbreed. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
I am a secessionist by the way. I agree that the US is not a culture, nor is American a nation of people. And I am not racist, I am proud of being a white, Southerner!

I guess Mohammed Ali is racist too.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Interbreeding is far from a professional way to talk about humans. No contemporary biologist or psychologist would be caught dead saying that. You are one racist SOB.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
The United States does not have a common culture. The United States CERTAINLY does not have a common ethnicity. The United States does not have a common language. The people of the United States do not have a common history. The United States is not a "race;" my goodness. The Israelites did have a common language (ish) a common ethnicity (ish) a common history, and a common culture.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
I'm a guy, by the way.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
What is so "wow" about it?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
IamaconfederatePokemonzrTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Iamaconfederate ussually coms off pretty racist, but on to the RFD. Con just made much stronger arguments on how race doesn't matter and we will still always have nationality. Plue, he included sources at the end.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
IamaconfederatePokemonzrTied
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 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: Pro made weak arguments. He also conceded to some of con's statements and even contradicted himself. He confused race with nation. In the comment section he claimed that he is arguing that race and nation is the same, but contradicted himself by saying that the US is not a race. He also conceded against himself in round 2 when he said he agrees with interbreeding to a small extent. Con essentially addressed everything pro said, while pro ignored some of con's arguments, such as cons argument on freedom of choice. Con also showed how biblical sources are not reliable for this debate, so sources also go to con.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
IamaconfederatePokemonzrTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok, Con won the debate because Pro had problems with definitions between race and nationality. Con also made offensive comments against Mexicans, posted a racist video, was generally racist, and suggested that interracial people don't marry or have sex--they "breed." Pro was also contradictory when he pointed out that an entirely new nationality and culture was created out of multiple nationalities/cultures. No one had sources, and grammar was decent on both sides. Con--you have a tendency to repeat your opponent's arguments and give a very short, low-impact response. Try to give more arguments than you quote. You also were inconsistent in your rebuttals. You need to make sure you are saying the same general thing each time. Your evolutionary argument was ok at best, and came too late. Additionally, neither of you realized that race isn't biological but social. Intermarriage would not change the way we differentiate each other. We've been doing so since the beginning.