Diversity is not our strength.
I will be arguing that cultural diversity is a weakness in a nation.
I am referring to culture, not race even though many cultures are divided along racial lines.
I am talking about multiple cultures with major differences existing beside/amongst eachother in one nation.
Some main points I plan on covering:
Culturally open societies are more vunerable to hostile manipulation.
Significant internal cultural distinctions are inevitably destabilizing to a nation if they are allowed to persist.
Cultural diversity inevitably leads to elimination/expulsion of all but one of the cultures in that nation.
If you FF, the content of all your dreams for the next 7 years will consist of only a rotation between the two movies Hellboy 2, and Fast Getaway II, but excluding the cool animation in the first ten minutes of Hellboy 2. Yes, it's a very specific curse.
I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for picking an interesting topic to debate. I will be negating the following resolution.
Resolved: Diversity is not our strength.
In this debate the pro has the burden of proof. I encourage the voters to base their vote on who presented the best arguments and not based on your own opinion.
I will begin with my first contention.
Diversity is good for America for a wide variety of reasons. Diversity provides Americans with a wide variety of cultures and ethnicity's to explore and learn about. It provides Americans with different kinds of foods from all around the world. Diversity also provides Americans with a great amount of cultural awareness. In times of globalization, it is increasingly important to have a basic understanding of cultural awareness because people need to be able to work and cooperate with one another. Diversity within the United States of America provides this for people within the nation. It takes all kinds. Diversity is also important because different people have different skills, different life experiences, and different ways of looking at the world. So when there’s a tough problem to solve, a diverse group of people can often come up with a solution faster than a group who are all looking at it the same way. Diversity helps get things done.
Diversity opens opportunities to new talents
Some societies have rejected the contributions that certain members might make. Where women do not work, their potential contributions are lost. Where certain minorities are not considered capable and worthy, their intelligence and goodwill is thrown away. An ideal society would engage all its members, use all their talents, and waste no one’s gifts. Life isn’t fair, and everybody knows it. However, human beings have a moral responsibility to be fair, as far as their circumstances allow. Diverse groups are more likely to be fair, because such groups are likely to be made up of people who try to understand other people’s problems and the way they think. It is unfair to reject someone for being different and it’s uncommon in a diverse group.
The Spice of life
Imagine eating oatmeal every morning, beans for lunch, and a bowl of cream of mushroom soup every night. Almost anyone would lose their appetite. New experiences give life its snap, and enliven a dull routine. Meeting and getting to know someone new can be a mind opening experience. Everybody knows this, because they have experienced it if only in a book or movie. It’s one of the reasons people go to the trouble and expense of travel. Diversity is the spice of life.
For these reasons and more I urge a Con ballot. I look forward to my opponents response!
Thanks for accepting.
Many nations throughout history have employed measures to preserve their cultures. This is often done by limiting the influence of foreign culture. German law mandates that all children attend government schools to prevent parallel societies from forming. Japan isolated itself culturally, and it's society was stable for a long time .  France has previously made efforts to ward off influence of the language of globalization: English. 
You can argue the failings of any of those cultures, and why they should integrate some positive aspects from their neighbors. But if they do, they are not merely adding to their own culture, they are making themselves less of what they were, and more of what someone else is.
This is the illusion of globalization. It doesn't just add the new, it displaces some of the old. What you are left with is not the original culture, but a minor sub-culture of the globalized one. This is no longer multi-culturalism, but cultural assimilation into a homogenized global culture. Alexander the Great employed this with his spread of Hellenistic Culture. This was used as an attractive tool to more easily assimilate and rule subjects of foreign cultures. 
So globalization isn't multi-culturalism. Where are the drawbacks?
Any good thing can be corrupted, and probably will be at sometime. Good food can be over-indulged, security can be used as a tool to promote control, and trust can be taken advantage of.
This was the accusation of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov when he defected in 1970. In this lecture  he gives an overview of how the trust and curiosity of an unwitting culture open to outside influence can be subverted by aggressive outsiders, and converted to a like-minded closed culture. Not all cultural exchanges are laced with this back-handedness, but like an unsecured computer network, it is convenient for friendly AND hostile users to access.
Once inside a society, Mr. Bezmenov and his former comrades established some level of trust (or leverage ) with culturally influential persons (artists, journalists, educators, politicians, religious leaders) who were curious, but naïve or sympathetic toward the USSR's motives. They would then convince the visitors through whatever effective means to sow seeds of dissent against their native culture, and seeds of trust toward Socialist revolutionary ideas.
An open door isn't always a bad thing, but if no one watches who comes through the door, that is the vulnerability of openness.
If some Native American tribes had been more careful about which cultural elements they borrowed from Europeans, generations may have been saved from the grip of alcoholism. 
Multi-culturalism can easily lead to the introduction of a destructive counter-culture bent on destruction of it's host. No matter which side you agree with more, this was the point of counter-culture that came to prevalence in the 1960's. To counter/oppose the existing culture.
Exploring foreign foods, and learning new practical skills from other cultures is not bad. But if you do that, you must be careful what you bring into your “home.” Even the isolationist Japanese during the Tokugawa Period shared things with Dutch and Chinese traders, but on a very regulated basis. But this small bit of beneficial sharing hardly made Japan multi-cultural. Any cultures apart from recognized Japanese norms were to be isolated or eliminated. In the U.S., the ideal of multiculturalism is that many distinct cultures can exist with eachother.  In reality, if the cultures are to maintain their distinctions, they must assimilate, destroy, isolate, or displace eachother. Either homogenize, or separate.
We know the history of segregation in the U.S. that maintained two separate cultures. They were generally not friendly towards eachother.My home city is sizable enough to have segregated population. There are cross-overs, like interracial marriages, but this and the end of historical segregation was only possible with cultural INTEGRATION, or the elimination of two distinct cultures, and start of a new homogenized one.
As long as the two cultures insisted on being separate, they were hostile. At the least, Orthodox Jews living in Gentile nations don't associate with Gentiles to a large extent.
We still see white supremacists and black supremacists cause weakness in our nations. This will not change until the two give up hostility and integrate, or one or both are eliminated. Then we will be stroger.
“Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good character.”
Contention 2 assumes that if all cultures to live next to eachother, only the good qualities will come to the top. It can go the other way. Detroit, Dayton, Lima, Flint, and Gary used to be prosperous cities, but cultures and government policies with bad properties overwhelmed the good. Jobs are now scarce, and crime and blight are common. But Contention 2 also assumes they will get along long enough to share anything but blows. It's not impossible, but this was not the case when Pakistan and India seperated. Hindu and Muslim ideas are inherently incompatible if either is to be preserved. Either both will pass, they will stay separate, or one will prevail.
I don't disagree with much that my opponent says here, but it doesn't apply. Variety is fun and exciting, but irrelevant when considering strength and security.
Masterdebatr91 forfeited this round.
Oh no! Not another FF! It must be me. Despite my opponent's now cursed existance, I encourage him to respond to my arguments in the final round, and console him that as he gets older, he will need less sleep, and seven years flies by quicker than one might expect.
Masterdebatr91 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|