The Instigator
Anarcho-Socialist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sansvoix
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Europeans must stop the White Genocide.

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 1 vote the winner is...
sansvoix
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 70808
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Hello. Right now, there is a White Genocide that is currently plaguing the West. Most Europeans see this, and yet they do nothing, for fear of political backlash. The governments of Europeans are doing almost nothing to halt it, save maybe Russia.

Currently, Europeans are only 8% of the world's population, Europeans being, in slang, "White people."

Roughly 50 years ago, they used to be about 30%.

The main causes behind White Genocide are: Non-White immigration, open borders, amnesty, homosexual "marriage," abortion, and Affirmative Action.

Therefore, if the European population continues to drop, I propose that European government make legislation regarding, for the sake of population increase: Legal prostitution, illegalized abortion, stricter borders, if not closed, pro-European Affirmative Action, (since Europeans are now a minority themselves,) either a ban on gay marriage or an increase in stem cell research, assuming that abortion is still legal, and polygamy, or bigamy.

Con will be arguing that either:
1. Europeans are not becoming a minority.
2. Against my proposition stated above.

Round 1 will consist of acceptance and opening statement.
Round 2 will consist of brief arguments on all propositions.
Round 3 will consist of rebuttals against the arguments from round 2.
Round 4 will consist of final arguments.
Round 5 will consist of final rebuttals and closing statements.
sansvoix

Con

First of all, we need to make it clear what genocide is. The UN states it pretty absolutely and unequivocally in Article 2 of its Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

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 assume you’re going to attempt to argue for C, since it would be ludicrous to argue any of the others (In my opinion it would be ludicrous to even argue C).

‘Currently, Europeans are only 8% of the world's population, Europeans being, in slang, "White people."

Roughly 50 years ago, they used to be about 30%.’

That is not white genocide, simply a sustained rise in the standards of living and a sustained fall in the death rate of developing countries, such as China, India and various African countries. For example, since 1960, the population of India has gone from around 450 million to 1.25 billion people; and China has gone from 667 million to 1.357 billion people. This is due to advances in agricultural, medical and industrial technologies that have allowed those nations to reduce their death rates and increase their life expectancies.

https://www.google.co.uk...

Likewise, the population of ‘white’ countries have risen since 1960, just not at the same rate. The population of the UK has risen from 52 million people to 64 million, France’s has risen from 46 million to 66 million and Germany’s has risen from 73 million to 80 million.

This is just a fact of development. As a state becomes more developed, its workforce prefer to have smaller families, and more women choose a career as opposed to being baby factories.

https://www.google.co.uk...

The white populations have not gone down, they have grown. This means that white genocide is either not happening or is happening in a very haphazard manner.

I propose that even if white people were being displaced in favour of ethnic minorities, it would not matter, since civically, the vast majority of a state’s citizens identify not as white, black or Asian, but as citizens of that country. Civically, it makes no difference, and culturally, it augments the native culture, rather than destroying it.

Debate Round No. 1
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
This video shows the full effect of this in Sweden: https://www.youtube.com...

"That is not white genocide, simply a sustained rise in the standards of living and a sustained fall in the death rate of developing countries, such as China, India and various African countries. For example, since 1960, the population of India has gone from around 450 million to 1.25 billion people; and China has gone from 667 million to 1.357 billion people. This is due to advances in agricultural, medical and industrial technologies that have allowed those nations to reduce their death rates and increase their life expectancies.

Likewise, the population of "white" countries have risen since 1960, just not at the same rate. The population of the UK has risen from 52 million people to 64 million, France"s has risen from 46 million to 66 million and Germany"s has risen from 73 million to 80 million.

This is just a fact of development. As a state becomes more developed, its workforce prefer to have smaller families, and more women choose a career as opposed to being baby factories."

Look at the rise of developing countries vs European ones. Since the European ones are more advanced, one would logically conclude that the people of the advanced countries want to STAY ADVANCED, and in order to do that, they must have more children. But, due to "modern culture," where homosexuality, abortion, and immigration are fully supported by the government and the media, brainwashing the people if you will, the people of the advanced societies don't think that having kids is necessary. Then their populations fall and they as a people fall. But China and India are strange situations. It makes no sense that they increase by more than double, while European countries increase by only around 10%
http://dixienet.org... This article is advocating Southern secession, but it has a section on European genocide.

"I propose that even if white people were being displaced in favour of ethnic minorities, it would not matter, since civically, the vast majority of a state"s citizens identify not as white, black or Asian, but as citizens of that country. Civically, it makes no difference, and culturally, it augments the native culture, rather than destroying it."

Well, here's the problem with that argument. Once Europeans are gone, that's it. They will never come back, and the world will NEVER be the same. It would eventually matter civically. Why would a state with no Germans be called Germany?
Culturally, if the original culture is not intact, then therefore it is not the original culture, obviously, so it would, in essence destroy it.
sansvoix

Con

"This video shows the full effect of this in Sweden..."

That's just a youtube conspiracy video posted by a tinfoil hat-wearing lunatic, who picks out individual cases and makes them out to be the norm. Sweden is still one of the best places in the world to live in terms of crime.

It has one of the lowest murder rates in the EU, which has in fact fallen in recent years (1)

It also has a very low rate of robbery (2)

Its assault and rape rates may be higher than other OECD countries, but that is more because of the methodology of the police, which takes violent crime and rape far more seriously than in other nations, and victims are encouraged to come forward. In other OECD countries, the real rates of assault and rape are similar to Swedens, the crimes just go unreported and uninvestigated (3)

Also, the video is drawing a conclusion first, i.e. immigrants are bad, and then fitting the evidence around its pre-drawn conclusion. This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.

"Look at the rise of developing countries vs European ones. Since the European ones are more advanced, one would logically conclude that the people of the advanced countries want to STAY ADVANCED, and in order to do that, they must have more children."

The reason birth rates were so high was because infant mortality was so high. Parents would have a lot of children because many of them would die before they could start working. Also, because incomes were so low, in order to support the parents, they would need many offspring to work. The pattern of large families persisted even as infant mortality rates plummeted in the early twentieth century, and around the time of the Second World War, the populations of Britain, France and Italy were all at roughly 45 million people. Since then, the birth rate has fallen, and the countries have all increased by roughly 15-20 million people since then. This is because larger families are unnecessary, since in most cases, all of the children survive to adulthood and advances in the standard of living and the welfare state have meant that parents need not fear being looked after in their old age, as they have social security and their children would be earning sufficient amounts of money to support them.

"But, due to "modern culture," where homosexuality, abortion, and immigration are fully supported by the government and the media, brainwashing the people if you will, the people of the advanced societies don't think that having kids is necessary."

Also, if European populations started growing more sluggishly around WWII, you cannot attribute falling birth rates to 'modern culture', as you choose to describe it. In the UK, homosexuality, abortion and divorce were not legalised until 1967, after twenty years of lower birth rates, and women did not take a major role in the workforce until the late 1970s/early 1980s. The liberal aspects of modern culture are some of the best parts of western society, and we should be proud and glad that we have them.

"Well, here's the problem with that argument. Once Europeans are gone, that's it. They will never come back, and the world will NEVER be the same. It would eventually matter civically. Why would a state with no Germans be called Germany?
Culturally, if the original culture is not intact, then therefore it is not the original culture, obviously, so it would, in essence destroy it."

What is the original culture? The culture of living in caves and hunting mammoths? The Celts? The Ancient Etruscans? Cultures change all the time. Britain was invaded by Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, each of which left their own mark on its culture. Immigration enriches the culture of a nation, by combining the best of both cultures into one. This is what assimilation is. To be British, French, German, Italian, Spanish or whatever culture one may be is to be all of the subcultures within them. When is the cutoff point for what you consider to be positive cultural influence and when an immigrant may identify as part of their host country? Cultural mixing is an ongoing process, and western countries are melting pots for all the world's cultures to congregate and leave their mark. White supremacists such as yourself have no place in modern society, as your ideology targets cosmetic differences among different groups of people, creating arbitrary boundaries between cultures that are far more complex than your blinkered, bigoted view of the world can comprehend.

Also, the white population of Europe is increasing, which means that the so-called 'white genocide' is a pretty poor genocide as far as it goes. Who is coordinating this genocide? Who is carrying out this genocide? If the genocide has not happened yet, what warning signs are there that it is imminent?

I suspect your answers to these questions will be as lacklustre as your last argument.

(1) http://ec.europa.eu...
(2) http://www.civitas.org.uk...
(3) http://bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

"It has one of the lowest murder rates in the EU, which has in fact fallen in recent years (1)

It also has a very low rate of robbery (2)

Its assault and rape rates may be higher than other OECD countries, but that is more because of the methodology of the police, which takes violent crime and rape far more seriously than in other nations, and victims are encouraged to come forward. In other OECD countries, the real rates of assault and rape are similar to Swedens, the crimes just go unreported and uninvestigated (3)"

None of these arguments addresses that the pure European blood in the Western world is slowly going down. Also, I said nothing about crime rates in minorities.

"Also, the video is drawing a conclusion first, i.e. immigrants are bad, and then fitting the evidence around its pre-drawn conclusion. This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple."

I never said that immigrants were bad, but immigration is bad for Europeans. The video was just trying to show that the government of Sweden fully supports not only white genocide itself, but the indoctrination of Swedes to believe in race-mixing, immigration, homosexuality, abortion, and etc. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com...

"The liberal aspects of modern culture are some of the best parts of western society, and we should be proud and glad that we have them."

No, we should not. Tolerance of immoral groups of people leads to the nation-state and the nation as a whole becoming immoral.

"What is the original culture?"

It is not of Africa or Asia. It is of Europe, built by Europeans, for Europeans. Only.
sansvoix

Con

"None of these arguments addresses that the pure European blood in the Western world is slowly going down. Also, I said nothing about crime rates in minorities."

Because that isn't what genocide is. Let's go back to the quote from the UN Convention.

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

Interbreeding does not constitute physical destruction. On the contrary, it is representative of integration of cultures. You are making completely arbitrary divisions - large areas of the population of Spain, Italy and Greece all contain descendents of people from Africa and the Middle East, just watch Dennis Hopper's speech on Sicilians in True Romance. When the Christians retook Southern Italy, Iberia and Greece, the descendents of the conquerors did not just leave, they stayed and their descendents are indistinguishable from other citizens. Their genetic makeup is different, but it makes no difference to their characteristics.

If we look at Sicily, we can see that its culture has been beautifully influenced by all of its conquerors, from the Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans all the way to the Normans and the Italians in the beatiful city of Palermo. Every culture in Sicily has left its mark on Palermo; its city walls are ancient, and the San Giovanni degli Eremiti church combines the minarets of a mosque with Byzantine mosaics, Norman architectural designs and Italian flair to produce one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. The same can be said for the cities of Cordoba, Seville, Barcelona and Granada, all of which were owned by the Moorish Kingdom of Andalusia and were then conquered by the Spanish Crown, and the clash of cultures has created a rich tapestry of cultures that is far superior to anything either nation could have produced on their own. The list of cities augmented by other cultures is endless - Rome, Istanbul, St Petersburg, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Dubrovnik, Athens, etc. They all flourished as a result of different races and cultures coming together and living side by side, all contributing to the society in which they live.

"Tolerance of immoral groups of people leads to the nation-state and the nation as a whole becoming immoral."

Where do you derive your morality from and what gives you the idea that it should be universally accepted and legislated? It is not the government's job to legislate morality, to do so does not reduce the immoral behaviour, it just forces it underground. Do you think there were more gay people in the UK in 1968 than there were in 1966, or do you think that the number was the same? Amsterdam, Berlin, London and Paris were all centres of LGBT culture, with underground gay bars and nightclubs while homosexuality was illegal from the mid-nineteenth century onwards.

The same is true for abortion, which when legalised switched the methodology from being an unbent wire coat hanger or a cocktail of dangerous chemicals to a safe procedure in which the woman was safe from injury and death.

Also, more white people are alive now than ever have been, so it is a pretty shitty genocide to say the least. You have not answered my questions as to who is orchestrating the genocide and when we can expect to be shipped off to death camps.
Debate Round No. 3
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Anarcho-Socialist forfeited this round.
sansvoix

Con

Please, tell me more about the white genocide, it's fairly entertaining.
Debate Round No. 4
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Anarcho-Socialist forfeited this round.
sansvoix

Con

Pro has not provided any real evidence of a white genocide occuring, nor has he provided any reason for Europeans to stop it.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Anarcho-SocialistsansvoixTied
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: Forfeiture