The Instigator
Virgil.Cain
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

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  
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: 7/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,934 times Debate No: 17526
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Virgil.Cain

Pro

Full resoluton:

And so be it Resolved: In order to preserve the racial integrity of the United States, immigration should be limited to European countries alone.

For this debate, Europe will be defined as the land East of the Atlantic, North of Africa, and West of Russia. Russia will not count as a European country for this debate. In accepting, my Opponent is agreeing to this definition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The White American is dying out, that much is quite obvious to all. Indeed, it is predicted that the White race will become a minority by 2050[1]. It was estimated that the amount of babies born to minorities has since last year exceded that children born to whites.[2] Fully 5.6% of our children are now inter-racial,[3] and only one in six American babies are born with blue eyes.

America now faces a more massive challenge than it did nearly 70 years ago, when it was dragged into war with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, or even its darkest hour, the illegal northern invasion of the south. The challange America faces today lies in it's extremely dangerous demographic change.

The America of the past was populated by fine men, most of whom were white. The minorities of the time tried to be like their white peers, and did so well, serving our nation with great honor and furious strength. Quite unlike the racial cesspool our country is now, the American people, including the minorites, were proud of our country and were unified in their support of it. The minorities of the time TRIED to integrate, they learned our language, saluted our flag, fought for our country, and were, above all, Americans. Congress made the absolute right choice when it passed the Civil Rghts act, giving these wonderful people the full rights they deserved. However, they also, caught up in a fervor of White guilt, foolishly passed immigration reform, lowering the racial quotas for those wishing to immigrate to our country.

Let's examine the average immigrant of today's world. Many of them (20% in California) do not even know English![4] They demand change, they demand equality, but they do not TRY to integrate! There have been demonstrations (called "civil rights protests" by our non-represtenting represtentatives) of immigrants marching under a foreign flag, and they commit massive amounts of crime.

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population"

DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens comprise only 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population.

A Pew Hispanic Center study found that, of those sentenced for federal crimes in 2007, non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders, 25 percent of drug offenders, 8 percent of white collar offenders, and 6 percent of firearms offenders. Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation’s adult population.[5]

I think I've made my point for now.

Immigrants continue to flood in, diluting our culture, our resources, and the purity of our blood. Indeed the racial barriers that divided our fathers, and their fathers before them are quickly falling apart. If we are to have any chance to take back our culture, and reunify our country, we must stop this disgusting mix of color our country is becoming. The racial differences MUST be preserved. I agree with Kevin Alfred Strom in his statement:

"The birthrate of mixed-race children is rising steadily, while the birthrate for white children continues to drop. If the prevalence of interracial marriage and mating continues, the white race will eventually become extinct. Men and women of European lineage who enter into unions with members of other races are polluting the European gene pool. By marrying outside of the white race, they are contributing to the genocide of their people and the extinction of their culture."[6]

Allowing non-European people into our borders, sending them to school with our children, and allowing them to do blanant harm to our country all encourages miscegenation.

Do not think that only current citizens are harmed through the immigration problem, the immigrants themselves suffer harm too! Indeed, they are the victims of hate crimes and poverty. It is in the best interest for both of our two groups of people if we cut off this flood off persons coming from our south.

That's all I have for now, I wish my Opponent a good debate and I understand this is a sensitive issue so I really do not want anyone to take offense.

Sources:

1. http://www.reuters.com...
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
3. 2010 U.S. Census
4. http://www.ppic.org...
5. http://www.cis.org...
6. Strom, Kevin Alfred. "Interracial Marriage Is Genocide."
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for starting what should be an interesting debate. I'm going to take this as a two prong debate. In order for the resolution to stand, both parts must be refuted. If either stands, the resolution falls.

Since my opponent's resolution only deals with legal immigration, and not illegal immigration, that is what will be argued.

C1) According to the resolution, immigration from Asia should no longer be allowed. This includes, but is not limited to Japan. The Japanese American population is only .3% of the US (1,200,000 people), however, they make up so few in prision that they are not even counted in most incarceration charts [1]. These individuals are more often than not, law abiding citizens, and contributing members to society.

The resolution would greatly harm our relationship with Japan, and the companies, and economic gain we receive by doing business with them.

C2) It is better to discriminate based on criminal history, than on nationality. Several stats that were given were rather poor. Example is the "non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders...Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation's adult population." These two numbers do not go together. It would be more accurate to point immigration offenders to the imigration percentage, not total population percentage. Of which, hispanics make up 67% of all our immigrants [2].

That said, only a small minority of immigrants commit crime, so preventing all imigration based on nation of origin, is a poor decision, especailly when considering that criminals can immigrat from other European nations. A far superior method would be to base immigration off of criminal history and usefullness to society.

I will leave this as these two short points and allow my opponent to address them.

[1] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Virgil.Cain

Pro

Thanks, Ore_Ele. Let's look over Ore_Ele's arguments and find the flaws in them.

C1.

He begins by stating that Japanese immigrants commit very little crime. While I accept his statistics, Japanese immigrants harm us in an entirely more obscure, but just as sinister way. For one thing, Japanese anime has very negative affects on our society. In fact, Japanese anime quite often has underlying themes of sex, violence,and drug use. Such an attack on the cultural hegemony of Europe in our nation is quite dangerous.

Also, asians are much moe likely to disrupt our racial integrity. In fact, 40% of asians marry outside their race.[1]

C2.

Ore_Ele wants us to discriminate based on criminal history, not ethnicity. The problem with this is that the nations from which many of these immigrants come have very un-developed legal systems, making their criminal ctivity much less likely to be detected. The fact remains that immigrants commit more crime (save for the notable example brought up, however they harm us in other ways.)

He has not attacked any of what I've said so really, at this point, theres no reason to not vote pro.

Source:

1. http://pewsocialtrends.org...
Ore_Ele

Con

C1) Pro claims that "Japanese anime has very negative affects on our society." While I accept that anime often has underlying themes of sex and violence, drug based themes are actually not very common in modern animes or mangas. And all of these themes are actually far more common in modern American films and TV shows.

But that actually doesn't matter as restrictions on anime (whether justified or not) have nothing to do with restrictions of Japanese immigrants. Just like immigration of German people with the import of German cars.

Pro has also made several claims about about people marrying outside of their race (both in R1 and R2), while he has presented no logical reasoning for why this is a negative act that should be prevented. I would also like to point out that if 40% of asians are marrying outside of their race, then they are actually being very biased towards marrying within their race.

Since they only make up 4.8% [1], they should (statistically) only marry in their own race 4.8% of the time. The fact that they are not, shows that some driving factor is pushing them towards their own race (like genetics that makes them more attracted to a similar race rather than a concious choice).

C2) Basing immigration based on criminal history is not limited to just the legal system of their home nation. Many nations provide a probation period of several years, where if you break the law, you are booted out and not allowed to return (pending the law, they don't kick you out for a speeding ticket).

Regarding attacking what my opponent has said, that is not required. If I can provide a superior policy, I don't need to attack yours at all.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Virgil.Cain

Pro

C1.

Con says that since the negative effects from Japanese anime (whose existence he has conceded to) isn't important because American culture has these effects as well. This makes no sense. Just because American culture has something bad, we should accept something that is also bad, thus adding to the total negative effects on our society? Since Con has conceded that the negative effects exist, we should not allow this. Con states that "that actually doesnt matter as restrictions on anime (whether justified or not) have nothing to do with restrictions of Japanese immigrants." This is false, because if we show Japanese culture to have negative affects on our society, than it does justify not allowing them in.

Con also makes several misguided statements about inter-racial marriage. Clearly he has not read the evidence I provided showing miscegenation to be harmful. I will now bring in more, here's a quote from Bishop Alma White, regarding inter-racial marriage "Their offspring must bear the stigma of criminal and degraded parentage, whether reared among the blacks or whites. This was a part of the evils of slavery, and present day conditions are as bad, if not worse." Con wonders why racial mixture is a bad thing. If he cannot understand this, than I cannot explain it to him. That is by no means an insult, some people just have different views that will not be changed, however surely the fact that the vast majority of people marry within their race is proof enough that racial mixture is not desired by mainstream society. Whether you agree with it or not, I have brought in evidence showing racial mixture to be wrong. Con has not brought in any evidence, so I win. Vote Pro.

Con tries to argue that since asians out-marry only 40% of te time, this shows that they are biased. True, as they should be! Their rate of out-marrying should be 0% just like every other race should be as well! Asians are the most likely of all races to out-marry, and since I have shown racial mixture to be bad, this shows why asian immigrants should not be allowed.

Con also makes a statement in his first round that prohibiting Japanese immigrants would harm our relations. I don't see how that's true, Japanese culture is very pro-racial integrity, only after they come to the United States do they abandon their culture and out-marry.

C2.

Con misundrstands my objection. My objection is that the countries where most of our immigrants come from have very terrible legal/police systems, which keeps them from being caught when they commit crime. Con has attempted to by-pass the fact that immigrants from latin america (where the vast majority come from) commit more crime than whites. He has shown a notable exception, but I have shown that exception to harm our society in other ways.

Con also states that he doesn't need to attack what I said. That means that since I have taken down his contentions, and he hasn't touched my argument, if anything, ven the smallest little thing in my argument makes any sense waht so ever, I win.

Vote Pro, regardless of what our personal opinion is.

Source:

White, Bishop Alma. "The White Race Must Be Preserved."
Ore_Ele

Con

C1)

"Negative effects" are a subjective measuring stick. One that if my opponent wishes to use, he must back up his reasoning for reaching such a subjective opinion and present a case why we all should follow it. For the time, my opponent has not done anything other than restate his case.

If we assume that the qualities that my opponent listed are indeed "negative" to the point where an entire race of people should be discriminated against for them (because of their cartoons, at least Hitler was blaming a war on the Jews, not cartoons on them), then we must also, by the same logic, discriminate on the entire American and European races, since those "negative" efftects are present (in a much larger degree) in us. One must also ask, how "negative" are these if we don't even bother making them illegal? Is "sex" really that bad? I personally enjoy it, and we kind of need it to continue on as a species. So I subjectively view it as a "good." We can let the voters decide.

The Quote from Bishop Alma is an appeal to authority. Nothing of logical value was presented, no facts, no reasoning, no nothing. Just personal opinion from a man with authority.

"If he cannot understand this, than I cannot explain it to him." Probably not, but as a rule of thumb for a debate, you at least want to try to explain it to the readers, if not to your opponent.

C2)

"Con has attempted to by-pass the fact that immigrants from latin america (where the vast majority come from) commit more crime than whites."

My opponent has shown nothing to why blasklisting the entire race is proper solution, merely restated this statistic. In fact, he hasn't even shown that this anything more than correlation. To make such a damning act of racial blacklisting, one would have to prove racial casuation. More likely, this is caused by a spurious relationship of poverty or wealth. Immigrants tend to be poorer, and the poor tend to commit more crimes (the logically link being that the poor are more often in desperate situations and so need to take desperate risks, i.e. crime).
Debate Round No. 3
Virgil.Cain

Pro

C1.

Con starts by saying that "negative effects" are subjecive. Thats all well and good, but he has already conceded to their negative effects so for the purposes of this round they are universial. Con also tries tolink iimmigration restrictions to genocide. That is absolutely ridiculous. All we are doing is excluding some people from immigrating because of cultural perversion, not killing them.

Con states that my quiote is an appeal to authority. So what? I've given my opinion, and the opinions of several others, and explained how racial admixture results in cultural destruction. Con has given his own opinion, and nothing more. Please vote Pro. Con disagrees aout the harms of inter-racial marriage. I have given an analysis about how it is cultural destruction which he ignores. Vote Pro.

C2.

Con tries to link immigrant poverty with crime, rather than race. You can vote pro. He's conceded that immigrants from non European countries bring about more crime (although for different reaons). He's given no reason TO allow them in. Sure, poverty=crime. Non-white aliens are more than likely to be poor.

Conclusion:

Con has lost this debate. Many of his objections support my side, and during the entire round he offers nothing more than his own personal opinion. I know almost all of you disagree with me, but I respectfully ask for a Pro ballot.

Thank you for the debate Ore_Ele, and for not insuing me despite this being a subject of controversy.
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. It has garnered a lot of views and has even sparked some debate in the forums.

However, my opponent's reading of my arguments has been misguided, at best. I will quickly go into them one by one before completely a summary.

1) "Con starts by saying that "negative effects" are subjecive. Thats all well and good, but he has already conceded to their negative effects so for the purposes of this round they are universial."

This is false, I have agreed to the effects themselve, but not to their status as "negative" nor to the degree at which they effect us. As stated in the last round, I view sex as a good thing, not a negative thing. Since my opponent has not provided anything as to why they are negative, these are all dropped.

2) "Con also tries tolink iimmigration restrictions to genocide. That is absolutely ridiculous."

This is false. I linked discriminating in immigration to discriminating in WW2. Drawing additional links between the two that were not made is a strawman tactic. This also fails to address the primary point, that if we disrciminate against them because of "negative" effects, we must discriminate against all things that have that "negative" effect, including ourselves. If we are creating only a special case of discrimination against them, then it is because of their skin color or race, rather than the actual negative effects.

3) "Con states that my quiote is an appeal to authority. So what?"

I believe that this speaks for itself. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and as such does not follow reason.

4) "Con tries to link immigrant poverty with crime, rather than race. You can vote pro. He's conceded that immigrants from non European countries bring about more crime (although for different reaons). He's given no reason TO allow them in. Sure, poverty=crime. Non-white aliens are more than likely to be poor."

This goes back to my initial case, that not allowing people in because of their actions is superior to not allowing them in because of their skin color. There is no real link between being poor and one's skin color, and Pro has not provided any link to show causation.

Summary

Pro has not provided any evidence or reasoning that discriminating against people based on their nationality (i.e. skin color, as he specifically said that European nations are okay i.e. white nations). He also provided no solid reasoning that basing immigration off of other factors would not be a better alternative. With nothing but his own opinion, and the opinions of his appeal to authorities, there is no reason to support a vote for him.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
I'm not voting in this debate. I don't want Virgil.Cain to feel like "liberals" are ganging up on him and that he is being treated unfairly. I have issued a debate challenge to him and I want him to stay long enough to accept my challenge.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
@serene:
LOL!
Posted by Anelson1994 5 years ago
Anelson1994
You know what else will almost gone by 2050? BIGOTS!!!!
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I share VMTM's sentiments.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
@000ike:
YOU: "pozzo, ever heard of an intellectual racist?"

ME: stormfront.org is a "white nationalist" (racist) website that is home to thousands of racists, many of whom carry on a pseudo-intellectual air. I have debated them on that site, but I've been kicked off so many times, my IP address has been banned. Whenever I start winning, I get booted, LOL!

YOU: "Even DDO, the field of free thinking and some often unusual opinions does not allow debates of this sort. This particular debate is just a hair away from being against the rules"

ME: Please don't run them away. I have been itching to devour one of them in a debate without getting kicked off of the site where the bloodbath was committed! Ever seen one of those animal shows where a lion chases down a gazelle, then meat and intestines begin flying through the air? That's kind of what I have in mind in a debate kind of way.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
pozzo, ever heard of an intellectual racist? Your defense of such views is as unwelcome as the views themselves. It's as if you're trying to ignore all the lessens we've learned from history and vomit what we now know to be immoral. You must be joking. Even DDO, the field of free thinking and some often unusual opinions does not allow debates of this sort. This particular debate is just a hair away from being against the rules.

Pozzo, if you truly believe that we should uphold the merit (if any) of virgil's argument, then it's you against the vast majority of America. Simply put.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posted by Pozzo 3 hours ago
"Pro assumes 1) that racial integrity is best for the US 2) that interracial marriage is somehow harmful to the US and 3) that keeping a white majority is somehow best for the US."
2 follows from 1, which follows from 3. You wasted a lot of words there.

"this man is mad. Never have I seen someone argue for racism, bigotry, immorality, and all that is unethical and unnatural to the order of life. He argues for racial purity like a classic Hitler. For shame"
Once upon a time , the opposite position was considered madness. Contemporary values aren't automatically more valid than older ones. Further, morality is subjective and the laws of nature are completely irrelevant.

"The Statue of Liberty and its poem"
Not a good basis for national policy.

"The use of Racial Purity in the Holocaust."
Religion has been used as justification for many horrors. Should all people be forced to abandon their faith?

"the time-tested law that racism and intolerance of all sorts is the root of all evil."
Really? Seriously? That, and you're being incredibly intolerant of his views. Intolerance of (perceived) intolerance is still intolerance (of a sort)."

So what is your point?
Posted by Pozzo 5 years ago
Pozzo
"Pro assumes 1) that racial integrity is best for the US 2) that interracial marriage is somehow harmful to the US and 3) that keeping a white majority is somehow best for the US."
2 follows from 1, which follows from 3. You wasted a lot of words there.

"this man is mad. Never have I seen someone argue for racism, bigotry, immorality, and all that is unethical and unnatural to the order of life. He argues for racial purity like a classic Hitler. For shame"
Once upon a time, the opposite position was considered madness. Contemporary values aren't automatically more valid than older ones. Further, morality is subjective and the laws of nature are completely irrelevant.

"The Statue of Liberty and its poem"
Not a good basis for national policy.

"The use of Racial Purity in the Holocaust."
Religion has been used as justification for many horrors. Should all people be forced to abandon their faith?

"the time-tested law that racism and intolerance of all sorts is the root of all evil."
Really? Seriously? That, and you're being incredibly intolerant of his views. Intolerance of (perceived) intolerance is still intolerance (of a sort).
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
@Virgil.Cain I am a vocal music teacher and my name is Maloy
Posted by Virgil.Cain 5 years ago
Virgil.Cain
Far-right: Good, I'm glad some of us do.

Ike: It isn't bigotry. It's not that I think that the White race is better, I just think all races are different. I don't believe that together in harmony, and our inner-cities are perfect proof of that.

VMTM: Well, you will get a crack at me in our debate. Interesting user name, where does it come from?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Virgil.CainOre_EleTied
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: Cons arguments were far more valid than Pros, after the first round Pro's arguments began to look like an convoluted pool with no way to validate any of his arguments, both parties did have spelling mistakes so I cannot go off of that.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
Virgil.CainOre_EleTied
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 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: While reading the debate, there were a couple of key things that gave Con the victory. First of all, you both were poor with supporting what you had with fact, but Pro did a worse job with it. Also, Pro strayed from the topic a great deal, and also associated things like anime with the race. Even if it was harmful, (1) how would it effect our "racial integrity" and (2) do you really expect to keep EVERYONE away from it just by banning the Japanese? Absurd. Both had Spelling and grammar issues.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Virgil.CainOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening argument was actually pretty good, but it all went downhill from there. Some of his rebuttals were simply facepalms, especially the Anime argument and "if he cannot understand it, then I cannot explain it".
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Virgil.CainOre_EleTied
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: I will put my bias against Virgil aside for the sake of fairness. Now, CON asked PRO to explain why inter-racial breeding is a bad thing. PRO replies that "if he cannot understand it, then I cannot explain it." This and this alone was a failure to prove his position and an unjustified unwillingness to do so. Pro's argument consisted of multiple unsupported assertions that did not form a sound argument. I also did not see the connection between animes, and restricting Japanese immigration.