The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Interracial Dating Destroys Diversity - Interracial Dating is Wrong

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RyanBailey has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2017 Category: People
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 103214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




People being at liberty to choose which partner they'd like, does not mean it is ethically or morally right; it simply means that by law, they are at liberty to choose which partner they'd like. Furthermore, just as two dyes - when mixed - create one dye at the expense of both dyes, interracial dating does the same. The very thing that interracial dating seeks to promote, which is diversity, it destroys. Such is to say, if one's reason behind dating outside of their race is an attraction to a different race, a partner of a different race is only available to them because that partner's parents, chose not to date outside of their race - proving interracial dating is unsustainable.

When it comes to sustainability, any practice, any species, any thing that cannot sustain itself, dies off, as it is inherently unsuited to survive as an idea or being. To be laconic, interracial dating destroys the possibilities for interracial dating. If someone cites "expanding my options" as a reason for dating outside of their race, they must first realize that the only way they are able to do so, the only way they have the many options available to them, is because people have NOT dated outside of their race. For that reason, perhaps the biggest proponent of diversity is homogeneity, or rather, inner-racial dating. Unsustainable practices are fundamentally flawed, as they simply cannot sustain themselves. Because of this, why should we endorse and/or legalize a practice that is unsustainable, and erases the genetic diversity - the uniqueness - of pure races, the pure races that give such cancerous practices the opportunity to initially thrive?

In essence, in no other aspect of life, be it the life of humans or separate organisms, do we promote and/or legalize practices that pose a threat to the existential nature of the pure organism. This says that we value difference - we value diversity, and diversity and interracial dating are fundamentally mutually exclusive; for this reason, interracial dating is unarguably wrong.


Thank you for opening up the conversation about this topic. I look forward to our exchange of ideas.

Your argument on this topic is flawed.

First, let us review what we currently understand about genetics and evolution. Let us first remember that the concept of race in our society is somewhat of a delusion [1]. Varying "races" are merely humans that have been geographically separated for a long enough time to begin to develop traits that best suit them for their environment. As it stands, races are merely groups of humans with distinct genomes that vary significantly (as far as a genome within a species can vary) when compared with other races, but not their own [2]. When you talk about interracial dating, you're talking about two humans who have been evolutionarily separated and possess distinct genomes that are likely quite different from the genomes of their own race (again, in the context of intraspecies comparisons since conformity among intraspecies is extremely conserved). For this argument, I will assume that diversity is by means of genetic diversity since this is the empirical way of determining diversity in science. This is important to remember as we move forward in our conversation.

When any species reproduces using sexual reproduction (as humans do), two organisms swap their genetic information (in the form of the DNA) producing an entirely unique genome in their offspring [4]. For this reason, I find your statement, "the biggest proponent of diversity is homogeneity," to be quite disturbing. Dogs are a great example as to why this simply isn't true. When you cross two homogenous dogs-- let's say two labs-- what is the result? Another labrador, of course. What happens when you cross a labrador and a beagle? A dog that is entirely unique and that cannot exist outside of heterogeneous mating [5]. The same is true of humans. When persons from two different races (that is, two individuals with relatively distinctive genomes) mate, they produce offspring which possess genomes that would not be possible without this interracial reproduction. This most certainly increases diversity among the human genome.

Now, where I believe the root of your argument comes from is summarized by your statement, "just as two dyes- when mixed - create on dye at the expense of both dyes, interracial dating does the same." Although this is a clever analogy and may be literally true (dyes that are combined lose their individuality to make a new dye), your argument is flawed and out of context. You're asserting that by allowing interracial dating, we would lose what some would consider, for lack of a better term, the "stock" of our species. In other words, you're saying if we mix blue and red to make purple, we will have purple but no blue or red and therefore we should not mix those colors so that we can preserve the original colors.

The problem with this is that we're not dumping all the red and the blue in the world together. In fact, we're doing a fantastic job of conserving our "racial" genetics. In the United States, for example, although the rate of interracial marriage is up, it is still well below one fourth of all marriages [3]. Even if it did reach twenty-five percent or even fifty percent, there's still a good chunk of the population that's not mixing their colors. Take dogs again, for example. Although dog breeding is popular across breeds, do we still have what some call "pure breeds" such as beagles? Of course we do. As long as even less than twenty-five percent of the population sustains homogeneous mating, we will still be able to conserve our stock species. And I'm even using the United States as an example, not even talking about countries whose populations are radically homogeneous to begin with [6]. In short, it is extremely unlikely that we will run out of our reds and blues while we make our purple. However, if we refuse to mix our reds and blues at all then we will never have our purple at all. That most certainly is inhibiting the proliferation of diversity, and therefore you cannot say that interracial dating is destroying diversity.






Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate your response, and I - for the most part - agree with your explanation of genetics; however, there is nothing, outside of theories, to suggest that the racial differences are merely based on geographical separation. Even if there were such evidence, let's assume there is, the product of said geographical separation, is "difference", and difference is worth preserving.

Your critique of the "dye" analogy is false, as we DO in-fact lose the colors red and blue, to make purple. For the sake of simplicity, suppose there are two people remaining on earth - a White person and a Black person. If a White person mixes with a Black person, the product is a mixed child. Once these two parents die off, the only race left is a Mixed race, having gone from two races, to one. This Mixed race child cannot create a purely Black or purely White child; it can only create another mixed child. Now, suppose there was an Asian person for this Mixed person to mix with. Now, the Mixed person mixes with the Asian, and creates a Mixed child who is Black, White, and Asian. The two parents die off, and now Asian is lost, and the only remaining product is a Mixed child. In effect, we've just lost 3 races, for the creation of 1.

If you're arguing that interracial mixing is okay because despite those that mix, there are those that don't mix and thus preserve the "stock" of each race, you're basically arguing my point; my point is that interracial mixing steals from the racial diversity created through homogeneity, and if it were self-sustaining then why does it depend on homogeneity to exist? It's the equivalent of my child telling me, "I can squander your money, because I always have you around to make more of it". That child is engaging in an unsustainable practice, and the only way he can engage in that practice is because he is leeching off of another sustainable practice, which has the potential to compromise the sustainability of the sustainable practice. Interracial mixing is said "child". It is deductive in nature, and "spends" (if you will) the racial diversity wrought by homogeneity. It's a concept that - if left to stand alone - destroys itself, as it inherently depletes racial purity, the very racial purity that makes interracial mixing possible. In essence, the relationship interracial mixing has to homogeneity, is conceptually parasitic. Interracial dating isn't possible without homogeneity; seeing as, if you mix the original colors, there becomes no original colors to mix. Such a deductive act only destroys homogeneity, the same homogeneity that is the source of all diversity.

I'm not arguing the genetic construction of humans, although, as a Biochemistry Major, I could. I'm not arguing the genetic history of humans, although I could - this isn't about that. It's about preserving difference, and interracial mixing destroys the very difference it is alleged to create. A visual of the deductive nature of interracial mixing can be found here -


I think that there may be some confusion on my claim with geographical separation. Genetic variation in our species has occurred largely due to geographic isolation across our planet. Populations historically arrested to Asia tend to have distinct variations with those bound to North America. Races aren't merely defined by geographic separation, but geographic separation is the medium by which genetic variation occurs [1][2].

Now, let's address your other claims. From reading your arguments, I would submit that you are doing two things incorrectly. First, you are overestimating the cons of interracial reproduction. Second, you are underestimating the benefits of interracial marriage. I will address both issues separately.

Overestimating the Cons

I again take issue to your usage of the dye analogy. I agree with your argument in part: if we combine red and blue then those specific entities of red and blue will create purple and the individuality of red and blue will be lost as they contribute to the new color. I take great concern with how you use this truth. You are again arguing that we are dumping all of our red and all of our blue together in the entire world. Now if every person in the world had to end their existing marriage and marry and reproduce with someone of a different race, then I agree that would destroy some of the diversity in our society. However, a scenario in which an entire race is removed due to interracial marriage is extremely unlikely at best.

Even in the United States, one of the most racially heterogenous nations on Earth, interracial marriages happen at a rate of about seventeen percent [3]. That's less than one fourth of all marriages. In your example, you say how two races mate to have a child that mates with a third race and then all three of those races are subsequently destroyed to create the one mixed child. This route of thinking only works if those are literally the only people on this Earth. I see what you mean by saying that as more children are mixed races, they lose the ability to produce a homogenous child. However, do also keep in mind that the population of the Earth continues to rise. It is possible, if not entirely likely, that even if more couples enter into interracial marriages, the gross number of children from homogenous marriages could continue to rise.

Let’s examine a hypothetical. Let’s say every family has three children. Even if one child in every generation enters into an interracial marriage, that’s still two children that marry homogenously and conserve their stock genome. I’m being extremely generous to you in this scenario, because even in the United States the real rate is less than that at 13% (again, I stress, one of the most heterogenous countries on Earth), not 33%. Therefore, in our world it is perfectly sustainable to partake in interracial marriages since, even in my generous scenario, two homogenous children will replace their homogenous parents. Even if the percentage of homogenous populations decreases in comparison with heterogenous populations (meaning there are more racially mixed persons on the planet than not), homogenous populations are not at risk for extinction. It is important to make this distinction and not to confuse the two.

We are not at danger of losing the stock genomes of our species. Overall in the world, interracial marriages are extremely rare. Meanwhile, the amount of diversity created from interracial marriages increases, which leads into my second point.

Underestimating the Pros

Let us return to our color analogy (it's a rather good one-- well done for selecting it). You argue that it's dangerous in terms of diversity to mix our colors. Let's assume that every race on Earth is a primary color (I know there's only three primary colors but there are far more races then that so we’ll have to use our imaginations). To move beyond our primary colors, we must mix them together. Let's create four hypothetical colors: A, B, C, and D.

Now let's assume that color A and B are mixed to produce color AB.
And color C and D are mixed to produce color CD.

From our mixing, we have produced two different colors. I stress that these colors are different. Although both colors AB and CD are mixes of primary colors they are not the same.

The same is true of genetic compositions of humans. Parents A and B produce their AB child (same with CD).

I've argued from my above point that we will still have plenty of A, B, C, D and whatever other colors or genes we decide to mix with afterwards. Now, we started out with four compositions, and now we have six. But we could still mix AB with C to make ABC, CD and B to make BCD, A and C to make AC, B and D to make BD and so-on. Each of these are distinct compositions compared to their parents or previous mixes and are therefore creating diversity.

Even if you could argue that our stocks would be destroyed (which would be difficult thing to do) you still need to prove that the rate of diversity destroyed by interracial marriage overcomes the rate of diversity that is created.


I look forward our final round. Well done so far! This has been a great debate.





Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CosmicSoL 6 months ago
Wow this debate is extremely interesting, and both debaters have done a great job expounding on their individual views. @RyanBailey I caught where you said that interracial marriage is counterproductive in that it destroys the very thing that others say it creates, which is diversity, so from that standpoint I get what you mean by it being "wrong." However, that's making the assumption that the true purpose of interracial marriage is create diversity which may not neccessarily be the case. My question is what you mean by "wrong", like morally wrong? Or wrong in it's function against nature (supposedly)? And what are your grounds for that statement?
Posted by RyanBailey 6 months ago
thebigmama123, I explained in the latter half of the argument why the destruction of diversity is wrong.
Posted by thebigmama123 6 months ago
??? whether or not interracial dating destroys diversity and whether it's wrong are two different questions
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.