The Instigator
Th3C3ntr1st
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Interracial Marriage Should Be Banned

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 2 votes the winner is...
Th3C3ntr1st
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 85556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Th3C3ntr1st

Con

That's it. Some people with extreme ideologies have discussing about the ban of Interracial Marriage/relationship. What is a Interracial Relationship? Is a relationship/marriage between 2 humans of different races/ethnicity's, like a Hispanic with an Asian or a white with an Indian. For me, there is no need to ban Interracial Marriage, cause in the end, everybody is human. Thus, the act of prohibiting a ethnic group to have relations with another is racial discrimination. I'm against the ban.
harrytruman

Pro

Hold on, you are con? I THOUGHT YOU WERE PRO!

Oh well, I got to come up with something, here we go:
There is no such thing as race, well, between humans that is, an African American is just as much a human as a Latino, Caucasian, Asian, native American, etc. This meaning that if you are referring to "interracial marriage", you are talking about a man marrying a horse, not a human marrying a human of another ethnicity, because a human cannot be a different race than another human, so if you are talking about "interracial marriage", yore talking about beastiality, not marriage consisting of two humans of a different ethnicity, which is, beastiality, which is gross.

!PLEASE NOTE!:
I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST TWO HUMANS OF DIFFERENT ETHNICITY MARRYING, I AM ARGUING THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE, AND HENCE INTER RACIAL MARRIAGE MEANS BEASTIALITY.

All men/women/hermaphrodites were created equal, I'm sorry for the confusion, I thought he was arguing against interracial marriage, because this debate was named "interracial marriage should be banned."

I'm sorry.
Debate Round No. 1
Th3C3ntr1st

Con

No my friend. Yes there are races classifying humans. Let's take the example of dogs. Dogs have several breeds such as the bulldog, puddle, pit bull, German shepherd, etc. Each race has its own characteristics, such as the puddle be more hairy and the pit bull to be stronger than others. And yes, humans are divided into races like the dogs, after all every ethnicity has its different physical characteristics of the other. For example, Asians are the only race able to have 100% black hair (scientifically), and usually only Caucasians can have blue/green eyes. Nobody is totally equal. If we scan an African American gene with an Indian gene, we will find many differences. Therefore, humans (in general) are divided into different breeds, like the cats, dogs, horses, etc.

But everyone should have the same rights and the same freedom, independent of your race.
harrytruman

Pro

No, a race is a different species.
Debate Round No. 2
Th3C3ntr1st

Con

Th3C3ntr1st forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Pro

Harrytruman wins by knockout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
Th3C3ntr1st

Con

Th3C3ntr1st forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Pro

Harrytruman wins by knockout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 1 year ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
In the event of a protest, I misspoke in the RFD:
"Con provides an analogy and an example supporting his definition. Pro basically says "nuh-uh". Argument to CON."

I apologize for the confusion.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
There's a rule that they can't outright state that things are there that aren't there, but aside from that the rules are rather lax. Otherwise, it would require that I read through the debate and take a more subjective approach to what happened in it, since I'd have to input my own views on whether certain arguments were effectively covered.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
I know, but that isn't it, she lied in her RFD as to why Con gets arguments, hence, this should be amended, to be a little bit more honest. Is there a rule saying they have to be honest?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Whatever the circumstances of the debate may be, it's not up to the moderator to parse out whether or not the voter correctly interpreted the debate. That's not part of the standards we use.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Misrepresentation is what it is! She's lying here! I did not "jump" and say that it meant beastiality! I said that race implies a different species, meaning that interracial marriage is marrying a different species, not marrying a different ethnicity, hence, it means beastiality.
I explain this thoroughly but she lied and ignored it!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited so conduct to Pro. I buy that races don't exist from Pro, but I do not buy his beastiality step. It is not justified that interracial=interspecial. Thus, already, Pro's entire case has no impact for me based on that logic leap. Regardless, Con shows that races do exist since there are differences between each race (asians have black hair), and characteristics that define it. Pro drops this point, and thus loses the only argument presented in the debate. So Con wins arguments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conduct is explained sufficiently. The voter specifically addresses arguments made by both debaters and clearly couches their decision in the arguments made. Just because the reporter doesn't like it doesn't mean it's not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Wooooh yeah! I finished it!
https://docs.google.com...
Posted by Zarium 1 year ago
Zarium
Also from a genetic standpoint, it would be logical to intermingle our 'races' - as currently each race has their own advantages, Negro, specifically around the african continent, are physically endowed, there have been studies that show their fast twitch muscles are in greater numbers, and bulking does not cause slowness in muscle reactions.

Asian people ar culturally intelligent, and thanks to by their diet and healthy living standards, they live much longer than other races.

There are other examples, but I feel i have put enough for my meaning to be conveyed.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Laws against mixed raced marriages ended country wide in 1967.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 1 year ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Th3C3ntr1stharrytrumanTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: B&A: The premise is extremely lopsided. It is difficult to argue however the potential exists in this type of debate for a unique angle to overcome an obvious premise. Pro attempted a unique angle, certainly, but the effort fell short. With three uncontested arguments, pro failed to take advantage of the empty net. Conduct: Pro did not forfeit. Arguments: The argument completely boils down to: Con defines a term with a fairly well-accepted definition. Pro disagrees with the definition and redefines with a non-traditional interpretation. Con provides an analogy and an example supporting his definition. Pro basically says "nuh-uh". Argument to pro.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Th3C3ntr1stharrytrumanTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited so conduct to Pro. I buy that races don't exist from Pro, but I do not buy his beastiality step. It is not justified that interracial=interspecial. Thus, already, Pro's entire case has no impact for me based on that logic leap. Regardless, Con shows that races do exist since there are differences between each race (asians have black hair), and characteristics that define it. Pro drops this point, and thus loses the only argument presented in the debate. So Con wins arguments.