Is genocide of a particular group ever morally justifiable?
As we begin, I believe it is customary to start by defining our terms; in particular, "genocide" and "morally justifiable".
There are many definitions of "genocide", but for all practical purposes, the most basic definition is, "The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
The term "morally justifiable" is composed of two individual words, so we will begin by defining both, and then arriving at the final definition from their combination. Morally/Moral: "Of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical." Justifiable: "Capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible."
Thus, that gives us a composite definition of "morally justifiable" as something that can be defended as being just, right, or warranted according to the principles of rules of right conduct.
Now, it is common knowledge that morality is inherently subjective. Being a construct of the human mind and society, it is only natural that the general rules of morality are relative to the society in which they are formed, or the individual by whom they are formed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledges this fact in its primary definition of morality: "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior""
On the flip side, there is also a certain objectivity to morality. This objectivity is not a result of social constructs but rather an inherent knowledge of efficiency, of what will work and what will not. This inherent knowledge is embedded in the human instinct, and can be determined using reason. One particular example would be the widespread belief, across all societies, that purposeless and unrestricted murder is "bad" for society. Any rational person can use a common sense approach to come to this conclusion. Again, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes room for this fact in their definition of morality, which continues: ""normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." This "code of conduct" that would be put forward by "all rational persons" is the result of the inherent instinct of humans as rational beings to know what is and isn"t productive or efficient to promote social stability and growth. As previously mentioned, this is why the vast majority of human beings agree that purposeless and unrestricted murder is "bad".
Now, let us move on to the actual argument. I believe that purposeful and directed murder, even genocide of a particular group, is oftentimes the most efficient way of solving a problem, and can even be morally justifiable so long as the good (referring to things that promote the well-being of humanity, see Stanford definition of morality etc.) achieved far outweighs the bad.
As radical as this sounds, there are some certain instances where I believe that the vast majority of rational people would agree with this claim. One particular example would be the eradication of ISIS. I would be hard-pressed to find a denizen of the Western World who would shed a single tear if ISIS and their families were nuked out of existence. This is because the majority of rational human beings can see that the good achieved would far-outweigh the bad, as ISIS is comprised of highly-delusional religious fanatics who slaughter without restraint in defense of obvious fallacies which they have been brainwashed into believing since their childhood. The eradication of these people would do much more to aid the cause of humanity than harm it.
However, society is fallible in their creation of the rules of morality, and can have misconceptions regarding the rules of the cosmos. As shown by history, there are certain instances where the majority of rational human beings have been incorrect in their thinking, such as a millennium ago, when most of humanity believed that the world was flat. This is why, to some extent, the individual can and, in certain cases, SHOULD ignore the morality of his/her particular society since the majority of human beings are not very rational nor very intelligent, and often allow emotion to cloud their judgements. If a highly intelligent person were to find that his particular societies" set of morals were destructive not only to him but also to themselves, then it would be his duty to disregard them.
As a fascist, this is where I particularly feel my need to justify genocide. While there are many circumstances in which the general populous of the world would agree with my claim that genocide is sometimes morally justifiable (as in the ISIS example) there are other instances where they would shout dissent, particularly in those where it involves race. It is in such instances that I find myself compelled, along with my fellow intellectuals, to ignore the generally accepted code of morality and transcend to a higher purpose, to do what is widely viewed as "immoral", but is actually the most efficient and beneficial choice to humanity as a whole.
One such issue would be the African American population in America. It has been scientifically proven again and again that Sub-Saharan Negroes are among the inferior races of the world, if not the lowest of the low. Their genetic inferiority is echoed in their substantially lower IQ"s, higher crime rates, increased susceptibility to disease, and general lack of sexual restraint. These facts are confirmed not only by scientific evidence (see Jared Taylor"s Racial Differences in Intelligence below, and racial crime and IQ statistics) but also by common sense, as the behavior of the BLM protestors in Ferguson perfectly illustrates the behavior of Negroid peoples in general. Although most would disagree, I would compare this issue to the ISIS issue. This is a perfect example of an issue where genocide would be morally justifiable, as the good achieved for humanity would far outweigh the bad effects suffered, despite the fact that most people would disagree. A mass slaughter of Negroes in America would rid the nation of many unwanted diseases, lower the crime rates MASSIVELY, purify the gene pool of inferior genetics, and even lower the tax rates, as the amount of people using welfare would drastically decrease. The same policy could be advocated towards Mexican Americans or other groups deemed vastly racially inferior to the human genetic pinnacle (Caucasian Europeans and East Asians). While some would advocate deportation as a more "humane" method of extraction, thereby making an emotional, rather than a logical, appeal, genocide would obviously be much more cost effective.
From a moral standpoint, most "rational" people would disagree with my claim in this particular instance, as it does not particularly sit well with their own set of morals (or if they belong to one of the afore-mentioned inferior races, with their own race). But as proven above, I believe such an instance would be morally justifiable as it would benefit humanity as a whole rather than inhibit it, ushering it forward in genetic, social, and technological progress. In such a case, it would be a leader"s duty to ignore the moral rules constructed by his own society to do what is necessary for the good of humanity. And, in such a case, I believe it would be an obligation for any intellectual to ask themselves what argument could be made against such a case besides an emotional yet nevertheless illogical appeal of "humanity".
I rest my case, and await my opponent"s response.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I shall now begin my opening argument.
I would also like to point out that I agree with the definitions, as set forth by my opponent, in relation to the argument. Any definitions that need be defined in my argument will be done so.
Point 1 - Morality, Subjectivity and Benefit:
In all cases, whether religious, legal, or philosophical, the moral values of an individual are often ascribed to them by their own judgement, which is often subjective. By clear definition, morality is one's ability to decipher from right or wrong, in the case of an action or statement that may negatively effect an individual. This moral vision, if you will, is subjectively attributed to each case that an individual is presented with, making is highly subjective.
You see, morality itself is not subjective, as any rational human being obtains the ability to tell from right or wrong, but the ideas that morality is presented with, being the deciphering of rational action, is all highly subjective, and therefore, not a strong case in any legal or argumentative matter.
Additionally, one must define benefit - if the extermination of other humans, is beneficial to one group, why won't the extermination of that specific group then be beneficial to the group that is going to be exterminated? In this specific scenario, the intelligence of individuals, which my opponent seems to be arguing for, is a comparison, in which an individual who falls below an average that is set by more intelligent people - this person will be deemed to be mentally inferior.
If it is beneficial to eradicate one man for the good of the other, why can this not be done in reverse? Is it to my opponent's personal bias and historical ignorance that he acclaims one group to be inferior to the other, and through this ideal, to then be subjugated to extermination?
Point 2 - Genetics
Most eugenicists, racialists, and supremacists believe that their idea of inferiority/superiority is affirmed by genetic research, which is not true. Historically, it's conclusive that Adolf Hitler, who is the lackey for Fascism and Nazism, as well as supremacy, happened to have misused genetic research that came out in the 20th century.
My opponent has yet to provide meaningful evidence as to actual genetic research that affirms his point of view, rather than spouting verbiage about the statistical analysis, which is an average that does not fit an entire group. Thus, by taking the actions of a majority of people, whether it is the average of their crime, poverty threshold, or intelligence - and then smattering the entirety of the demographic, while subjugating them to genocide actions, is plainly immoral. It is subjectively wrong, in the opinion of non-phycopaths and sociopath humans, that the genocide of many people is wrong.
Point 3 - Determinism:
One of the common philosophical debates is the difference between determinism, and free will.
Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. 
Free Will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. 
The idea of free will vs determinism is a philosophical dilemma, one that my opponent seems to use fortuitously and fallaciously.
Firstly, the idea that most because members of a certain group average out to something "inferior", and that these people should be subjugated to the whims of some infallible moral power, is frankly a stupid suggestion, and one that is not in the least morally permissible. The idea of genocide is murder, but on a larger scale. Regardless of how you put it, it is still murder, and there is never any reason for murdering others, unless it is in self-defense, and even then it's debatable.
Second, the idea that all members of a set group, in this case being racial or ethnic, are to be determined from birth to continue their lives, whether it is deemed inferior or not by my opponent, is one that is strife with hatred, ignorance, and breaks away from factual information and historical evidence. There are prominent members of every group, regardless of their average intelligence.
There's no such thing is racial inferiority. The statement itself is just one of extreme self-worth and an ignorance on the part of statistics and relevant information. Different races may attribute themselves to different environments, but by no means are they more superior to the other. The only reason why superiority plays out is because certain people, living in certain nations, happen to be wealthier, healthier, and more educated than people of others nations. This is not due to racial inferiority, but due to internal and external issues that deal with management, legislation, and customs/traditions.
Point 4 - Strict Genocide
The definition of genocide has been given by my opponent, and I shall argue for the definition in certain cases.
Firstly, the deliberate extermination of a nation is not morally permissible under any circumstances. Regardless of their politics, to eradicate a nation of its entire population is an act that is not only unethical, it is also illegal and what is called a "war crime". There is no rational definition, and my opponent has stated this, as he has said inadvertently that rational individuals do not agree with him, that killing an entire ethnic group or population of a nation is moral. It's simply not true, and my opponent has failed to provide any evidence to support this ludicrous assertion, which on his part, is both embarrassing, and quite self-evident, as few sources find genocide to be good.
What I also find to be quite interesting is that my opponent argues for the idea of committing genocide, and then uses ISIS as an example, which is itself a genocidal group. He states that he would like to commit genocide against ISIS, due to the fact that they themselves are killing others in large numbers. This simply does not hold true; to label something as genocide (I would agree that killing members of ISIS is effective), there has to be a set boundary. For example, ISIS is a terrorist organization, that is made up of individuals with vastly different characteristics, whether this is genetic or normative.
You cannot commit genocide against a terrorist group, as they are neither a nation, race, ethnic, or cultural group. They are a radical religious self-built group of extremist individuals, who are by international law, deemed to be terrorists. My opponent fails to realize that Europe and the remainder of non-ISIS supporting nations are reactionary, in which ISIS deems a threat to their nation security, as well as to peaceful relations with the Muslim world, and so under this accord, it is morally just and lawfully granted that they be annihilated. However, this is done out of self-defense, rather than for "cleansing" the human race out of certain people.
My opponent has not mentioned enough relevant information with which I can present my own argument, or counter-argue his. For this case, I shall take it that his remainder will be posted next round.
I also would like to mention the fact that individuals are all innately emotional, and emotions, as well as moral values, are the defining trait of sentient beings. Whether one states that he/she has no feelings, it is untrue, unless they are clinically diagnosed to be a sociopath or a psychopath, which is considered to be a disorder. Mental disorders, such as the one that my opponent, in his crusade against emotion, seems to be displaying, are exact contradictions to a eugenicist. This is equitable to a Communist who has a strong appreciation for Capitalism. It is simply a hypocritical statement.
I also find it quite ironic that a self-proclaimed Fascist would support Donald Trump for President.
 and  Longman Dictionary (book)
Regarding your discussion of morality, I believe that we are of one mind. I cannot find anything in that realm that I inherently disagree with you on, and thus we can continue.
On the question of benefit, I was referring to the benefit of humanity as a whole, as a species, not just a particular group. Most reasonable people will agree that technological, social, biological, and genetic advancement are all things which directly benefit the human race as a whole. Thus, annihilating weak links or groups which hinder these goals more than others (i.e. inferior races) would be beneficial not only to the genetically superior races, but also to humanity as a whole, since its level of advancement would rise to the level of the overall most advanced race, instead of being averaged between the inferior and the superior. We are not eradicating one single man for the good of another single man. You used a strawman argument. We are eradicating lesser groups for the benefit of the entire group. We are cutting out the tumor, to benefit the body as a whole. No one in their right mind would suggest doing the same in reverse, killing the body for the sake of the tumor, because the good of the body is clearly more important. When you remove dead-weight, the entirety thrives, which is in this case, the human race.
Your reference to my “bias” and “historical ignorance” is a personal attack rather than a legitimate claim, please specify exactly what you mean.
You simply state that genetic research in general is wrong without offering any evidence or proof, though as I brought it up to begin with, I realize the burden of proof lies with me. I merely felt the need to point that out.
The reason I did not provide actual evidence for the research proving the genetic inferior of certain indigenous peoples is because I intended to use them as an example of a certain point, not to argue who is inferior or who isn’t. May I remind you, the premise of this debate is “Is genocide morally justifiable?” not “Is X race inferior?” The point I was trying to make by bring up Negroes is that IF it were determined by science that a certain race was a dead-weight on the progress of the higher races, on humanity as a whole, then you could morally eradicated this group for the good of the whole, just as a doctor would remove a tumor for the good of the body.
Your blatant disregard for statistics is very illogical and irrational. If statistics determine that the majority of a group falls under a certain category, then the ENTIRE group must pay the consequences. Just as you cannot convict the majority of a group for the bad actions of a few, so you also cannot redeem the majority of a group for the good actions of a few. The leper, covered in sores, is not going to be regarded as clean merely because one of his appendages is not effected. Again, if it could be proven that the majority of a race was vastly unintelligent, prone to crime, susceptible to disease, and sexually promiscuous, then it would be morally acceptable to eradicate the entire race as a result, since the majority stands for the entirety…the minority does not matter. Dealing with the individual rather than the whole would be too time-consuming, and vastly more ineffective than simply destroying the entire group. If I had an apple tree that gave me mostly rotten fruit, it would result in diminishing returns to hunt through the tree, examining each apple to see if it were good individually. It would be much simpler, effective, and beneficial to simply burn the entire tree down and plant a new one.
Sadly, you stoop so low as to label all people who do not believe that genocide is sometimes justifiable as “psychopaths” or “sociopaths.” Its ironic that you vehemently decry the generalization of groups based on statistics and views, yet broadly generalize myself and like-minded people as being mentally disordered. Thus, you add personal insult to what is already emotional appeal.
“Firstly, the idea that most because members of a certain group average out to…etc.”
You refer to this suggestion as stupid, and not morally permissible, without specifying why. Simply put, prove it.
“The idea of genocide is murder, but on a larger scale. Regardless of how you put it, it is still murder, and there is never any reason for murdering others, unless it is in self-defense, and even then it's debatable.”
That is your opinion, your own subjective view of morality. Many people believe that there are instances in which murder is permissible. According to a poll by gallup, 63% of people believe that the death penalty can be justified. This alone is proof that not all people share the idea that murder is unconditionally wrong all the time, and that the moral code regarding it is not necessarily objective. Of course, you don’t find as many people ready to condone genocide, but then again, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Again, you failed to actually prove why murder, in this case, genocide, is objectively immoral, if used to attain a beneficial end to the whole of humanity.
“Second, the idea that all members of a set group, in this case being racial or ethnic, are to be determined…one that is strife with hatred, ignorance, and...etc.”
I’ve lost count of the personal insults, you now accuse me of hatred and ignorance, without citing these “facts” or the “historical evidence” of which you speak. Your comment about "prominent members of every group" is irrelevant, as I have already stated the obvious fact that, just as you can’t condemn a group for the actions of a few, so you cannot redeem it for the actions of a few. The majority stands for the entirety of the group, and will be judged accordingly. Since I believe comparisons are best at simplifying complex points, I believe I’ll use another. If most children with yellow shirts are bad, it would be downright foolish to excuse their behavior as a group because some are good. Again, while you can deal with the individual, it is a vast waste of resources to do so merely to save a small minority of good people. It is far more efficient and morally justifiable to eradicate the entire group.
Again, this debate wasn’t about racial inferiority. I simply begged the question that IF some group were able to be scientifically classified under all tests as inferior, then you could morally justify removing that group for the good of the rest of humanity. But seeing as to how you are insistent on this point, I suggest that you watch Jared Taylor’s video that I previously linked, which explains the very real relationship between race and genetic inferior or superiority, and refutes your environment-based inferiority example. I strongly suggest to anyone with an open mind to watch it. https://www.youtube.com...
The essence of your first argument was simply this: “Most rational people don’t agree with you, and quote-unquote ‘it’s simply not true’” As we all know, morality is subjective, that’s already been established. So it comes down to a simple question of efficiency. Ask yourself this. Why would I care what most “rational” people think? Throughout history, most “rational” people have believed false and downright silly things (e.g. the world being flat, religion being true, etc.) In many instances, a single individual has held up a theory for which he was mocked, ridiculed, and even imprisoned by the vast majority of “rational” people (Galileo, Copernicus, etc.) and later his theory turned out to be correct. The point being, simply stating that “Most people disagree, therefore you are wrong…” is not an argument.
I already provided a very simple bit of evidence as to why genocide of a particular group can be morally justifiable; namely this: that if the majority of a group is a dead-weight on the overall progress and advancement of humanity, and if greater benefits than losses can be achieved by eradicating this group, then the simplest, most cost-effective, and efficient method of dealing with the problem is simply to annihilate the group and therefore it is morally justifiable. And, since morality is relative, such an instance can definitely be morally justifiable since I did not specify to whom the idea must be morally justifiable! In that case, simply a single person being able to rationalize it and justify it according to their own particular, subjective set of morals, would suffice to prove my conclusion as being true.
Your point regarding ISIS is conceded, as it is true that it does not fall under any of the subgroups of the “genocide” definition which I defined in my original post. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
My opponent takes the typical path of emotional appeal, claiming that it is a ‘defining’ trait of sentient beings, and that lack of it qualifies as a mental disorder. But I ask you, good people, of what use is it? Does aid our efficiency, our production? Certainly it is a defining characteristic of the human being, but do we not all aspire to transcend our limits, to journey through the next phrase of evolution? How can we ever hope of attaining these higher purposes, if we allow our judgement to be clouded by emotion, in the face of the cold, hard facts? Surely, it is much better to serve the intellect, rather than the heart. For each thing has its time and place, and in an issue such as this, we cannot afford to have our better judgement distorted by pangs of emotion. As a great man once said, “Every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people.” If a sentiment so noble should be regarded by so-called “intellectuals” as a mental disorder, than I truly am ashamed of humanity.
Please, vote Pro.
P.S. (Your quip about my political beliefs regarding fascism and Donald Trump, who wasn’t mentioned in this debate, qualifies as yet another irrelevant personal insult. Good day, sir.)
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
"Thus, annihilating weak links or groups which hinder these goals more than others (i.e. inferior races) would be beneficial not only to the genetically superior races, but also to humanity as a whole, since its level of advancement would rise to the level of the overall most advanced race, instead of being averaged between the inferior and the superior. "
This is what we call a misguided argument. My opponent has yet to actually provide proof at to how these races are genetically inferior, and how any proof that he has provided (IQ) happens to revolve around genes, rather than a coincidence in which one happens to be intellectually stronger than another.
My opponent first states that the weak links in society must be cut off; he fails to state who these weak links are, and happens to provide no evidence that proves the entirety of these people to be weak links.
Regardless of the majority of the race, I think it is quite evident that killing people for the mistakes of others that happen to be within the same realm, whether its nationally, racially, and/or politically - this is an immoral act. It is the killing of people that are undeserving such actions, which is, by any decree, an immoral and ludicrous act.
My opponent has yet to elaborate on why killing others that are not part of one race's gene pool is going to be beneficial to that certain race. For example, killing Southern Africans for the Canadian Caucasians is completely unfounded, as the chance of descendants of these two ethnic groups is very slim, therefore there is no real gain from eliminating.
"The reason I did not provide actual evidence for the research proving the genetic inferior of certain indigenous peoples is because I intended to use them as an example of a certain point, not to argue who is inferior or who isn’t. May I remind you, the premise of this debate is “Is genocide morally justifiable?” not “Is X race inferior?” The point I was trying to make by bring up Negroes is that IF it were determined by science that a certain race was a dead-weight on the progress of the higher races, on humanity as a whole, then you could morally eradicated this group for the good of the whole, just as a doctor would remove a tumor for the good of the body."
My opponent fails to give any relevant information that attributes inferiority to a certain race.
Need I remind you, that this debate is, like you stated, on the MORALITY of these actions; both in your opening argument and the header of the debate - you wrote about moral permissibility. For this, I have to prove that the extermination of a certain group of people is not morally permissible, since their "genetic" inferiority, which has yet to be proved, does not truly state that these people are going to be significantly inferior to other races, which I assume, is the Caucasian that my opponent is referring to.
My opponent has also jumped from one side to the other. He first stated ISIS as an example, and with his failure to identify them as an ethnic group, he has jumped to Negroes. He has failed to identify the distinction from Sub Saharan Africans and African Americans, in which there are large distinctions.
For example, to counter my opponents views on the Negroid itself -
" Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Saharan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. " 
This example here directly proves the distinction. IQ is not genetic. There are some factors that can encourage brain development and growth, but people are not naturally born to be unintelligent, and if they are, they can learn. The difference in average IQ of Sub Saharan Africans, who reside in a poverty stricken region, happens to be 15 lower than that of their American counterparts, being the African Americans. This directly acknowledges my earlier claim, that these individuals, regardless of their race, whom are living in a nation with more advanced resources and opportunity, also happen to be of higher intelligence.
It's another seemingly factor that the human race all evolved from Africa, in which they spread and developed their skin tone and skull formations in accordance with the weather and landscape.
"Your blatant disregard for statistics is very illogical and irrational. If statistics determine that the majority of a group falls under a certain category, then the ENTIRE group must pay the consequences. "
If, by this example, more than 75% of Fascists are found to be masters of stupidity, does that mean that the other 25%, who may be educated to the fullest extent, should face the consequences of their lesser counterparts? No, that is most definitely not the case. It's outwardly an evil assumption to make, that the majority, which has yet to be defined, as it may be a unanimous or simple majority - that this should determine the composition of the entirety.
Here, as a quick math lesson:
65% =/ 100%
That means, if the majority of the group is intellectually deficient, then the majority of the group is intellectually deficient. If 60% are one thing, that does not mean that 100% of them are that thing. It's basic math, really.
My opponent states that " Just as you cannot convict the majority of a group for the bad actions of a few, so you also cannot redeem the majority of a group for the good actions of a few."
What he fails to understand is that neither is representative of either. The majority does not represent the minority, just like the minority does not represent the majority. People are not representative of others unless they themselves are voluntary chosen to be representative. That's the whole point of individuals, a concept that my opponent fails to understand.
The very same principle of individualism, rather than collectivism, is the principle that is shared among most developed and wealthy nations, and seemingly so.
"If I had an apple tree that gave me mostly rotten fruit, it would result in diminishing returns to hunt through the tree, examining each apple to see if it were good individually. It would be much simpler, effective, and beneficial to simply burn the entire tree down and plant a new one."
My opponent uses anecdotal examples to refer to anecdotal phenomena, and for this, he will receive anecdotal answers.
Using a syllogism that is similar in style but vastly different in its ideals is not a good way to argue. There is no comparison to be made between genetic and racial inferiority and an apple. Apples, as well as trees, are not sentient beings, and therefore they are put under determinist principles, in which their fruitfulness is determined by its surroundings and other outside factors.
However, humans happen to be intelligent beings, at least in terms of their brain development. A comparison between IQ points to deem a group more intelligent, racially, than another, is not valid, and it has yet to be proved by my opponent.
Additionally "“Most people disagree, therefore you are wrong…” is not an argument." - this is a contradiction on your part. According to your logic, the majority represent the entirety, so therefore, since most disagree with you, all disagree with you. (I think my opponent can see that this isn't a great way of arguing)
"that if the majority of a group is a dead-weight on the overall progress and advancement of humanity, and if greater benefits than losses can be achieved by eradicating this group, then the simplest, most cost-effective, and efficient method of dealing with the problem is simply to annihilate the group and therefore it is morally justifiable."
Morality and efficiency is different. To kill one for the betterment of another, when force has yet to be initiated between the two, is not a moral or sound principle. Once again, this debate is about the MORAL permissibility, as that is what I agreed to when I accepted this debate. Discarding moral principles as being subjective, and then stating that genocide is efficient, is a diversion on my opponent's part.
Firstly, my opponent has conceded two points, and has yet to prove a single one, being:
1. "Your point regarding ISIS is conceded, as it is true that it does not fall under any of the subgroups of the “genocide” definition which I defined in my original post"
2. "Regarding your discussion of morality, I believe that we are of one mind. I cannot find anything in that realm that I inherently disagree with you on, and thus we can continue."
My opponent has hindered his debate on one issue, and that is the extermination of the Negro race/ethnic group. He has yet to prove why they must be exterminated, due to the fact that his two main points - being racial inferiority and efficiency if removed, have not been proved.
His sources include a youtube video, and the support of the U.S. Death Penalty, which is a highly unsubstantiated argument, considering the death penalty, when used on murderers, who are individual, is highly different than genocide of an entire group.
For these reasons, I highly suggest that everyone votes for CON!
A very interesting yet nonetheless generic analysis which, as this debate nears its end, brings us to…
But you see, that was never the point of this discussion. As I previously stated, I merely used Negroes as an example. Whether or not my conclusion about them was true or not, is irrelevant. That’s because the question of this debate is, precisely, “Is genocide of a particular group ever morally justified?” All I had to prove was that IF a certain group was deemed inferior, it could be morally exterminated for the good of humanity. This is of course a hypothetical situation, in which case I don’t need to prove that Negroes as a race are inferior to win the debate. I will reserve that debate for a later date if you wish, especially considering there is not enough writing space to enumerate the facts and evidence surrounding racial and genetic superiority and inferiority.
However, with regards to the initial topic of debate, I have already proved why it is moral to exterminate one group for the good of humanity via the subjective morality, efficiency, and good/bad consequences argument, and therefore contend that I have won the main point of debate. You fell into the logical trap I set for you by veering off on a tangent about racial inferiority instead of focusing on the main topic, and I must say, I’m a bit disappointed in you.
You say that it is “evident” that genocide is wrong, and that killing people “undeserving” of it is both “ludicrous” and “wrong”. That’s a statement, a personal opinion. There is not a shred of factual evidence in that statement, nor proof of why it is true. The terms “undeserving”, “ludicrous”, and “wrong” are all relative terms, and “evident” is an appeal to common knowledge, which is also relative, since the opinion of the majority of people is irrelevant as they are widely uneducated, foolish, and inhibited by their emotions.
As to why the killing of certain races (most notably, the Negroes) would benefit other, superior races, it is rather obvious. Hypothetically speaking, if it could be proved that Negroes had higher crime rates, lower intelligence, higher susceptibility to disease, and were more prone to sexually promiscuity, then it would only be reasonable to assume that other races would benefit vastly from not having to associate with them or be affected by their degenerative actions. If the bad guy is gone, other people don’t get hurt. I apologize for using such infantile terms, but it seems to be the only way to get through to you.
A 3rd party comparison is not an anecdote, one makes the original concept easier to comprehend, and the other equates the original concept with a new, unrelated one. I made a comparison, not an anecdote. Please learn the difference
Indeed, apples merely put it in perspective. It’s much easier to cross out a number on a sheet (or crush an apple), than it is to kill an actual person, with a name, and an identification. This is obviously one of the contentions of genocide, labeling people as inanimate objects makes it easier to annihilate them, for productivity's sake. With this, I have no issue. A certain group is annihilated because it is deemed inferior and worthless, good riddance. Your emotional appeal, “But they are sentient, human beings…(boo hoo)” is irrelevant and quite pathetic actually. So what if they are human beings? If they can be proved to be a significant hindrance to progress, they should die. Such is the principle that is the driving factor behind the death penalty in our own country. You cannot allow personal feelings nor emotion to prevent you from fulfilling your duty, and in the execution of certain groups for the good of society, you must give it no more thought than you would when stepping on a roach.
As for your laughable attempt to turn my own argument (majority = all) against me, may I remind you that you twisted that argument using a strawman. I never said that the majority IS the entirety of a group, I said that the entirety of a group will be punished because of the majority. In this case, the majority of bad Negroes and the minority of good Negroes are still linked by a genetic inferiority which prevails throughout 100% of the race. This is reason enough according to my subjective morality to slaughter the lot of them.
“To kill one for the betterment of another, when force has yet to be initiated between the two, is not a moral or sound principle.”
Says who? Answer me that.
My opponent’s arguments have gone from bad to worse, as he clearly ignores the initial topic, “Is genocide of a particular group ever justified?” to fall headlong into the trap I set for him, going off on a tangent about a specific race, when the question is purely hypothetical and completely irrelevant to begin with. The question precisely is, “Is genocide of a particular group ever justified?” Con’s basic arguments consists of such childish insistence that it’s wrong, merely because…it’s wrong…or that the majority of people consider it wrong. Both these statements involved circular reasoning.
It is for these reasons that I urge you, as a skeptic, to put aside your emotions, look at the cold, hard, bloody facts, and vote PRO!
(P.S. As for the Youtube video, I admit it was a lazy substitute for sources. However, I only linked it because the video itself contains very reliable and credible sources, for which I do not wish to hunt, as they pertain to racial differences and not the main point of this debate. Again, I urge you to watch it: https://www.youtube.com...)
Since this is the last round, and my opponent is going first, I shall not do any rebuttals/enter in any new information.
I would firstly like to state the name of the debate, being " Is genocide of a particular group ever morally justifiable?"
This assertion has not yet been proven by Pro. He has stated that it is more efficient, but has yet to provide any substantial evidence that is backing his claim on genocide being a morally permissive action.
The entire burden of proof, or at least the majority of it, rests on Pro's shoulders. My opponent has conceded 2 points, being that of his sources and that of ISIS, in which he has not yet been able to show that the extermination of groups that are not completely to the detriment of others is to be allowed. By this definition my opponent would forfeit the debate, as he has not been able to prove what he set out to prove.
This debate question takes precedence over all other assertions, and deviating from your current argument is not an honest way of debating.
Currently, as the burden of proof stands mostly on Pro, he loses. Considering his inadequate sources, being a youtube video, and his inability to provide tangible evidence, I can only assume that what he states is put, ironically, out of pure emotion, rather than actual rational thought.
His assertion, being that of efficiency and productivity, has yet to be proven, and is mainly just a broad argument that he has pulled out of his behind. He has NOT PROVEN ANYTHING.
His argument is that of the proof of God. Since there is no proof of God, one can only assume that he does not exist, while the opponent can state that since there is no proof to disprove the statement, one can only assume that he does exist. The statement is arguing a negative; Pro has to affirm the point, while I have to state the opposite, and being that Pro's point is entirely subjective and cannot be factually prove (or at least has yet to be proven), I can only assume that the argument is in my favor.
My opponent has used moral permissibility as the key debate point, but has not proven this to any extent. He has gone from using morality to slandering me for using an emotional argument, being that of moral values, since that is the main point of this debate.
I find it most concerning that the initiator of the debate has deviated from his own point, and seeing as he cannot and has not proven it, it is rightly to state that I have won this debate.
Please vote CON!!!!
|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:||0||3|
|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:||0||5|