The Instigator
sonofzapp
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Many biblical figures were african.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 4215
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

sonofzapp

Pro

I would once again like to apologize 4 my earlier failure to respond. It was not out of acceptance or cowardace but a mere loss of time.

I'd like to begin my argument by adressing the whole Jesus matter again. As our spectator said Jesus was described as having "bronze colored skin" and "hair of wool" the only problem with this description is that it could apply to anyone of African or Middle-eastern ethnicity, for I too fit this descripion. When youu look at me you could describe me in the same fashion. I am of African decent and my hair is tough as wool [and not just because I've got dreads] and my skin is of bronze. If we arent mistaken Jesus was believed to look the same way, so you could say that I resemble jesus, and in turn say that Jesus resembled the Africans. On another note I'd like to state that middle-easterners do not have wooly hair. Their hair is relatively straight. The only other people with skin as dark as a middle easterners, but hair woolier then theirs are the Africans. But overall The whole Jesus topis is far too senseitive for it could fall either way.

As far as the whole ethnical topic thing goes I believe you are misunderstanding me. It a complicated thing 2 explain but ill give it a go anyway.

You said yourself that shortly after leaving africa, the Isrealites, and hebrews could nolonger be considered african but u make this seem as if where you live and or were born defines u as a person. This is false. Take me for example. I am the decendant of africans. The largest portion of my ethnicity is african, the only reason I am considered American is because, America is the place of my birth, and due to the other smaller portion of my ethnicity being european and native. My african heiratage was slowly obliterated by the interracial relations my ansestors had with europeans and native americans. This is why my skin is not as dark as the Aficans over seas. [that and the lack of sun exposure] Does this completely change my ethnicity, am I some sort of psuedo-african-english-cheeroke hybrid? No. I am still commenly reffered to as black or african-american. No matter where I go, what I do, what launage I speak, or what race of person I marry. From the wonb to the tomb I am African for all time.

On another note; as I stated earlier, I am also reffered to as being American because I was born on American soil, but thats the beauty of America; towards the end of the first century of American colonization americans were commenly accepted as being either african, [if you would consider a slave a citizen]european settlers, or the natives. That was as far as the branch of ethnicity grew, but over time every race of every land began to settle in america. Due to this, an American is no longer restricted to these three races of people. Anyone may move to America, earn their citizenship, and become an American, not just an American citizen, but an American. unlike other countries.

Lets say I were to move to Germany, or perhaps I were even born there. I am black, or as you would say Afro-American. I may speak their launage, grow into their heiratege, I may even marry a German woman, but I am not of the German race, I am still african. Though I may no longer be considered an african american for I was not born in america, I could be considered an African-German. Weather I was born there, traveled there, or not, I am still african at heart, reguadless of the fact that I am a German citizen, or that people refer to me as an Afican-German, I AM STILL AFRICAN.

Beem0r, I'm assuming u were born in America. If u move to Japan, Africa, or France today or tommorow. You are still, and shall most likely still be reffered to as American, and nothing you do can change that, The same rule applied to the African Israelites. Even if they did move out of Ethiopia into the Arrabian peninsula they are still Africans. All this means is that they have simply moved to another location, this doesnt change their race. Judging from the many descriptions of Hebrew people we were given in the bible, they still largely resembled their African ancestors just as your "olive colored skin", and "wooly haired" descriptions would suggest. Though the Israelites would have most likely integrated with the native middle easterners within this area, they would still be considered ethiopian, just as I would still be considered west african.

Just because 30% or less of their blood is middle eastern it doesnt mean that they were too, nor does it mean that they were a new race of people. Just because the Israelites moved out of ethiopia and made a new name for themselves doesnt mean they are no longer ethiopian. They were simply Ethiopians who called themselves Israelites, just as I am simply a west-African who calls himself an American. I have not become a new race of person by switching my location and changing my name, and unless the Israelites African blood was complete replaced by their middle easterrn dna [which I highly doubt due to their wooly hair] niether did they.

Before I end my debate I'd like to ask something of you beem0r, and anyone else watching this debate. Go to google or some other image search and look up olives and/or bronze, then do an image search of wool. Then look up the image of an ethiopian, or perhaphs even my avatar of Staic Shock. Youll automatically note some similariteis in color and texture. Then look up the image of a middle-eastern man. Yes his skin is dark but is his hair wooly? No. I believe this is painfully obvious, and as I stated earlier, I'm not trying to rant, nor am I a biased racist. I'm just a simple guy, with some simple facts, who here to spread the truth. If I am ignorant for this then so be it.
beem0r

Con

http://www.debate.org...
There is a link to the original debate. My opponenet wished to redo round 3 [he missed it due to lossing track of time], so make sure to read rounds 1 and 2 of that debate before reading and voting on this debate.

RE: Jesus
http://archives.cnn.com...
As you see, that man has a bronze/olive colored face. And also wooly hair. And it's also one of the most recent attempts at what Jesus really looked like. It's what people from the area were thought to look like at the time. It's definitely a seperate race from 'African.'

RE: Israelites
When I said "shortly after" I meant "a few generations after." I think I specifically said this in R2 of the first debate. After not living in Africa for a few generations, the Israelites could no longer be considered natives of Africa, and therefore could not be considered to be African. They certainly have African descent, but I showed the difference between the two in R2 of last debate.

If we base our ethnicity on our entire family tree rather than simply the last few generations, then we are all Africans, since there would never be a point when someone would stop being African. My opponenet has given no criteria where a person is separated from their former race. Since humans originated in Africa, we would therefore all be African, with no way to ever stop being African. I, onthe other hand, have presented a case that allwos for us to have the many diverse ethnicities we have. After a few generations away from a country, a person can no longer be considered to be that ethnicity.

I have a mojority of european blood, but I am an American. This is because my family has been in America for generations now. If I was a first, second, or even third generation immigrant, I might not consider my ethnicity to be 'American' just yet.

I think it is appearance and racial identity that is making my opponent fail to see the point here. It is likely much more difficult for him to see himself as an American than it is for me, since I am white, and the general image of an American is a white person.

White people tend to not care about their racial identity. However, this is not true for many black people. Probably as a result of past oppression, being a minority, or something else, blacks more often tend to prefer to identify with their roots rather than their present. This is nonsense though. An American is a person who is native to America. If you know the culture of America more than any other culture, the language of America more than other language, etc, then you are an American. This process often takes a few generations, but I would contend that it is sufficient criteria for one to be considered a "Native." Remember, my opponenet has given no criteria to base it off of.

My opponent asserts that no matter how integrated into society he is, he would still be an "African at heart." This makes no sense. Just as I am not a European at heart. This is clearly a case of my opponent trying to hold onto his 'roots' for little to no reason. An Americanized person is an American at heart. They act, speak, and think like an American, not an African, regardless of racial descent.

My opponent is correct whne he says I would not become Japanese if I moved there. Because I would not be a Native. I would be a foreigner. If I completely integrated into their culture [which would likely take a few generations of my family living there], then my family would be Japanese.

Also, about the olive colored skin and wooly hair, see the pic I posted in the link near the top in RE: Jesus.

For those interested, here are Olive, Bronze, and that face to compare it to.
http://www.mccullagh.org...
http://budgetcastingsupply.com...
http://pursuingholiness.com...

See the wooly hair, and the non-african-ness?

Also, note that even if these people did 'look' African, they would not automatically BE African. Heck, I probably look pretty Australian, but I'm decidedly not, and I don't even have any heritage there.

Regardless, I have responded to the two offenses my opponent is usiung. I have shown that the Israelites were not African as soon as they had lived somewhere else for a while [generating their own culture in the process]. I have shown that Jesus was probably not African, and it is most widely considered that he was middle-eastern.

Middle-easterners of that time do not have to look like middle-easterners of this time. And they're definitely different ethnicities anyway. We'd consider Caesar to be an Ancient Roman, not an Italian.

From Wikipedia:
"Ethnic identity is marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits."

Sure, by this definition, my opponent might be considered African, due to his dark skin [biological trait], but by ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA, which are listed first [this indicates more importance], he would decidedly NOT be African. Well, actually, I suppose I can't know that. But by these criteria we can be certain that a few generations after the Israelites moved from Africa, they could and probably should be considered a new ethnic group.

I suppose I'll just leave it there.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
weather I win or lose this debate i gotta give it 2 u beem0r ur a damn good debater. while i do not fully agree with your pov, i must acknowledge some of your words as fact, just as u must for me. even if i do earn the most votes, this debate truly goes to you.
[dont rub it in. this is alot coming from me cause I HATE admitting defeat!]
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Like I said this isn't a very touchy topic for me, so it's not like I'm going to dislike you for it.
And I'll answer your question in my response.
Posted by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
oh yeah and I 4got 2 say but judging from what you said earlier, Jesus would be considered African, for shortly after his birth he and his family fled the Egypt to escape the wrath of king herod. This is where he spent the earliest years of his life, so would he be considered African? Well weather I win or lose I hope we can become friends after this.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sarabeth 8 years ago
sarabeth
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by MossPond 8 years ago
MossPond
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
sonofzappbeem0rTied
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