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

My Case Against Miscegenation.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 81446
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I strongly believe in the preservation of the unique culture, heritage and genes of all races and ethnicities of mankind. Indeed it is conscious preservation of this which gives us TRUE diversity among people's and culture. I very much appreciate and wish to retain this true diversity, just as I appreciate the diversity that exists within any species of animal, from different kinds of butterfly to different breeds of dog.

It is clear and obvious to me that if your society absorbs multiple other cultures who are not like you in culture nor in appearance, that in one or two generations you are at serious risk of weakening the host nation and people, their culture, their heritage.
It is very rare for multiple races, different ethnicities and different religions to live peacefully and successfully side by side inside the same borders. Anywhere that it exists it has always led to tribal conflicts eventually.
Many nations in the Middle East are a good example of what can happen when those differences in culture, religion and ethnicity reach a climax - it spills over into bloody violence as different peoples compete and different peoples conflict over their vast cultural and moral differences.

All across Europe we can see with our own eyes and examine the data of the past two decades, and what we can see is that the incoming cultures(from say Pakistan and Africa), tend not to truly 'assimilate' at all, often times choose to live among their own by taking over whole neighbourhoods, and committing a disproportionate number of serious crimes. This is again more proof of the decay and break down of society that you get when you impose vastly different cultures and peoples on a host nation and people.

This then leads to miscegenation. The African race or the Chinese people can afford some level of miscegenation. Aside from all else there are perhaps more than one billion of each on the planet today.

However, if as a people you are the World's minority then miscegenation literally represents a very real and potential threat to the future of your own particular people.

Would an African say it just didn't matter if, in the future, the unique identity and look of the African people's would be altered and gone forever? Would it be seen as dishonourable for a Japanese person to seek out, marry and want to have children with another Japanese person? Does it get seen as 'racist' or 'hateful' that the majority of Jews(whether religious or atheist), seek out, marry and want to have children with another Jew?
Rhetorical questions really, since the African would never say such a thing about his own people, the Japanese person would not be viewed negatively for wanting to preserve the Japanese people, and the Jew would not be called a bigot for seeking out and having children with another Jew.

It seems self evident to myself and an increasing number of others, that wishing to marry and have children within your own race and ethnicity provokes a negative reaction only if you are European/white and openly state it. Set against the backdrop in the media, Hollywood and academia that exists, it appears to me that if you are white or European and simply want to preserve your own people's future and lands that you are 'evil'.

This standard applies to no other race or people that hold such natural aspirations - only to whites and generic Europeans.

Furthermore, it appears that it's only in majority white Western nations that miscegenation is habitually pushed and potrayed, be that through the conduit of TV adverts, film or some other means that has a mass audience. The sheer scale of inter racial relationships that are potrayed through those poweful means feel like one mass advertising campaign and promotion for miscegenation.

And yet, one would not watch TV or cinema in Israel and generally see Jewish characters portrayed being married to and having children with non Jews. One would not ordinarily watch Japanese TV or cinema and witness much in the way of inter marriage and mixed race children involving Japanese and Africans. And I would wager than in China and India, their popular culture will show Chinese people with their own and Indian people with their own. No one judges them for it, no one demands they make it more 'equal', no one lobbies for more white people to appear, and no one thinks either they or their pop culture are 'wrong' for doing it.

Again, it is only white and European people that would be judged and demonised, and literally disallowed from promoting marriage and childbirth between their own kind in any way at all. Is it merely a coincidence that in ALL of the above cases the only people that measures appear to be in place for to counter a people that want to preserve their own unique heritage and look are European people's? If it is, it is one remarkable coincidence indeed.

There are around 200 breeds of dogs in the World, each unique in it's own way, both in terms of looks and nature. The German Shepherd and the Dalmatian are both nice dogs in their own way. They are both canines, and you could get a litter from them. But why would you want to, esp. if in doing so you destroyed the lineage of both the German Shepherd and Dalmation only to have this irregular mongrel dog? It's the unique differences between those two dogs, both in look and in habit that make them so wonderful and to ruin that does not seem in any way a positive.
The nature of the German Shepherd makes it an excellent police dog(among other things). The Dalmatian originally ran alongside carriages. A litter of dogs between the two breeds would not give you a dog that was better at either function than the original dog would have been. You can only preserve the unique identity of the breed if you mate a German Shepherd with another of it's kind .

I assert that whites and Europeans are taught to self hate and as part of that they are encouraged to marry and have children with those of another race, and I assert that this is a phenomenon that appears exclusively aimed at whites and Europeans and no one else, not anywhere else.

What would happen if European men all married and had children with African women and European women did the same with Chinese men? And what would then happen as their children grew up, formed relationships and had children with one another? In a few short generations the unique identity of beauty of all the different European people's would be utterly impaired or destroyed and for good.
It doesn't even need to be ALL European men and women, simply a tipping point %, and esp in light of the very recent flood of non European immigration and the high birth rates of those incomers v the low birth rates of Europeans.

It is for reasons of wanting to preserve the true diversity that has existed among people's for a long time that I consider Miscegenation.a negative, and especially for the minority race on Earth - the European people's.

Sources and citations


The fact is, evolutionarily speaking, it is extremely beneficial for different groups of a species with vast differences to assimilate and become one. Will the effects may appear negative at the start, overtime it benefits the entire species as a whole. Different groups around the globe have different genetics. And overtime, genes which give a host an advantage tend to become more common, as this leads to more offspring. Eventually, if given time, most if not all of a certain group will have this "advantage". And this happens all over the world. Miscegenation causes these genes to be more widespread, and is used by nature to evolve a species overtime.

Lets say in Country A, a single person evolves a slightly stronger immune system. This person will survive longer than most, and in their lifetime will produce more offspring than one who doesn't have this evolutionary advantage. This will cause more of their offspring being into Country A and over generations all of Country A will have this gene.

Now lets say Country B had this exact process occur, but the gene that evolved gave the population stronger skin. This prevents them from being cut as easily and lowers the amount of opportunities to get injured or infected.

Now lets say 1 person from each country breeds together. Now their offspring has the best of both world, and as such, this will benefit everyone. Win Win right?

On the topic of "preserving" the European minority, to do such a thing would be extremely destructive to the race. Overtime, the genes of the people would become similar, and pushed back by other races who actually bred with other races. It would eventually make it so that undesirable genes would be spread out throughout the race, and would slowly kill them. Cancer would only be one of the problems, diseases would flourish as the race would be genetically similar. What is currently happening to bananas would happen to whites. A disease would figure out how to flourish inside a European, and as such would crack the code for the rest of the race.

Dogs are another prime example. People like pure bred dogs a lot. And as such, we have bred them to the point where they have cancer which is contagious. Just let that sink in for a moment. Keeping their blood pure, to preserve their "heritage" is going against mother nature, and makes the species pay for it. Pure Breds are extremely vulnerable to cancer and other diseases.

The idea and theory of "Pure Blood" has been around for millennia. In fact, it has directly caused many empires to fall, directly and indirectly. Many jewish are now against keeping their race pure, as that is already impacting them.

Miscegenation also preserves the heritage of race. Its just in the DNA. Holding back evolution is not what we should waste our time doing.

No one judges European people for not allowing miscegenation. If someone has their preference, they have their preference. No one cares, or judges if you marry a black or white.

In fact Europeans aren't even a minority in the grand scheme of things, if you look at it, there are many other races much, much more in danger of dying out. Preserving the heritage is not a "good" thing, its unnecessary and useless.

And next time you think of this, please remember this is one of the main reasons of the holocaust. It was one of Hitlers main ideologies. And look where it got him.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, so I"d like to start out by highlighting how you finished your piece " with Godwin"s Law and the "holocaust".
The topic is not about the "holocaust", if you want to discuss that then begin a debate on that. If it seems interesting I may debate it. Evoking Godwin"s Law so early in a debate is like potting the white and black ball together at pool. I guess if you didn"t know that before then you do now. In debate circles that is two huge own goals, so just offering some friendly advice on avoiding the tactic in the future.

I can think of no more natural position than for a people to aspire to preserve their heritage, culture, and genetics that make them a people. I think this is an inherent right that all the different races and peoples of mankind should pursue without judgment nor critique. It is wrong lest anyone suggest or imply that to want this is somehow "bad" or "evil". In actual fact it is the polar opposite, it is the most natural thing of all. If you grow complacent and neglect your culture, heritage and gene pool then you are destined to lose it. Perhaps entirely and all that this would entail.

Without doubt or question, almost all races and peoples are encouraged to preserve their own lands, culture, heritage and genes. Africans are at liberty to preserve such things, no one would call Pakistani"s racist for wanting their son or daughter to marry their own kind and only having children with those in their broad group. Even the legendary Ali said during an old interview with Parkinson, that black people should seek out and marry blacks and have black children, and white people should seek out their own and have white children. This was before politically allowed speech had fully taken its grip on what we"re allowed to see, hear or believe.

Any person from within any culture and/or race who simply does not care if that race and culture thrive in the future is simply rooted in "self" and entirely in the today. Such a person cares not if a combination of unlimited mass undemocratic migration of a non- European people to Europe eventually leads to the end of the European people"s (and all their diversity). They have ceased to be fully sentient, since they are reduced to only thinking of self and often times only in the most material way.
They have stripped themselves (or had stripped) their greater identity, their ancestry and any real roots or sense of belonging. That is why a person effected by that mind set can advocate for mass migration of non- Europeans to Europe and miscegenation " they just do not care.

It would perhaps be the greatest tragedy in mankind"s history if the European people, who are so relatively small in number, were bred out by aggressive non democratic mass immigration together with the overt promotion of miscegenation in media, pop culture etc.

This would matter to the Jewish people, the Indian people, the Japanese people etc, and it is right that it should matter " they very future and survival of their people is at stake. Why would it not matter?
It should also matter to the white and European people for the same sorts of reasons " the only way to guarantee the future for your people and preserve its own unique culture is do so with in the blood, the genes. Miscegenation is demonstrably at odds with that.

There are other issues to consider. They cannot be denied when laid bare. It may not be disapproved speech to point out physical differences between races, but it is definitely politically incorrect speech to extend those differences logically - to the intellectual.

Naturally we must measure in averages. We can fairly state that men are usually taller and stronger than women, and even if you found a very tall or strong women, the rule would still be true.
IQ is a standard and widely accepted measure of intellect, and intellect is self- evidently linked in to behaviours. The average IQ of an African American (sic) comes in at around 20 points less than that of a white American or Asian American, even when from the same socio economic background. African Americans average out at around 80/85, and whites and Asians average out at a 100 or a bit more. More exact figures are cited in my sources at the bottom.

This difference is vast. In some parts of Africa that IQ can drop all the way down to 70. An IQ of 70 would generally be regarded as not even bright enough to stand trial by Western standards.

I understand that there are ideas on "different kinds" of intelligence (creative, emotional etc), but we cannot dismiss or ignore these difference that do exist in IQ levels between blacks, whites, Asians etc.

Can we measure this gap in points in real terms? Of course. We can see that blacks score poorly, repeatedly, in almost all core subjects on the school curriculum and do the poorest in exams. We can also see that Asians and whites do the best.

We can also measure it in the different types of nations and societies that each race has fashioned, and we can see which are most advanced in science, technology, philosophy, music, art, engineering, etc etc.

These were self-evident truths as mainstream until around 40yrs ago, when the first deceptive seeds of what was to be called "political correctness" were sown.

Even if all the facts, data, research and observations say the opposite, we are fed this false narrative that there are simply no such thing as differences between races in matters of intelligence and creativity, that genetics plays zero part, and that we"re all little more than organic pods into which any personality or nature can simply be created by some vague and imaginary "equality" or by throwing money at state programme"s that are essentially designed to flatten the difference between the two intellects and pretend they are exactly the same.

When two different races mix then on average, the race with the lower IQ has gained something while the race with the higher IQ and creativity has lost something. Taken as an average, the intellect of a child born to a black person and a white person will be greater than it might have been between two black people, but not as great as it might have been had it been two white people.

The IQ Gap Between Races

First of all, the IQ gap. For those who don't already know, there absolutely IS an objectively measurable IQ gap between people with ancestors from different geographical areas (aka "races", which is the term I will use from here on out).
Psychologists do not debate this fact. The gap is well known and has been well known for decades. IQ test scores break down like this: on average, East Asians score higher than whites, who score higher than hispanics, who in turn score higher than blacks. The average scores are:
Asian-Americans -106, White Americans - 103, Hispanic Americans - 89, African-Americans - 85.
This means more than one in five American blacks have an IQ below 75; whereas around one in twenty whites have an IQ below 75. An IQ of 70-75 is considered "borderline retarded" by psychologists.

Studies also show there are some significant differences in what is called the structure of mental abilities. For example, if you took a sample of black and white children, all of whom had scored around 100 on the WISC-R (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children"Revised) meaning the black kids in the sample were well above the black average -- you would find significant black-white differences on six of the thirteen subtests. The average black child would do better on Arithmetic and Digit Span; where the average white child would do better on Comprehension, Block Design, Object Assembly, and Mazes.
The gaps are not limited to the United States either. European whites average - 100, East Asians from Asia - 106, and Sub-Saharan Africans - 70.

In 1987 a survey of the opinion of IQ experts was published. One question concerned what caused the US Black-White IQ gap. The survey found a large support for a partial genetic, partial environmental explanation. The survey was later used in the book The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (1988) which argued that general public was misled by the media regarding the expert opinion

Further public debate ensued after the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve which argued for the existence of race differences in IQ as well as stating that this is an important explanations for many social differences between the races such as regarding crime, education, unemployment, etc.
In response to the Bell Curve debate and perceived false and highly misleading views in the public debate, the statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" was signed by 52 professors

The American Psychological Association also responded to the debate by creating a committee which in 1995 published the report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" which acknowledged the gap between the average IQ scores of Whites and Blacks, the importance of IQ, and stated that both genetic and environmental explanations had inadequate support. It concluded "In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

The Black-White Gap demonstrates

"In mathematics, a 26-point difference at the 4th grade level and a 31-point difference at the 8th grade level.
"In reading, a 27-point difference at the 4th grade level and a 26-point difference at the 8th grade level.


While a person may want to preserve their heritage, as I said before, it would make their people die out and be outbred by other people who are willing to go for different cultures.

Historically, no group of people have kept their blood as "pure" as the Boers, also known as the Afrikaners. They refused to breed outside of their own race. The consequences?
-Genetic Disorders of the blood skin and bones
-sclerosteosis and lipoid proteinosis
-Afrikaners, at a rate five times higher than Americans, have a genetic abnormality which causes familial hypercholesterolemia which can cause people to have heart attacks before they are 30
-tons of other side effects (It is one o the most genetically crippled races on Earth

Other groups that had extremely high rates of familial hypercholesterolomia: Ashkenazi Jews, Lebanese Christians, French Canadians, and Finns. It coincides with groups who were bent on keeping their blood pure.
On average groups such as these have a 30 times higher chance of getting FH

Finnish people, a group bent on "preserving their heritage", have gotten a genetic syndrome exclusive to their people called FDH (Short for finnish disease heritage) and it was proven to be caused by a lack of genetic diversity.

The science behind this is, a lot of people have messed up genes. They are inactive because there has to be two of the genes to cause the actual problem. This is the reason incest is not allowed. Brothers and sisters usually have the same messed up genes and them having a child causes all those bad genes to become activated, which is never good. In a population of people from the same heritage, people all have close ancestors. By this I mean 10-5 generations (Depending on the amount of people in the race) these genes traverse up to 20 generations. See the problem?

IQ is hereditary, but even if both parents are stupid, the chid may be smart, and vice versa. Mixing with other races actually has a proven boost in IQ in a few studies. It depends on a situation. When a person is looking for love, it doesnt matter if the other is african american or european. There are dumb europeans and smart african americans, averages are not always applicable to the entire population. If IQ is a priority, and a European wants to also marry an african american, marry a smart african american. If someone doesnt want their child to be dumb, then dont marry a dumb person
Debate Round No. 2


Aside from the factors in my OP, there are other genuine considerations when it comes to miscegenation. Example. A white women is far more likely to be the victim of a homicide if her partner is black than she would be if she had remained within her group.


The July 2003 issue of the American Journal of Public Health published a massive study of spousal homicide. It was conducted by 18 experts in the medical field. The study states "Femicide, the homicide of women, is the leading cause of death in the United States among young African American women aged 15 to 45 years." Most women are murdered by a male partner.
A previous issue of the journal published a study showing blacks males are even 33% more likely to kill their spouse if she is white instead of black.
According to the study, white females married to black males are 12.4 times more likely to be murdered by their husbands than white females married to white males. The same study shows that white men married to black women are 21.4 times more likely to be murdered by their wife than white men married to white women. The study shows that white women married to black men have the single highest risk of death by femicide of any married women in the US.

The above is available as a PDF file on request or can be Googled.

While this may not be my primary objection to miscegenation it is however a valid point which must be made pertaining to it.
We can speculate as to the reasons why it is so, but it is what it is. I would likely take it back to those IQ differences. Someone with a lower IQ is more likely to act in the heat of the moment and not think things through. Check out the poor literacy rates and low IQ of the prison population.

We must also consider differences in brain size and how this may be a factor in different behaviours between races. We cannot dismiss the fact that the brain of an African is typically smaller than that of white or Asian.
It is estimated that on average their brain size is 5% smaller than that of a white person and 6% smaller than that of an Asian. It is hardly a stretch to then determine that this will effect IQ, emotional responses, decision making skills and reasoning powers.


The brains of African-Americans are 5% smaller than the brains of Whites and 6% smaller than East Asians, according to studies of brain weight at autopsy, endocranial volume of empty skulls, head size measurements by the U.S. military and NASA, and two dozen MRI volumetric studies.
That is a genetic trait because even malnourished Asians from poor countries have a larger brain on average than well fed blacks from western countries.

These are my sources:

Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology 25, 301"330.

Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight: I and II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 104, 635"645.
Johnson F. W. & Jensen (1994). Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence 18: 309"33

Rushton JP. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 25: 7"20.

Rushton JP (1991). Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences in brain size from military samples [and NASA]. Intelligence 15: 351"9.


This does not mean that no black person can ever excel in anything complex or technical. Nor does it mean that all whites and Asians will. There are exceptions to all rules, but the exceptions do not invalidate the rule.
In many cases blacks who are truly successful in academia, politics and law will in fact be mixed race, they will, like the POTUS, have a large degree of European DNA and genetics.
It is improving the genes of the African by essentially adding the genes of the European. It is questionable if they would be as successful without the addition of their European genetics.
We can measure these behavioural differences in respective culture and social manifestations.
In Africa, it is not uncommon for females to be subjected to FGM.
See here;

"WHO estimates that between 100 million and 140 million women and girls worldwide have been subjected to FGM. Three million girls and women a year are at risk of mutilation - approximately 8000 girls per day. It has been documented mainly in Africa (in 28 countries).."

It is often wrongly attributed to Islam. There is no requirement in Islam for this nor in Christianity, but in Africa it is done by both Muslims and Christians. This is due to the fact that it is less religious in origin and more racial. There are no other races/peoples that practice this, save for a tiny number in countries like Yemen.
In the West we only know of this due to the fact that it has been brought here along with many of the Africans that come here. While illegal, political correctness means that it is rarely pursued and prosecutions are also rare (although France does better than the UK).
I would also invite you to muse as to why it is that you don"t get Indian media and pop culture commonly promoting miscegenation, why you won"t find it much in Chinese culture, and why you will never find Israeli TV, pop culture and cinema aggressively promoting relations with those who are not of their own?

Only in majority white countries do you find miscegenation being constantly promoted on TV, advertising, cinema, magazines etc. There is no question that this shapes social attitudes, if it did not then advertisers would not spend billions promoting their products using the same principles.

It is my considered view that by and large people are unconsciously most attracted to their own in group. This would explain why, despite all the propaganda, the biggest % of whites still marry and have children within their own race. Just as most Africans, Japanese, Indians and Jews will seek out and marry their own. But it is only in majority white countries that a deviation from this is seen and overtly promoted in the media and pop culture. This cannot possibly be an accident and must be by design.

No one calls for Japan and the Japanese to be more "diverse". No one promotes that in China, Chinese women should marry Africans. No one promotes Jews being with Arabs. The message of miscegenation is promoted in white countries and only white countries.

It"s a programme that seems aimed at breeding out the European people, by way of miscegenation and mass unlimited immigration of non- whites to Europe.


Brain size difference between races was a myth that was spread around by a scientist called J.P Rushton. Almost immediately, the scientific community disproved this and showed that Rushton had used outdated tools and techniques. Humans generally have the same brain size, and in the end it was shown that the difference appears in white males and african americans, brain size varies person to person. There is no significant difference per race. Another study found that in fact African americans have bigger brains So it is easy to come to a conclusion that the brain size average varies on the test group.

Also, IQ is not directly linked to brain size. Only certain parts of the brain would directly affect IQ, and those are rarely found unchanged. If brain size affected IQ, humans would be one of the dumbest creatures on Earth. Most areas are linked to different athletic abilities. Whenever we really see a size difference, it is in parts of the brain to do with balance etc.

Also, in a lot of countries, miscegenation is frowned upon. The mindset in those countries is against it. But then again, people who are against it are extremely prone to genetic diseases and the "purer" your blood, the worse it is. Just look at some statistics. Certain genetic diseases are ravaging those countries.

Also, in countries like India or Israel, there is no call for miscegenation because their population is comprised of mostly people of their own culture. It is not necessary either, as these are majority populations.

Europeans though, reside in countries where they themselves are outnumbered. Unless they want to breed with only members of their own race until they all die, it is necessary to at least open your mind to the idea. No one pushes you. It just shows it is a possibility, not something taboo.
Debate Round No. 3



"Also, in countries like India or Israel, there is no call for miscegenation because their population is comprised of mostly people of their own culture""

Do you think that might be to do with the fact that to go live in Israel one must genetically prove they are Jewish? The religious side is moot. Israel do not care if they are religious or atheist. What they do care about is that they are genetically Jewish. Do you think it might have to do with those pesky marriage laws which disallow a Jew from marrying and pro creating with non- Jews in Israel?


"Europeans though, reside in countries where they themselves are outnumbered. Unless they want to breed with only members of their own race until they all die.."

Outnumbered by what or whom? Non Europeans? Not quite yet but getting there. Do you think this could be to do with the insanity of an open borders policy to non- European lands in the past few decades(but esp the last 20yrs)?

So we"ve established that Europeans are getting outnumbered, and in their own lands. Against their will also, since at no time has anyone asked for this non- European influx and that includes the outright insanity of the one playing out before us right now.

For thousands of years the European people survived and thrived, prospered by marrying within their own race/nationality/ethnic group. But for some unexplained reason if we go on doing what worked for thousands of years it will mean Europeans would "all die".
This clearly makes no sense at all.

How would Swedes having kids with Swedes cause Swedes to die? How does Germans having kids with Germans cause Germans to die?

Instead of "causing them to die", it does precisely the opposite, it promotes life, their future as a people, and it conserves all that is unique and different to that given people.

This would be like suggesting to Israel that unless Jewish women start marrying and having kids with Africans, that "Jews will die". It"s the opposite to what you say, they would only be diluted and "die" if Jewish women began to commonly mix and marry with blacks and Arabs.
Jews don"t spent time and money to reach out to their "diaspora" and implore them not to marry a gentile for nothing. They do it for a very basic and fundamental motive " the preservation of the Jewish people.

Miscegenation is not naturally as big a threat to Africans as it is to Jews or whites. There are in the region of 1.2 billion Africans. This goes on growing and growing, since Africans have no shortage of children, and with the money, aid and medicine gifted by the altruistic white countries(among so many other things), their numbers have exploded artificially.

Here we can measure the scale of that explosion;

1800 -107,000,000

1850 - 111,000,000

1900 - 133,000,000

And in 2015?

"As of 2015, the population estimates are around 1.166 billion."

These vast numbers alone ensure that the African race can easily absorb a level of miscegenation. Indeed, any impact would merely be a positive one for the African on average, since he or she is effectively improving their gene pool. Their offspring is likely, on average, to have a higher IQ than they would had they been a full African. And IQ is directly related to decision making and behaviours.

However, even miscegenation for Africans is not without a downside. Many mixed race teens will often speak of a confused identity. They may not share the same level of impulsive behaviours as a full African, and yet they are considered by everyone to be black, even if their mix is 50/50.

We used to use the term mixed race, which is far more accurate. But somehow or other, politically correct parlance morphed things so that this term was disapproved of. All mixed race kids then became de facto blacks. Obama is considered black, even though it is clear he has a great deal of European DNA.

Mixed race kids often find themselves rejected or even bullied by blacks. In an effort to appease their peers they not uncommonly over reach, over compensate, and can be the most vocal and hateful when speaking about white people. They may have a whole side to their family who are white, and yet are not uncommonly the loudest voices when it comes to hateful statements aimed at whites. In examples such as this I can only assume it is down to trying to over compensate and convince full blacks how "black" they are.

I accept there are likely instances of mixed race kids never having these inner conflicts and feelings of loss of true identity, but it is not rare that they do and it is entirely down to miscegenation.

Yet another good reason for a white person not to engage in miscegenation are the sheer levels of HIV and STI's among Africans. Here are figures to give context;

Black/African Americans accounted for 46% of all new HIV infections in 2013, and make up 43% of the total number of people living with HIV in the USA, despite only making up 13% of the population -

Between 2009-2013, black/African Americans accounted for: 63% of all HIV infections among women 67% of all HIV infections among children below 13 years old 42% of all HIV infections among males -

Beyond all doubt and question, if a white man or women miscegenates with an African (American) then they are quite literally putting their life at greater risk.
When you set that against the fact that a white women is over 12 times more likely to be murdered by a black partner than from one within her own race and it is irrefutable that for a white women(or man) to date outside of their own race(and esp with Africans) is literally a greater risk to(her) life.

A German Shepherd and a Wolf share much of the same DNA and genetic make up. They even look similar. If you gave 50 people a wolf cub and 50 people a German Shepherd puppy, what do you suppose would unfold as they raised them as pets?
They are so genetically similar. They roughly look the same. You've given both out as pups or cubs. What would be the outcome?
It is obvious that those given the wolf cubs would find them far more problematic to raise as pets, and that far more of those given the cubs would be injured as it grew and developed. Yet you raised both at an early age in identical conditions.

It is the same between the races of man. The African and the European are both 'homo sapien'. They may even share 98% of the same genetic make up. But it's those apparently small differences that matter. What you may seen as a tiny genetic or biological difference will translate to something very obviously different in the physical realm, the cultural and behavioural.

AIDS: According to the CDC, black men who identify as heterosexual are 15 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.

Black men are also more likely to have HIV/AIDS and not be diagnosed. However, let"s assume the rate at which black and white men with HIV/AIDS goes undiagnosed. If you had a million young white women and 7% engaged in relations with black men, then more women in that 7% will have been exposed to HIV/AIDS than the other 93%.

This does not end with AIDS. According to the CDC, black are 8.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with chlamydia. 20.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with gonorrhea, and 9.1 times more likely to be diagnosed with syphilis.

Black females are over 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS than white females.
White females who date black males increased their chances, astronomically, of dying from AIDS.

Premature death among black females from homicide and AIDS is:
3.9 times higher than white females among those who are 15-19
4.4 times higher than white females among those who are 20-24
7.3 times higher than white females among those who are 25-34


naeesaim181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, I'll end the debate.
During this debate a strong case has been made against miscegenation. Does a white man that gets together with a black women place himself at greater risk? Yes, because all the statistics would show that he's more likely to be killed by her. Does a white women place herself at greater risk? Yes, because all the evidence demonstrates that she is more likely to be killed by him than if she'd remained within her own race.

These are stats that would be ignored at one's peril.

Can we demonstrate that miscegenation with Africans exposes one to greater risk of HIV and STI's? Yes we can. The provided data clearly shows it to be the case.

To dismiss or be ignorant to these facts would be like randomly taking pills and not even reading the label.

I have shown how mixed race children often speak of identity issues. Are we also to dismiss that?

We can easily see how if a people were to follow miscegenation on a grand scale then it would lead to the inevitable and eventual end of the race that were the World minority. To even create, invite or encourage the conditions in which this could happen(in whole or in part), is a fundamental tragedy and entirely malevolent.

We have seen how miscegenation is something almost exclusively aimed at whites in majority white nations and we've seen how miscegenation is not commonly promoted in Africa, China, India, or anywhere else.

Don't Jews need to diversify their gene pool by getting together with Africans? Don't the Japanese need to diversify their gene pool by getting together with Indians? Apparently not. Apparently it is whites and majority white countries that must diversify their gene pool - no one else.

In closing - if you are European then miscegenation is a disaster for at both the macro and micro level and in both the short and long term.


naeesaim181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mall 2 years ago
Now I see why it's a tie. The arguments on the pro side could of been stronger if it wasn't for making out "miscegenation " to be better. Comes off as biased and can count against validity, plus forfeiting rounds. It did come across my mind from the con side that this argument is fascade for an ulterior agenda to keep supremacy . Maintain supremacy with the eugenics and biased statistics. Statistics are a weak arguments. Also an argument can be made on what was not said on the con side . Notice how there's a repetitious emphasis on "preserving heritage or unique identity " and presupposition on "misegenation" being supposedly indicative of "self hatred". We can all use presuppositions and reverse it. Being against "misegenation " or only mating within a particular group is indicative of hatred of other people groups and of any association at all. See none of this works for its illogical and unsound. Plus the con side has to pick and stick with the topic. "Misegenation " and separation are not the same . Just state arguments for intermingling of all kinds. One question to ask the con side is, how do you feel about other groups of people or nationalities as it were? In regards to social interaction. It's mentioned that because of interaction there are "race" problems. Here's the reality, end the "racism ", problem solved.
Posted by pakicetus 2 years ago
I'd be interesting in this debate - unfortunately, it won't allow me to until our other debate is resolved.
No votes have been placed for this debate.