Should gingers be the next holocaust?
Debate Rounds (3)
I'll try to use my 1,000 characters wisely then.
"Gingers should not be the next holocaust because how would you like it if someone decided your color is stupid and decided that we should destroy its kind"
The problem with this argument is that the reasoning behind destroying gingers are not because we deem their hair color is stupid. It's because they actually do not have a soul. However, 80% of Gingers are curiously not aware if their soulless life.  According to National Geographic, REDHEADS are becoming rarer and could be extinct in 100 years. Many other genetic scientists agree with this... We would just be quickening the process. 
Con's arguments have been refuted, and I've given logic as to why we should go through with this.
Thanks, back to you Con.
Notice the complete lack of sources in my opponents argument.
"I am a ginger and I don't believe that gingers don't have souls becaus"
He should be stopped right there. I have already explained most Gingers are un-aware of their lack of a soul. (80%)
I need evidence for Con's claims. The arguments I have made have not been refuted because Con does not show any evidence for his rebuttals.
First off, what is a soul?
"The spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever"
Does this actually have anything to do with being racist? Nope. Not one word in the definition of soul contradicted with someone being racist. They can coexist in other words, meaning my opponents rebuttals have now not only been unsourced, but also *Disproven*. (This also applies to point A)
So you see, my points have been backed up by evidence while Con's are refuted,
"Gingers aren't aware of their soulless life."
Everybody has a soul except a few people. Like people that are racist or don't feel sad for people don't have a soul.
"Having gingers as the next hallocaust because that will speed up the process for extinction of them."
Gingers will never go extinct because A. it only takes one ginger parent to make a ginger kid B. genes run through generations before returning to the family and it says it in the citation below.
Back to you pro.
As you can see, he literally *refuses* to provide evidence that Gingers have a soul. I, on the other hand, have shown a source proving they do not have a soul. Con has not given any evidence or solid contention against this, so it still stands...
Furthermore, he really shoots himself in the foot with his evidence in his third point. First thing. I have to say about this is that he actually completely misquoted me to make it seem like I had a third graders grammar. He's partly right. Gingers may have the gene running through someone, but it would be a recessive trait. Most people who carry the gene only have the recessive type, meaning it would take two gingers to make another ginger. If there is only one ginger, it is likely that the dominate traits would take over and the child will not be a ginger.
This is just things my class learned last year in 7th grade science, it's not breaking news or anything.
I've refuted all of my opponents arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sewook123 2 years ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting debate. Con, please work on your spelling and grammar. In case you haven't noticed, there's a "check your spelling" button for you to proofread any spelling errors. Although Pro did provide more sources, I am dubious of their credibility. "80% of gingers are souless." How is did statistic determined? How can one determine of one has a soul or not? And it is also very unlikely that the source has conducted a test(?) for ALL gingers. I feel like more interesting points could have been brought up, but good job.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.