The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people

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: 10/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,949 times Debate No: 5828
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

For centuries, Roma people (otherwise known as Gypsies) have travelled far and wide and have faced prejudice and persecution wherever they have gone. In many ways, their experience mirrors that of the Jewish people. However, whereas the Jews were granted their own homeland when the State of Israel was created after World War II, even though the Nazi's exterminated over 600,000 Roma people in the Holocaust, the Roma still have nowhere to call "home".

http://www.romani.org...

The Jewish people originated in what is now Iraq, but it was agreed that the British Mandate of Palestine should be withdrawn and the land ceded to the Zionists in order to create a Jewish state.

The Roma people originated in what is now the Punjab region of India, but that is already an extremely over-populated part of the world. As there are already 1 million Roma in the United States, whose ancestors were shipped over by European countries during colonial times, and since the US has plenty of spare land, there is no reason why the United States shouldn't donate some of its territory to create a homeland for the Roma people in the same way Britain did for the Jews.

http://www.tshaonline.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.punenvis.nic.in...

Israel is about the same size as Massachusetts (with land areas of 20,770 sq. km and 20,300 sq. km respectively), both have productive agricultural hinterlands, both have direct access to the sea and, in Jerusalem and Boston, both can boast urban centres of historical importance. For this reason, I believe Massachusetts would make an ideal homeland for the Roma people.

https://www.cia.gov...
http://www.convertit.com...

Of course, like Jews, the Roma deserve their own nation state, but in its formation many of the incumbent occupants of the land will need be displaced, as was the case when Arab families were driven off their farms and out of their homes when the State of Israel was created.

However, the US has always been unwavering in its support of the State of Israel and both Republican and Democrat politicians refer to Palestinian resistance fighters as "terrorists". No doubt, there will be similar resistance to the creation of a Roma homeland where what is currently known as Massachusetts is, but I am confident that the government and people of America will extend military, political and financial support to the fledgling Roma state, just as they have done for Israel over the past 60 years.

I therefore resolve that the US Federal Government should cede the State of Massachusetts to the Roma people so that it can become an independent nation and a refuge for deprived, oppressed and persecuted Roma from around the world.

Thank you.
Mangani

Con

My opponent contends that the Roma face prejudice and persecution wherever they have gone. Why, then, establish a homeland in America? This would be a divisive act, and would add to their persecution. My opponent contends there are 1 million Roma in the US, yet there are 15 million worldwide. The US is hardly a likely homeland. Most of the Roma in the US are concentrated in Virginia and Louisianna, why establish Massachusettes- one of the original 13 states of the United States of America- be ceded for a Roma homeland?

My opponent contends that the British "donated their land" for the Jews. This is not true. Palenstine was not British land, it was a colony occupied by Britain. Palestine was ethnically Arab and to a smaller extent, Jew, before England ceded the colony for the creation of a Jewish state. Massachusettes is largely Irish and other Western European. There are many minorities in Massachesettes, but none claim the state as their homeland except for maybe some Nipmuc and Wampanoag Indians of New England. The Jewish had in the very least a documented religious claim to the land, the controversy of which is not the subject of this debate, though very relevant when considering a State of the Union as the homeland for a nomadic peoples from half a world away.

My opponent claims that somehow the Roma "deserve" their own nation state. I contend that the Roma are ethnically Punjab Indians, and therefore already have a nation and a region within that nation to call home. Overpopulation is one reason why ethnicities are found outside of their home regions. Overpopulation is not an excuse to create multiple home nation states. Furthermore, neither the displacement of Arabs in Palestine nor the displacement of US citizens in Massachusetts can be morally justified to make room for someone else. I understand this debate may be an act of revers psycology on the part of my opponent, but if he really feels displacement is justified, then why use genocide as an excuse? Displacement is simply a non-lethal form of genocide.

My opponent mentions US policy towards Israel as hostility toward Palestine, and uses this as justification for displacement of US Citizens. If my opponent wanted to have a debate about US policy toward Israel he should have started a debate regarding that issue. This debate is simply a show of cowardice and veiled support for Palestine, and a true debate would have been much more interesting and honorable on his part.

My opponent contends that the US Federal Government should cede the State of Massachusetts to the Roma people. This is impossible. The US Federal Government has no power to cede a State of the Union. That power resides in the hands of the government and citizens of the State of Massachusetts. Secession from the Union would be viewed as an act of war, and would be treated as such.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for his impassioned and eloquent reply.

First of all, I should like to make it clear that I am not using this debate to show support for the plight of the Palestinians as my opponent claims – it is actually all about the Roma people. The reason I drew a parallel between my proposal for a Roma homeland and the creation of a Jewish state on Palestinian land was to demonstrate that this type of scheme is not unprecedented in recent times.

I certainly agree, however, that my plan to turn Massachusetts over to the Gypsies would be divisive - I never said it wouldn't be – but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs: more than half a century of conflict in the Middle East is testament to that. But that's not to say my scheme shouldn't be implemented. Settling the Roma in their overcrowded ethnic home in northern India is not, unfortunately, an option. The Roma fled the region over a thousand years ago to escape oppression from Muslims, the decedents of who still live in the area. Furthermore, in addition to the chronic overcrowding that my opponent doesn't seem to think would be a problem, the Roma now only have the most tenuous of cultural links even with the Hindus of the area. Surely to create a homeland in this part of the world would be more divisive still?

My opponent enquired why I chose Massachusetts as the proposed site for the Roma homeland. Well, there were other candidates. For example, Pennsylvania also has a productive hinterland; direct access to the sea and Pennsylvania is almost as difficult to spell as Massachusetts (or "Massachusettes" as my oppenent wrote!) However, I felt that, as a city, Boston would be a more fitting Roma capital and a more appealing place for Gypsies to settle, as the pictures below illustrate.

Boston
http://blog.flashforwardconference.com...

Philadelphia
http://farm1.static.flickr.com...

Boston
http://i.cnn.net...

Philadelphia
http://jim-frizzell.com...

Boston
http://www.nationalgeographic.com...

Philadelphia
http://www.epa.gov...

Perhaps my opponent has a point when he says that Palestine wasn't Britain's land to give away? After all, it was occupied territory. Good point. Similarly, the Algonquian tribes that used to live in what is now Massachusetts didn't exactly invite the early European colonists to come and occupy their land, did they? Indeed, the tensions between the indigenous people and the foreign settlers led to the Pequot War of 1636 and King Philips' war of 1675-76, the latter of which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Native Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Still, that is history, we are where we are now and have to face today's realities on the ground.

Does not the American Declaration of Independence state: "That all men are created equal"? Surely that must include men whose ancestors fled the Asian subcontinent in the 9th Century? If so, then they must be entitled to the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those men who arrived in North America from Europe a few hundred years ago. Since the Early colonists displaced the indigenous people of America in order to create a new homeland for themselves, the Roma must have the right to do the same, albeit on a much more modest scale.

Finally, I do not regard the legal objections relating to the transfer of Massachusetts to the Roma people that my opponent referred to as insurmountable. Since the United States expanded its territory through the purchase of land, for example the 828,800 sq. miles she acquired for the nominal amount of $28 per square mile in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, it follows that she must be able to dispose of land in the same way and there is no reason why the Roma may not assume ownership of the state for a token payment, say a sprig of lucky heather, with monetary payments to follow over time.

For these excellent reasons, I maintain that Massachusetts should be ceded to the Roma people.

Thank you.
Mangani

Con

My opponent begins round two with an assertion- "I am not using the debate to show support for the plight of the Palestinians as my opponent claims". The context of his response disagrees with this assertion. He has yet to provide a logical reason for how or why the people of the State of Massachusetts should displace themselves voluntarily, and allow for the secession of a State of the Union which would end in Civil War- all for a nation of people who already have a homeland. He draws on comparisons between Israel and Palestine claiming that case as precedence, but I assure you there are no similarities. I will get back to the differences after I address each point.

My opponent follows up his assertion with another- "I never said it wouldn't be (divisive); you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs: more than half a century of conflict in the Middle East is testament to that". This statement is in direct contradiction to paragraph one, as I have never stated the situation in Israel is ideal for any nation. He is using a straw man argument here to further his ulterior motive in this debate, which is to show solidarity with the Palestinians, and by the rest of his context now- other oppressed peoples like Native Americans. That is not what this debate is about, and I would urge the readers not to be fooled. My opponent insults the intelligence of the readers as well as that of myself by continuing this line of debate.

My opponent claims that "settling the Roma in their overcrowded ethnic home in northern India is not, unfortunately, and option. etc. etc. etc". The problem is that settling the Roma is not up to anyone. The Roma are not "one" people. There are many branches of Roma that have developed culturally independent from one another as my own opponent claims in statements like "The Roma fled the region over a thousand years ago"... etc. They actually began their nomadic journey about 600 years ago, first of all, and second- they have a homeland. Who are you to claim they should be gathered up and resettled ANYWHERE? Who do you propose we should gather up? The Portuguese Roma who were sent to Brazil from Portugal, and have had descendants who have been President of the country? The Spanish Roma (Gitanos) who have deep cultural ties to Spain bringing us music and dance like the Flamenco? Or maybe the "white" descendants of Roma like (it is claimed by some) Bill Clinton who have made their homes in the US? Who will you gather up, resettle, and force to live amongst culturally unrelated peoples simply because of their ethnic origin? That is akin to plans to gather blacks after the Civil War and resettle them in places like Liberia. It is a ridiculous, divisive, and bigoted suggestion. As an ethnicity they have a homeland- India. As a nation, they are not one. Culturally they may have similar ties, but have developed independently from one another. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu. What will we gather up and resettle next? The Chinese? I assure you there are more Chinese in the US (3,538,407) than Roma (1,000,000 or less) in the US, and they too have an "overcrowded" homeland. Will you want to cede a State of the Union to them too as well and keep them separated from the neighborhoods, schools, employers, and daily life they have become accustomed to based on your supposedly benign assertion that they should have a separate homeland because their own is overcrowded? This sounds more bigoted than any other justification you could possibly give to your argument. There is no need to create a homeland for those who have one, and therefore there is no need to be divisive in this case, PERIOD. My opponent would have you believe there are no Roma in northern India, but I assure you there are (5,794,000) almost six times as many Roma in India as there are in the US. If they want to go back, they can. If they think it's overcrowded they have the freedom to make their home anywhere in the world, as they have in the past. And if my opponent won't have them as neighbors they can all move into my neighborhood.

My opponents reasons for choosing Massachusetts do not address the questions I posed rather he ignores them and continues with the irrational reasoning. My opponent also cleverly points out that I misspelled Massachusetts a couple of times... I don't know what that has to do with the debate, but I also spelled it correctly in the same round so I apologize for the occasional typo and my lack of using spellchecker. Back to the point...

My opponent says Boston would be a more fitting capital for the Roma, but provides absolutely no logical reasoning why. What are their cultural ties to Boston? How many Roma are already settled in Boston? Etc. These and other questions are never addressed. He goes on to post ridiculously chosen examples of Philadelphia- which has no connection whatsoever to this debate, and Boston as a comparison. I guess he thinks we are all dumb enough to believe there are no poor parts of Boston, and there are no wealthy parts of Philadelphia. Either way, it has nothing to do with the debate.

My opponent brings up the Natives that were displaced in Massachusetts as further reasoning why the State should be ceded. If anything he makes a case for ceding the land to it's original inhabitants, an issue I have already addressed.

My opponent invokes the Declaration of Independence, but ignores the Constitution which is the law of the land. How do you honor one and disregard the other? Either way, again, it has nothing to do with the debate. The Roma in the US have all of these rights, and (allegedly) have even served as President (Bill Clinton). My opponent also completely ignored the legal issues surrounding secession, civil war, and forced displacement and resettlement under modern US law.

The US bought the Louisiana Territory from the FRENCH for $23,000,000. This was not French land- it was Native land... and it was 1803. Again, my opponent draws on injustices of the past to try to justify injustices in the future. This is irrational given the fact that in the past the laws of the land were followed, yet he proposes to ignore current laws because this wasn't prevented from occurring in the past. When Louisiana was incorporated as a state in 1812, it became subject to the Constitution of the US, and when it seceded in 1861 it became subject to the aggression of the Federal Government. My opponent ignores the law of the land, and asks us to "suppose" than can be broken for an irrational and divisive idea to segregate a people who have a homeland, using their past oppression and segregation as the excuse. Hardly benevolent.

Now to the differences between the Roma and the Jews.

1. Palestine was first established as the Kingdom of Israel over 3,000 years ago in 1020BC by the Jews. The Roma first appeared in the US during the colonial period or the 18th century AD. Massachusetts was established in 1620 by the Pilgrims, not the Roma.

2. The Jews called Palestine home for nearly 3,000 years before they were resettled there in 1948. The Roma have never called Massachusetts home as a people.

3. The Jews have never had a homeland other than Israel/Palestine. My opponent claims they were from Iraq. It is true Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans (Ancient Iraq), but he was in Canaan when Isaac was born, and Israel or Jacob was born in Canaan (Palestine/Israel). The Roma claim the Punjab region of Northern India as their place of origin, not Massachusetts.

4. Since 538BC, Palestine has been occupied by both non-Jews as well as non-Arab Palestinians. The Punjab region of India has always been Indian, even when India was occupied by England.

5. Palestine was taken from the Ottomans (non-Arab Turks) in 1917. The land included Syria and parts of other countries which were ceded as sovereign republics, including Israel. See #1 for Mass.

There is no reason why Mass. should be ceded. Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

Once again, thanks to my opponent for a well-informed and thought-provoking response.

Firstly, I should be clear that in the process of championing the cause of a homeland for the Roma I was, indeed, conscious that I this would present me with the opportunity to highlight the injustices that the creation of a Jewish homeland has heaped upon innocent Arab families. I will not "insult your intelligence" by pretending otherwise, but the raison d'�tre of this debate was, and remains, the creation of a Roma nation.

Now, to address my opponent's response: while his arguments against my just and fair solution to the Roma housing crisis may seem superficially convincing, I will demonstrate that they are, in fact, no more than the protestations of a "nimby".

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

Had I suggested that the homeland should be in Macedonia rather than Massachusetts, I rather suspect my opponent may not have been quite so forthright in his opposition to the plan.

The trouble is, the Roma people, like Australian Aborigines, the Ainu of Japan, Native Americans, the Yuan Zhu Min of Taiwan, Polynesian Hawaiians, the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and countless other stateless ethnic groups, have to deal with widespread prejudice and discrimination and are often driven to the edge of society by the mainstream population, and are often forced to live in appalling conditions.

http://lazykitty.net...
http://www.freewebs.com...

If these minorities were granted their own homelands, not only would they be happy, but so would their former "hosts". For example, the majority of Italians want to see all Roma, even those with Italian citizenship, deported (where to?) and their law courts uphold people's "right" to discriminate against Gypsies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Of course, it's not just Italy, in Britain, where the slang word for Roma travellers is "Pikeys", there are road signs erected to inhibit their movements.

http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk...
http://www.urbandictionary.com...

As we have already noted, the Jews have been granted a homeland, and although its location is extremely controversial, not many people would deny that they have a right to self-determination within the framework of an independent sovereign state.

All I am suggesting is that the Roma should enjoy the same right. To deny this would be to assert that Jewish people are superior to Romany people, and only seriously deluded fascists like Hitler, have ever suggested that one race is inherently superior to another.

My opponent claims that Roma people already have a homeland in India and wrote: "If they want to go back there, they can". This is not true, as they would be very unlikely to obtain a visa, never mind an Indian passport.

The 5 million gypsies that live in India, that he referred to are, by the way, the Lambanis (or Indian Gypsies) who are nomadic and widely discriminated against. As I mentioned previously, and will demonstrate later, India would be wholly unsuitable as a homeland. Indeed, I would expect the 5 million or so Lambinis to emigrate to the former state of Massachusetts once the Roma nation is established there.

Also, it is not true to say that the Roma don't want to settle down. In his coronation speech in 1937 Janos I, King of the Gypsies in Poland, said the Roma were tired of travelling and called for the creation of a Romany homeland.

http://books.google.com...

So this leaves two questions unanswered. Why Massachusetts and how will this scheme be implemented?

Ideally, the Roma homeland would be established on an uninhabited tract of land that was unclaimed by any country. Unfortunately, the only place on Earth that fits the bill is Antarctica, which is incapable of sustaining independent human civilisation, and is, anyway, protected.

Therefore we need to look for an alternative location, ideally with access to the sea for trade, agricultural land for food production and a pre-existing urban infrastructure with a developed transport system.

Let's take two potential host countries: India, as proposed by my opponent, and the US, as I propose.

Q - Which country has the most land to spare?
A - The US, with only 31 people per sq. km against India's 386 per sq. km, America has well over 10 times more capacity.

Q – Which country can most afford to donate the land?
A – The US, with an average per capita GDP is $45,800 against India's $2,600, Americans are over 17 times richer than Indians.

Q – Which country has the better infrastructure?
A – The US, with 14,947 airports America has 43 times more airports than India's 346 and produces 4,062 trillion kWh of electricity against India's mere 666 billion.

https://www.cia.gov...
https://www.cia.gov...

Of course, I could go on and on, but character limits prevent me from doing so.

Now, how will this scheme be implemented?

First and foremost, I don't expect the current inhabitants of Massachusetts would need to be forced to leave, rather they would choose to rather than live under Roma jurisdiction, given the Gypsies' unconventional interpretation of law and order. Since the present population of the state are mainly US citizens, they will be free to relocate anywhere in America and, furthermore, will be allowed to keep all their transportable possessions and financial assets. Some may even choose to emigrate to the towns and cities in Europe and other locations that the incoming Roma have vacated.

My opponent finally pointed out 5 differences between the Roma and the Jews, all of which I accept apart from the Jews not being from present day Iraq. Although the Jews did emigrate en masse millennia ago, the Jewish people originated along the banks of the Euphrates and although many left, many also stayed and there was still a sizeable Jewish population in Iraq until quite recently.

http://www.tworca.org...

Nevertheless, none of the facts listed negate the Roma's right to an independent sovereign state and the freedom from oppression that that will bring.

In conclusion, since Massachusetts represents only 1/484th of mainland United States of America's total land area, donating the state to the Roma would not be a great sacrifice and I feel the American people would like to demonstrate to the world their sense of generosity and commitment to social justice by supporting the creation of a homeland for Roma people on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States.

Thank you.
Mangani

Con

My opponent's first response in R3 is an ad hominem. Rather than addressing the issues, he accuses me of Nimbyism. I have never stated the Roma shouldn't have a homeland, rather that they already have one. I have pointed this out continuously. In fact, the Roma have a flag very similar to that of India, and they were recognized by Ghandi as an Indian ethnic group. http://www.romani.org...

My opponent says I would have no opposition to the plan if he suggested their homeland should be in Macedonia. Again, this is ad hominem. The Massachusetts argument was simply one of many, and it is the subject of this debate. His resolution does not say simply "a homeland should be established somewhere for the Roma", rather it states very clearly "The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people". Massachusetts has been an essential part of his reasoning, as has the US Government ceding land (even if it wasn't Massachusetts, evidenced in his various arguments and comparisons, ie. Philadelphia).

My opponent suggests that the Roma don't fit in anywhere else, and so a homeland should be established apart from their original homeland. He has made this argument before, he is simply rewording it. My opponent's argument is genocidal without the killing. He suggests getting them out of every other country because they suffer injustices. I have shown in my arguments that many Roma have gone on to rule the countries they have settled in (http://en.wikipedia.org...) like Juscelino Kubitschek, former President of Brazil.

His argument would imply that the Aborigines, Ainu, Native Americans, Yuan Zhu Min, Hawaiians, Kurds, and "countless other ethnic groups" should be rounded up and resettled in individual new homelands, rather than fight injustices. Again, this is reminiscent of the ignorant bigotry that plagued presidents like Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe in their attempts to repatriate blacks because "Blacks . . . are inferior to Whites in the endowments of both body and mind" (The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library, New York, 1944, page 262). Jefferson went on to say "When freed, the Black is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture". All three Presidents helped establish Liberia (the capital, Monrovia is named after Monroe) which is now a failed state.

My opponent's argument sounds like that of the KKK, who favor "black repatriation": "No, we are not the enemies of the black man, the brown man, the red man, or the yellow man. Rather it is those who attempt to artificially force the different races together who are the enemies of all. The stupidity of those who cry "diversity, diversity" and then turn around and cry "thou shall integrate" is becoming more evident each and every day. They themselves just can't see the obvious." (http://www.kkk.bz...)

What he suggests is akin to Black or White Nationalism (http://www.stormfront.org...).

The injustices against ethnic minorities should be fought, not "worked around" by segregation. My opponent suggests that rather than being intolerant towards racism, we should tolerate intolerance and do as the bigots wish. First this was about the plight of the Roma, now he has converted his argument into the plight of the oppressors who want them out.

My opponent brings up examples in England where the Roma are called "Pikeys" and signs inhibit their movements. Might I remind my opponent that blacks in the US were referred to as "niggers", and signs inhibited their movement until the late 1960's, and this was the law of the land. Had we succumbed to my opponents reasoning, all blacks would have been forced to leave the land they had been on for 400 years, and racism would still be openly and legally tolerated.

My opponent again attempts to invoke the Jews, and appeals to the emotions of self-determination. The Jews are not a separate ethnicity originally from another country. The Jews established their nation in Canaan thousands of years ago. Canaan, today, is geographically Palestine- or the site of the State of Israel. This would not be true for the Roma, as their homeland is India, and millions of Roma still call the Punjab region of India home. I am not suggesting we deny the Roma any rights. On the contrary- I am saying that rather than attempting to segregate them we should be concerned about their human and civil rights within the lands they have voluntarily chosen to settle in. My opponent's statement on Hitler is not only a veiled ad hominem attack, but is a perfect description of what he is suggesting- forced repatriation and segregation.

My opponent makes all these claims against an Indian homeland for the ethnically Indian Roma, and suggests the King of the Gypsies in 1937 called for the creation of a Romany homeland. Indeed he did. My opponent's reference states the site of the homeland he called for was in India, the original homeland of the Roma!

My opponent goes on to give reasons and compare where the best suitable homeland would be. I have not suggested the Roma be repatriated to a new homeland as he implies I suggested. I have stated THEY HAVE A HOMELAND. Having a homeland doesn't mean you live there. I have stated Massachusetts is largely Irish... they don't live in Ireland! The Roma don't need to be repatriated. Their civil rights need to be defended.

Given my line of argument, it really makes the rest of my opponent's argument irrelevant as it concentrates on an "ideal" homeland. I have continuously stated they have a homeland. They don't need to be repatriated. Repatriation is veiled bigotry, and tolerance of intolerance. I have successfully compared his suggestion to that of Black and White Nationalists like the KKK and Black Hebrew Israelites. Any discussion of an ideal homeland for the Roma is irrelevant to my argument because he has not successfully defended the "need" for a new homeland.

In conclusion, I leave you with a few word definitions:

Segregation: 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b: the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group

Separatist: : one that favors separatism: as capitalized : one of a group of 16th and 17th century English Protestants preferring to separate from rather than to reform the Church of England b: an advocate of independence or autonomy for a part of a political unit (as a nation) c: an advocate of racial or cultural separation

White Nationalism (From Stormfront.org):The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. In fact, formation of a White nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others. A separate White nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.

Social justice should not be substituted by segregation, separatism, and nationalism. The Roma's human and civil rights should be respected- wherever they are. The Roma should not be forced to repatriate against their own wishes, and neither should the current inhabitants and land owners of Massachusetts. My opponent has presented a flawed idea. This idea promotes intolerance. It does not fight it.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Leave Mass. alone! LOL!

I didn't know anything about the Roma before this debate... but I wouldn't have admitted that in the debate itself!
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
That was a good one, Mangani. I enjoyed it, but I deserved to lose. Still, I learned a lot, which is the most important thing.

It seems Mass. is spared for the time being!
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
The difference (the one I'll talk about, there are many) is that the Romas are wanderers by choice, where the Israelis wanted a homeland. The Romas never have and never will ask for a homeland, nor to do they as a people group have a traditional homeland. The Israelis on the other hand have both. The land was under British control and they had the right to do with it as they wished.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"If you are correct, Rezz, that means the State of Israel should be dissolved and the land returned to the Palestinians."

I don't have a problem with that. Israel is like the 51st state anyways.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"If you are correct, Rezz, that means the State of Israel should be dissolved and the land returned to the Palestinians.
"

Not necessarily.. the Palestinians don't own it any more than the Israelis do, as a nation. The land owned by individual Palestinians should be returned to those individuals, if they still live, but other than that... Whichever government governs better should govern :D

In any case, what would the Roma do with a "homeland?" Don't they like travelling everywhere? And stealing yer pots of course, though perhaps they've given that up (no, it's not prejudice, culturally the Roma are like less organized versions of Brian... they don't understand property rights :D)
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
hahahaha
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
If you are correct, Rezz, that means the State of Israel should be dissolved and the land returned to the Palestinians.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I'm sorry, having a homeland is not a right.

NEXT.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
brian_egglestonManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07