The Instigator
LogicalLunatic
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The "White Race" should not be absorbed into the "Race of the Future".

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 2 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 60912
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

LogicalLunatic

Pro

First Round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is shared.

Definition of Race of the Future:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Definition of White Race:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This debate has been set up in a manner which doesn't allow "noob" debaters to accept. And as Aerogant's account has been closed, I don't have to worry about him accepting this debate.
I await a worthy challenger. To the person who accepts, I wish you good luck, because victory won't be as easy to come by as you may originally think.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

The human race is one race. Ethnic groups are not separate races. God has made of one blood all nations. We are all the same at heart, we all have the same human blood in our veins and nothing else. If you have a problem with your skin color or somebody else's skin color, that's your problem.
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalLunatic

Pro

Spectators of every race, age, and gender, from every country of the globe (except North Korea, Amish communities, and places without internet)...I present to you one of those dreaded race debates!
Though this may be disrespectful for me to say (and I apologize for saying this, just being honest) but...I didn't want LifeMeansGodisGood to accept this debate. I was hoping that a "better" debater would accept.
That being said, I will debate him on this topic nonetheless, as forfeiting would cost me precious ELO.
Therefore, I shall begin.

Just for some further clarification, "White race" means the White Race as a whole. This debate is not about some White people marrying people of other races. I'm okay with this, provided that it is not done on too large a scale.
Just thought I'd clarify.

You may ask, why White people? Why not Blacks, or Asians, or Pacific Islanders? Well, I think that they should also be preserved, but there are a few things that set whites apart. I am NOT saying that White people are superior in some way, just to be clear.

Whenever Whites and non-Whites have kids, those kids usually lose their White attributes.
For example, here's a White-Asian mix:
http://www.bing.com...
Here's a White-Black mix:
http://www.bing.com...
Need I say more? If every White person married a non-White person (or didn't have kids), then the end result would be that classic White attributes would be lost.
Now, I am not talking about Whiteness. Every race has a unique skin color, so Whites are not unique in uniqueness here.
BUT...White people do have hair that is not black and eyes that are not black.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the two unique attributes of White people.
Black people? They've got black hair and black eyes? Chinese people? They've got black hair (dark brown at best) and black eyes.
Bottom line: if all the Whites intermarry, you'll lose redheads, blondes, and green and blue eyed people. Everyone would have black hair and black eyes. Unless you're old, in which case you have white or gray hair (or you have no hair at all). Or, if you're albinistic, but that is definitely a rare thing.

Now, just so that I don't sound like a complete racist, I would like to point out that each race has its own unique attribute(s). Black people have their puffy lips and big noses, along with their hair which is definitely unique. "Mongoloid" people have those eyes (and probably something else, but I can't think of anything else).
But this specific debate is about White people, so that's the race that we're talking about here.

Anyway, I thought that I'd be able to think up more than that, but it turns out that's it, so I await my opponent's rebuttals.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

Though this may be disrespectful for me to say (and I apologize for saying this, just being honest),

I thought this debate was worth killing since God made of one blood all nations on the face of the Earth. We are all human, we are all one race. My opponent is ranting about nothing. It just amazes me that people get so hung up on stuff like this.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalLunatic

Pro

I have not denied that all humans are created equal. Preserving the White Race doesn't make White People superior; other races should also be preserved.
That being said, my opponent has failed to address any of my points. I await my opponent's actual rebuttals (or contentions).
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

There is no such thing as "the white race". We are all one race, we are all of one blood, we are all human. Every one of us is part of one race, the human race. The human race is the human race of the past and it will be the human race of the future. Skin color, hair color, toenail color, eyecolor, freckles or no freckles, red, blonde, brown, black or bald, curly or straight, does not matter. You see, whatever point you are trying to make in your opening assertion and argument is wrong. The human race is one race. Your argument was easy to refute based on this simple fact.
Debate Round No. 3
LogicalLunatic

Pro

By "White Race" I mean the collective of humans who have "White" attributes.
I am arguing that assimilating all White people into a "Race of the Future" will cause certain White attributes to become extinct, or very rare. Diversity is good, no?
Please reboot and try again.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

All humans have white attributes (or had white attributes unless they were born with a terrible birth defect so they didn't have any of these white attributes. The white attributes I'm referring to are inherited in many different shades of white. I'm talking about teeth, human teeth. All humans are born with white, or varying shades of white, teeth because all humans are of one blood. We are all one race. The human race. The same human race of 100 years ago will be the same human race in the future. The same human blood of then is the same human blood of now and will be the same human blood in the future. It always has been and always will be one race, the human race.


Apology to my opponent, sorry he didn't get a better debater to argue this. Would my opponent think somebody he would say is "of the white race" is a better opponent because they have more brains in their toenails? Does my opponent think he has extra brains because he has so much brainpower to ponder the importance of blonde hair?
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mall 1 year ago
mall
This wasn't much of a debate. It became circular and had a lack of substance upon reading it. It could of went more in depth about physical characteristics and traits. It did appear non-erudited persons took on a challenge to engage in non-edification. Came off as more opinionated than factual. The few citations of resources of research were shortsighted. Since the debate was about "absorption" or perhaps the disappearance of "white " people in the future, a few things could have been acknowledged. Like reality of reproduction between people and the results of the offspring meaning features they actually have. The way genetics work and respond. The way genes have resulted into what generations of folks looked like in the past and present.! Now towards the future it's unknown. Genes are not a simplistic thing where they can be predicted or predetermined. Then it's mentioned that there is no "racism" or opposition against all people mixing just don't do too much of it. It's either one or the either. Too much candy is not good for you but vegetables are better than even an smidgen of candy. Another words when something is not good in surplus amounts , minute amounts really don't serve a justice. So your either against or for it. No in between, and trying to be in between is just trying to get all the votes, win all sides so your not TOO WICKED. Going circular with the "human race" argument, a lot of simplistic statements were oscillatingly spouted. Rematch with stronger premises.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Now THAT is indisputably racist.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Of course, the answer is Yes.
LogicalLunatic lost.

As I understand it, Blacks on average score about 16 points LOWER on IQ tests
than Whites, (Refer to Herrnstein & Murray, Psychology Professor Richard Lynn
of the University of Ulster, etc. See IMAGES of The Bell Curve. )
so if you want to produce a major improvement in the human race,
forbid Blacks, especially Males, to mate/ have offspring.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
You mean like that Afghan girl from a certain 1980s issue of National Geographic magazine? I think that technically those groups count somewhat as white, or at least Indo-European.
No, I am not trolling as of right this instance.
Posted by popculturepooka 2 years ago
popculturepooka
"if all the Whites intermarry, you'll lose redheads, blondes, and green and blue eyed people. Everyone would have black hair and black eyes. "

Except for the fact that there are black and asian people with blonde hair and/or green/blue eyes.

Are you a troll?
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Pffh...spammers...
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Am I actually going to win a racist debate?! Awesome!
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
The Caribbean Monk Seal is no better than a shark. But it'd still have been better if they didn't go extinct.
Posted by sorry_youre_wrong 2 years ago
sorry_youre_wrong
i would love to challenge you to this debate
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I don't get what's so funny.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
LogicalLunaticLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically made no argument. Conduct to Con due to Pro's insult of Lifemeansgodisgood in round 2. Whether it is justified or not, it is still an insult.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
LogicalLunaticLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was for condescending Con "I did not want LMGIG to accept this debate. I hoped that a better debator." An attack on personal traits warrants a loss of conduct. As for arguments, Con did not provide reasons to justify his position, his whole case was based on religious authority. Pro provided instances and case study approaches to affirm the resolution. Case study vs Appeal to religious authority - Obviously Pro wins arguments