Debate Rounds (5)
This is based on the world of True Blood, a tv show where "Vampire Rights" is a political issue.
I am going to argue against Vampire Rights, that vampires are dangerous and should be separated in a ghetto.
Pro will use the first round only to accept.
MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
Truin forfeited this round.
Vampires are too dangerous to be accorded equal rights.
They say they want "integration, equality, and tolerance". Let's look at some facts:
-Many vampires have been drinking from and killing humans for hundreds, in some cases thousands of years. Synthetic "True Blood" doesn't taste good to them compared to human blood. They may say they are OK with just drinking True Blood for eternity, but they're lying.
The vampire terrorist, Russell Edgington is only the tip of the ice berg of the threat we have from vampires. From his own words they can not be equal to us, they consider themselves to be superior and above our laws. They see their relationship with us as a relationship between predator and prey. The only way for the "prey" to defend themselves is by sending them all to ghettos where they an be administered "True Blood" under tight police control.
Another point, since they can not reproduce naturally the only way for them to grow their numbers is to become a "maker" and turn more humans into vampires.
Truin forfeited this round.
This is disappointing. I was looking forward to a passionate debate.
Vampires have made it clear true blood is not as good as the real thing. Humans have this view on things aswell. Such as meat and meat substitutes. Still even though there is a lack of taste people still eat this way out of choose. i.e. vegans.
Same as in human government and society one individual does not have the same viewpoints as everyone in that group. Are all black people rappers? NO. Are all asian bad drivers? No. Just because one individual is a terrorist doesn't mean they all are. Just like all middle easterners are not terrorist not all vampires are.
Vampire reproduction can be restricted to those who want to become an undead being. Many people wish for it and it can happen for them if it is made that way.
I was afraid you weren't coming back.
Yes, some humans do choose meat substitutes.
However, the vast majority do not.
It is folly to give rights to a group of people when the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of them will engage in violent criminal behavior.
Every species must look out for its own interests first. That is nature. If I was a chicken and chicken had sentience and resources and were in power I wouldn't hesitate to advocate restricting the rights of humans. The fact that a tiny number of them will voluntarily content themselves with "veganism" wouldn't change the structural fact that humans as a group have a strong tendancy to eat chickens.
Maybe after some time the vampires will be reconditioned in the ghetto to only want synthetic blood. Targeted efforts to change their nature to one less dangerous such as changing their chemistry so they only desire synthetic blood and hate the taste of human blood should be undertaken. But until that time it is too much of a threat to humanity to allow them to freely mingle with the rest of our society.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.