The Instigator
Mascista
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
airmax1227
Con (against)
Winning
84 Points

We shall ban Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 17 votes the winner is...
airmax1227
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,575 times Debate No: 37297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (17)

 

Mascista

Pro

I was walking through the city today when I saw many couples of mixed-races. Mostly caucasian males with asian whores. 'Oh, what a traitor of their country.' was what I thought. Those men, leaving their country's women and not making child of true heritage. And the men of the women's country, they wouldn't have any woman! Their children wouldn't even have proper nationality and home!
Those asian women only rely on Caucasian men for money, and thus, the children is what I hate the most, arrogant pricks. The woman is a whore, dressing like a prostitute.
Believe me, I've got a lot of experience dealing with these mongrels.
This belief shall be established not only in my country but globally. I do not believe in racism, and I think that races a're all equal and have unique cultures, but what I dislike is the fact that cultures and races are merging into one another, making them lose their uniqueness.
We shall globally make the affirmation "We shall fight as one united being with our country!"
airmax1227

Con

I accept this debate and shall take the position that we should not ban mixed-race marriages nor prohibit them from reproducing.

I'll begin this round by replying to my opponent's opening.

"Mostly caucasian males with asian whores."

This is a baseless assertion against Asian women. You also need to provide data that the majority of mixed race marriages are of this sort for it to have some relevance.

"'Oh, what a traitor of their country.' was what I thought. Those men, leaving their country's women and not making child of true heritage."

Why are they traitors? And what value is there to having "true heritage"?

"And the men of the women's country, they wouldn't have any woman! Their children wouldn't even have proper nationality and home!"

This assertion isn't backed with anything.

"Those asian women only rely on Caucasian men for money, and thus, the children is what I hate the most, arrogant pricks. The woman is a whore, dressing like a prostitute."

Once again this is a baseless assertion requiring some evidence. It also needs to be given context related to the resolution.

"Believe me, I've got a lot of experience dealing with these mongrels."

My opponent's possible prejudice aside, what he has "dealt with" has nothing to do with properly substantiating the resolution.

"This belief shall be established not only in my country but globally."

We'll need to hear at least one good reason and some evidence backing it up to consider the resolution. Especially if it's to be considered on a global level.

"I do not believe in racism, and I think that races a're all equal and have unique cultures, but what I dislike is the fact that cultures and races are merging into one another, making them lose their uniqueness."

What is wrong with races and cultures merging? And what value is there in the uniqueness of cultures?

While there may be a good answer to this, please relate it to the resolution. To what extent and for what reason is the "uniqueness of culture" so valuable that we should prevent all mixed-race marriages?

"We shall globally make the affirmation "We shall fight as one united being with our country!""

I'm not sure what this means and how it applies to the resolution.

So far my opponent hasn't stated anything to support the resolution. I look forward to seeing my opponent make an argument in favor of banning mixed-race marriages and to him replying to my responses.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and anyone who reads it.
Debate Round No. 1
Mascista

Pro

You may have pointed out some of the flaws I had made, but it seems that you do not have a strong conviction to support mixed races, you are just someone with a neutral will. I do not see any benefits being made from mixed races. No matter which races are merged in, they are inferior due to the fact they lack loyalty in their country. These men are from First-world countries, therefore they go overseas to work. If these men have opportunities to work overseas, that means that they are both rich and on a prominent position.
Do you want these good men to make children with women that does not have value in position or occupation? The child is not going to belong in the fatherland that has provided all for him/her. Populations of first-world countries are decreasing due to the fact that men go overseas without making children with his own people. Everybody loves these children just because of how they were born. They are likely to escape unemployment, because many people are wanting to hire them for their education, talent, and so on.
This makes the people born in unfortunate circumstances hard to find jobs.

Thus the children of these people are in such fortunate state that they can evade military service and poverty.
Think of all the soldiers that fought for their country.
Do these children have the same loyalty as they do?
airmax1227

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. I will now reply to his second round.

My opponent begins his round:

"You may have pointed out some of the flaws I had made, but it seems that you do not have a strong conviction to support mixed races, you are just someone with a neutral will."

I'm not the one attempting to affirm a resolution here, you are, so my position on the matter is irrelevant. I do not need to prove mixed race couples are beneficial, I simply need to show that your arguments fail to affirm the resolution. I can take a neutral position (even if it's against what I personally believe) and still do so.

"I do not see any benefits being made from mixed races. No matter which races are merged in, they are inferior due to the fact they lack loyalty in their country."

Firstly, the resolution seeks to deny the ability for mixed race marriages, therefore it is incumbent upon my opponent to show why these marriages are harmful, not why the alternative is beneficial. Secondly, my opponent needs to show why they are inferior in any way, and why loyalty to country matters and how being in a mixed race marriage in any way shows one is not loyal to their country.

Furthermore, for example, the United States is not a "white people" country. It is a country of more than one ethnicity. One could certainly marry outside of whatever their ethnicity is, and still be extremely loyal to their country. This is true of any other country as well.

"These men are from First-world countries, therefore they go overseas to work."

Who are these men? What exactly are you talking about here? And why does it matter?

"If these men have opportunities to work overseas, that means that they are both rich and on a prominent position."

Once again, how does this pertain to the resolution?

"Do you want these good men to make children with women that does not have value in position or occupation?"

Why not?

"The child is not going to belong in the fatherland that has provided all for him/her."

The child will belong to whatever country he/she was born in, if one can say that a child "belongs" to any country at all.

"Populations of first-world countries are decreasing due to the fact that men go overseas without making children with his own people."

We'll need to see some data, otherwise this is just a random assertion that doesn't back up the resolution. Even if we assume this is true, it doesn't necessarily advance the resolution regardless.

"Everybody loves these children just because of how they were born. They are likely to escape unemployment, because many people are wanting to hire them for their education, talent, and so on."

We'll need to see some data for this assertion to be backed up and relevant to the resolution.

"This makes the people born in unfortunate circumstances hard to find jobs."

Being a child of a mixed race couple does not make it inherently more difficult for one to find a job. Provide some data on this please.

"Thus the children of these people are in such fortunate state that they can evade military service and poverty."

I'm not sure how this follows the assertion just before it, but it certainly doesn't advance the resolution.

"Think of all the soldiers that fought for their country.
Do these children have the same loyalty as they do?"

Why wouldn't they? Ethnicity/race is not the same as nationality. Because one is of mixed ethnicity does not mean they wouldn't have the same sense of national pride as anyone else. Even if they didn't, it still wouldn't justify banning mixed-race marriages on a local or global scale.

My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate to show that we should ban mixed-race marriages and to provide good justifications for doing so. So far he has not done that, he asserts that mixed race children will be unemployed and will not be loyal to their country without providing any evidence for this.

I will conclude my round here and I look forward to my opponent's final round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mascista

Pro

Mascista forfeited this round.
airmax1227

Con

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his last round and also failed to prove that we should ban "Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing."

My opponent needed to give reasonable reasons and explanation for why we should ban these types of marriages, instead he gave some personal reasons that failed to back up the resolution sufficiently. With the burden of proof on my opponent, he failed to prove the resolution and thus loses the debate.

I'd like to thank my opponent and anyone who read this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Propower 1 year ago
Propower
No argument has been posted in favor of mixed marriage...that's not even relevant because airmax1227 is not the one with the burden of proof. If Mascista is going to come out with such a strong position on marriage, he needs some pretty good evidence to back up his claims. What we're seeing here is the same old racism and misconceptions that have been used to "justify" opposition to immigration and mixed marriages for centuries.
Posted by Liberals 1 year ago
Liberals
No. Just No. "Asian Whores", really?
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Racist idiot.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
way to kick the buttcrack of a Nazi ,friend!
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
This looks to me like a troll debate. Pro seemed interested in getting attention above all else. So he gets the pleasure of being the center of attention while others get the pleasure of beating him up intellectually, but oddly the whole thing is not fun.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
A racist retard. Alliteration!
Posted by danny12return 2 years ago
danny12return
lol racist but i have threaten people with assualt . i have done worse. i have tortured people in a fight. lol this is nothing.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
I love the ads posted by these debates.............LOL
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Holy f*ck. How did this get 17 votes?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Lady Gaga is right. Pro side is extremely racist. Blatantly racist. Not even a question. Nice refutation though.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by noprisu 3 years ago
noprisu
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A sad debate. It was more of a shouting match with pro than a debate. I do hope Pro reads all the other vote RFDs for improvement and can present a logical argument in his or her next debate, because it would be of no use if i just repeated what others said.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a mut of several races and I have more worth than most of the people I know.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. Mascista never met BOP, and just rambled irrelevant nonsense which Con had no trouble refuting.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF & Pro failed to back up his claims.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Uh...wow. I'm dumbfounded that anyone would even affirm this topic. The views espoused by Pro were absolutely repugnant. I tried, as always, to divorce myself from my feelings while judging, but the round, on a technical level, was fairly clear regardless, so judging wasn't hard. Anywho, Con has better spelling, better conduct (no forfeits), and better arguments. Con correctly established the BOP. Therefore, I emphatically vote Con.
Vote Placed by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF + Disgusting unadulterated racism from PRO = 7 points to CON
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Mascistaairmax1227Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is wrong to insist that Con need reasons to not ban mixed-marriages. The BoP in this debate lies entirely on Pro. This burden of proof was attempted to be fulfilled with large amounts of subjective arguments, with Asian women noticeably coming under attack by Pro in a way that did not help his case nor help his reputation. Con's response to Pro's arguments was more than sufficient. Questioning why Pro holds these beliefs and also pointing out why they are not successful caused Pro to fail to fulfil his BoP. Arguments from one own's culture magnified to encompass other cultures is a fallacious way to attempt to prove a resolution about culture. Con pointed out flaws in Pro's case that Pro didn't bother to reconcile. Thus, the convincing argument point goes to Con. Conduct to Con also for pro's forfeit and use of unjustified racial slurs.