The Instigator
PrinceOfTheFire
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

white people are going extinct

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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: 4/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,575 times Debate No: 11838
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

using wikipedia definition:

"the term white also functions as a color term for race, often referring narrowly to people claiming indigenous european ancestry"

based on the fact that all the white countries have populations below replacement level
http://en.wikipedia.org...
* note that american white replacement level is only 1.85, but the map includes blacks and mexi-americans making it look higher

and trends
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.thelocal.de...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
feverish

Con

There is no basis for Pro's claim which is simply hateful fear-mongering propaganda for his racist agenda.

Wiki's map of fertility rates proves nothing. While the widespread use of contraception and abortion in developed countries explains the statistics, one will also find that infant-mortality rates are much higher in "fertile" countries. [1]

Becoming a minority in some western countries in the future =/= extinction.

White people are likely to have high standards of living and healthcare on a world scale and we continue to outlive other ethnic groups. [2] [3]

In a global race war of the kind perhaps envisioned by my paranoid opponent, us whities would win easily.

Could Pro define "extinction"?

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

1. fallacies of my oponents:
= Wiki's map of fertility rates proves nothing
proved false by: wikipedia: "if the fertility trend is sustained, it results in population decline. This is forecast for most of the countries of Europe"
= In a global race war whites would win easily
Proven false by: american civil war and world war II. Just like you, most whites sided with the nonwhites in both occasions

Conditions of Functional extinction, wikipedia:
# the reduced population no longer plays a significant role in ecosystem function; or
# the population is no longer viable. There are no individuals able to reproduce, or the small population of breeding individuals will not be able to sustain itself due to inbreeding depression
feverish

Con

Population decline =/= extinction.

Pro ignores my data on infant mortality, life expectancy and standard of living as well as my other arguments.

Neither WWII or the American civil war were 'race wars' and only one was global. German and Polish Jews were mostly white as were the majority of soldiers in the US conflict.

As soon as white people join the 'other side' then a war would cease to be a race war and would become a war against racists.

Pro's definition of extinction clearly applies to species rather than ethnic groupings of a species. If non white people remain we can still reproduce with them (I've done this myself, it's quite straightforward).

Historically genocide has been a pastime of white people more than others.
Debate Round No. 2
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

- Fallacies of my opponent:
1. Population decline =/= extinction
What is extinction if not population decline beyond repair??
2. infant mortality, etc
CY- besides the point. African population is still growing quickly
wikipedia:
Africa pop. 2008: 973 m
Africa pop. 2050: 1,766 m
3. Not race wars
they had all the elements of one: mass populations transfer, ethnic cleansing, total war, including the infamous March to the Sea of Sherman
4. definition of extinction applies to species
extinction can involve any taxon
5. whites are genocides
The greatest genocides where the mongols and muslims (arabs and turks), including recent events like the greek ethnic cleansing, kurdic ethnic cleansing, armenian genocide, slavery of blacks
feverish

Con

Decline =/= decline beyond repair, for which there is no evidence.

Becoming a minority =/= decline, can you prove global decline of whites?

Infant mortality is very relevant, statistics about birth rates don't matter much if most of the babies die.

Hypothetical projections of African population growth have nothing to do with "extinction" of whites.

Race is not a scientific taxon, all modern humans belong to the homo sapiens taxon [1] [2]. The concept of race is folk taxonomy [3].

As long as white people can continue to reproduce (which we can do with any race), thereby affecting the eco-system, your definition of extinction does not apply.

If Arabs and Turks are the threat, why the focus on Africa?

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

OK, you were the one bringing up statistics of birth deaths in fertile countries, I already proved that birth deaths dont really affect population growth, Africa is the best example of that

can I prove global decline of whites?
Yes. See article "Germany is dying", all white countries below replacement level (wikipedia map)

Fallacies by my opponent:
1. Decline =/= decline beyond repair
Ignores the fact that if the decline continues, eventually it will reach a critical level. So far there is no indication that the white population will bounce back somewhere in the future
2. Race is not a scientific taxon
wikipedia: In biology, a race is any inbreeding group, including TAXONomic subgroups such as subspecies
feverish

Con

German =/= global.

I'm not aware of any "all white countries".

To establish population decline, you would have to show that there are less whites in the world now than at some point in the past. I don't believe Pro can do this.

1. If Pro can prove that the decline exists, he would also need to prove that it will become "critical" in the future for the resolution to be valid.

2. Pro obviously ignored my sources last round. "The term race is often used in taxonomy as a synonym for subspecies. In this sense human races are said not to exist, as taxonomically all humans are classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens" [1] "race is a folk taxonomy rather than a scientific classification" [3].

Please respond to my other points.
Debate Round No. 4
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

Concl.:
a) Map of replacement level, all the white nations are covered by blue (below replacement). American whites in the same condition
b) Growth: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Note the below zero (purple) values of Eastern Europe!! In that areas, there are less whites than in the past
Western Europe/America's mass immigration hides the fall of the white population there, even so:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
expected to go down to only 7 % of the world by 2050
If the trend continues, it will reach a critical point.
"Homo Sapiens" is a species, not a subspecies, but J.D. Watson "father of DNA" was called racist for pointing out the large genetic difference between races
feverish

Con

Pro has entirely failed to prove the global population decline of white people, much less the critical scale that would signify 'extinction'.

My argument that extinction can't apply if the offspring of white people live on stands unrefuted.

The variables of migration and mortality make it impossible to draw any clear conclusions from the population growth chart.

J.D. Watson discovered the molecular structure of DNA but was not an expert in population genetics. One leading expert in this field is Cavalli, who "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". [1]

Pro's racist ranting lacks logic.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
@SonofKing:

I agree that it is messed up when people call "racism!" without cause.

It gives more fuel for real racists to whitewash their arguments.

I think the debate pretty well established that white people are in no actual danger of extinction. What makes you think this?

Do you simply mean becoming a minority in western countries?
Posted by Sonofkong 7 years ago
Sonofkong
Anyone who mentions race with a positive word for white people is immediately called a racist. This is unfair and ignorant not to mention spread by equally ignorant people. White people are going extinct but it's not a good or bad thing.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Thanks Anarchasis, I agree with your comment but I think that it is often necessary to also address a racist argument on it's own terms, using the existing labels of race to refute it.

With a reasonable character limit, I would surely have explored the point you make much more thoroughly than I did though.
Posted by Anacharsis 7 years ago
Anacharsis
The entire concept of a "race" is a fallacy. There are collections of physical traits that commonly occur together because of geographic isolation, which is diminishing. However, as has been shown many times in experiments, genetic traits sort independently. There is no such thing as a monolithic set of traits comprising such as thing as a race.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Source from round 5:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Sources from round three (boo character limit):

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... "The term race is often used in taxonomy as a synonym for subspecies. In this sense human races are said not to exist, as taxonomically all humans are classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens"
[2] http://www.nature.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by PrinceOfTheFire 7 years ago
PrinceOfTheFire
I have already debated about the need of a reserve for white population, no need to discuss it again
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Sources from round 1:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

@ any wiki haters: He started it ;)
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
I know, I was joking with him.
:p
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
raceist like PrinceOfTheFire would probably prefer to cause genocide on all other races before they put white people on reserves Koopin.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
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 PuneRider 7 years ago
PuneRider
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 tylerman001 7 years ago
tylerman001
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
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 Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
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 sydnerella 7 years ago
sydnerella
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 7 years ago
Anacharsis
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
PrinceOfTheFirefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05