The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Should gingers be the next holocaust?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,048 times Debate No: 49909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Gingers should not be the next holocaust because how would you like it if someone decided your color is stupid and decided that we should destroy its kind?


As my first debate on this site, I accept it with many thanks to my new opponent.

I'll try to use my 1,000 characters wisely then.

"Gingers should not be the next holocaust because how would you like it if someone decided your color is stupid and decided that we should destroy its kind"

The problem with this argument is that the reasoning behind destroying gingers are not because we deem their hair color is stupid. It's because they actually do not have a soul. However, 80% of Gingers are curiously not aware if their soulless life. [1] According to National Geographic, REDHEADS are becoming rarer and could be extinct in 100 years. Many other genetic scientists agree with this... We would just be quickening the process. [2]

Con's arguments have been refuted, and I've given logic as to why we should go through with this.

Thanks, back to you Con.


Debate Round No. 1


I am a ginger and I don't believe that gingers don't have souls because A. Souls control peoples feelings and I always feel sorry for everybody B. souls control how racist you are and I am not racist at all. So therefore some people ,although they aren't gingers, dont have sous. So gingers are humans just like a jew, atheist, and black people are still humans, too. And I dont think people should hate gingers because of their red hair. It's just like saying that you hate black people because they dont have a normal type of skin. (Sorry black people if you are offended for me using you as an example.)


Thanks Con...

Notice the complete lack of sources in my opponents argument.

"I am a ginger and I don't believe that gingers don't have souls becaus"

He should be stopped right there. I have already explained most Gingers are un-aware of their lack of a soul. (80%)

I need evidence for Con's claims. The arguments I have made have not been refuted because Con does not show any evidence for his rebuttals.

First off, what is a soul?

"The spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever"

Does this actually have anything to do with being racist? Nope. Not one word in the definition of soul contradicted with someone being racist. They can coexist in other words, meaning my opponents rebuttals have now not only been unsourced, but also *Disproven*. (This also applies to point A)

So you see, my points have been backed up by evidence while Con's are refuted,

Debate Round No. 2


First I don't care about citations because I don't look this stuff up because I am ginger and I know for a fact that they have a soul. A soul just doesn't control religions and stuff like that they also control emotions which I have and so does all my other ginger friends. So why doesn't everyone stop saying stuff like Gingers don't have souls.

"Gingers aren't aware of their soulless life."
Everybody has a soul except a few people. Like people that are racist or don't feel sad for people don't have a soul.

"Having gingers as the next hallocaust because that will speed up the process for extinction of them."
Gingers will never go extinct because A. it only takes one ginger parent to make a ginger kid B. genes run through generations before returning to the family and it says it in the citation below.
Back to you pro.


Thanks Con.

As you can see, he literally *refuses* to provide evidence that Gingers have a soul. I, on the other hand, have shown a source proving they do not have a soul. Con has not given any evidence or solid contention against this, so it still stands...

Furthermore, he really shoots himself in the foot with his evidence in his third point. First thing. I have to say about this is that he actually completely misquoted me to make it seem like I had a third graders grammar. He's partly right. Gingers may have the gene running through someone, but it would be a recessive trait. Most people who carry the gene only have the recessive type, meaning it would take two gingers to make another ginger. If there is only one ginger, it is likely that the dominate traits would take over and the child will not be a ginger.

This is just things my class learned last year in 7th grade science, it's not breaking news or anything.

I've refuted all of my opponents arguments.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Hey stupid, no one actually believes that. I was trolling entierely.
Posted by TheDebateTwins 7 years ago
NO!" That is offensive to all ginger haired people, you would hate it if someone said that about your hair colour. hair colour is just a genetic part of you which you can change, this doesnt mean " you have no soul " or any stupid things like that! The holocaust is actually quite touching and sensitive subject to some, so that is not approiate to use that in this context. thank you
the non ginger ( but standing up for all red heads )
The debate twins x
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sewook123 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: Very interesting debate. Con, please work on your spelling and grammar. In case you haven't noticed, there's a "check your spelling" button for you to proofread any spelling errors. Although Pro did provide more sources, I am dubious of their credibility. "80% of gingers are souless." How is did statistic determined? How can one determine of one has a soul or not? And it is also very unlikely that the source has conducted a test(?) for ALL gingers. I feel like more interesting points could have been brought up, but good job.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.