The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
frankfurter50
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

White People Should Eat Black People

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 3 votes the winner is...
frankfurter50
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,399 times Debate No: 109975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Pro

White people should be allowed to eat black people because white people are automatically supreme to black people. Also, this solves overpopulation and prevents their dark skin from absorbing too much sunlight; furthermore, there will be no more violence, because black skin is the root of all violence.

You have 3 rounds to debate, and an upper limit of 1000 characters.

Well what are you waiting for? Let's go!!!
frankfurter50

Con

I accept, let's go for it. Twentieth debate, and you're still losing awfully bad. I like these debates, because I always win them. Let's see what nonsense you're preaching this time. Your topic today is a very morbid one, and insane to boot. We are not going to engage in large scale cannibalism just because you think we ought to. White people are not "automatically" supreme to black people- you have to provide some evidence as to why they're superior, or you're committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Eating all the black people on Earth will not solve overpopulation, it would be considered mass genocide. Their dark skin does not absorb too much sunlight, you don't know how global warming works. And you say there won't be any violence if we eat all the black people. I'd call cannibalism pretty violent. You sick pig.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

There are many reasons black people are messed up. By now, they are already useless in the world, so why not just get rid of them once and for all? I honestly think it's better for the world that we destroy the black race, because they are the most violence race, they are too ugly & stupid, and they absorb too much damn sunlight.

So why should we get white people to eat black people? Because this way, white people will have enough food to eat for ages to come.
frankfurter50

Con

There are no reasons why black people are, as you put it, "messed up". They are NOT messed up, sir. They are not useless in the world- they comprise much of our workforce- and we are not going to eat them. You are insane. Please, go to your local psychiatrist and lie down and talk to him.

Black people are not the "most violent" race, they have no instinctual tendency towards violence. They are not ugly or stupid, and they do not "absorb" sunlight, as you put it. Their skin is more reflective to sunlight. WHITE PEOPLE absorb sunlight- that's why we get hot. Nonetheless, their skin color does not pose any environmental problems whatsoever.

I'm not sure why you don't consider mass cannibalism violent. If we ate all black people on the basis that they're violent, we'd be the biggest hypocrites in history. You're so ignorant, sir. So, SO ignorant. We are not going to kill black people for food. We have enough food. People might object to eating their own species.

You imbecile.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

Just solve overpopulation and violence once and for all. Cannibalism is nothing wrong; Vladmir Putin created white people to go enslave and eat black people.

Now let's hear what you have to say.

For our next debate, debate #21, what do you want to do?
frankfurter50

Con

Cannibalism is wrong, and Vladimir Putin did not create white people. I'll do anything in the next debate, you sick loon.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by asta 2 years ago
asta
"WHITE PEOPLE absorb sunlight- that's why we get hot. Nonetheless, their skin color does not pose any environmental problems whatsoever."

The color black absorbs sun. Although I agree with Con, I should point it out.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
I hate that everyone takes this so seriously. Like, if Pro had evidence to back up his claims or rebutted the Con's argument, somehow he could have won this debate.
Posted by GoneFishin 3 years ago
GoneFishin
WAHT A RACIST, I AM UGANDIAN KNUCKLES < I AM FROM AFRICA!!!!! NOW YU EAT KNUCKLES OMG CANNIBLISM RACIST OMG OMG CLUCK* CLUCK* SPIT ON THIS DUDEEEEe
Posted by Aileen3310 3 years ago
Aileen3310
What the heck.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
frankfurter50
It is not a joke.
Posted by mrwalker02 3 years ago
mrwalker02
Don't mean to disrespect, but is this a joke?
Posted by MetallicaFan1 3 years ago
MetallicaFan1
Hell yes they should!!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Anonymousfrankfurter50Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. Pro provided no evidence to support his contention that white people are superior to blacks, or, indeed, to support any of his contentions. Given the sheer lack of warrants, be they empirical or logical, on Pro's side, Pro's case falls totally apart. Con did well to point this out. Pro did not really respond to Con's arguments except by repeating himself; simply restating one's opinion is not sufficient to justify that opinion in the face of accusations of poor logic and lack of evidence. Con also demonstrates that society needs black people as part of the labor force. While normally calling Pro an imbecile would warrant a conduct point against Con, Pro's nauseatingly racist and vile arguments were so hate-filled that I cannot honestly say that Pro deserves points for conduct. His arguments themselves rebel against notions of basic human decency. Thus, my vote goes Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Anonymousfrankfurter50Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate goes to Con due to one major point that Con brought up in the debate that went uncontested by Pro. It was that The African-American community makes up a large portion of the workforce creating an economic harm. The main argument that Pro had brought up in the debate was in regards to overpopulation. This is a debate argument that really neither side addresses much to the extent that it deserves based on the level of the attention in this debate or it's impact. Pro never brought up any food shortages, so there isn't much on that ground. Pro ends up dropping Con's rebuttal in that there is no food shortages so such an action of mass canabalism is unwarrented. With both major arguments going to Con I will have to award him the debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Anonymousfrankfurter50Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con takes this with the simple reminder that black people make up some portion of the workforce (thus a serious harm to murdering and eating them). Pro's best point was food, but failed to show any food shortages to warrant the necessity of cannibalism. So massive downside to pro's plan, with no elaborated upside.

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