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

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.