lol that debate one. In a debate if your foil has a fallacious or false premise to their argument, it should be very easy to dismantle and counter the their argument by appealing to either logic or to morality, within reason, without resorting to hyperbole or hysterics. Genocide vs civil rights is hyperbolic; However, strict border control vs open borders is a reasonable debate to be having between rational adults.
Also debates are partly about finding common ground by accepting the rational points of the counterargument while not undermining your own position. It's not about compromising right in the middle. That's a straw man, Dobson.
He probably thinks that ONLY white people can be Nazis/genocidal. But then again, he's following his IngSocJus senpais, parroting the garbage they spew, which includes this sort of reasoning as he put in those comics. It's the sort of radical reasoning (found both on the far left and far right) that you can't negotiate with a certain viewpoint, so you're left with fighting them, quite literally (or putting them in concentration camps or whatever). Dobson's trying to make the point that you can't compromise with Genocide, which is actually true if the people holding the genocidal viewpoint hold it as
an unwavering absolute (sorta like Hamas - which is why there will never be peace in the Middle East - and Dobson seems to have no problem with Hamas, ironically). The reason you can't compromise with genocide is the other side isn't willing to budge at all. That's why his comic of genocide and civil rights meeting in the middle makes NO sense Genocide IS murder, and murder is NOT the midpoint/compromise between civil rights and genocide:
no civil rights but also no genocide would be the "true" compromise. (Some

wanna point that out, hint hint?) Now, IF the group holding the genocidal viewpoint is willing to compromise into not-genocide, then some progress can hopefully be made? Unfortunately, Dobson does not understand these issues at all, so his point is rather wasted, as it's misdirected towards a strawman dressed up as "Republicans".
His comic also presupposes that you can't argue with people with genocidal viewpoints into oh I don't know,
changing their minds. Well, obviously it can be done, otherwise, how would Social Justice ever have gained converts?

The "equal footing" argument is fallacious, a strawman, and completely IGNORES the purpose of debate. In a debate, one idea is bad, and the other idea may be good or less bad or whatever. But only one can "win" or be the right idea, meaning even before the debate started, THEY ARE NOT ON EQUAL FOOTING ANYWAY!
Oh btw guys, he's got a response on facebook that I don't expect to last for long before Dobson baleets it:
EDIT: CORRECTED:
Doesn't this make a LOT more sense? In Dobson's version, the one side (Genocide) doesn't really lose at all.