That we should accept all refugees

Judge: Bifurcations
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective
Reasoning:
From the look of things Ketuvim only accepted this debate to make that one bigoted comment then leave it. This is childish behaviour wastes everyones time and ruins debates. It is an easy win here for IncorrigiblePerspective and since he took the time to make an opening statement I will give as much feedback as I can for that round.

Feedback:
IncorrigiblePerspective: So this was a rhetorically sound opening statement but it felt like you were setting up the debate rather than trying to win which is fine. You can create rhetorically sophisticated arguments with the analysis to substantiate them to give you the strongest possible start and leaving you less work to do in later rounds to try and rebuild your arguments.

I'll go through you're speech and explain what I think is useful and where it could be improved.

So to begin with you had an excellent piece of framing to set up the debate an explain how we as judges can place your arguments in the real world. This was useful and should have been extended to your argumentation as well. You can frame each argument as well as framing your entire case. This makes each argument just a little more realistic and believable.

You then use Ketuvim's image to introduce the most used comparative situation which was the Jewish refugee crisis after the War. This was an effective link that used to your advantage however you then let the comparison fall a little. To make this really impactful explaining a little about the Jewish refugee crisis would have helped you solidify the as a good example. Explain how many Jews were displaced, explain how many were taken as refugees in other countries, then show that this is a numerically similar situation to the current refugee crisis. Some sources here would have done you good. It is only after you explain what the comparison actually is that I am able to credit statements like this:

"The parallels with the current refugee crisis are a stark reminder of how bias towards refugees can quickly turn into something much darker and more serious."

At that point it is really just a cryptic assertion. Prove the comparison is effective then prove why if we don't take in the refugees there will be serious harms. Explain what those harms are in a realistic fashion and prove to me that those harms would not exist if refugees were accepted.

You then go on to make a statement about most people having a history of migration and that America thrives because of it. This is probably true but with a lack of context it is still an assertion. You also need to explain why a history of migration means future migrants and refugees should be accepted. The idea that America is a great example of multiculturalism is a little less believable given the amount of issues ethnic minorities face in America and how ghettoisation of neighbourhoods happen so easily and that integration is a massive problem. I think you need to take on that burden and prove why even in this social climate (or because of this) America should be taking in refugees. Always relate your analysis back to the specifics of the motion so we understand how your arguments relates and why it is important. I think if you want to use an argument to bolster this philosophically you can talk about the birth lottery. That it is random allocation which country you were born in and if you could choose you would not select a war torn country.

You make a final argument that essentially says all oppositions to refugees comes down to racism and bigotry. I mean maybe it does but by not engaging or even presenting a strong opposition line to compare your analysis to leaves you open to attack. Given that this is a debate many countries are having right now use the actual oppositions that politicians are claiming (again quotes and sources would be good here) and then explain why these are untrue or not relevant. This means that Con (if they are going to engage in the debate) has to work much harder to improve there responses even before they have had a chance to open their arguments. Use every bit of time you have to your advantage.

The final thing I will say is that it is helpful to outline at the start of your speech what you are aiming to prove and headline your arguments so people can reference them and follow them a little easier especially as the debate progresses.

Hope this was useful and I am happy to answer any questions about it.

---

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective

Judge: Alok Kumar
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective
Reasoning:
He was spot on.Winning is other thing, while building up a debate is another. He was humble throughout, and cleared his views on the very starting.

Feedback:
Incorrigible, your way of writing is appreciable.But kindly keep a check on your vocabulary.You use words which may or may not be understood by everyone. Kindly keep it simple and provide proofs to your contexts as many as possible.

As in for you Ketuvim, Iam sorry to say but you are a lost cuase. Targetting a particular community by accusing the whole clan with a henious crime, is a display of immaturity. You are not cut out for the debate platform.

---

Judge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective

Judge: SD7395
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective
Reasoning:
.

Feedback:
.

---

Judge: Dimbleby
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective

Judge: gavstone21
Win awarded to: IncorrigiblePerspective
Reasoning:
Although I am on Ketuvim's side, I have to look at the debate. So far it seams that IncorrigiblePerspective has made the argument that a lot of us were refugees at one point which is true. Neither sides have factual evidence to support their side but Ketuvim made one comment with no evidence to back it. IncorrigiblePerspective actually made valuable points. That is why I have to say that IncorrigiblePerspective is the winner. What Ketuvim said was childish.

---