That we should repatriate all illegal immigrants

Uzake (PRO)
Round Forfeited

2018-05-17 11:34:01

GuitarKirby (CON)
Let's be clear on what Pro's position is. My opponent needs to provide ample evidence that we should send ALL illegal immigrants back to their home countries. This includes children brought here before they could decide for themselves, immigrants who have overstayed visas while waiting for renewal to help them, and those who provide valuable services to the country and economy.

But let's ignore the moral quandary presented with that and focus on raw numbers.
Pro will undoubtedly mention that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from citizens. But according to a Pew study, undocumented immigrants only make up 5% of the nation's workforce. And while these undocumented immigrants took up as much as 26% of farming jobs and 15% of construction jobs, there was no field or occupation that was held in majority by undocumented immigrants. Clearly, if citizens wanted these jobs, they would be more than available to them. (Passel & Cohn)

Now, let's talk about the DACA program and it's recipients. Once again from the Pew Research Center, "enrollees must meet certain conditions,
such as being enrolled in high school or having a high school diploma
or GED equivalent, and not being convicted of a felony, significant
misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors." (Lopez & Krogstad) So those receiving the benefits are not criminals, and are preparing to enter the workforce or college - in other words, to contribute to their community. In addition, "Two-thirds of DACA recipients are ages 25 or younger, and a majority are women." Put another way, these are children that we are talking about sending away. I'd like to see my opponent's justification for this, and leave it to the judges to decide if Pro's position is even defensible to begin with.

Return To Top | Posted:

2018-05-17 13:24:50

| Speak Round

Uzake (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2018-05-18 13:26:01

| Speak Round

GuitarKirby (CON)
I extend my original arguments.

Return To Top | Posted:

2018-05-19 04:07:21

| Speak Round

Uzake (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2018-05-20 04:08:02

| Speak Round

GuitarKirby (CON)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2018-05-21 04:08:02

| Speak Round

View As PDF Speak Debate

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment

The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2018-05-21 22:31:06

Judge: Bryan Mullins The Fox
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
He was the only one that made arguments

0 comments on this judgement

2018-05-23 05:30:03

Judge: Mharman TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
Con was the only one to make an argument. By default, he wins this debate.

0 comments on this judgement

2018-05-23 12:27:53

Judge: nzlockie TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
PRO didn't make an argument so therefore loses. That much is pretty straight forward.

But I also think that CON did a great job identifying the likely arguments and preemptively attacking them.
CON defined the resolution and skewed it towards a debate about the Immigrant affect on the workforce.
A nice little trap was laid for a counter argument from PRO about the fact that illegal immigrants are a drain on society, since CON vast majority of the people discussed are either already contributing or are on the road to doing so.

Very nicely done.

Feedback:
PRO: Make an argument.

CON: Not sure about the helpful feedback. This was a great round.

The things I liked about it was that it was easy to read. The tone was light and conversational, and yet you left lots of room to go into more detail should PRO have actually called you on any of the points you raised.
The formatting was good and it was good to see the sources linked!

It was smart to define the resolution as focussing on the drain on the workforce, and I liked that you defined the Immigrants in question as the ones to be allowed under DACA.

I would have loved to have seen what the best response to this would have been.
I think I may have been tempted to take a shot at arguing the affect the emigration takes on the countries they are leaving - and the likely extrapolation of that being that the US may be adversely affected if Mexico loses this group of people.
It would have been interesting, and I'm not sure I would have won that way, but if I could have gotten you to expound more on how GOOD these illegals are, I might have been able to convince the Judges that their loss would have a major impact on Mexico.
I could have argued that it would be in the US's interests to have Mexico be stable functioning country.

Hmmm.... what could have been.

Great job, very deserved win.

2 comments on this judgement

GuitarKirby
I would have loved to combat that angle. I don't think it would have won the debate either, but it would have forced me to redirect my efforts and attack a highly unusual position.

Posted 2018-05-23 12:32:18

nzlockie
Yeah I like coming from an unusual position. I find it often equalises out my lack of actual skill!
Nice job.

Posted 2018-05-23 18:31:26

Rules of the debate

Text debate
Individual debate
5 rounds
8000 characters per round
No reply speeches
No cross-examination
Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
Images allowed
HTML formatting allowed
Unrated debate
Time to post: 1 day
Time to vote: 5 days
Time to prepare: 12 hours

This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29