The Instigator
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Justin Bieber should be Deported.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 11 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,091 times Debate No: 44859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (11)

 

donald.keller

Pro

Resolution: Justin Bieber should be deported after drag racing and drinking (and all further laws broken).

Rules:
1: Round 1 is for acceptance only.
2: No semantics or deceptive wordplay.
3: A FF is an immediate defeat.
YYW

Con

Let's do it!
Debate Round No. 1
donald.keller

Pro

Premise I: Law Regarding Immigrants.

Immigrants, legal or illegal, face deportation upon breaking the law during the first 5 years of living in the US. However, when committing a felony, immigrants are deported regardless (1, 2). This is the law as it is.

"There are two different ways that committing a crime of moral turpitude will put you into removal (deportation) proceedings:
1) You commit a crime of moral turpitude during the first five years after your admission to the United States.
2) You commit two or more crimes of moral turpitude that did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct at any time after your admission to the United States.

You are also to be deported for ANY FELONY committed while on a Greencard.

1) http://www.nolo.com...
2) http://tinyurl.com...

Argument I: Crime of Moral Turpitude

While Justin Bieber drag racing while under intoxication was not a felony, it is specifically a Crime of Moral Turpitude(3). Number 24: Driving while intoxicated. According to the law, someone in the US on a Green Card will be deported after committing a Crime of Moral Turpitude within the first 5 years of being in the US. Which is mildly inconvenient for Bieber, as this is Currently his 5th year.

The law specifically states deportation for crimes within the first 5 years, which Justin Bieber is currently in still.

The issue here isn't whether he should be deported for bad music, but whether or not the law should be upheld.

3) http://www.vongeyso.com...

Argument II: No Special Treatment for Fame.

The difference between Justin Bieber and any other person on a Green Card is that he is famous. This isn't justification to exempt him from the law and facing the legal consequences. The law, and it's promised consequence, must be upheld against all members of the public, poor or rich, unknown or famous.

Justin Bieber should not get special treatment, and be made exempt for the law because everyone knows his name. Yes, many famous people ignored the consequences, but should they have? If we could go back, we should have enforced the law in those cases as well.

Argument II: Felony Charges

Justin Bieber's house was raised a while back after he egged a person's house. While it doesn't seem bad, the damages done equalled to the man's property was over $20,000(4). This places it amoung a class 4 felony.

B. Criminal damage is punished as follows:

1. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another in an amount of ten thousand dollars or more.

2. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of a utility in an amount of five thousand dollars or more or if the person intentionally tampers with utility property and the damage causes an imminent safety hazard to any person.

3. Criminal damage is a class 5 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another in an amount of two thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.

4. Criminal damage is a class 6 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of another in an amount of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars.

5. Criminal damage is a class 1 misdemeanor if the person recklessly damages property of another in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars but less than one thousand dollars.

6. In all other cases criminal damage is a class 2 misdemeanor.(5)

At $20,000 dollars and video footage, Justin Bieber now falls under the clause where someone may (and should) be deported for committing a Felony charge anytime after enteing the US.

"If you were convicted of an aggravated felony at any time, there will be very little that you can do to avoid deportation, unless you can prove it is more likely than not that you would be tortured in your native country upon return."(1)


4) http://www.cnn.com...
5) http://www.azleg.state.az.us...


Conclusion:

Having had committed a Crime of Moral Turpitude, along side numerous other crimes, within his first 5 years of being inside the US, Justin Bieber must be deported as is a law of the land. As well as having committed a Class 4 Felony while on a greencard. He, like any other man of wealth or fame, should not get special treatment for being popular.
YYW

Con

BOP: PRO is making the claim, therefore PRO has the burden of proof.

Structure: Because PRO is making the claim, my only responsibility is to refute what he's proffered. So, I'll do just that.

I. Moral Turpitude, and the Law Regarding Immigrants

My opponent never made the explicit connection between any action Bieber has been allegedly accused of, and those accusations constituting crimes of moral turpitude. And, even if he could, if the foundational principle of the US criminal justice system that all are necessarily innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is to hold true, then even if my opponent could make that connection, it would be irrelevant, because Bieber has not been convicted yet.

II. Moral Turpitude, and No Special Treatment For Fame

In prematurely advocating for Beiber's deportation, my opponent's argument is not only presupposing a kind of special treatment for Bieber, he is doing so at the expense of the US criminal justice system's universally applicable foundation of presumed innocence before guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is due to the fact that in deporting Bieber prior to his conviction, guilt must be presumed, and doing so would constitute a form of "special treatment" insofar as Bieber's being deported would constitute an arbitrary and improper application of due process of law.

III. Felony Charges

Let's be clear when we draw the distinction between "charges" and "convictions" such that the former are not the latter, but my opponent's arguing that Bieber should be deported now necessarily conflates the two. Only after conviction, and the prior proceeding of a trial pursuant to the fair application of due process could Bieber be justifiably deported. Bieber has not been tried, nor has he been convicted -so, mention of something which could only come as a consequent which would follow only as the consequent of a sentencing which ordered Bieber's deportation is an arbitrary exercise of due process wholly devoid of foundation.

Conclusion:

My opponent never actually substantiated any connection between any charge of which Bieber has been accused to any crime which constitutes an act of moral turpitude. Even if he had, it would be irrelevant because charges are not convictions. So, even given the allegations, until Beiber is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, to deport him is to violate due process of law at the expense of one of US law's foundational principles -that of presumed innocence.

Peace and Love,

YYW
Debate Round No. 2
donald.keller

Pro

To begin: I'm not advocating Justin Biebers immediate deportation. I'm advocating that he be deported after his court case, on premise that he will no doubtly be found guilty.

I. Moral Turpitude, and the Law Regarding Immigrants


I in fact did make a connection. Driving under the Influence is a Crime of Moral Turpitude. Justin Bieber was arrested for doing just this:

"Justin Bieber was charged with drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license after police saw the pop star street racing early Thursday morning, Miami Beach police said." -CNN

The evidence is entirely against him:

"Bieber was booked into a Miami jail after failing a sobriety test, Miami Beach Police Chief Raymond Martinez told reporters Thursday." -CNN

Since this is his 5th year, he is within range to be deported, and should be as the law states.

1) http://www.cnn.com...

II. Moral Turpitude, and No Special Treatment For Fame

The evidence is completely against him. There is hardly a case otherwise. Has said above, his was arrested for driving without a valid license, and the breath test shown he was drunk.

The problem with Con's case is that Justin Bieber already acknowledged this. After being arrested, he admitted to have been drinking:

"Police said Bieber cursed repeatedly at a police officer after the 4:09 a.m. traffic stop and acknowledged smoking marijuana, drinking and taking an unknown prescription medication." -Yahoo NEWS

He can not take back his words as he is trying to do. He acknowledged being intoxicated when driving (which only takes one drink, for a person of his age and size), he has plead guilty. Of course, at most, he may need multiple DUIs or a DUI combined with other offenses to justify deporting him. Conveniently, his DUI also involved marijuana(2) and an invalid license, both of which are already proven.

2) http://news.yahoo.com...

III. Felony Charges

"Let's be clear when we draw the distinction between "charges" and "convictions" such that the former are not the latter, but my opponent's arguing that Bieber should be deported now necessarily conflates the two."

Justin Bieber admitted to having drank and his license was undoubtedly invalid, two things that can't be undone. He has already set in stone his guiltiness, and convicted himself. He is only fighting it because he has the money needed to wrongly win.

There is actual video of the incident where Justin Bieber can be heard while egging the house. The owner's daughter video taped the whole incident, while Justin Bieber cursed out the family(3). The father and daughter both were present to witness the egging. They both specifically saw him doing it. It's their word and video evidence against not much else.

3) http://www.tmz.com...

Conclusion:

Even if proven innocent of Class 4 Felony charges, Justin Bieber admitted to having been drinking prior to drag racing. Having been undoubtedly driving without a valid license and with intoxicated (as both his word and a breath test proved,) he has admitted to committing a Crime of Moral Turpitude within his first 5 years of being in the USA.

Con's only case is that Bieber hasn't been found guilty by the judge, but the evidence is against his case, and Justin Bieber has already admitted to the charges of drunk driving. Once found guilty, and he will be, he should be deported.
YYW

Con

I'll make this short, sweet and to the point...

To clarify: we're talking about deportation here and now, in the absence of any trial (as one has hence fourth not taken place), so my opponent's arguments must be evaluated in that context.

I. Moral turpitude, and the law regarding immigrants

Now that my opponent has linked driving under the influence, among other things, to being acts of moral turpitude, let's make a distinction between being "arrested" for something and being "convicted" of something. At this point, Bieber has only been charged with a particular crime, and has not been convicted of it. If convicted, then and only then would it be permissible to entertain a discussion of his possible deportation. Thus far, in that Bieber has only been charged, talk of deporting him for alleged -and only alleged- crimes of moral turpitude or otherwise necessarily "jump the gun" (to put this metaphorically. Insofar as they are premature, pursuant to the procedures of due process, talk of Beiber's deportation is premature. (The alliteration was intentional... gotta have some fun somewhere, right?)

II. Moral turpitude, and no special treatment for fame

In making the claim that "the evidence" is "completely against" Justin Bieber, as sufficient justification for the Canadian pop star's deportation, my opponent has in effect usurped the American court system, ignored due process, and is arguing for the issuing of a sentence on the presumption of guilt without trial. This could not be more antithetical to how the US criminal justice system conventionally works, and in deviating from that convention, my opponent is in effect arguing for Beiber's receipt of "special treatment" presumably because he is famous. My opponent's hypocrisy, therefore, cannot be lost upon the judge.

Whatever statement's JB may or may not have made in regard to this specific incident, or others, would only be relevant to the proceedings of a trial, and are not relevant here, in that not only has no trial even commenced. Moreover, due to the fact that no trial has commenced, any discussion of potential sentencing (i.e. deportation) is premature in that Bieber has not even been found guilty, and therefore cannot be sentenced for a crime for which he has not yet been convicted.

III. Felony charges

As I've mentioned above, whatever Bieber may or may not have admitted to is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be deported. This is because the question of Bieber's prospective deportation (the sentence he would receive if found guilty of a crime) can only be asked after Bieber is found guilty, if Bieber is in fact found guilty, which thus far he has not been. My opponent has wholeheartedly failed to rebut this point, presumably because he is aware that what he is arguing for circumvents due process, which is the cornerstone of the American criminal justice system. By that same principle, my opponent's objection to Beiber's trial (that "is only fighting it because he has the money needed to wrongly win") likewise is dismissible because Bieber is entitled to a robust legal defense.

Conclusion:

Only those who have been tried and found guilty can be sentenced. Bieber has not been tried, nor has he been found guilty. Because deportation is a sentence, deporting Beiber in the absence of a trial which resulted in his conviction would be in violation of his right to due process. Therefore, Bieber should not be deported.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
PRO is correct in that Mr. Beiber should not receive special treatment, but with his fame and resources, the state would better benefit from refusing to charge him in exchange for a year of charity concerts or something. It'd be a waste to simply deport the guy and they have plenty to gain by making him provide free labor.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Gonna think this over. Am leaning towards a CON vote since the state doesn't actually have the convict Mr. Beiber and that a deal could be worked out to avoid conviction entirely. Such a deal might be in the state's best interest (i.e. community service in exchange for a lesser charge). YYW is absolutely correct. PRO ought to have made a policy argument. Still, I'm gonna give this more thought before I vote.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
Ultimately, I think my interpretation of the topic makes the most sense since if Bieber pled guilty tomorrow, Con is basically saying that all judges should change their vote to Pro. I don't think it makes sense to make a debate with an open voting period subject to events in the real world that could actually happen. So for all those reasons, that's the way I had to come out on semantics.

If it seems like I'm doing a lot of my own analysis here, I apologize. It's because this was really a semantic debate, but very little of that actual debate took place in the debate itself. So you left the judges with all the work to do themselves, which is a dangerous thing to do. Had Con gave a more in-depth justification for why the topic should have been limited to the immediate present, I might have voted Con.

Sources: Pro had some, Con didn't. But Pro used TMZ, and his source that drunk driving is a crime of moral turpitude has an appendix which says that this is true only in Arizona (and only if driving on a suspended license as well). I don't remember where the crime happened, but I think it was California. Con could have also won by point ^this out.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
After I saw Bluesteel voted, I half thought It'd be a dang tie again for the third time lol.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
This debate boils down to a really simple argument. Pro says, "JB committed a crime of moral turpitude, which is worthy of deportation." Con responds, "No conviction yet." Pro responds, "Resolution doesn't mean *right now*, I argue post-conviction deportation." Con says, "No, the topic forces you to argue pre-conviction."

So as a judge, really the only question set before me is: does the resolution mandate Pro defend pre-conviction deportation? I had to answer that question "no" for three main reasons. (1) The full topic was "Justin Bieber should be deported after drag racing and drinking (and all further laws broken)." The topic wording of "laws broken" presumes that Justin Bieber would be deported only after breaking said laws. Thus, the plain language of the topic itself demonstrates that it relates to a post-conviction deportation. (2) Pro stated "no semantics." I don't find this dispositive by itself. However, Con's argument is essentially a semantic one about the timeframe of the word "should." I don't see anything in the topic that makes it present tense, so I feel like Pro should be protected by saying he didn't want a semantic debate, which really is saying, "don't alter the topic in such a way that it's not really what I wanted to debate." In addition, I don't really buy the semantic time frame argument. If the topic were, "bluesteel should eat a spider," the timeframe for that is not necessarily immediately. In fact, the topic "Jon Doe should attend college" is inherently *not* present tense if Jon Doe has not yet graduated high school. So I don't even see why Con would win the semantic issue if I allowed the semantic debate to move forward, instead of being precluded by Pro's statement, "no semantics." (3) I think Pro "likely judicial outcome" argument is enough to take out Con's due process objection, by showing that Bieber is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on his statements to police.

Cont'd
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
For as simple of a read as this was, it become really, really tricky to vote because it ended up coming down to "are you going to evaluate the argument".

At the end of the day, I do and thus vote pro. But to be a little more specific:

The debate is pretty simple. Pro says JB's done x action, with stupid amounts of proof to show he did it. x action qualifies him for deportation. Thus he should be deported. Con argues that there's been no actual conviction yet, so we can't deport him yet and if we did so we'd be violating his due process rights which is bad. That's usually GGWP right there, except Pro comes back and says that this isn't super important because he's advocating for once he gets convicted, which he probably will claims pro, he should be deported.

The tricky part is in a three round debate, where round two is where arguments are introduced, it gets clarified that that's what he is trying to say.

Since I know YYW isn't going to like the fact I'm giving him this, let me explain my thought process as to why I give him the argument. If we're making it a three round debate, where round two is where arguments start, the arguing space gets a little tight. Some "new" arguments are inevitably going to spill over into that final round, especially considering that the final round is the first time that pro gets a chance to defend himself. If I denied him that argument on the basis of it was a new argument in the final round, I'd also have to deny him most of his defense of his case since it was inevitably new, which doesn't seem all that logical, not to mention hardly fair.

Since the debate pretty much just came down to that one argument, I vote pro off of it.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Sorry that the last bit got cut off. Should have said:

"As always, happy to clarify this RFD"
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
An interesting debate that went in a different direction than I anticipated.

Conduct, sources, and S&G were about equal to me.

As to arguments:

Both debaters had some problem here, in that they failed to take tacks that could have strengthened their own cases. While I will be pointing out these tacks, obviously, their not having used them means they don't get credit for them.

I think that Pro could have reasonably argued that the setup of the resolution could *include* a trial. After all, deportation is a process. That the crimes occurred was in the resolution itself, and Pro could have made a case that OF COURSE there would be a trial, but that after a presumed conviction on the charges, deportation proper should proceed forthwith.

Unfortunately, Pro did *not* argue that tack. The closest he came was saying that the evidence was against Bieber. There was an easy, nigh-trivial defense to Con's main argument...but it was left on the proverbial table. It's this that is why I awarded argument points to Con.

As to the arguments that Con could have used, I'd just like to note that DUI/DWI is not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude. Since laws are based on precedent, I'd have expected Pro to make an argument that was more than just a parsing of the plain language. The vongeyso source didn't load for me. Based on my own previous knowledge, in fact, I believe that it generally is not considered one

( http://www.kirshylawfirm.com... )

Pro's failure to cite examples of similar behavior warranting deportation in other cases was a mark against his case that Con could have seized upon. However, what Pro failed to address was the greater tactical error in my opinion, and, while Con's case might have benefited from analysis in that direction, it was unnecessary in light of Pro's failure to sufficiently address the due process argument.

As always, happy to clarify th
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Another way I may have interpreted the resolution differently, is the moral question of "should" being present, as opposed to a must (which pro's case pushed for, but pushing farther than the resolution does not negate it). ... Yeah an immigrant who mixed drugs/alcohol with street racing, should be deported; probably won't be, but with no reason stated against it they probably should be.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Why is it interesting?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was tough and all in all I think it really came down to the context of the time frame this resolution exists in. CON presumes that time frame is "here and now" but because that wasn't clarified, and the resolution is so general I perceived the time frame to be at any point. In other words, I perceived the context to be at any point in time. This could be after trials have taken place. Although I agree with CON that The Biebs can't be deported until proven guilty by trial, PRO gave logical reasoning that if such trials took place Bieber would be proven guilty. Then, since the time frame was not specified, Justin could, and should be deported from the United States. Great debate to both, I was a bit on the fence but I think the context of the time frame was what decided this debate for me.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I really don't know what to say here, except that I nearly fell over in my chair when I saw the beautiful simplicity of YYW's arguments and felt that he had won, so yeah. To clarify, the ideal of due process in regards to Justin Beiber played into my vote as it seemed to go against that for the pro case. If we can respect those rights, we have an obligation to, which pro has ignored.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
donald.kellerYYWTied
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: After much considering, I'm voting CON. My only hesitance about this is that neither side stressed out the arguments to the extent that they could be stressed out under. There are ample reasons for not convicting Mr. Beiber of a felony, mainly that he and the state could work out an agreement beforehand (community service in exchange for a lesser charge). I feel PRO could have given a policy justification for charging Mr. Beiber regardless. As the debate stands, I'm voting CON. For reasons stated, his position that Mr. Beiber has not been convicted is compelling.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments cuz it will prob be longer than 1000 characters
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Interesting to see a serious debate on the topic. I vote neg because the biggest impact of the round was due process. Since Bieber has yet to be convicted of a crime, we cannot deport him just yet and thus I must negate the resolution. I know Pro clarified in R3 that he wasn't arguing an immediate deportation but it seemed too late in the debate to do so and the resolution doesn't specify a timeframe. Sorry for tying it up, but it's just a fun debate and I doubt anyone will shed any tears over me tying the debate up.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clarified in round 3 that he was not arguing for Bieber's immediate deportation. He stated that he was arguing for Bieber's deportation after conviction, and he also gave evidence that there is a very high likelihood of the conviction happening. However Con continued to argue as if Pro was pushing for immediate deportation, saying that Beiber has not been convicted, despite the fact that Pro had already clarified that.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
donald.kellerYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Having immigrated to the US, I have a fairly decent understanding of immigration law to begin with. Further I'm currently taking a university level law class. ... Perhaps due to my education, I have a different understanding of the resolution in question than con has (I did not read into it "immediately" and "without trial"). ARGUMENT: Pro made a well researched case, whereas con's entire case fell down basically to a question of YET, without listing a single case (and there are numerous non-celebrity ones) of moral turpitude or felony violations not leading to deportation; plus as pro's own sources indicate someone may receive a waiver to not be deported after the process has already started. Heck if eggs really did thousands of dollars worth of property damage seemed to be missed entirely. Probably con's best point was the targeting celebrities angle. SOURCES: Pro used plenty of good ones, the content of them was not challenged (heck they were outright ignored R2) in any way.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
donald.kellerYYWTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: CON wins arguments. Pro never really explained what a "crime of moral turpitude is" and why a DUI counts as one. But this really wasn't important because, as CON points out, PRO is jumping the gun. PRO needs to argue for deportation in the status quo, and fails to do that--we don't know for sure that he'll be found guilty. Sources go to PRO for using them. Fun round!