The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should any of the people who voted for Trump who are having their families deported have sympathy?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 99589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Con

Here's an example of a family, who voted for Trump, who are having their famiy deported from this country:
The Assali family is one such family who voted for Trump who are now having relatives deported from the country for being from one of the countries on the banned list that Trump instituted. You can find any news source that you approve of on this topic here through this google search [1] There are probbaly more families like this, who voted for Trump, and are now having families deported. I imagine there would be.


My stance is that they deserve no sympathy. My opponent will be arguing that they do deserve sympathy.


Rules of debate:
1) Keep it civil, no ad hominem, personal insults, etc.
2) All of the rounds minus one should be used for debate in order to keep the number of rounds used between us even since I am not using this round for debate.

Sources
[1] https://www.google.com...
DNehlsen

Pro

I'd be happy to debate the subject, and have thus accepted. I look forward to a productive discussion, and wish you the best of luck.

I'll make the opening comment that everyone deserves our sympathy. Even though this travel ban was intended to stop immigration from 7 countries, I have sympathy for everybody. I want to best for muslims, for americans, europeans -- everybody. However, there are some measures that must be taken to ensure the safety of our own people first. It is very unfortunate what happened to this family. I've seen a couple stories like this, and my heart goes out to them.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Con

Clarification
I'd like to clarify that I think people who didn't vote for Trump, who are having family members deported, should be given sympathy, but this debate, as is stated in the resolution, we are discussing whether people who voted for Trump should be given sympathy after their families get deported.

Analogy with College Students
I will compare this situation to college students. Now, suppose you have a student who decides not to study, not to do any homework and not to show up for class any of the days. As a result, they fail the class. Would we feel sympathy for this college student when it was their own fault for failing? Sure, it is a terrible result that they failed, but they did nothing that would improve their grade and if they're in college, they would know what is needed to pass a class.

I would argue this is the same principle here. A person who voted for Trump, knew exactly what Trump was going to do. If they didn't, then they were stupid for voting for someone they didn't know enough about. Donald Trump made it clear that he would place bans on Muslim countries from having refugees sent here. There are many instances where he made this clear, and this is just one of them[2]

The family, in this instance, voted for Trump, and thus they should have known fully-well that this means there would be problems for their family, but they voted for Trump anyways. They should own up to the consequences of the action of voting for Trump.

Potential argument against my arguments
1) Well, they may have voted for Trump because they preferred all of his other policies and just didn't like that one. Why shouldn't they be given sympathy when they didn't necessarily want that specific policy?
The problem with this argument, is that certain policies should be given more weight than others. A policy that directly affects you or your family should be given a lot of weight. However, something that doesn't really affect you directly, should not be given as much weight. Thus, it can be argued that many of the policies they prefer under Trump, would not have mattered for that family, so they could have voted for someone who they didn't agree with on those issues, so that they can avoid having a terrible thing done to their family.

Thus, the policy Trump was wanting towards Muslim countries should have held a lot of weight with this family, logically. The fact that they voted for Trump, despite that he had a policy that they knew would do this, means they essentially consented to this happening. I would agree that they didn't necessarily consent to a policy happening if it was a policy that wouldn't have much weight or relevancy to the family, but something like this should have swayed them not to vote for Trump. Any reasonable person wouldn't have voted for Trump if they wanted to have family from a Muslim country to live in the United States.

Sources:
[2] https://www.youtube.com...

DNehlsen

Pro

What happened to this family is sad, that much must be said. It’s awful to see what happened to them, especially since their family was never intended to be effected by this travel ban. However, what was originally wrong has now been made right. The family you brought up was returned to America. (1) What happened to this family should never have happened according to trumps plan, and as such they had no way of knowing that this migration ban would also affect them.

Even if this travel ban was intended to keep this family out, they still deserve sympathy. There were only two candidates who had a shot of victory this election. What if they had evaluated between Trump and Clinton and decided that Trump was simply the better option over all? What if they decided that both of them would hurt their family but Trump would hurt them less? Does that factor into the equation?

“A policy that directly affects you or your family should be given a lot of weight. However, something that doesn't really affect you directly, should not be given as much weight.”
This is quite possibly the most selfish, and immorally wrong statement I have ever heard. Your implication here is that martyrs and people who suffer for the sake of others are simply wrong. Would you vote Hitler into office if he was a better option for you personally? Would you condone WW 3 if it meant your family didn’t get deported?

Sources:
http://www.philly.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Con

Yes, I agree it is something sad that happened, but they voted for this unpredictable person who made these promises to ban people from entering the nation.

While they may have evaluated between Clinton and Trump and determined Trump may hurt their family less, it would still make more sense to vote for someone who wouldn't hurt your family at all. The thinking that you only have two options for the president is what they want you to think. If everyone would vote their conscience instead of the lesser of two evils, we probably would have a third party candidate win.

RE: the response to my quote
Well, I didn't mean for this quote to exclude how something would also affect others. That should be taken into account as well, but first and foremost, what is good for you and family should be given more weight, and then check to see if this benefits others as well. They voted for someone who was going to prevent thousands of people from seeking refuge in the United States, they clearly weren't thinking of others in this instance when they voted for Trump. Now, I suppose you could argue that they were thinking of others by deciding to vote for someone who wanted to prevent people from coming in because it keeps Americans safe, but that ignores how majority of mass shootings and terrible actions are not even done by people who come here to seek refuge. There might be one or two examples of that happening, but it's not that huge, so the logic would be flawed that voting for someone who was going to impose a travel ban would keep America safe. The fact people were coming here wasn't even endangering us to begin with that much. Just look up who all the people were of the mass shootings we've had over the past few years. More people die by Americans who have been here for a while than by refugees.
DNehlsen

Pro

"The thinking that you only have two options for the president is what they want you to think."
If only half of the voters vote for their third party preference, Trump now lost all his votes at no cost of Clinton, causing her to win. This would the the worst case scenario. Voting third party would be a very high risk high reward scenaro. I wouldn't blame anybody for not being willing to take that risk seeing as a third party has never won the presidency since George Washington. (1)

"Now, I suppose you could argue that they were thinking of others by deciding to vote for someone who wanted to prevent people from coming in because it keeps Americans safe, but that ignores how majority of mass shootings and terrible actions are not even done by people who come here to seek refuge."
Well I think the easiest way to tell what immigration will do to us is to check what it's done to other places. How about Swedens 1400% rape increase? (2) I don't want that in america. How about Germany? Well they're not doing too hot either. (3) What about the French who are starting to build walls to get away from the migrants? Does that sound like something you want? (4) What about all of the Europeans who say they don't like the migrants? (5) Why would we want to bring what is destroying Europe to America? Don't you dare say they aren't causing trouble. Lives and Countries are being ruined by these people, and nobody should want that here.

"they clearly weren't thinking of others in this instance when they voted for Trump."
What if they thought his economic ideas were superior? What if they just liked his policies better? What if they thought that Trump's policies were more beneficial for Americans. Even if this included blocking out migrants, who have destroyed Europe, this doesn't mean he's an immoral choice who isn't beneficial for people. You said it yourself, we need to focus on our own needs first. America first is exactly what Trump was running on. Therefore by your own logic they made the correct choice in voting for Trump.

So in conclusion, the answer is yes. I think all people deserve our sympathy. These people shouldn't have been effected, but even if they were that simply means they were willing to put their countries needs above their owns. Isn't that a good thing?


Sources:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com...
(3) https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
(4)https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
(5) https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Oh, I do think that the family members being deported should have sympathy, as they had nothing to do with this. It was partially their own family members' fault that they got deported, since they voted for Trump. So, it wasn't the fault of the relatives that this happened, and thus the deserve sympathy. I'll write that in the next round too, just to be sure voters and viewers know that I am not an evil monster who thinks people who go through terrible things don't deserve sympathy.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Fixed my wording to take that into account. The resolution(title) was correct, just what I wrote in the debate round was off.
Posted by jo154676 11 months ago
jo154676
I think you misread the story, the people who voted arent being deported, their relatives are who just moved here 2 months ago.
No votes have been placed for this debate.