The Instigator
Banana438
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Immigration ban is constitutional

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 2 votes the winner is...
Banana438
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 99746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Banana438

Pro

The Immigrant ban for 7 middle eastern countries is constitutional because it does not discriminate between religion, race, or otherwise. It was previously ruled constitutional when Obama did it, when Bush did it, as well as many others. Therefore it seems clear: the immigration ban is constitutional and should remain in law.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Ban Islam
Debate Round No. 1
Banana438

Pro

Can we there for agree that the ban should not be overruled by a judge?
RonPaulConservative

Con

Of course not- Trump should have said judge arrested for aiding and abeding terrorists- the Muslims that is.
Debate Round No. 2
Banana438

Pro

You seem to be contradicting yourself, you say you're against and then "ban Islam". You say it shouldn't be overruled by a judge but that the judge should be arested. I will end with this though. Whether it is right or not right, costly or worth it, it still is constitutional and should be law.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Doom-Guy-666-1993// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Isn't it obvious?

[*Reason for non-removal*] On conceded debates, so long as the voter awards more points to the side that did not concede, the vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Concession in round three.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While it"s not absolutely clear that this is a concession, it"s still clear enough that this is a valid RFD. In a conceded debate, a voter is not required to provide an RFD, as long as it is clear they are voting on that basis.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Doom-Guy-666-1993 1 year ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
Banana438RonPaulConservativeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Isn't it obvious?
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Banana438RonPaulConservativeTied
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: Concession in round three.