The Instigator
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Baseballer2007
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 11603
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Hello. As I am Neg I cannot present a case so I will wait for my opponent.
Baseballer2007

Pro

For Space sake i will only post the Tagline and source along with a warrant if it is short enough. If you truelly do not believe the tag, ask for the warrant in CX. Lets roll

PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REMOVE MEDICAID REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS ON UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE COUNTRY FOR LESS THAN FIVE YEARS.

CONTENTION ONE: THE ALIEN

A) UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID COVERAGE.
KU 8 (LEIGHTON, PROFESSOR OF HEALTH POLICY AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES)

B)DENYING HEALTH CARE TO IMMIGRANTS AUTHORIZES XENOPHOBIC VIOLENCE—THIS PROVIDES AN OPENING TO CONTEST THE VIOLENT BOUNDARIES BETWEEN HOST AND GUEST.

Dike´┐Ż 02 (Mustafa, Lecturer in Human Geography in the Geography Department at Royal Holloway, University of London, Pera Peras Poros: Longing for Spaces of Hospitality
C)THE WELFARE REFORM ACT STIGMATIZES IMMIGRANTS. IT PERPETUATES THE BELIEF THAT NONCITIZENS ARE INFERIOR. CHALLENGING THIS ACT OF DISCRIMINATION IS VITAL TO CONTEST ALL OTHER FORMS OF XENOPHOBIA AND PERSECUTION

HULL 97 (ELIZABETH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT RUTGERS, 33 GONZ. L. REV. 471)

D)OUR SOCIETY'S XENOPHOBIC FEAR OF IMMIGRANTS STEMS FROM A DESIRE TO CONSTRUCT IMAGINARY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN "US" AND "THEM"- THIS CONSTRUCTION IS AT THE ROOT OF THE HOLOCAUST
COLE 6 (PHILLIP, READER IN APPLIED PHILOSOPHY AT MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, THE MYTH OF EVIL: DEMONIZING THE ENEMY, P. 206)

E)FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS CHILL IMMIGRANT PARTICIPATION IN HEALTH CARE—REPEALING THESE LAWS IS ESSENTIAL.

PARK 4 (SEAM, J.D. CANIDATE AT FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW IN MAY 2005, "NOTE: SUBSTANTIAL BARRIERS IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ACCESS TO PUBLICLY-FUNDED HEALTH CARE: REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE", SPRING, LEXIS)

F) THE DEMAND TO KNOW THE OTHER'S IDENTITY IMPLIES A CONDITIONAL WELCOMING THAT SUSTAINS THE SOVEREIGN DIVISION BETWEEN CITIZEN AND ALIEN

Yegenoglu 03 (Meyda, Department of Sociology @ Middle East Technical University, "Liberal Multiculturalism and the Ethics of Hospitality in the Age of Globalization," Postmodern Culture 13.2, muse)

G) PROVIDING HEALTH SERVICES TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IS CRUCIAL TO AFFIRM HEALTH AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT- WE MUST FIRST ACCEPT IMMIGRANTS AS HUMAN BEINGS TO MAKE MEANINGFUL CHANGE

ORTEGA 9 (ADRIANNE, J.D. BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, M.P.H. BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 35 AM. J. L. AND MED. 185)

H) HEALTHCARE IS AN ESSENTIAL BUILDING BLOCK OF OUR SOCIETY. THE DENIAL OF HEALTHCARE TO MILLIONS OF CITIZENS HAS TURNED THE AMERICAN DREAM INTO NOTHING MORE THAN A PIPE DREAM.

PLACE 99 (MICHAEL D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, "HEALTH CARE AS AN ESSENTIAL BUILDING BLOCK FOR A FREE SOCIETY: THE CONVERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC AND SECULAR AMERICAN IMPERATIVE", 1999, PROJECT MUSE)

I) (This is solvency) WE MUST EMBRACE AN ETHIC OF UNCONDITIONAL HOSPITALITY IN OPPOSITION TO CALCULATIONS- WE KNOW THAT ACHIEVING TRUE HOSPITALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT THE ASPIRATION ITSELF BRINGS US CLOSER TO THE OTHER. TRUE JUSTICE MUST SIMULTANEOUSLY STAND OUTSIDE AND WITHIN THE LAW.

THE ROLE OF THE BALLOT IS IDEAL FORMATION – A PROMISE OF JUSTICE TO COME. THE ETHICAL DEMAND STEMS FROM THIS PROMISE, NOT FROM ITS FULFILLMENT THROUGH SIMULATED ENACTMENT OF A POLICY.

DOTY 6 (ROXANNE LYNN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY TEMPE, ARIZONA, "FRONTERAS COMPASIVAS AND THE ETHICS OF UNCONDITIONAL HOSPITALITY", MILLENIUM- JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 2006; 35; 53, HTTP://MIL.SAGEPUB.COM...)

J) WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO UNCONDTIONALLY EMBRACE THE IMMIGRANT OTHER, WHICH MEANS EMBRACING THE VULNERABILITY INHERENT IN THEIR DISADVANTAGES.

WE MUST TRANSCEND THE TRAP OF XENOPHOBIC POLITICS THAT SEEK TO LIMIT IMMIGRATION IN ORDER TO OVERCOME OUR STIGMATIZATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

DERRIDA 1 (JACQUES, PROFESSOR OF HUMANITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, "A DISCUSSION WITH JACQUES DERRIDA", THEORY & EVENT, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2001, PROJECT MUSE)

K) THE LAW IS PERFECTABLE. IT WORKS TOWARDS PERFECTION WITHOUT EVER ACHIEVING IT AND THUS EXPRESSES A USEFUL, IF IMPOSSIBLE, IDEAL.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY COUNTRY WON'T OPEN THEIR DOORS UNCONDITIONALLY TO THE OTHER, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD UNDERGO A POLICY SIMULATION, BUT WE SHOULD, THROUGH THIS SPEECH ACT, EMBODY THE IDEA OF PURE HOSPITALITY

DERRIDA 1 (JACQUES, PROFESSOR OF HUMANITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, "A DISCUSSION WITH JACQUES DERRIDA", THEORY & EVENT, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2001,PROJECT MUSE)

L) SHORT-TERM POLITICAL CALCULATIONS ARE AN EXCUSE TO IGNORE THE RIGHT TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- WE SHOULD EMBRACE HUMAN RIGHTS TO TRANSCEND THE TRAP OF POLITICAL INACTION

RUDIGER 8 (ANJA, HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTH PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR A JOINT PROGRAM RUN BY NESRI AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, "A HUMAN RIGHTS ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES' HEALTH PLANS", AUGUST 2008, HTTP://WWW.HEALTHLAW.ORG...)

M) PUBLIC DEBATE IS A CRUCIAL FORUM TO CONTEST RACIST POLITICAL DISCOURSE—FAILURE TO DO SO SHAPES PUBLIC OPINION IN A WAY THAT AUTHORIZES XENOPHOBIC VIOLENCE AND PARALYZES RIGHTS MOVEMENTS

HEAD 5 (MICHAEL, CHAIR OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCE, HTTP://WWW.COE.INT...

Contention 2) Framework

1.Our framework is that you evaluate the affirmative against a competitive policy option or the status quo.
2.Prefer our framework because:
a.Predictability: the realm of policy is the most predictable for policy debate. Don't let the negative read utopian alternatives.
b.Fairness: the AFF get 8 minutes of offense against the status quo. The neg shouldn't be able to read 8 minutes of a Kritik that ignores the entirety of the 1AC.
c.Reciprocity: The AFF are tied down the resolution, the negative should be tied to policy.
3.Plan Focus is Good
a.Topic specific education – we don't have the same generic debates every single year
b.Stable negative ground – the AFF are tied down to defending certain links
4.They have no offense - Policy education and rational decision making can't be obtained from anything but debate, so prefer our framework for debate
5.Policy debate should preclude critical discourse for the following reasons:
a.It's more Real World: When we want to implement policies, we know how policies work.
b.Education: We increase education about political policies and effects that are occurring in the world.

So basically the Neg needs to provide the best policy option in the round or i win. Open for CX, goodluck. (I dont mind K's if you wanna run them)
Debate Round No. 1
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

You stated that you were open for CX so I guess that means we are going to attempt to have one on this site. So I am suggesting we spend round 2 were I ask questions (being Neg so that I may offer my burden of Clash) and you answer them (to preserve your burden of proof). The rounds 3 and 4 will be rebuttals and round 5 will be following statements. Round 5 no new arguments or points may be brought up, only expanded upon. So now, without further ado, I will present my questions and then anxiously await your response.

1. Can you, in your own words, explain what exactly the plan is doing and how?

2. Where will you get your funding?

3. Who is your agent of action?

4. Why is the current healthcare system not good enough to accomplish your plan?

5. What will be the cost of this plan?

6. Who does this plan affect?

7. Does this plan only affect immigrants living in poverty, or all of them?

8. What incentives do the government have to implement this plan?

9. Will this cause problems with Obama's healthcare bill?

10. Will it be nescesary to change Obama's healthcare bill for this plan to be enacted?

11. What about illegal immigrants?

12. If legal immigrants recieve this care while the illegal ones don't, could this lead to internal conflict within the immigrants themselves?

13. How will enacting this change the way people feel about immigrants?

14. In regard to 13, wouldn't people be more hostile to immigrants because their tax-payer dollars are going toward these immigrants?

I now conclude my questioning. Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Baseballer2007

Pro

Ok well ill accept the way you wish to do the round, but suggest that you post your "case/arguments" in round 2 after cx questions next time so we can start the rebuttals. so

1. The plan removes repoting requirements for medicaid so that illegal immigrants cant recieve it. The plan removes these barriers and allows these immigrants to obtain medicaid, this is vital b/c immigrants will need medicare regardless of there status but it is much more expensive/dangerous when the come in later and without coverage.

2. Best part of the plan. Its cost absoultly NOTHING and reeps extreme benfits.

3. The agent will be congress enacting the removal of the restrictions.

4. The fact is, there is no health care for these immigrants. That endangers every single one of them and allows for xenophobic violence and violates the "identity paradigm"

5. No cost, it has no trade off with any funding.

6. The plan affect all topical illegal immigrants. Seeing as medicaid can only affect people in poverty.

7. only in poverty because of medicaid.

8. i assume you mean "why". and of course the answer is to solve the harms. The current violence and neglection has destroyed the american dream, lead to riots and deaths, and has caused xenophobic violence. It is a human right to obtain health care and to strive for a better life.

9. Nope, this has no affect on the bill.

10. Also no, there was a bill passed earlier in the decade that requires you to report your status apon request of health care.

11. ? sorry. The plan is to give health care to illegal immigrants ( those under 5 years) and to protect them and allow us to remove the hatred between "them" and "us". That is the only way to gain solvency in the round.

12. legal immigrants CAN recieve healthcare, illegal ones CANT. Our plan allows illegal ones to aquire health care, along with legal ones who are in poverty and have been in the country less than 5 years.

13. Good question. This Plan will solve the "IDENTITY PARADIMN" that allows "Us" the host and "them" the guest to be two seperate groups. Our plan will allow us to instead view them as equal people who deserve the same rights as we do. This unconditional hospitatlity allows us to not view them as "different" or "outsiders" and can remove the violence and ungrateful thoughts we have torwards them, this impact of "genocidal" violence outwieghs everything in the round.

14. No, the plan allows us to intergrate them into our society and finally accept them, if the neg insists or encourages this violence then it falls even more into the ideology of the aff.

I guess since my oppenent hasnt made any arguments my case extends over and i will ask my oppenent some questions after he has stated his. Goodluck!
Debate Round No. 2
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Normally, I would make attacks over everything in a 'line-by-line' manner because in actual CX my partner would cover off-case arguments while I covered on-case. But the manner of this case presented leads to off-case heaven, so please forgive me if my attacks seem disorganized and randomly thrown together as I am not used to doing this exact facet of CX. Anyway I will now make attacks on my opponents case, in no particular order.

[take away from wealth DA, insignificant amount, solv: illogical to give illegal immigrants care, obviously will cause funding because of increase in medicaid: solv, DA increased immigration, Harms: no xenophobic violence and identity paradigm, most opponents cards talk about immigrants(legal ones), after august 22 1996 non us citizens cannot get healthcare which repeal is not in plan text and also means more political capital lost: solv, Political capital should be reserved for something more worthwhile]

Dis-Ad: Giving illegal immigrants healthcare increases immigration with numerous impacts.

Link: Opponent gives immigrants healthcare.
Brink: This will increase immigration because of incentives to come to U.S.
Impact: This takes away from the wealth of actual, true Americans. (Harvard University economist George J. Borjas)
Impact: This increases the crime rate. (http://cis.org...)
Impact: Takes away American jobs. (http://www.numbersusa.com... /pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work%282%29.pdf)
Impact: Causes significant decrease in U.S. low-class pay -increasing poverty. This directly goes against what the resolution is trying to solve. (http://cis.org...)

Significance: Only about 3 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. are in poverty. (http://www.csmonitor.com...)

This means that the Neg is trying to enact a plan that only attempts to solve for a small group of people. This is hardly a harm at all and enacting insignificant plans come with heavy prices.

Solvency: When the government does something it uses political capital, or support of the people, to do whatever it is they are trying to do. Aff uses political capital to try and do something for an insignificant cause. This means there is less political capital for future actions that the government might need to do. If this plan is enacted it could stop us from enacting a future policy that could be far FAR more beneficial.

Solvency: Also, the opponent says that there will be no funding. There are two outcomes:

1. Medicaid benefits are reduced from current recipients to cover the new clients. People on Medicaid now hardly get by and they cannot afford to lose anymore benefits.

2. The Affirmative is wrong (more likely) and this will need funding to cover the new clients. Because the Aff provides no source of funding this plan is obviously doomed to fail, as is any plan without proper funding. Whether it's 1 or 2, the opponent's plan will not solve.

So in summary the opponent is trying to enact a plan without funding to solve for insignificant harms and people of insignificant numbers. In doing this he will use up much needed political capital, destroy the current Medicaid system, break our fragile economy, increase crime rates, and push millions of more Americans into poverty. It is because giving healthcare to people not even legally in the U.S. or citizens is NOT worth all of these nasty effects that I urge you to vote for Negative. Thank you and I look forward to the next round.
Baseballer2007

Pro

Ok so my opponent doesnt understand the ideology of the aff. The whole impact of the 1AC is that immigrants are being denied basic human rights. They being treated as lesser human beings, been beat down, and are become isolated into what is known as the identity paradigm. In this paradigm immigrants are being labeled as "others" and creates this boundry between "them" and "us". The plan text breaks down this barrier and allows us to realize that they are equal beings, wither immigrants or not, and that we have a OBLIGATION to protect them.

But onto first off - Immigration DA LOL

Ok 1) This DA is awesome, it is now an advantage for the affirmative and should flow so because first it increase the number of immigrants in the US which does
a) increase the signifigance of the case and
b) allows us to be less hostile for them and open the barriers in an attempt at Unconditional Hospitality
1) This solves the impacts of the 1AC so voting for the Da as an advantage for the aff is most logical
Now i will answer it too.
Non-unique - immigrants will not stop coming, we cant close our borders. If anything this DA is inevitable.
Link - consede. Giving Healthcare is an ethical obligation, cross apply DOTY 06'
Impacts 1) "takes away wealth from real americans" wow this falls more into the thesis of the aff. The neg implies that there are "true americans" that are better than these immigrants. But these immigrants did the same thing all of "us true american's" ancestors did hundreds of years ok, what is the difference. And rich people not having a buttload of money is not an impact, if it can be considered "a bad consequence" it doesnt outwiegh the violence, hatred and abuse these immigrants are getting now. Only the aff solves for theses and racism so impacts of the aff outweigh.
2) There will be an increase in crime rate. Yes because these immigrants are poor and in danger they need to find money to pay for the EMERGENCY ROOM HEALTHCARE that they are FORCED to get since they are denied medicaid. Immigrants will get h/c weither the US wants it or not since E.Rs must take in patients regardless, this in turns leads to dangerous "outwaited" medical injuries and leads to increase in money wasted since these immigrants have no way to pay. Cross apply this arguement to the Funding arguement. Since the neg will cost more than the aff(extend framework which he dropped) this turns the neg, another reason to vote aff.
3)He says there will be a decrease in jobs, non brink. There have been immigrants in AMerican for decades and there hasnt been a steady decline in job-loss. The common "illegals taking simple american jobs" argument is made by lazy people. They have the same, if not better qualifications, for jobs and can get them just as easily.
4) this doesnt turn case, we dont solve for poverty b/c we cant and no one can. No evidence needed since there will always be poverty. cross apply the 3 argument to this, no decrease in jobs, just lazy people.

Signifigance - the DA turns this argument, flow the DA to the aff to solve this argument. But also, this falls into the thesis of the aff to. Even if there was a small number being saved from this VIOLENCE and HATRED they are still important. It is the signifigance of the PEOPLE not the number. there are small groups of people all around the world, no one can say they are not important enough to be saved.

Now the Political Capital argument
We turn this argument too! This plan is REALLY popular in the status quo and is extremtly lobbied. So no tradeoff with pol cap, if anything we add pol cap and make good stuff happen.

THE MOST POWERFUL LOBBIES SUPPORT GRANTING SOCIAL SERVICES TO IMMIGRANTS—GUARANTEES POLITICAL SUPPORT.

SHEEHAN 9 (JAMES, RHODE ISLAND STATE SENATOR, HTTP://WWW.PROJO.COM...)

A very powerful and well-funded special interest that works hard to combat the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is American business, as represented by state and local chambers of commerce and, by extension, perhaps, some in the Republican Party. These associations battle enforcement of laws such as E-verify, an effective tool requiring employers to verify the legal status of new hires, because they allege that the E-verify system is a burden to businesses. In fact, the E-verify system is cheap, relatively easy to implement, and very accurate. In truth, these groups fight enforcement of E-verify because they must hew to the wishes of numerous chapter members who undoubtedly employ illegal immigrants at below-market wages. In general, this unlawful practice also undermines years of hard-fought labor laws in the workplace. Ironically, even some union leaders now oppose the enforcement of America's immigration laws. Illegal immigrants who are able to obtain false papers are readily hired in various sectors of the economy, such as the hospitality industry or construction. Legal or not, these workers are welcomed by unions because they help to revitalize waning union ranks with fresh dues-paying members. Of course, there is strength in numbers, and illegal workers give union leaders additional clout in negotiations. Interestingly, union leaders arguably can still offer management their services at a relative discount since many of their non-citizen members are probably willing to work for less than citizen workers. Politically speaking, powerful members of the Democratic Party have a vested interest in illegal immigration, too, because they believe that illegal immigrants who benefit from longstanding Democratic mainstays — social-welfare programs — will vote to support the Democratic Party if they become lawful citizens of this nation. Of course, some claim that illegal immigrants already are voting in large numbers in this country because of weak election laws that often do not require positive identification to register to vote or to cast a vote. While each of the aforementioned special interests derives some personal benefit from illegal immigration, the burden is shouldered squarely by a majority of lawful citizens. While illegal immigrants pay some taxes, research shows that they do not pay enough to offset the dollars paid out through federal and state government programs that support them. Illegal immigrants receive government-subsidized health care, social services and education that probably can be measured in the billions of dollars annually. Worse yet, illegal immigrants who violate the law are crowded into our nation's prisons, costing countless millions more. Our nation is in financial crisis and many states, including Rhode Island, are facing formidable deficits. After all, many politicians also personally benefit from illegal immigration by way of special-interest contributions and/or voter support at election time.

Finally the illogical funding argument:

1) no evidence, there wouldnt be tradeoff. If anything the plan will be more effectivly using the PREEXISTING money.
2) There is absoulty no cost to repel a bill. No money is needed to pass the plan. My oppenent hasnt proven why we cant solve the impacts of the 1AC including violence, xenophbic discriminations, hatred, and the otherazation. He just says that since it doesnt cost money we cant solve. But that is the benefit, repeling this costs nothing. The expansion of medicaid is not enough to effect the status quo.

In summary. I have turned every argument, maintained 100% solvency, am the only one with horrible bad impacts(not "rich people lose money"), and present a probably Policy action. Since my oppenent dropped framework so he MUST present a optional policy option(didnt) or prove worse than the Status quo(didnt, in fact turned) Vote Aff on all arguments, goodluck!
Debate Round No. 3
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

All right, now it's time for my round 4 reply to my opponent's arguments. As just stated, I will be refuting my opponents arguments while fortifying my meaning. Here we go:

My opponent started off saying that I did not understand the meaning and intent of the Aff case. In my defense, I completely understood it. My attacks were not made out of misunderstanding, but rather to point out the flaws in the opponent's case. The fact that the opponent is saying something and that it is an idea, does not make it right. These were the basis' of my attacks and I just want it to be clear---I understand the opponent's case.

1. Immigration DA

Unique - I completely agree with the Aff in the fact that immigrants will always come. But it is nescesary that they come in moderation. For example, many would agree water is quite good for the body, in moderation. But if you drink to much of this at one time, you will die. The same thing applies to immigration. It is O.K. and arguably good at times, but too much at once will surely hurt the U.S. There has already been an increase in immigration (http://www.sfgate.com...) and the opponent's plan only will increase the immigration rate even more. This can lead to consequences I have mentioned. The opponent even agreed that this will increase immigration in the [link] section.
Link- Opponent agrees it increases immigration, and makes the mistake of saying this is a good thing.
Impacts a) I have provided evidence saying immigration takes away from legal americans, and the opponent says that that is a GOOD thing. In this point, the opponent is arguing that we should give our Medicaid to people who are here ILLEGALLY because they deserve it for some reason. His justification is, is that rich people have 'buttloads' of money to spare. Opponent obviously forgets that Medicaid is for impoverished people, not the wealthy ones. So the benefits are being taken away from poor people who pay taxes, and are legal citizens, and giving it to illegal immigrants so they can become our 'equals'? This makes no sense whatsoever.
b) Everything the opponent mentioned, I covered if it was attack-related. This is just a clarification. My opponent also seems to agree that crime rates do increase with immigration, but blames this on the cost of E.R. visits. First of all, this (http://www.ppic.org...) says that foreign illegal immigrants are the LEAST likely to use emergency rooms. Secondly, it's illogical to think you can blame crime upon emergency rooms? This is illogical, and a poor refutation of the Crime Impact.
c) (http://www.usillegalaliens.com...) According to this, job displacement due to immigration is increasing. Notice that I have actual evidence while my opponent does not. To say that I have made an argument because I am lazy is rude, but in this matter of thinking, lazy people can't find evidence to adequately back up attacks. In this, it also talks about the low education and skills of immigrants. This is fact, and also it makes sense. So my opponent just stated the opposite of the truth.
d) Poverty is a problem, and I believe one day it will be solved, but this was not my point. What I was saying, was that this plan will INCREASE poverty. To say this is O.K. because poverty will always be here, is immoral, irresponsible, and wrong.

Significance - Opponent agrees this is a very small minority. Cross-apply to political capital argument.

Political Capital - Notice how the card the opponent provides shows how much support is given to this system that cuts down on illegal immigrants in the workplace. This goes directly against the Affs case and should obviously flow Ned. Earlier, I did show you that BAD things happens, there will obviously be a great loss in the much needed political capital. ( I also just noticed that the card provided many other negative things illegal immigrants cause. So I ask the Aff to refute those as well, since they were brought up.)

Funding - My opponent says my attack was "since it doesn't cost money we can't solve". This was certainly not my attack. I said my opponent can't solve because it DOES cost money, and he provides no funding. This flows aff because my opponent did not correctly read/understand my attack. Also, on the first part, opponent says that using money already there is used. He is 'spreading the butter too thin' as I said, and peoples benefits will be taken away.

Summary - My opponent says that he has turned every argument. The only thing he did was misunderstand basic arguments or SAY this is that without any evidence as back up. I did not attack Harms because I showed them insignificant. My opponent refers to some mysterious framework that was never mentioned. Whatever that is, I feel I have shown adequately that the plan will not work and only make things worse. The point of aff in policy debate is to improve the status quo. I've shown that the opponent makes it significantly worse, which makes this round flow to the Negative side. Thank you and I look forward to round 5. 'Til then.
Baseballer2007

Pro

Baseballer2007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

My opponent has failed to post his argument, showing a large amount of irresponsibility on his side. All of my refutations carry over. I hope my opponent does make his last rebuttal.
Baseballer2007

Pro

Baseballer2007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
You forfeit twice and vote all for yourself?
Posted by Baseballer2007 6 years ago
Baseballer2007
Hey sorry for the slow response. I am preparing for NFL with my team right now but I
Will try and respond tomorrow.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Mr_Jack_NixonBaseballer2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Baseballer2007 6 years ago
Baseballer2007
Mr_Jack_NixonBaseballer2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07