The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The world would be a better place if people could live and work in any country they wanted.

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 1 vote the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,512 times Debate No: 27111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

rross

Pro

At the moment it's very difficult for most people to move to other countries and work there legally. There are too many restrictions on visas. It would be much better if there were free movement of people and workers throughout the world. More people would have more choice. What's not to like?
RationalMadman

Con

Amended resolution: Total relaxation of immigration laws would lead to a better world.

Relevant Definitions

Immigration[1]: the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country

World[2]: the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples

Better[3]: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective.

The first issue is exploitation of poor people in a rich country. Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case.

The second issue is that rich countries may be dealing with a burden of supporting more old people but raising the population is not the answer. more developed countries are already under huge environmental pressure because of their large populations and we cannot suddenly have a huge increase in the already pressured housing pool and road system without huge damage. Further, the welfare system that supports the elderly is one of the great attractions for immigrants who will certainly not all be young and may well not choose to be workers. How can you prove that ‘welfare scrounging’ won’t make the situation worse.

Thirdy, importing labour is an ineffective way to stop the problems. There is still unemployment in all rich countries and retraining and education are the way to improve the supply of skilled labour. Why should companies sponsor students if they can import their labour cheaper? As well as brain draining poor countries the proposal will allow governments to ignore the marginalised in their own country. Labour shortage is temporary and a bust may well cause all those immigrants to return to their own countries of origin which have not grown economically because of the absence of workers and are now structurally dependent on remittances.

The overpopulation would mean that resources can't be spread out, people would die of starvation.

Sources:
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

Thank you for responding to the debate. However, I do think you should write your own arguments instead of pasting them from another debate site.

http://debatewise.org...

You did have a sources section in your post, so you should probably have put this link in there too.

The debatewise topic is a different one to the one I posted. It is "Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?" so it is looking at the issue from the perspective of rich countries, the UK in particular. These arguments are a bit silly from a global perspective. If they were your own arguments, I would be happy to debate them.
But they aren't.

RationalMadman, you can do better than this! Please use your own arguments in the next round, or at the very least reference copied arguments properly and make sure they're relevant.
RationalMadman

Con

All three arguments are my original content and additionally are all relevant. I copied nothing from that site. Read my three paragraphs and realise I worded them totally differently form any on that site and related all to the resolution. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

Let's see. Man caught cheating. Confronted with evidence. Denies, denies, denies.

How ordinary.
RationalMadman

Con

Regardless of methodolog of retaining arguments:

Aguments for pro = 0

Arguments for con = 3

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
some people will do anything to improve their statistics, so this could have been the motivation. I think it may be beneficial to have another stat, something like - "how satisfying did you find debating this person?" which people could rate after debating.
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
I just checked what "douche" means:

a wretched and disgusting person. (Rude and derogatory.)
n.
an ugly girl or woman.

Nice one, Kenneth. Wow. Did I somehow offend the team?
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
I shouldn't have used the word "cheating". I was trying for a witty double entendre, but it was a mistake. I don't think Rationalmadman cheated particularly, because on a casual website like this, plagiarism rules don't really apply.
His actions put me in an uncomfortable position, however. Rebutting arguments takes time and care, and why should I bother when he was neither the author nor showed any sign of understanding what he cut and pasted from another site?
I don't understand his motivation. He didn't need to accept the debate. If he isn't interested in constructing his own arguments, what possible purpose can he have? It seems completely pointless.
Thank you for the suggestion of debating again. I would like to debate this topic. That's why I posted it in the first place. On the other hand, debating with Rationalmadman has been an unpleasant experience. I'm not getting paid to do it, and I have no wish to repeat it.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
In my opinion they should debate it again, Pro can provide more substance and Con can use reference correctly.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Ah! I see... My fault. I guess by technicalities Pro wins then, although by substance Con should win, even though he cheated. Cheater.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
Kenneth there is a difference between similar and copy. Cons argument is a copy and a steal. Con should probably be reported for cheating.

----
". . .Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case." (con)

". . .Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case."
http://debatewise.org...
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Pro, you're being a douche. And even if his ideals were similar to that of, that doesn't mean that he stole them nor does it make his claims invalid. It simply means his views are either common, or, in this case, are viewed as logic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
rrossRationalMadmanTied
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: actually argued, unlike pro