The Instigator
whiteflame
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Tier Tournament 2 [Top], R2: Let Anyone Work Anywhere

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 9 votes the winner is...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,696 times Debate No: 59183
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (74)
Votes (9)

 

whiteflame

Pro

Thank you to phantom for accepting this debate! It's an honor to get this opportunity, as phantom is one of the first debaters on this site whose arguments really stood out to me, specifically in the previous Tier Tournament. I hope and believe that this debate should provide a solid challenge to us both.

The topic as it stands, "Let anyone work anywhere," is something I feel the need to clarify. First, I'd like to expand the topic to its full length.

Full topic: There should be no law in any nation restricting access to jobs to individuals from that nation.

I think the definitions here are straightforward and simple, though if my opponent would like clarification, he may request that any one of these words be defined. Note how the topic is phrased here. This is not a discussion of immigration policy since we are not discussing citizenship. This does not involve the ability to collect government benefits, it does not affect anyone's capacity to vote. This is a discussion of the capacity of individuals from any nation to take jobs from a willing employer in another nation.

The burden of proof will be mainly on me, as I am advocating for a substantial shift from status quo. If my opponent wishes to propose a counterplan, he may do so, but that places an equal burden on him to defend it. He may choose to defend the status quo as well, and thus the current system that restricts access to jobs in many nations to their own citizens.

The structure of the debate will be as follows:

R1: Acceptance, clarifications.
R2: Opening arguments.
R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation.
R4: Rebuttals and conclusion.

(If you wish, I can expand it to 5 rounds, but I figure 4 is enough. The character count, set at 10,000, is also negotiable)

I await my opponent's acceptance.
phantom

Con

I'm honored to be facing whiteflame this debate and for his kind words. I know that he's a very talented debater, so I have no doubt this will be challenging.

Everything looks good so I'll let my opponent begin. Thanks for setting up the debate! Good luck!







Debate Round No. 1
whiteflame

Pro

Thanks again to phantom.

I don't think I can spend too much time clarifying this topic. What we're discussing here is a change in policy that essentially erases borders for workers. It puts no new onus on governments. If anything, this resolution favors a reduction in government practices, specifically those that discriminate between those workers who live in the U.S. and those who live without.

1. Justice

If the resolution were "Let any woman take a job anywhere," my opponent would likely have found that to be a ridiculously slanted topic. The reason why is because we would then be talking about discriminatory practices against women, where countries might make laws that prevent access to jobs for those of the female sex. The concept of telling someone that, based on their sex, they should have limited access to employment opportunities is abhorrent to many of us, and rightly so.

But what is the root of this issue? There are two main reasons.

The first is that they're fellow human beings. They matter because all human beings deserve to have access to gainful employment. Any adult human, man or woman, who has the capacity to engage in a certain job to the satisfaction of their employer should have the capacity to apply to engage in that labor. Plain and simple. The reality is that there may not be enough jobs for everyone to obtain employment, but that doesn't change the fact that that employment should be open to both men and women because both are human beings.

The second is that those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination. This is the same reason someone with a different skin color should not be discriminated against. These are characteristics that are inherent to the person upon birth. They don't get to choose what sex they are born as, just as they don't get to decide what their skin color is. While their choices may be subject to some scrutiny, it's these characteristics that should not, mainly because they are things that are beyond their control. It is unreasonable to deny someone a basic right such as this based on something out of their control, something essentially accidental, that has no effect on their capacity to engage in the work at hand.

Both of these two reasons apply just as strongly to those individuals who are born in any nation. Whether I am born in Haiti or the United States, I am still a human being, deserving of a basic right to earn myself a livelihood. Similarly, in either case, where I was born is outside of my control. I did not have any capacity to affect the decision of my mother to give birth to me in any given location. That decision was entirely outside of my control, as was both of my parents' decisions to acquire any citizenship in any given nation and thereby pass them on to me. One might argue that I can acquire new citizenships through applications, but these are not always possible for everyone, and the process of doing so would, by necessity, lead to a change in my identity. I shouldn't have to change my identity to have access to this fundamental right, no more than a woman would have to get transgender surgery for the same purpose.

But I keep saying "fundamental right." How truly fundamental is it?

We can look to any number of sources. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it plainly in Article 23.1.[1] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is unequivocal as well, and this can be found in Part III, Article 6.[2] The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights agrees as well, in Article 15.[3] I think these all firmly establish the right to work (to be distinguished from "right-to-work" laws established in many states in the U.S., which prohibit unions requiring membership) quite clearly, and as long as this right exists, it must be extended to all adult, capable human beings, regardless of their sex, skin color, or citizenship.

So what does it mean to deny this right? It's dehumanizing. Countries that engage in this practice are dehumanizing foreign peoples, denying their agency as individuals. The merits of these foreign persons are essentially subverted to their status a s foreign persons. It's part of a protectionist mindset where our goal is to ensure that more people in the U.S. get jobs while essentially stating that those who are foreign and just as, if not more, capable to perform those jobs should be denied access. It's arbitrary discrimination aimed at a goal that harms consumers (who are better served by more competition for jobs) for the sake of protecting work for individuals who would otherwise be outclassed by their foreign counterparts. That's not reason enough to treat others as less than human.

2. Human Decency

Why would someone want to leave their home country and work in another nation, even without citizenship? There may be multiple answers to this question, but the two that come most prominently to mind are working conditions and higher income.

In terms of working conditions, we could look at the obvious ones, like whether the industry adheres to internationally accepted labor practices, safe working conditions, and has unions to join, but there are a number of issues anyone takes into account with their choices that go deeper than that. People want to know if they have a chance at mobility, if their work provides assistance of sorts, how they motivate their workers, how well they deal with people of different cultures, what the environment looks like, how much interactivity there is between employees and supervisors, etc. There's a lot to be concerned with, whether it's the decision to escape a nation where businesses are engaging in dangerous practices, or they simply don't fit the set of preferences that potential employee has. Working for an employer who fits their preferences can also make them far more productive, and that increase in productivity as a result of expanding their job pool provides an increased opportunity that doesn't exist now.

Then there's income inequality. There are massive inequities in what each country pays to people working the same jobs.

"the wages of a Peruvian worker willing to work in the United States are about 2.6 times as much as the same person would make in Peru. This figure for Peru is typical among the 42 developing countries analyzed, but for some it is much higher. For Filipino it is around 3.5, and for a Haitian it is over 7. In other words, a Nigerian moderately-educated adult male urban formal-sector wage worker who moves to the U.S. increases his wages by several hundred percent."[4]

If you look at the paper in that link, you'll note that people in Nigeria working the same job will make 14.85 times less than their U.S. counterparts. The paper actually understates it. That's not several hundred percent. Considering how this directly relates to their ability to feed, house, and clothe themselves and their families, not to mention their capacities for contributing to the broader economies of their home nation and the nation in which they work, it's a big deal.

3. Diversity

The idea of diversity is generally touted as important, but why? At its most basic level, this is meant to increase the creativity of a given workplace by providing a swell of different ideas, but why is that? Because different people from different countries are brought up in highly varied environments that breed a wide array of mindsets and ways of thinking/learning. But it goes beyond simply having more ideas. It forces groups to spend more time deliberating about their courses of action, engendering more constructive conflicts to ensure that each route taken is deliberated carefully, and is considered the most effective route to preventing Groupthink.[5] In a world with changing demographics, it's important to better understand existing and emerging markets. Companies have long understood the benefits of diversity and many have gone to great lengths to increase their diversity,[6] but policies that prevent foreign workers from applying effectively limit their progress.

There are a lot of reasons why this is important to nations, but I'll focus on two. First of all, it forces nations to change their employment practices to garner the best employees from the broader economy. For nations that already have extensive laws supporting their labor force, this means improving on the formula and ensuring higher incomes, better benefits, etc. For nations that don't, pressure is placed on them to retain their best and draw new blood into their borders. Lacking that, they stand to lose the majority of their educated and better trained employees.

Second, it's hugely beneficial for their economies. Economist Michael Clemens argues that "total global GDP could double if all barriers to the free movement of labour were removed."[7][8] That's huge. We're talking about, on average, doubling the income of everyone on the planet. The reason why is actually pretty simple " it is mostly the result of utilizing workers who are otherwise wasted in their places of origin. That kind of benefit comes especially to nations receiving foreign labor, and would likely expand labor markets as well, meaning that they companies could hire on more people.

With that, I leave it to phantom to establish his case.

1. http://www.ohchr.org...
2. http://www.ohchr.org...
3. http://www.achpr.org...
4. http://www.cgdev.org...
5. http://www.businessweek.com...
6. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
7. http://www.economist.com...
8. http://www.cgdev.org...
phantom

Con


Thanks for an interesting case Pro. As per the debate structure, this round is for opening arguments. As such, I will not be responding to Pro’s case until next round.


For clarification, I think the Pro side in the Intelligence Squared debate on this topic sums up the meaning adequately: The resolution say that “no matter where you're born, it should be legal for you to accept a job offer from a willing employer.”



The debate is primarily about the borders between nations in regards to the labor field. Pro is advocating a completely open labor field in that there would be no borders at all to persons wanting to work in other nations. All that’s necessary would be an employer wishing to higher them. I will be advocating, in general, a controlled or regulated labor field--so not open but also not closed. I say “in general” since the issue can depend on the situation; but most nations at least should have controlled/regulated borders, I would argue.


BoP


I am defending the status quo in so far as I will be defending controlled borders, which are the most common form of borders[2]. But few people would call the system perfect; I included, so I won’t be defending the system completely as it stands and I don’t think Pro would expect me to. So following Pro’s statements in R1, I think we can say that Pro does have the burden of proof in this debate.


Given that fact, my presenting a case of my own is nonessential, but given the debate structure, I am compelled to make one. Keeping this in mind, I would like the viewers to note that refuting Pro is my main job, and providing my own case exceeds my bounds this debate. If the cases are equally matched, it would therefore be proper to vote Con, and if both cases fail, it would likewise be correct to vote Con. If I spouted nonsense for my case, but adequately refuted Pro’s, it would be requisite to vote Con.



Controlled borders for workers


My opponent is only arguing for open working borders not complete open-borders, so he may agree to an extent that borders are a good thing. A world without borders seems attractive but only as an idealized utopia. Working borders--and borders in general--are necessary for national security, public safety, population, practicality, basic obligations of the government to its citizens, and more.


I advocate controlled or regulated working borders (the status quo[2]). By this I mean a system that allows foreigners to come work but only after they’ve met certain qualifications. If there’s a need for nuclear physicists we might open work borders for them around the world to close the shortfall and we might let a restricted number of foreigners in who are seeking a better life. This has the advantage of encouraging skilled immigration and bringing only those who deserve to be here or those in special need in, whereas opening borders for all workers would encourage unskilled and cheap labor. Controlled borders also allow governments to prevent unwanted effects from immigrants such as stress on infrastructure and disadvantaging local populations.


Detrimental effects on the job market and wage


There are over four billion people currently living under the U.S. poverty level [3]. Unfortunately we (U.S. and other applicable countries) can't take care of them all and to try to do so would greatly hurt us. Harvard professor George Borjas estimates that American workers already lose $190 billion a year in wages "caused by the constant flooding of the labor market from newcomers."[3]

Imagine if this flooding of the labor market was open to those four billion? The motion would produce a labor market with billions of workers competing globally for jobs. The result would be that the wages of workers would be heavily driven down in America and other nations. If a minimum wage was in place every single worker not in the level of a high skilled labor would make the same lowest basic wage and most higher paid workers would see their wage fall as well. People in the U.S. earning $15 an hour would see their pay immediately drop to minimum wage. Those not willing to work for minimum wage and who couldn’t get a higher level job simply couldn’t work. The supply of cheap labor would simply be so great that the effects on the average worker would be devastating.


If 2 billion people suddenly started competing for our jobs, all or most mid to low skilled labor jobs would immediately fall down to minimum wage. This is the same argument used in the IS debate. [1]


On mid-skill and especially low skill labor, it’s a very bad idea to allow global competition in the labor market; simply because everyone can do them. We have a special need for nuclear physicists and engineers so that’s why we make the labor market more open in these areas. The same is not true for basic laborers; we don’t have any need to borrow from other nations. If we open our jobs to all foreigners wanting such work, those in our own labor market suffer greatly. 5 million workers willing to work for any wage at all coming to the U.S. (or another country that’s applicable) would benefit those workers but would be detrimental to American workers by a comparable degree.


Low wages is not the only problem; workers would quickly lose benefits as well and labor unions could simply not operate.




Governments would fail on their basic obligations if they implemented an open labor market


The duty of a government is foremost towards the interests of its citizens and the well-being of the nation. That’s one of the main reasons governments exist. Government exist to keep its citizens safe and secure from each other and from others. We help other nations as much as we can so long as its not taking too much away from our citizens. What Pro is proposing suggests that governments should sacrifice the well-being of its own citizens for those of completely foreign nations. That’s contrary to the purpose and goals of government.



Rights of the working immigrants Vs. rights of citizens


If allowed, we can all imagine that Pro’s motion would produce a massive potential for political interest. In nations like the U.S. a rights would quickly arise. The party that thought they could benefit most from these workers voting--the party that most supported right to work anywhere--would be the first to advocate their right to vote and gain other benefits--”if they’re human beings, never committed a crime, are good enough to live/work on our land, pay taxes, and contribute so much to economic productivity, they cannot be denied the right to vote and get government benefits”. We can easily see such sentiments being issued if Pro’s proposition came to pass and they raise a good point: what do we do about healthcare and the education of those coming over? How could we sustain the costs of taking care of all these immigrants?



Who would benefit?


With a couple billion workers competing in the labor market, the wages of average workers--the majority of the labor force--would be depressed drastically, or lowered all to the most minimum level laws allow. Who benefits from cheap labor? those at the top. In other words, the wealthy would benefit by far the most while the working class would suffer. No, I’m not saying immigrants wouldn’t benefit from coming to nations like America; they would certainly benefit for the most part. The ordinary citizens of the nation would be the ones to suffer which would counteract the immigrants’ benefit. So the wealthy would primarily benefit from the cheap labor. This just increases the gap between the rich and the poor. In turn, it also means employers control the labor market since they have such an infinite supply of workers. That upsets the labor market equilibrium.



Would make it easy for persons to live here illegally


What happens when workers lose their job or get laid off? Since the resolution is about people being allowed to work anywhere, they would be obliged to leave the country. Since jobs are terminated everyday, this is problematic. What’s to stop these workers from simply slipping out of sight and finding illegal work?


National security risks


Pro’s proposition implies that any person can come to a nation to work so long as an employer will hire them.This poses a high national security risk. For example, it would provide an unlimited avenue for terrorists entering the country so long as a sympathiser was in a position to hire on the other side. There are plenty of people nations generally want out of their society but it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influx of unwanted persons if the only criteria was their being offered a job. It’s far better when only the best and most deserving are allowed to work in a new country.


Back to Pro.



[1] http://intelligencesquaredus.org...

[2] http://www.siue.edu...

[3] http://www.defendcoloradonow.org...

Debate Round No. 2
whiteflame

Pro

Thanks to Con for a cogent and thoughtful opening argument.

I'll accept most of Con's points on BoP, though if, as he said, our cases were equally matched, that would suffice as a tie, not a win for Con. It is equally my burden and his to show that our cases outweigh one another. If my case is not better than status quo, then that is sufficient to vote Con.

1. Controlled borders

This is Con's counter plan, and the view here is that opening borders to certain subsets of skilled immigrants when a need arises is sufficient. However, it is still going to deny access to some skilled laborers who should have every right to compete with the skilled labor pool here. I would say that since foreign-born skilled workers are huge contributors to innovation and job creation, since aging and shrinking populations of workers need to be addressed before needs arise, and since their competition is hugely beneficial to consumers, any reduction in their capacity to work in this country is a net harm.[9]

2. Job market and wage

Though his arguments here may seem reasonable, there are several inherent assumptions Con is making that are false.

a. The job market will decrease in size

I've already established that there is a huge benefit to GDP on a worldwide scale that results from this system, something that is widely agreed upon by economists, which means that labor markets should actually increase.[10] Immigrants do also affect the supply of labor through their own demand for goods and services, which increases the demand for labor and therefore the overall job market.[11]

It's also important to recognize that the job market wouldn't just be the US market. The labor pool for everyone dramatically increases just by virtue of access, even for US citizens. We have no reason to believe everyone will want to come to the US either.

b. Native workers are worse off with legal foreign competition

I'll talk more about this later under point #6, but keep in mind that the current status for many such immigrants is to pursue illegal jobs that pay far less than minimum wage. Making their status legal dramatically alters the equation in a positive direction, removing much of the incentive for people to enter the country illegally and acquire sub-minimum wage labor.

c. Wages will be uniquely decreased

Companies will always seek to reduce wages so long as there is more than enough unskilled labor to do so. Either there is too much unskilled labor in status quo, in which case they're already doing this, or there is not enough, which means that an influx is filling an existent need. Con apparently argues the former, claiming that "we don't have any need to borrow from other nations." If this is true, then wages won't change with an increased supply of workers.

I would argue, however, that there is an existent need, especially when it comes to farming, home health, food preparation, freight, child care, cleaning, landscaping and construction.[12] Looking at the numbers, the US is going to need 3 million additional workers over the next decade to fill low skill jobs.[13] Considering that the vast majority of immigrant labor is either very high skilled or very low,[11] this claim that people will have their wages dragged down doesn't link to the case. High skilled labor will demand higher wages, and low skilled labor will almost certainly have to acquire a minimum wage job in any case, as most of this work is already down at that level.

d. The empirics match Con's rationale

Probably the best example akin to this plan is the EU, which has an open job market. Despite fears of competition, the EU Commission has agreed that this open market is mostly beneficial, using empirical evidence.[14] This is in a system that allows people to work in any nation within the EU. This policy has engendered inter-country unity, improves image for potential skilled migrants, and increased economic benefits for every country involved.[15]

But let's delve into economics. Borjas makes a rather large estimate that is not based on any empirical evidence. Looking at his conclusions, he says that the long run effect on native workers is net zero.[16] A review he wrote later sets that estimate between 2 and 5%, and also concludes that immigrant workers have increased the GDP of the US by 11%.[17]

Borjas has also written a good paper on how immigration greases the wheels of the labor market. While native-born workers may have major costs associated with their movement, immigrant workers have, by definition, chosen to incur those migration costs, and thus will choose to live in states that offer the the highest wages, speeding up the process of regional wage convergence in the process, something that increases economic efficiency across the board.[18]

Other economists are more optimistic. Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri have shown that the loss is similarly small for this group (2.5%), but that anyone who graduated high school or has further education has received an average wage gain of more than 1% across the board.[19]

The National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that the displacement effects on native workers are low "even after very large immigration flows." It also shows that immigrants have a net positive fiscal effect on host countries.[20]

The Cato Institute showed "that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of US households."[21]

3. Basic obligations of governments

Governments have international rights obligations as well. Two such obligations are adherence to the UDHR and the ICESCR, both of which were signed by the US. In either case, the US is meeting its obligations to its people, but only in my case is it meeting its obligations to the world.

Governments also have other obligations to their people. Specifically, they have obligations to businesses and consumers, both of whom stand to benefit massively from this. The idea that protectionist policies like the ones Con is advocating for should always be at the forefront, which is incredibly short-sighted, especially when the impact on the economy is so strong.

4. Rights " immigrants vs. citizens

Con argues that these immigrants will gain the right to vote. Whether he's arguing that these people will somehow acquire this right without citizenship, or that they will somehow acquire citizenship, he'll need to better explain why politicians would do something they have never done with illegal immigrants (despite having the incentive of 12 million new voters[22]). Similarly, he will have to explain how social services will be extended to them. I grant that access to emergency rooms and public schools would be available to them, but at the point that we'll have increased numbers of qualified doctors and teachers coming into the country, it is not a grave concern.

5. Who would benefit?

Con grants my point here that the 4 billion workers are being given access to reasonable wages that they absolutely cannot gain elsewhere. I would argue that any harm to American workers is always going to be far, far less dramatic than the benefits these people will receive. Note that Con is also granting the benefits to businesses here, even if he only says that it's "those at the top." The only harm he cites is that it increases the gap between the rich and poor, but he never states an impact to that harm, nor is it believable without first proving that wages will depress substantially.

6. Living here illegally

Con says that those immigrants who are laid off in the US would just find illegal work. I fail to see how this is worse than status quo, where the only work they can acquire is illegal work. Right now, the way to do this is to cross into this country illegally. Most often, this is accomplished by a source smuggling them in, such as the Coyotes, who smuggle Latin American immigrants across the US border. These are booming businesses that are being supported by our current border policies.[23] It's also incredibly dangerous, leading to the deaths of thousands in the process of getting across the borders.[24] My policy creates a far safer route into the nation that leads to their spending in local economies, and in turn reducing the likelihood of their funding criminal enterprises.

7. National security

This is mostly unwarranted. The risk doesn't increase because border security still functions in exactly the same way. If someone has a record that makes them a plausible risk to this country, they can still be barred. Nothing is changing with regards to basic border security. The only difference is that they no longer have to acquire work visas.

9. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...
10. http://openborders.info...
11. http://www.econlib.org...
12. http://www.nytimes.com...
13. http://www.foreignpolicy.com...
14. http://www.eurotopics.net...
15. http://www.economist.com...
16. http://econlog.econlib.org...
17. http://cis.org...
18. http://www.oecd.org...
19. http://www.nber.org...
20. http://www.hbs.edu...
21. http://www.cato.org...
22. http://cis.org...
23. http://content.time.com...
24. http://www.economist.com...
phantom

Con

Thanks for the response Pro.

Since I have two rounds to respond to, I cannot address everything, but I will try cover it all next round

Burden of proof

I take it Pro accepts the BoP, yet his statements are not consistent with what the BoP involves. If both cases are tied its is requisite to vote against the side with the BoP. It would mean the resolution has not been upheld which would make it entirely appropriate to vote Con. Besides, my burden is to refute Con. If my case consisted of one weak argument but I successfully refuted Pro’s case, Pro’s BoP would not be upheld entailing a Con win.


Pro’s case

I would first like to raise question to Pro's claim that the motion would put no new onus on governments. It’s true that, in a sense, we would be erasing government regulation but abolishing borders would itself put stress on government due to the flood of immigrants and changes to the labor market.


Justice

Misogynist hiring practices are not in any way analogous to restricting the flow of workers from one country to another. Sexism is irrational but regulating borders is a purely rational matter. Nor is it about xenophobia, as anyone reading my case for controlled borders would gather. Pro did not directly say they were analogous but I see no other reason he’d bring it up.

Pro’s moral argument is too simplistic. He argues that we are all fellow human beings deserving of employment and any person capable of certain labor should be able to apply to that work. Altruism can have detrimental costs if not applied prudently and opening work borders I argue would have some serious consequences. Moreover, it is questionable how obligated one nation is to others. We are not obligated to make everyone else as well off as us, otherwise it would be our duty to give away most of our wealth. Humans are entitled a degree of egoism in their individual pursuit of happiness. Moreover, as I argued, governments act in self-interest and are obligated first and foremost towards their own citizens. The well-being of other nations is a concern but does not trump the rights of that nation’s own citizens.

Pro’s second argument is that, “those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination”. By this logic, we should not only let anyone work anywhere, but let anyone live anywhere. Pro should have us open our gates to all immigrants seeking a life here regardless of whether they have a job waiting. It would be ideal to not discriminate against anyone, but that’s simply not feasible in our world. Unfortunately, from the day we’re born certain persons are more fitted to their struggle for happiness than others and there’s no changing that any time soon and trying to do so could produce other unwanted results.

We cannot allow unlimited persons to come work where they want, but we can selectively allow some in, especially skilled workers. Allowing open borders to low-mid skill labor puts unlimited competition for wage which would make every job in thats skill area reduce to the lowest wage and least benefits that laws allow. Competition in higher skilled areas would also depress wages and benefits for higher labor jobs. I’ll address it more latter.

Human decency

Pro never actually talks about human decency so the title is misleading. Pro’s main point is that the working conditions and incomes are much better in the U.S. than in other countries. I concede that plenty of individuals have great incentive to come work here. However, that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to open our borders to them all.

Since most of my case points towards the U.S. and other countries suffering from open work borders, I’ll point out that the attractiveness of moving across borders would lessen. For example, wages would be less attractive and labor unions--which Pro mentions--suffer from immigration (see image). I won’t reiterate my entire case; I simply refer the viewers to my other arguments in order to show that the attractiveness in working would be much less than it is now. I’m not completely disagreeing with Pro. I’m just making sure we don’t exaggerate how appealing the U.S. would be after countless immigrants poured in.

[5][6]


As I argued, it’s beneficial to open some areas of the labor market in high skilled areas such as environmental science mainly if there’s a shortfall in that area. But this doesn’t make an argument for the more average jobs since we don’t have shortfalls in all areas.


Diversity

I’ll concede that there is utility in diversity. However, we can and do still achieve diversity in the workplace. A big part of diversity talked about in Pro’s link is gender, which isn’t significant for this debate for obvious reasons.

This only applies to a select portion of jobs--most significantly jobs that require a good deal of collaboration. A room full of business executives might be less prone to groupthink if they’re diverse, but groupthink has little to do with your average job and any non-collaborative job.

The important issue is low skilled labor but Pro keeps focusing on skilled labor--“garner the best employees from the broader economy”. We can do this now and it’s not that costly.

For efficiency, I’ll address Clemens' GDP estimate under “Job market and wage”.


Con’s case

Controlled borders

Keeping bordes regulated is not solely about meeting the needs of the labor market--though that is a big part--but also giving a select number of individuals the right to make a life here. Allowing all individuals to do so would be too strenuous on our own well-being which is why it’s necessary to restrict the number that come in. In terms of skilled labor, it might be beneficial to allow a large number of immigrants in, but there is no such need with average work. Pro’s source talks solely about highly skilled labor so I ask viewers to discount its relevance.

Job market and wage

GDP does not equal GDI, so we’re not talking about doubling the income of everyone on the planet.[1] Moreover, corporations are the primary benefactor of cheap labor so it would not be spread at all evenly.

If we look at the broader range of studies, Clemens says, “for labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP.” He neither says all nor the majority of estimates are in this range and half of it falls below his “double” estimate, which is still quite substantial. However, while the estimates for economic benefit are noteworthy, Clemens adds that “research on this question has been distinguished by its rarity and obscurity”. Clemens poses four questions as his research agenda on immigration, but states that "for most of them, economists need much more evidence than we have". I’ll concede that GDP and the job market would probably increase, but we should take the estimates cautiously on account of Clemens statements that studies in this area are rare and obscure, that traditional studies suffer from a flawed agenda, and that the four points that he says should set the agenda “need much more evidence than we have”.[2]

As long as we have nation states it’s necessary to distinguish between citizens and foreigners. All political leaders from the President to mayors are obligated first and foremost towards their own constituents. As stated, we are charitable to other nations to a degree, but our job is to promote the well-being of our own citizens foremost.

I’ll concede that immigration does not overall currently substantially harm the economy since I want to focus on what the labor market would look like with open borders, not how it is today, and because I’m for controlled, not closed, immigration policies.

The effect immigration has on U.S. workers is dependent on whether the immigrants and natives compete for the same jobs. If they compliment each other, then immigration has positive effects on wage, but if they compete, wages are lowered [3]. My argument is that if there is global competition for wage, wages will suffer and that there most definitely would be enormous competition for wage if we opened or labor market borders. Pro’s argument does not address the competition that would exist with open borders.

"The equilibrium market wage rate and the equilibrium number of workers employed in every perfectly competitive labor market is determined in the same manner: by equating the market demand for labor with the market supply of labor."[7]

[7]

Considering the vast amount of people living under the U.S. poverty level, we should expect that there would be a substantial excess supply of labor, thus shifting wages downwards and breaking the labor market equilibrium. Currently, there is not much competition for wage [3] but that's primarily because the borders are controlled. If borders were open, it seems inevitable that those living below U.S. standards of living (the vast majority) would compete with natives in a very large range of jobs in the labor market. Opening labor borders would have the following effects on the economy: 1) Unemployment would quickly rise as citizens were forced to compete with an unlimited supply of outsiders. 2) Quality of life would lessen with lower wages and benefits. 3) People would have little incentive to pursue the education required for mid-skill jobs since there would be little to no advantage over having a mid-skill job than a low skill one. 4) Wealth inequality would grow since unlimited cheap labor mostly makes the wealthy richer.

I'll try to cover everything next round.

Sources
Debate Round No. 3
whiteflame

Pro

One last round of thanks to phantom for a genuinely stirring debate!


BoP


I'll just grant Con's analysis from R2 and move on.


Dropped arguments


Con says he's going to cover a number of other rebuttals in the final round. I'll leave it to the judges on this one, as I understand that he had a lot of arguments to cover, though I will not be able to respond.


Counterplan (CP)


The best he can do with this is slightly improve upon our immigration system to ensure that nations have access to what the government feels they need in terms of skilled labor. This doesn't negate my advantages, only slightly mitigating the impact I get from this group of workers. The only way this outweighs my plan is if he proves the following:


1) More competition from high skilled labor is bad

2) The entry of other skill levels of labor is net harmful


I'll show why neither is true.


  1. More competition from high skilled labor is bad


Con never warrants his argument that increased competition in the skilled labor market will depress wages. The reality is that “there is no consensus among the few studies that have looked specifically at the impact on high-skilled native-born workers of an increase in the supply of comparable foreign-born workers.”[25] Meanwhile, the competition is improving outcomes for consumers and businesses, both by increasing diversity (and all the outcomes from that that Con granted come mainly from skilled labor) and improving the quality of skilled workers in any given setting.


  1. The entry of other skill levels of labor is net harmful


Con splits this argument up into two major points: changes to the job market and wages. He includes 2 others that I'll address separately.


Job market


Con grants that GDP will likely increase, he just contests the amount, though even the lowest estimate is 50%. He states that more evidence is needed, but fails to counter any of the evidence I provided. I think the NBER, the Cato Institute, the EU Commission, and a bevy of economists (my [10, 14, 19, 20 and 21]), not to mention Clemens himself, constitute a substantial body of evidence, whereas Con has solely presented the non-empirical analysis of Borjas, which actually harms his case. We can also look to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that adding 6 million new immigrants to the U.S. job market by 2023 will reduce wages by only 0.1%, after which they would increase by 0.5% with 3 million more workers by 2033.[26] He even concedes that there is no substantial harm to the economy from current immigration, which means his harms are purely theoretical.


When worldwide GDP stands to increase by as much as 150%, it may not increase wages, but it will increase the number of jobs, as Okun's law supports.[27] With access to every labor market instead of just their own nations', the market automatically expands for everyone. With new workers coming into the U.S. increasing demand for various goods and services, and with aging and shrinking populations in most first world nations, the labor market balloons. Con ignores all of this analysis and continues to assert, without any evidence, that U.S. and other first world labor markets will decline. Correlations and overly simplistic analysis are not enough.


Wages


Con's assumptions remain. He is still dramatically underestimating the requirement for low-skilled labor. His non-empirical estimates that don't match the reality. Wages are still better in a system where there is no incentive to work illegally for less than minimum wage.


Con added the unwarranted argument that mid-skill labor is going to come in as well, which isn't supported by current immigration trends.[11] The empirical evidence, however, shows that wages actually increase for this subset of the labor pool in the long term, something even Borjas confirms.[16]


Con has ignored my arguments that opening up labor markets is good because it benefits consumers. That's because it brings quality up and drives prices down,[28] increasing the value of each dollar. Even if wages decrease, costs of living come down as well.


All of Con's analysis regarding changes to wages in this round remain non-empirical. They never analyze labor markets, merely providing the basic supply and demand curves without any regard for different kinds of labor or for regional wage convergence. Without any analysis as to why this policy will lead to a sudden and “substantial excess in the supply of labor” (an excess that may exist now), this is only a theoretical, unproven harm denied by past examples of mass immigration.


Other points


Con's arguments on labor unions focus on correlative comparison without any causal analysis. From his own link: “there's no evidence that immigrants have a lower desire for union representation...Unions have always had the most appeal for those who are most exploited and these are the most exploited workers in the economy.” The speaker mentions that the number of Hispanic immigrants in unions has increased over time.[29] Even undocumented immigrants have shown a great interest in joining unions – that's why labor unions' attitudes towards them have changed.[30]


Onto the responsibility of governments. Con does not respond to my analysis of a government's obligation to citizen business owners and consumers, and barely responds to the obligation to foreign peoples. On the latter, he completely ignores the fact that the U.S. and many other nations signed two international documents stating unequivocally that every human being has this right, which means they have the duty to uphold that right. He makes a bold claim, but Con will have to show how companies offering gainful employment to qualified individuals who are willing to pick up and move to a new country using their own funds without citizenship or support is at all equivalent to a country giving away its wealth.


Now, let's get into the other voting issues.


Justice


I think Con is misunderstanding this contention and its basis, which is that denial of the right to work on the basis of where a human being is born, for any reason, is an unjust practice. All of Con's responses about the reasoning behind it are irrelevant, as no reasoning can justify the decision to engage in an inherently dehumanizing and discriminating practice. The reasoning itself, however, is little better than xenophobia – this idea that foreigners are essentially job thieves is demonizing. The EU's views of the “Polish plumber” as a symbol of their fear of invading cheap labor from Eastern Europe was similarly unfounded and derogatory.[31]


Con tries and derail this argument fallaciously, saying it's “altruism” (a straw man, since every job is being earned, not given away) and claiming that my logic could apply more broadly (a slippery slope and a red herring meant to distract from the case at hand). These are merely obfuscations.


Human decency


I thought it was relatively obvious that the capacity to earn a wage capable of feeding, clothing and housing oneself and one's family was the epitome of human decency, hence the title. Con concedes this point multiple times throughout the debate, allowing that billions of people who currently have limited or no access to a reasonable wage and living conditions will now garner that access. That concession alone is enough reason to vote Pro, as I can't see a single argument by Con that weighs nearly so heavily.


Diversity


My link says quite a bit about foreign labor, including how it's essential for globalization, tapping new markets, and crossing borders. It's not just about gender.


Con says diversity is only beneficial to companies in certain high skill jobs. At best, this is solely mitigation, as access to these business executives is still higher than with either status quo or the CP, thus reducing the incidence of Groupthink, something we both agree is net harmful. At worst, this is a gross oversimplification. Executives aren't the sole driving force behind a company. Managers and workers at every level can reach out to a broader customer base and provide new ideas. Groupthink can affect every level of a company.


Con drops my argument that countries and companies will have to improve employment practices in order to be competitive. This is yet another reason why wages won't decrease, but also a reason why abusive practices like child labor and sweat shops are likely to end sooner in developing nations, as they have incentive to keep their labor force.


Illegal immigration


The harms of illegal immigration are also ameliorated, something Con doesn't address. Not only does this eliminate below minimum wage competition, but it also removes the desire to use smugglers like the Coyotes to get across borders, thus reducing deaths and defunding huge criminal enterprises.


Conclusion


The harms that Con presents, while they may seem reasonable, are often unwarranted and lacking in evidence, and focus too narrowly on the populations he deems most important. The benefits I've presented are all heavily backed with empirical evidence, much of which has been granted or unaddressed by Con, and all showcase large and advantageous impacts to demonstrably bigger populations. Whether we're concerned with job number, wages, discrimination, basic living conditions, diversity, working conditions, GDP, prices, quality, lives lost, or criminal organizations, my arguments establish a distinct and well-proven benefit to increased labor immigration. It is for all these reasons that I urge a vote for Pro.

25. http://www.au.af.mil...

26. http://www.cbo.gov...

27. http://www.investopedia.com...

28. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

29. http://cis.org...

30. http://www.newrepublic.com...

31. http://www.german-times.com...

phantom

Con

I’d like to thank whiteflame for a stimulating debate, and the judges for taking the time to read this.

BoP

Conceded

Dropped arguments

I hope the judges grant that it was virtually impossible to respond to two rounds in one.

Pro’s case

Justice

I would not consider immigrants job thieves and would have nothing at all against them. I simply find it unwise to give unrestricted labor access to foreigners, and don’t think a country is obligated to help foreigners at great expense to its own citizens. This does not resemble xenophobia in any way.

I don’t know why Pro would deny the term “altruism” given his argument focuses solely on giving people their ‘fundamental rights’ and nothing about self-benefit. It still stands that self-interest is an inherent part of individuals’ moral obligations which is why no one is obligated to make everyone else as well off as she is. Justice does not require us to forgo national security and a sound labor force, just as justice does not require individuals to open their homes to the homeless. It also stands that governments are primarily obligated to their own citizens.

Slippert slope fallacy doesn't make any sense as I’m not arguing what would happen down the road. I'm just exposing the infeasibility of the axiom “those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination”. It would follow necessarily that we are obligated to open borders completely, not only in the labor force. Some people are better suited in their pursuit of their own well-being. It’s a fact of life that those aspects innate to us will be used against us. If Pro’s moral principle is detatched from reality, it can’t be used as a basis for his case.

Human decency

Pro's saying it’s the decent thing to do is to let them have this opportunity, but he never made the connection last round and stating only that its obvious is not an argument as it oversimplifies a complicated matter.

In regards to what I’ve conceded, I have conceded that a large number of people would benefit from coming here, which is why we let many people immigrate. It’s decency to not completely close our borders. But there is no obligation to completely open our work borders and doing so would itself lessen the value of coming here due to after-effects.

Pro never justifies his claim that billions of people would gain access to a reasonable conditions. He would have to demonstrate billions of job offers that would open up, which seems very doubtful. Why would countries have this massive number of jobs waiting to be filled? True, billions of people would enter into the labor force, but only a small portion would get jobs. If billions did get jobs then those at home would suffer greatly.

Diversity

I never stated diversity was just about gender. I was simply stating that a big part of the article is about gender which has no relevance to this debate.

I didn’t say diversity is only beneficial to companies in certain skill jobs or executives. I stated this only applies to jobs with a good deal of collaboration, which is not your average job. Pro ignores this.

Translation, diplomatic, and foreign relations work are forms of specialized labor and are some of the best examples of what controlled borders should aim for. There’s no reason we need open borders to gain access to these people.

Groupthink just seems like a rather weak argument, especially given the fact that diversity only helps a select portion of jobs and the U.S. is already growing substantially in racial and ethnic diversity, in part because of immigration.[1] In fact "by the end of this decade, according to Census Bureau projections...no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of children under 18. And in about three decades, no single group will constitute a majority of the country as a whole."[2]

We're already getting much more diverse, but either way it’s a weak point.

Con’s case

Job market and wage

All I have to do to prove this contention is take the basic economic principle that increased competition for wage in the same levels of the market lower wages, and prove that this competition would exist. If immigrants start competing for wages with natives, then wages (and benefits) will go down. The only reason they wouldn’t is if the immigrants are complimenting wages. But this wouldn’t happen.

Pro’s statement is false that the lowest GDP estimate is 50%. The quote clearly states estimates are only “often in the range”, meaning other estimates are lower. Pro doesn’t seem to understand what I’m arguing. I’m agreeing that GDP and the job market would likely increase. I’m merely mitigating the claims on account of Clemens--Pro’s main source--stating that studies in this area are rare and obscure, that traditional studies suffer from a flawed agenda, and that the four points that he uses to set a new agenda "need much more evidence than we have".

Also, GDP is an incomplete picture. “When we think about well-being, we can't just think about wealth. That's one of the things we've learned from the Gallup World Poll -- how important many other elements are to a person's satisfaction with his life.”[3]

The labor graph is not oversimplified as Pro says. It’s not meant to cover the entire market but only competitive markets. In competitive markets, increased labor drives down wage and upsets the equilibrium. We’re not only talking about low skilled workers as well. “There are also tens of millions of potentially highly educated workers in the developing world who are willing to work for much lower pay than their counterparts in the United States. For example, while the average doctor in the United States gets close to $250,000 a year, there would be no shortage of doctors in India, Mexico, China and elsewhere who would be happy to train to U.S. standards and work for half this wage. The same would be true of lawyers, dentists, economists and all the other highly paid professions."[4] In Britain mass immigration has driven down wages of the low paid.[9]

Governments' obligations to their citizens

Pro never really contends this. All he says is that we have international obligations as well, which I admitted. Governments, mayors, and presidents have duties primarily to their constituents. You wouldn’t see a governor using funds to build up cities in other states and you don’t see governments prioritizing foreigners on the same level as its own citizens.

The U.S. makes up less than 5 percent of the global population yet about 20 percent of all international migrants live here[5] We let in a million immigrants each year. Germany comes closest with only 600,000.[6] Since the U.S. lets in many immigrants in comparison to other countries and since my stance is pro immigration, I find it radical to call it protectionist.

Since it would harm citizens, governments have a duty not to implement open work borders.

Rights

Dropped to conserve space

Who would benefit

Income inequality (even in rich countries) can dangerously influence, innovation, well-being, GDP, and the influence of money in politics. Angus Deaton says that inequality in the U.S. can be attributed partially to globalization and technological growth, which has made manufacturing workers in the U.S. have to compete with cheaper labor elsewhere.[7]

“The simple story is that we have hundreds of millions of people in developing countries who are prepared to work for a fraction of the wages of our manufacturing workers. This has caused us to lose millions of manufacturing jobs, depressing the wages of both the remaining workers in the sector and the workers in other sectors who must compete with displaced manufacturing workers.”[8]

A report on the effects of mass immigration in Britain stated “The impacts of migrants on average wages.. tended to be positive at the top of the wage distribution and negative at the bottom.”[9]

Easier to live here illegally

Pro's answer to this problem is quite unsatisfactory. All he says is that it's better than the status quo, which is false. If a foreigner doesn't have work, it would be illegal for him to live here, so once they get laid off, they would be legally bound to leave the country. Should we just expect them to oblige? It would be extremely easy to just slip out of sight once they lost their job. Moreover, the efforts in making sure those without a job go back to their country would be too costly and complicated. They could disappear before the government even realized they had to go back. Pro doesn’t even give us a picture on how this would work.

National security

Pro’s answer is again unsatisfactory. If terrorists can already board planes to the U.S. as with 9/11, it would be alarmingly easy to do so now. All that’s necessary would be an employer sympathetic to their cause on this side. National security couldn’t deal with this. All Pro says is that we can look at their records, but this wrongly assumes that all potential threats have records that would expose them as potential threats.

Conclusion

Open working borders would be unwise to implement. Controlled borders allow us to more prudently open up parts of the labor force that are most in need of workers and to not flood the market and drive wages down. Government is obligated first and foremost to its own citizens meaning it has a duty to not open work borders. Immigration currently is beneficial but only because its effects on wages are complimentary. Wage competition would not be complimentary with open work borders as we would have an enormous amount of competition for wage and excess labor.

I implore a Con vote.

Sources

[1] http://fas.org...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com...

[3] http://businessjournal.gallup.com...

[4] http://goo.gl...

[5] http://goo.gl...

[6] http://goo.gl...

[7] http://businessjournal.gallup.com...

[8] http://goo.gl...

[9] http://goo.gl...


Debate Round No. 4
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Thanks, phantom!

Congrats to both of you on a well-done debate! Whiteflame, I look forward to our upcoming debate!
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
I concur with whiteflame's statements. Thanks a ton to everyone who voted.

And thanks especially to whiteflame. One of my favorite debates as well, and I wish you luck in the final round of the tourney (though I wish bsh luck as well).
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
One last thanks to everyone who voted, I appreciated all your input, effort and praise.

And thank you to phantom for what was certainly one of the best debates I've had on this site since I started here. It was a pleasure.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Conduct, S&G, Sources - Tied. Neither side gave rise to award or negate points from one or another in either of these categories. Arguments - Pro. In the opening round, I felt that a few of Pro's arguments were nothing more than emotional appeals which did nothing for me in this debate. Con's opening round was very strong and he provided several cases where allowing open "work" borders would be detrimental to several aspects of the economy and well-being of the natural citizens which in his case was primarily Americans.

It wasn't until R3 that Pro started shining with his solid rebuttal to the job market & wage point in which he re-iterated that, on a world-wide scale, allowing immigrants the right to work in other countries would be a benefit for consumers and business owners alike as the demand for goods and services increase. Another solid win for Pro in that round was the EU case in which he showed via empirical evidence that allowing immigrants to work across borders proved beneficial. In fairness, I will say that the rebuttal to the 'Living here illegally' point was lacking in explanation, and was probably the only solid point for Con that I would grant in this round. I would also go so far as to agree with Con's point that this wouldn't alter the onus of the government as a little naive. So while Con did make a few strong points, it was Pro that controlled this round.

In regards to Con, I didn't like how often he conceded points in his 3rd round. Overall I counted 4 concessions in that round alone. While I do understand that it is tough fitting two rounds worth of rebuttals into one round, I must automatically grant those points to Pro due to the concessions.

What sealed the deal was when, in the final round, Pro again re-iterates the numerous professionals and organizations that agree with his own findings. Going so far as to point out how Con's own sources failed to counter-balance the empirical evidence. For these reasons, Pro takes arguments.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I appreciate the vote, the RFD, and the praise. Much as we disagree on the substance of certain arguments, I can understand why you'd see them that way. Thanks, blade!
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 0/2:

Oh, and I also felt that there were sufficient sources from both sides for them to make their cases, and they were reliable enough. Conduct was fine from both sides, which is perfectly expected from ones of their caliber, and S&G didn't warrant scoring.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/2:

An amazing debate from both sides!

Obviously Pro had BoP. I didn't agree with the idea that, if both sides failed, it should be tied--Pro had, as far as I can see, the full presumptive BoP. He even conceded it in R1, when he said it fell "mainly" on him. As a policy debate, there was some burden of defense on Con as well, so I'm not entirely sure I'm even disagreeing here.

Pro advocated an erasure of borders for workers. His initial claim that it "puts no new onus on governments" seemed rather naive.

Pro argues that citizenship is like sex--that is, an inherent aspect to a person. On its face, I find that rather ridiculous--Con isn't advocating for a completely closed border, nor is that the status quo. Some element of "luck" is involved, to be sure, but Pro's analogy seems to fail. Pro wants to argue by assertion for equality of opportunity in regards to jobs, regardless of national border. On its face, though, that argument begs expansion to *all* types of borders, which is an expansion of Pro's case--but seems rather part-and-parcel of it. Pro's argument is that it somehow is dehumanizing to enforce border rules.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/2:

Again, this expansive sort of rhetoric leads to the complete abolishment of all borders--a point that Pro is *not* supporting, but that he must recognize as a natural consequence. That Con brings it up is a big blow to Pro's case. As Con says, it's too simplistic, and his presumption that removing border rules for work would mean *less* problems for the government seems naive.

In the end I just don't think that Pro overcame the objections from Con regarding the obligation of government to its own citizens, or on the nature of wage suppression, given that the lower-skilled foreign workers, per Con's argument, lower wages. Con's system (which isn't really all that far off the status quo) seems to strike the best balance between the competing interests of expanding opportunity while protecting citizens. I also think that the major arguments in favor of Pro's position, if accepted, would lead inexorably to a "borderless" world--and if he wanted to argue for THAT, he should have from the beginning, because it's a pretty big argument to make. And, if as Con suggests, Pro does NOT support that borderless world, his own arguments seem contradictory.

Arguments to Con, but an excellent debate--I'd read debates between these two all week.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Thanks for voting, Wylted.
Posted by Ajabi 3 years ago
Ajabi
I would vote on this but I think I dont know enough about this topic. I seem to sometimes favor whiteflame, at other times phantom.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
whiteflamephantomTied
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. Excellent job to both of you, this was a wonderful debate and a pleasure to read. My best wishes to both participants in all their future debates.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
whiteflamephantomTied
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 Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
whiteflamephantomTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed a net benefit to the world as a whole for implementing these policies, which con seemed to agree with. The arguments that specific seemed to show some minor disadvantages to these policies, but with everything taken into account. Pro made a very good case that showed that not only would these policies be a net benefit, but significantly so.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
whiteflamephantomTied
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: Con could have won by the greatest technicality possible, and I still almost gave it to him, if he had only called it out. In R3, Pro said that people with records could still be barred. This is in direct violation of the resolution that says "no laws preventing." All Com had to do was call it out. Apart from that slip up, Pro ran away with this. The resolution never specified just the USA so when con argued the harms to US workers, but pro showed a net positive for the World workers, that goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by distraff 3 years ago
distraff
whiteflamephantomTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate and very well done. Pro's point that the cost of living would go down was good. His moral arguments were refuted. His sources about increased world GDP and small GDP reduction for the united states were good. Con's arguments that this ignores income inequality was weak because no statistics were provided, and he only explained the harm of this equality in the last round. Overall I give this to Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
whiteflamephantomTied
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 see comments.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
whiteflamephantomTied
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
whiteflamephantomTied
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: comments
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
whiteflamephantomTied
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: comments