The Instigator
dasamster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheistassociate
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

You Choose the Topic...

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...
Atheistassociate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 775 times Debate No: 11984
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dasamster

Pro

Hello. I am pro for the below resolves. The Neg in Round 1 will simply CHOOSE the argument and the actual debating will start in ROUND 2.

Resolutions:
(1) The recent immigration law in Arizona shall be made Federal.

(2) US Fed. Gov't should make it illegal for bartenders to serve alcohol to already intoxicated consumers.

Note: Any arguments made in round 1 (which there shouldn't be) will be considered null and void.
Atheistassociate

Con

Thanks for having this debate. I'll choose resolution 1 : The recent immigration law in Arizona shall be made Federal.
I look forward to round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
dasamster

Pro

dasamster forfeited this round.
Atheistassociate

Con

Since Pro has forfeited round 2, I will start this debate off. First off a few clarifications.

Recent Arizona immigration law: I assume you mean the Arizona bill #1070
Shall:
1.plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2.will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3.(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
4.(used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go?

Do you mean that the government is going to enact a similar bill on the federal level or that it is imperative/urgent that they do so? In this round I will speak on the first part that the government is going to enact a similar law sometime on the federal level in the foreseeable future and if you meant the second one than tell me and I'll discuss it in the third round.

Seeing as you are making the claim I would have have liked to hear your argument first. OH Well.

The US Federal government would not be able to pass a bill of this nature into law for a plethora of reasons.

1. With a trend of more legal Latino Immigrants entering the country they will become a larger part of the voting block which means they will have a greater influence in later elections and on later government policies. They would oppose a bill such as this federally because it would promote discriminatory behavior and will be perceived as such.

2. Many people who socially lean to the liberal side of the political spectrum who believe this is discriminatory would also not support candidates who would vote for this law which would also reduce the likelihood of having this bill passed.

3. Based on the reaction of some of our trading partners with this new law in Arizona it would be safe to say that the reaction of many countries to this policy would range from boycotts of US products, protests, discontent and warnings about travel to the USA to some States cutting many agreements and placing trade embargoes against the us. This perceived reaction would create another reason for the US not to implement a similar law.

4. This law will not be passed while the Obama administration is still in office because Obama got much of his support from the Latino population and by signing such a bill would alienate them. The congress is in such disarray that there would be no way for them to come to an agreement on any immigration bill, especially not one like Arizona's.

5. It probably won't be happening in the near future because of our distractions of multiple disasters (Oil Spills, Massive Floods) and of other agendas such as clean energy, financial reform, health care and foreign relations.

So it seems that unless a large change in opinion occurs, I see little possibility for a law on immigration such as the one in Arizona to happen on the federal level.

I look forward to the response.

http://www.azleg.gov...
http://www.dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.llanj.org...
http://www.census.gov... (5th comparison Table)
Debate Round No. 2
dasamster

Pro

dasamster forfeited this round.
Atheistassociate

Con

I extend my previous argument.
Debate Round No. 3
dasamster

Pro

dasamster forfeited this round.
Atheistassociate

Con

Since my opponents account is no long active I don't think he will be answering in the last round. Since he didn't even reply to my argument vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
Atheistassociate said: With a trend of more legal Latino Immigrants entering the country they will become a larger part of the voting block which means they will have a greater influence in later elections and on later government policies. They would oppose a bill such as this federally because it would promote discriminatory behavior

I say: BINGO. Also, the ACLU is taking steps to undo the new immigration law in Arizona.
Posted by Atheistassociate 7 years ago
Atheistassociate
Opps, my mistake I thought there was one more round before the voting.
Posted by Atheistassociate 7 years ago
Atheistassociate
Are you going to respond to my arguement?
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
You shouldn't do absolute statements.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 7 years ago
Atheistassociate
dasamsterAtheistassociateTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06