if illegal immigration causes job losses, so does free trade
Debate Rounds (3)
First, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Disadvantage
(Side-note: a "Disadvantage" is an argument that tries to show that something the pro is saying leads to something bad.)
First, TPP is about to get implemented by US Congress. However, Obama's influence (via the usage of "political capital" is key, particularly because the mass majority of Congress is REPUBLICANS, who as we all know, hate Obama. 
Second, Obama's attempts at making immigration reform (along with attempting to show to conservative Republicans that illegal immigration won't cause jobs) will drain Obama's PC with Republicans, in other words make Republicans hate Obama. This is in many ways happening in the status quo already.
Third, a lack of TPP means it won't pass under Congress. Given TPP is an international partnership, the fact the US (one of the primary advocates of it) can't pass it will make it look like a hypocrite in the primary economy it's trying to woo, ie. Asia, (Or as Obama calls it, the "Asia Pivot"). This will also unseat US as one of the leaders of the world economy, causing turmoil everywhere. 
Fourth, This turmoil incites nuclear war among the nations through miscalculation. 
There is one critical flaw in this case: the pro has not conjured up any evidence that demonstrates that free trade is even remotely similar to illegal immigration. In other words, trying to put free trade and illegal immigration together is like comparing apples to oranges.
Second, the pro has not given any evidence either way that illegal immigration and/or free trade causes job loss. Even if this is the first speech, the pro should have at least given some opening statements after the rules (which were also nonexistent)
Since the pro has not bothered to give evidence, I will. First, on illegal immigration. It's presumed that any body that can cause widespread job loss would be a big body. That is not true. Illegal immigrants make up less than HALF the workforce, specifically 10 PERCENT of the workforce.  And keep in mind, those jobs won't be any recognizable, high-up jobs. These will be the dirty-down jobs, those people don't even know (and are happy to not know) exist, due to our system of oppressing the poor even more than they already are.
Second, on free trade. There's actually no evidence (yet) of the correlation between free trade and job loss, primarily because there are no major developments (yet) regarding free trade. The very first test will be the implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement linking 11 nations in a free-trade system. This is one of the first of its kind, and given this is a first, any claims free trade cause job loss is merely speculation, and cannot be declared fact (As of yet)
3)(Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
i waas hoping someone would argue me who beleives immigration is bad for jobs but trade is good for jobs.
i dont see the relevance of con's talk about TPP. \
con says i haven't shown how immigration and free trade are similar. but i hvae, in both cases someone else has the job. and ive shown immigration causes job loss just by the fact that the immigrant has a job while plenty of americans have none that owuld take the job.
con says immigration accounts for like ten percent of jobs. still, these are job that could go to americans. and the wages would probably go up with fewer workers willing to work for cheap if it was just americans vying for the job.
i dont know what con is talking about per no developments regarding free trade. we have NAFTA and generally are considered a free trade country. when a company closes shop and moves to mexico or whatever, the most initial impression is american's lost jobs. there might be arguments that the savings cause more jobs, but this is up for debate. in any case, con's assertion that there isn't anything yet to argue about is wrong.
con's points mostly seem like jibber jabber.
First, DA outweighs case. DA outweighs on probability, as this was not contested. Similarly, DA outweighs on magnitude, as nuclear war was not contested. Lastly, DA outweighs on timeframe, since there is a given timeframe (it's hinted at), whereas there isn't even a timeframe in the pro's case.
The only thing the pro contests about the TPP Disad is that the link isn't clear. Yes, it is. The link is that Obama's attempts to pass immigration reform (along with convincing conservatives that it won't cause jobs (this phrase was said in the pro's first speech, thus yes link)), but he will have to use lots of Political Capital to do so, thus having an insuff amount for TPP. Aside from that, the pro has not contested any other part of the DA-- uniqueness, internal link, and impact.
First, the pro's advocacy was slightly unclear to me, given that the pro questions if immigration causes job loss, while the pro questions the conservatives' claims that job loss does. This would explain why my points appeared to the pro to be unoriented, because the pro's arguments were just as unoriented. This also answers the last point.
Second, the pro claims that he has shown immigration and free trade are similar. This is blatantly not true, primarily because there is no evidence to back up this "correlation." He uses mere analytics to back up his claim, analytics which are also illogically used.
Third, the pro contests how immigrants have 10% of jobs, citing that those jobs could go to Americans. First, keep in mind these jobs aren't exclusive to illegal immigrants; Americans also take this role. Second, keep in mind this particular job market is completely insignificant next to the rest of America's job market, which is barred to Americans. Third, the pro tries to claim that wages would probably go up if Americans in particular were vying for the job. This is not true at all, particularly because the pro ignores that if Americans were vying for these jobs, they are just as desperate as illegal immigrants are, so wages would not change.
Fourth, the con claims I said there were no developments of free trade at all. I never said that. I said there were no developments of the IMPACT of free trade on job loss, and I cited an article which says the exact same thing. Even if NAFTA is in place, it's not enough to judge based on it alone the correlation of free trade and job loss. NAFTA is merely an agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico.  A free trade agreement that can truly be used to determine the correlation is one that involves countries from all around the world, one big example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which incidentally is the topic of my Disadvantage). Next, the pro tries to use an analytic to justify his claim, but this analytic has nothing to do with the topic, as it doesn't have to do with trade; it has to do with job loss. Lastly, for the con to claim this argument is completely "wrong" is unwarranted, considering he uses analytic to back up his arguments, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, whereas I used citations from theGuardian. Not only is the con claiming I am wrong, he is claiming theGuardian is wrong. This he does, despite theGuardian being so many times more experienced than he. Clearly, the pro is in the wrong.
Lastly, the pro claims most of my arguments are jibber jabber, but that's because his own arguments were just as messy, unwarranted, and unaccredited (more on that in my first point on case)
im not gonna try to wade through all that jibber jabber. con has a hard time being coherent.
Ultimately, the pro tries to go for this "incoherent" argument, but he concedes everything else in the process. Not only does he kill his case, he concedes everything about the Disad. Thus the Disad outweighs the case, the case is dead. Vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro in the following statement: "im not gonna try to wade through all that jibber jabber"
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.