Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
RFD for (Tate.V) VS (dj123w1) IMMIGRATION
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 2:01:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
This is an RFD for this debate:
Tate.V (Pro) *VS* dj123w1 (Con)
Immigration Ought To Be Recognized As A Human Right
1. With true liberty, immigration would be a right, justice for all means justice should be impartial, and biases being neutralized allows for fairness to all.
*Con never addresses justice in this sense or biases or fairness, and it all seems relevant to the resolution and it all seems to affirm the resolution.
2. Countries not in turmoil have a duty to assist burdened societies like N. Ireland or Nicaragua who have had civil wars and people trying to flee.
*Con drops this, and again a very relevant affirmation of the resolution that makes sense and convinces me that as a stable nation we should help those less fortunate burdened immigrants.
3. immigration freedom is just as important as religious freedom for the same reasons.
*Con doesn't contend with this at all, it impacts the ought part of the resolution, it seems reasonable and Con gives me no reason to think otherwise.
4. immigration of oppressed immigrants as a right secures the liberty of the immigrant.
*Con never addresses oppressed immigrants' rights or the securing of liberty and again the ought is very impacted by these persuasive points about human liberties which immigrants should have and which Con gives me no reason to think otherwise..
5. equal opportunity for immigrants is ensured with immigration as a right, which is assessed by an immigrant's actual talents and effort, and not on the basis of birth-related characteristics such as class, race, or gender.
*Con agrees with this and concedes that immigrants seeking opportunity here betters the country, and I basically could just vote Pro here, because if Con agrees that immigrants' opportunity betters the country, and Con never challenged that this would be ensured by immigration rights, I'm left buying that immigration rights OUGHT to be a human right, on the benefits alone.
6. all humans are of equal moral worth so what separates them is their relevant talents, which can only be found if immigration is a right.
*Con never addresses that immigration is the only way to find relevant talents of people from other lands...it seems reasonable to me that if we allow people from other lands into our country we would be more likely to find those people's relevant talents, and this would greatly be increased if immigration were simply a human right.
This was a massive drop by Con.
7. opportunities are in specific places so people should have the right to go to those specific places in their pursuit of opportunity/religious comradery.
*The only thing Con really brought up with this was terror and security, but again, because Con concedes the immigrant opportunity = better for our country idea, the terror and security argument is not enough to tip the scales here and Con already dropped how religious freedoms and immigration freedoms mirror each other so, Con doesn't ever address religious people seeking out other members of their religion that they may not be able to find in their country, which could be done if we recognized immigration as a human right.
8. excluding immigrants = poverty, poor education, limited political freedom, and often disease and/or violence for many who would otherwise come to flourish
*Con dropped it like it was hot.
1. criminals immigrate too.
*Pro claims the benefit of immigration via Rawl's justice reduces harms from criminals, but he never really makes that direct link, and it was rather unclear as to what he meant by unconditional, so I'm willing to give a little to Con here.
2. Edward snowden is an example of how a criminal can just seek asylum anywhere free from being charged, and this hurt families.
*Pro made a good case for snowden =/= criminal and Con agreed with it
*Pro didn't address the hurt families, but he didn't have to b/c Con then later said the odds that families were hurt was 50/50, so this mitigated the family harm claim's impact.
3. it's risky to make immigration a human right because imagine the snowden thing happening here only with weapons and drugs and human trafficking.
*Pro responds that snowden = asylee =/= immigrant so it's an incongruous case against immigration and Con concedes, at least Con keeps saying that he cannot oppose something bout snowden, it's not really clear, and con said "Edward Snowden absolutely did have a very justifiable reason" so this really mitigates Con's case here, even if it is irrelevant to the resolution.
4. immigration is a security risk, terrorist come in, country is compromised
*Pro didn't really challenge this, instead admits that there may be security risks, and just kind of asserts that Rawl's justice would reduce those harms because immigration isn't unconditional, but I didn't really get that direct link that unconditional means rejecting criminals, I wish Pro could have expanded here more, and Con gained some needed ground here.
5. immigrants caused the great depression in the 30's, that's what we can expect now because we cannot support that many people coming in economically.
*Pro mentions that data shows immigrants actually boost the economy by taking unwanted jobs and Con concedes that immigrants make the country better, which not only mitigates the great depression claim, it also heavily impacts the resolution on whether or not immigration should be a right, especially if both sides of the debate concede that it helps the country.
Con brings up China's overcrowding to bolster the immigrants = stock market crash oops Con really means, infrastructure problem, but Pro's response is beautiful, in that China's overcrowding is actually a result of the Chinese themselves, not immigrants, so infrastructure is a problem immigrants or not.
This is pretty clear.
Pro gave a lot of uncontested, relevant, impacting on the resolution, factually and emotionally persuasive reasons for why I should consider immigration a human right, and the ones that were contested were either directly or indirectly conceded by Con over and over again with the phrase "I cannot oppose that" and simply conceding so many points that mitigated his claims ESPECIALLY the immigrants = better country.
Focus only on arguments relevant to the debate, because it took up more of your characters with all that 4th amendment-->snowden was right garbage...it didn't help either side.
Pro, you don't need to concede points, simply because you agree, instead try to limit things like "I admit there are security problems" and instead say things like "Security for immigration can be improved whether or not we see immigration as a human right" that way you give a little less to your opponent.
Otherwise you had a great affirmative case.
You buried yourself here.
You conceded so many points, particularly that immigration is good for the country, that you could not battle back from it.
Try not to concede points directly impacting the resolution, actually, try not to concede anything at all, and especially don;t ever say "I cannot oppose that" in a debate where you're the Con position!
Given the drops and concessions by Con, arguments to Pro.
Both sides used sources that supported their cases, so I feel they are tied.
We can't vote on conduct or S&G, so I didn't.
Vote Pro, and this was an RFD from the Voter's Union.