Instigator / Con
4
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#1058

Admitting Refugees

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
0

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Description

--Overview--

This debate will last 5 rounds, with 3 days for each debater to post for each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debater for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO of 1,500 to accept, and I would prefer someone who has completed at least one debate on the site as an opponent. I am taking the Con position.

--Topic--

Developed nations have a moral obligation to admit people fleeing oppression.

--Definitions--

Developed Nation - any nation classified as an advanced economy by the IMF
Morality - conformity to ideals of right human conduct
Obligation - something one is bound to do
Admit - to allow entry to
Oppression - the action of keeping down by severe and unjust use of force or authority

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation or rejection of any of these rules or of any of the description's set-up (including definitions), merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R5. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

-->
@bsh1
@Alec

I saved your google doc to web archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190831010837/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit

Now, even if the original gets modified and/or deleted, the saved copy will be preserved.

I noticed that, in the debate, bsh1 said, and I quote, "Pro's google doc (which I am wary of citing since it can be edited by Pro)"

I would like to let bsh1 know that, when a google doc is saved to web archive, even if Pro (or anyone for that matter) DID edit it later, the original one would be preserved on web archive. So maybe next time, when people are citing google docs as sources in any future debate, they could create a web archive version of that google doc and cite THAT ARCHIVED COPY instead of the original google doc itself, since you can't edit an archive, and thus you don't need to worry about it being edited, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Web archive is also a great tool for people who wish to cite sites such as 4chan, 8chan, twitter, reddit, and facebook in their debates, since those sites tend to delete tweets/posts after a certain amount of time passes or for some other reason, and it could be helpful to preserve sites that tend to get edited or deleted.

Previously, there was a bug/glitch which was preventing web archive from saving and preserving google docs (you could get like a 404 error or something when you tried to do so) but this brand new beta version can do it: https://web.archive.org/save
Plus it has the option to "Save outlinks" and "Save error pages (HTTP Status=4xx, 5xx)"

Web archive is straight-forward and easy to learn and use. You simply copy and paste whatever you want to be preserved and click the SAVE PAGE button. Millions of people use it to preserve things that they fear could get modified or deleted.

-->
@Tejretics

Oh, I think the answer is absolutely "yes." We should admit people fleeing oppression.

-->
@bsh1

Just curious, what’s your personal position on this issue?

I think your case is very good, to be clear, and your overviews are very strategic and well done.

-->
@Alec

Keep an eye on your time.

-->
@bsh1

It's harder for me to respond for multiple reasons; like Wifi problems and general tiredness. After the current debates I'm doing, I'm considering taking a break from DART.

-->
@Alec

I would post sooner rather than later, lest it slip your mind again.

Why are the responses harder?

-->
@bsh1

I have noticed that it is harder to post arguments then before so this causes procrastination. Sorry.

-->
@Alec

Don't forget to post your reply (we only have two rounds until the end, so we've almost made it).

-->
@bsh1

I don't feel like the position you are taking now has to necessarily contradict your stance of migration being a human right (for the most part). Being able to leave a country or move around in a country is a lot different from forcing a different country to take you in and, in America's case, we often have to provide social services. You can't force a country to allow a public charge, but it should let people leave if they want.

-->
@bsh1

I hope I'll get to it. It's for some reason harder to debate now. I could see why most people take breaks.

-->
@Alec

Please post your argument before time expires. You've got like 10 hrs. left.

-->
@Alec

Just because I am debating for something does not mean it is my actual position. I am taking, in this debate, a position with which I personally disagree.

-->
@bsh1

As a liberal who previously said that migration is a human right, I'm surprised your taking the side your taking. Did you change your mind on immigration?

My position is that western governments shouldn't outright reject immigration, but should have the immigrants follow a pathway to citizenship. In other words, they should come here legally.

Posted.

-->
@Alec

As a conservative in this day and age, I am surprised to see you on the Pro side.

-->
@bsh1

I want to accept this, but pare down on the rules.