Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

Puerto Rico should become a state of the United States of America

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
PoliceSheep
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 3
Description
Puerto Rico should become a state of the United States of America.
Round 1
Published:
Motion: Puerto Rico should become a state of the United States of America

Preamble

I am proud to take the PRO position for this debate and I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to CON's arguments.

Burdon of Proof:

PRO has the burden of proof to provide evidence that Puerto Rico should become the 51st state of the United States of America and CON has the burden to either this prove my evidence and claims or to give evidence and reason often as to why Puerto Rico should not be a state or both. 

Definitions

Puerto Rico an unincorporated territory of the United States located in the northeast Caribbean Sea, approximately 1,000 miles (1,600 km) southeast of Miami, Florida. [1]

become a state of the United States of America is defined as to be admitted into the Union under Article 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution [2] with 
all necessary amendments to the Constitution and the unanimous consent of all other existing states to allow this as required to make Puerto Rico a co-equal state of the United States of America. [3]

Congressional Representatives

In its current position, Puerto Rico lacks full congressional representation with them having a non-voting 'resident commissioner' in the House of Representatives and absolutely no senate representation. [4] The resident commissioner has absolutely no rights with them turning up and speaking being the maximum they are allowed to do.

This is taking away the rights of 3.68 million Americans to their votes in Congress. Puerto Rico has a population higher than that of 22 of the 50 current states, so a lack of people is no excuse for this undemocratic system. [5]  It also has a higher GDP than 14 other states. [6]

Presidential Elections
As Puerto Rico is not a state, it does not have any electoral votes meaning citizens cannot vote for their President, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief who will be responsible for their defence. This is an appealing state of affairs when US citizens (as they were made under the Jones–Shafroth Act 1917 [7]) are deprived of their most basic right - the right to vote.

Conclusion
It is a disgrace that the USA could not give franchise and the true rights Puerto Rico deserves. I urge you all to stand in solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico and vote PRO!

Published:
Sorry for the late response.

Adding Puerto Rico as the 51st state wouldn't be a good idea and for many reasons. The US is already in shambles as of 2019 thanks to an unethical and biased government. Even though Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory, history gives the perfect examples to why it shouldn't become the 51st state. 

Case in Point: Just look at how the US treated PR after a category 5 hurricane (Maria) hit the island a few years ago. The US basically left them for dead so to speak despite the fact that government aid could've been sent immediately after the storm passed. If I'm not mistaken, hurricane Irma hit PR the same year and the island got the same bad results from dealing with the US.

With all of that aside, the US has funded a forced sterilization program among the women of Puerto Rico many decades ago. The keyword to remember is (Forced).

It all comes down to greed & dominance. The US would love to have full control over the island's natural resources. This point has been made many different times throughout the world when dealing with western occupiers. 

In other words, none of the countries of the western occupiers could survive without the Caribbean countries or African continent and there's a ton of proof to back my claim......From a political, ethical, moral or capitalistic standpoint...the US should leave Puerto Rico alone.
Round 2
Published:
Thank you for you're response - however, I do believe you have assisted my case more than opposed it!

Anyway, let's get into the rebuttals.

Support after hurricanes

Just look at how the US treated PR after a category 5 hurricane (Maria) hit the island a few years ago. The US basically left them for dead so to speak despite the fact that government aid could've been sent immediately after the storm passed. If I'm not mistaken, hurricane Irma hit PR the same year and the island got the same bad results from dealing with the US.
The US did indeed abandon PR. Why? Because they don't have a vote in Presidential elections. Trump didn't care about them because he didn't need to get their vote. Becoming a state would change this.

Forced Sterilisation
US has funded a forced sterilization program among the women of Puerto Rico many decades ago
This finished in the 1970s, and I fail to see why that should prohibit statehood. [8] Even if relevant, the same argument would apply. If PR had voting representitives, they could elect those who would vote down these measures.

Resources
It all comes down to greed & dominance. The US would love to have full control over the island's natural resources. This point has been made many different times throughout the world when dealing with western occupiers. 
Legally, the US already has full control over the island's natural resources, therefore this is not a credible point. [1]

Sources
Published:
My opponent's actual statements proves exactly why PR shouldn't become the 51st state. Your Alt-Right way of thinking is downright ridiculous.

Yes, you can laugh and make light of PR's situation but it's the white race who's on borrowed time and we all are aware of it. Opioids, suicide, white-on-white crime, basic illnesses and simple dog licks are eradicating you by the thousands. 

This discussion was pointless, but just know that you are in your heaven right now so you better enjoy it because there isn't anything after this...Peace!

Source: Reality
Added:
--> @Alec
Are you even aware that you just agreed with what I've been saying?
Hispanic is an ethnic group that share Spanish/African/Indian culture. Spaniard is basically a Caucasian from Europe..
PR was colonized by Spain and the people tend to (Identify) with the colonizer's culture.
Contender
#30
Added:
--> @mairj23
Spaniard is one type of Hispanic. Native Spaniards are also white. It´s possible to be all white and all hispanic.
#29
Added:
--> @Alec
George Zimmerman is clearly Hispanic but he identifies as white.
You clearly don't understand ethnicities because a Spaniard and a Hispanic are not the same.
Contender
#28
Added:
--> @mairj23
White Hispanics are still Hispanics, so most puerto ricans are white.
#27
Added:
--> @Alec
Most of PR's population isn't white. They have the option to self identify as white on the census.
Contender
#26
Added:
--> @mairj23
Since most of PR´s population is white, even whiter than the US, how could Trump not giving them funds be a racist act?
#25
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
We should be giving PR more money though. They needed $90 billion and they got half that. Any state would have gotten more if they were in that situation. Gotta be consistent.
#24
Added:
--> @mairj23
In a debate about an island's statehood, you still tried to demonize whitey. Shame on you.
#23
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Definition: A prepositional phrase is a group of words that (lacks either a verb or a subject), and that functions as a unified part of speech.
As I stated earlier, the word "comments" was never the subject to begin with.
Contender
#22
Added:
--> @mairj23
They have different prepositional phrases, so they are not the same sentence.
#21
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Original sentence: "99.9% of these comments is pure nonsense." 2nd sentence: "99.9% of the comments is an ideal number."
The same sentence structure but If the first sentence is incorrect then how is the 2nd sentence correct if you exchange "is" for "are"?
Sir, a sentence can have 2 subjects which makes both examples correct. On the other hand, the word "are" can't be used correctly in both examples.
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @mairj23
For those examples you provided, it appears that the percentage number was the subject. So, those would be correct.
Your original sentence:
99.9% of these comments is pure nonsense.
The word 'comments' was the subject. Try taking it out. 99.9% is pure nonsense. It doesn't express a complete thought. 99.9% of what? The sentence: "Comments are pure nonsense" does express a complete thought. It might be unrepresentative of your message, but it is still a complete sentence. '
#19
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Sir, I'm referring to the percentage number, not the word "comments."
For example: 99.9% of the comments (is) an ideal number or 100% of the proceeds (is) the best estimation.
The word "are" wouldn't sound right.
Contender
#18
Added:
--> @mairj23
The subject was 'comments', which is plural. Therefore, the verb should have been 'are'.
#17
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
I don´t want welfare for anybody, so I would agree with your statement regarding this.
#16
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con joined this debate not intent on engaging in discussion, but rather to act as a type-2 troll, and largely an off topic one at that. "Your Alt-Right way of thinking is downright ridiculous." Served as a fine example of the conduct violations which caused the allotment (not even getting into the ranting and raving about race).
Arguments are no contest (a researched argument vs. deranged assertions). Not being a state continually hurts Puerto Rico, as both sides showed (lack of support following a hurricane,m and the president having no incentive to change this); similarly there is no benefit reaped from this.
Pro well supported their case with evidence. Chiefly they predicted counter cases to invalidate them ahead of time, such as the population being greater than many US states; they did this so well that con did not bother finding even one shred of evidence to make a warranted argument.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments - Pro opened with a simple argument about democratic rights and enfranchisement. It was not the most sophisticated or in-depth argument I've ever seen on the subject of territory statehood matters, but it was adequate. Con responded by suggesting that granting PR statehood would lead to its increased exploitation. Con used examples like US neglect of PR during Hurricane Maria to support this. Unfortunately, these supporting examples failed to support because Con failed to link them to his original claim. In the case of Hurricane Maria, he points out that the US neglected PR, but he fails to show how granting PR statehood would make situations like this worse. For these reasons, I give arguments to Pro.
Sources - Pro
Pro's sources are decent (although I recommend using the sources within Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia itself), but the main reason sources are going to Pro is because Con made several statements that should have been validated by a source, but were not. For example, he asserted the US was engaged in forced sterilization of PR women, but provided no evidence to back the claim up. Essentially, Con lost sources, rather than Pro winning sources.
Extra comment: Pro, your opening round was filled with too much debate groundwork (definitions, burdens, basic description of PR status quo). That stuff should go in your debate description, for two reasons. One, it allows you to devote more characters to substantive argument in R1. Two, it allows prospective opponents to have a clear idea of what they're getting themselves into before joining. Just my two cents.