Instigator / Pro
4
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Topic
#2815

Sanctuary Cities in US are on net balance Beneficial to society

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

This is for whiteflame. Standard definitions apply. Burden of proof shared. No new arguments last round. whiteflame is encouraged, but not required, to post in forum (or even this debate if he desires — voters will ignore advice) after debate is done with tips for me and point out debating mistakes or improvements that he thinks is common or specific.

-->
@whiteflame
@Nevets
@gugigor

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

The one hesitation is that it gave conduct for what could be called an argument failure (wherein pro effectively missed half the debate). This would have likely caused the vote to be rejected if giving both (the policy specifies that lazy arguments don't need conduct as well), but just giving less points to something isn't inflicting any harm (and yes, the reason arguments were left a tie is explained, which is very important).
**************************************************

-->
@Nevets

Appreciate your taking the time to vote!

Sad to see an interesting topic snuffed out like that.

-->
@gugigor

My argument isn't so much becoming more complex as I'm finding ways to emphasize and better demonstrate it. They're the same points I was making before, I'm just using studies (both yours and mine) to establish stronger links between specific outcomes and a purported cause. I'm also doing more this round to push individual examples and tilt analysis of these results in my favor. There are lots of ways to address all that, but given that we only have one round left, your goal should be to push hard on aspects of your case that make it strong and to expose holes in my analysis. Getting too deep into pure rebuttal and trying to go tit-for-tat on data analysis will probably detract too much from the overall points you're trying to make, so try to limit your responses to the key points I'm trying to make, and focus on rebuilding your case.

-->
@gugigor

Lots of options.

I think a lot of my arguments are reductive, i.e. if you don’t solve for everything, why are you even bothering? It’s a valid argument, but it also dismisses the value of partial successes via progressive change. My suggestion is to find ways to look at the longer term and how communities can establish a relationship with minority populations.

As for economics, I’d say your point still has validity, but I might emphasize the bigger picture and why these beneficial effects exist. What changes for Latino families when they’re not concerned that their parents may be deported at any time? How does it affect their willingness to push for things like a college education when there’s a concern that they could be turned in and deported after racking up debt?

-->
@whiteflame

your refutation is getting quite complex. Any hints/remarks for the final round?

-->
@gugigor

It can be somewhat difficult to be incisive about. There's a lot of data, but turning it into something solid can be frustrating.

-->
@whiteflame

I see, that makes quite some sense. I knew Und's argument for racism didn't 100% cut the work for sanctuary cities. It looks powerful on surface, but even with my added analysis, the sanctuary city benefit is difficult to see 100%.

-->
@gugigor

I’ll where I’m going with my thoughts now that I’ve read through the round.

When it comes to this innocent v. guilty argument, it’s not a bad place to go, but it should be better connected to the split between our positions. The argument could be based on the notion that deportation and/or other federal punishments for immigration are particularly harmful, and that the standard for proof should therefore be higher. However, that’s a pro-reform argument, not so much pro-sanctuary cities. I think if you wanted to make it stick, it’d have to be about the idea that the federal government often gets it wrong, meaning that we should side with more local law enforcement as a means of preventing undue punishments to individuals. That requires some support.

I expected to see this argument about how racist, anti-immigrant is tendencies among police tend to reduce trust in those police. The missing piece here is the explanation for how federal contributions to that problem exacerbate those tensions. I can think of ways to support that argument, but as it is, I can mostly beat this back by pointing out that immigrant perspectives largely don’t shift when they’re still being arrested and racially profiled by officers who would rather that they could deport them. If people come there because they wish to avoid deportation but still expect that police will mistreat them, then why are they more likely to trust police enough to report crimes in that city?

Finally, with regards to those economic costs, be prepared to address the distinction between nationwide effects and local effects. Data gets a little muddier the more focused your attention is on those specific populations.

-->
@bmdrocks21

ah, yeah, the undocumented is not as severe as actually stealing or killing, etc.

-->
@gugigor

Since this is merely a practice debate, I'll ask this question: What did you mean in your most recent round about letting guilty people go instead of arresting innocent people?

By definition, all illegal immigrants are guilty of breaking immigration laws. Are you saying that they are "innocent" if they haven't committed subsequent crimes since arriving?

-->
@gugigor

hmm... seems different enough. Uses similar crux phrases and quotes but has more details. That's fair.

-->
@Undefeatable

This is fine, right?

-->
@gugigor

Somehow I missed both of these most recent comments.

Yeah, I’ll wait to post waiving this round. Just let me know when you’d like me to do so.

And yeah, I usually only push framework when it’s clear that solely pushing impacts on a Net Benefits framework would be tough. In this case, I feel it’s valid to pursue the relatively normal angle. There’ll be a lot on criminal activity to come, for sure, and I’ve already got thoughts on that that I can share with you if you’re interested. I think the main thing that you’ll have to do is really focus hard on how this affects the preconceptions that make it so difficult for police and certain minorities to establish mutual trust.

-->
@whiteflame

sorry I've been busy, can I waive this round and you'll wait a while and then also waive your round?

-->
@whiteflame

nicely done, I think you were clever to avoid the comparison of crime directly (since Con would be losing the argument), but rather focusing on the crime that occurs and reoccurs. It's lucky that you didn't use a framework based approach like you did against Undefeatable, but I think it's rather trivial to conclude that it undermines the very justice and safety that my point 1 makes. I will have to think over how to outweigh or negate that argument.

-->
@gugigor

I would agree with you on the relationship with the law, though especially in my rebuttals, be prepared to address a lot of correlation v. causation issues. Some of my rebuttals to these points may become obvious from my arguments, though there are a few that I haven't written out yet. I think you're right to focus your attention there.

I can also see why you'd expect that kind of argument from me. There will definitely be a contention along those lines, though the link story will be a little different, since I'm anticipating the "but that's just racism" response.

-->
@whiteflame

Sure. I think my argument's strongest point is the relationship with the law. Specifically, I plan to go further in hammering in safety of citizens and improvement of justice in later rounds. This is because based on what I've seen in Undefeatable's immigrant debate, the economic problems are always going to infiltrate on US citizens' rights. The immigrants will take people's jobs, and keeping sanctuary cities could encourage more of that, which is problematic.

I think you are going to take the opposite route and point out the problems with criminals that are inherent within sanctuary cities. Since they are forced to allow "undocumented immigrants", other ideas based on ambiguous or unset laws could erode the justice that I claimed for. If you use US prison or police arrest statistics, I plan to cleverly show that the US justice system is inherently flawed with the corruption (see: Und's systemic racism debate). Thus sanctuary cities which enforce more rights would reduce the bias presented.

-->
@gugigor

Hey, figured we could start discussion of this debate before I post my round (it's practically done, but I've got 3 more days and we should do something with it).

I'll give you my view of your argument in a bit, but first, I'd like to get your impressions.

What do you think are your arguments' strongest points?
What do you think I'm going to go after in my rebuttals (that'll be next round)?

I'll definitely keep the opening short, so no need to worry about a huge start. Plan is under 10k.

Nevermind. I'll be keeping my rounds well under 20k, trying to use this as an opportunity to improve my word economy.

Hey, I'll go ahead and accept this a little later today. Only change I'd like is to reduce the character count down to 20,000. Not that I suspect either of us would go up to 30,000, even with that option, but I'd rather it was just off the table.

-->
@whiteflame

Here you go.