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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument - in round 1 Pro argues why immigrants are good for the economy, and Con argues why they might be bad for the U.S. citing supposed facts such as the amount with criminal records, increased crime rates. Con then goes on to cite the negative effects regarding employment, and though I am reluctant at this point to decide who is winning, Pro then responds with this. "Not enough time to make proper arguments so will waive this round.". That means no argument and no rebuttal.. In round 3 Pro comes back with a decent argument one round late and his argument that poor people are more prone to crime than those with money is a good one. Pro continues to accuse Con of cherry picking and gives some decent food for thought regarding the lack of background checks being one of the reasons for the problem, and then goes on to even offer his own solution regards to health care.. Con responds with criticisms of his/her own regarding Mother Jones. Con then goes on to produce studies to support his/her case and on it goes, then, for a second time "Sorry, I ran out of time and forgot. Please vote on the arguments given." Pro barely made it in time to write that he ran out of time" and therefore Pro totally failed to rebut anything his opponent wrote in round 3 and did not respond to the critiques regarding the weaknesses in his own argument. I will however accept the argument he presented in an earlier round and the good points he made and leave it at a tie, and instead later punish his bad time keeping with a conduct violation - tie

Sources - Both criticised each others use of sources, but what I note is that Con was always present to counter the criticisms, where-as Pro did not counter the criticism. For example Pro decided to turn up late for the following round and made no rebuttal to Cons arguments nor criticisms of his sources. "The source Pro uses (his [5]) certainly goes through a lot of data analysis but fails to attribute any of these economic boons to sanctuary policies. In fact, his source only controls “for differences in the population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino”, leaving out the many policy differences between counties that have nothing to do with sanctuary policies. Both Pro and the paper attempt to attribute this to increased labor force participation, though again, neither examines why that increase occurs because of sanctuary policies. It is simply another correlation without any plausible causation. Illegal immigrants have just as much interest in being a part of the labor force in a sanctuary city as they do anywhere else because monetary incentives exist everywhere.". - Con

S & G - There was a couple of occasions when Pros keys stuck, but nothing drastic - tie

Conduct - As I have explained, I will punish Pros time keeping and failure to rebute the argument, rather than treat it as an argument loss. - Con