Instigator / Pro
11
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#383

Illegal Immigration

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

nmvarco
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
11,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1536
rating
19
debates
55.26%
won
Description

In this debate, we will be arguing on whether or not the majority of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay within the US. I'll be Pro. My Opponent will be Con. Here are the rules:

1: A forfeit is an automatic loss, unless there is an apology for the forfeit in the comments or in the debate.
2: The BoP is on Con because he is the one wanting to make something illegal.
3: I will waive the 1st round and Con will waive the last round.

-->
@Alec

I apologize for the forfeits. I've been very busy over the past few days and have not been able to publish a complete argument.

He signed up for it. Therefore he accepted the terms of the debate. Not to mention that I provided evidence/proof as well, and he forfeited a round. The BOP should be on those wanting something to be illegal. If there is no reason to keep something illegal, then it should be legal.

-->
@blamonkey
@Alec

I agree with blamonkey. Setting up a debate where you attempt to lump the entire burden of proof onto your opponent really isn't a very honest tactic.

I wanted the BOP to be on Con. Since nmvarco signed up, he agreed for the BoP to be on him.

-->
@Alec

I suppose that I am simply asking for more clarity here.

-->
@Alec

It is typical that in normative resolutions, the BoP is split. Normative refers to a topic in ehich there is equal ground on each side (i.e the burden of con is to prove that legality of illegal immigrants is bad and vice versa for pro). Also, regardless of the legality of illegal immigration, to state that one side has the BoP is an unfair tactic. It creates a bigger burden for Con than it does for Pro with relatively little reasoning. What does it matter if they are legal or not? This is still a debate with equal ground for debate.

BoP should be on those that want something illegal. If there is no reason to keep someone/something illegal, it should be legal.

BoP should be on pro since they are arguing against the status quo. If you are illegal, you are deported, that’s the law.

Can you send your argument with very little time left? I am very busy with school work.

" Because "good" has not been defined" The definition of good is, "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/good). Lets go with that.

-->
@Alec

Sorry for my argument, but nothing in the rules is against it. Always be careful with what you write in the comments and how it is worded.

1861-1863

-->
@Alec

34??

@ dustryder

The law says that DACA illegals are allowed to stay here if they prove they are DACA. I also wouldn't use law as a source of morality. By saying illegals should be deported because of the law, one can also make a case that abortions should be legal because of the law. This is both ways, circular logic. Because of this, just because the law says something does not make it right, or unchangeable.

Liberals say immigration laws can be changed. Conservatives tend to use the "They're illegal" excuse.

Conservatives say abortion laws can be changed. Liberals tend to use the "It's legal" excuse.

Can we simply make opinions based off of our own morality instead of what other people have said is moral?

@nmvarco

How many stars are on your American flag?

Recipients of DACA are but a subset of illegal immigrants. Isn't it the general case that when an illegal immigrant is found and identified, they are deported? And hence Pro is arguing against the status quo?

The BoP is on those who want something to be illegal. As a libertarian (to a large extent) everything should be legal unless there is at least 1 good reason why it should be illegal. The BoP is therefore on Con.

"If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo." The status quo is that DACA personnel, which are here illegally are allowed to stay within the US if they prove that they are DACA by filling out this form:

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

Deporting their parents, who are not DACA requires the breakup of families. This infringes on the rights of the children because they basically become orphans. Taking care of them is expensive to the government. It's easier if the parents do it.

Why would the BOP be on con, that is retarded reasoning you provided. If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo.

@RM

I used to be conservative, but now I think I'm libertarian on many issues. There has yet to be a decent reason to be against illegal immigration for example. Part of me wants my mind changed on this topic. Otherwise, I would have called the illegals undocumented. If I could vote today, it would be for Gary Johnson or some other libertarian candidate. I also support some pretty extreme right wing policies, such as I want the US to expand. I don't like any taxes on the basis of wealth, I want to bring back manifest destiny, but without the killing of civilians. On DDO, I debated with Our Boat is Right on illegal immigration to see if my mind could be changed(https://www.debate.org/asta/).

@blamonkey

Just because they are illegal doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country.

-->
@Alec

Illegal immigrants are by definition, already illegal. So the rationalization behind the BOP does not make sense. We aren't trying to classify more people as illegal, they already are. Also, the BOP is typically split unless it is a truism, or the resolution somehow specifies a BOP. The negation still needs to prove why it is bad to deport illegal immigrants. Just because a debate topic changes the status quo does not mean that the BOP falls to the side making said change. If anything, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be a massive change from the status quo.

-->
@Alec

Are you moving over to the left or something? I swear you were a very rightwing guy back a couple of months ago on ddo.