Instigator / Pro
21
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Topic
#3927

Secure Borders is better for the USA, rather than Open Borders

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
0
Better legibility
3
0
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1488
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Rules:

Must provide evidence for your argument.

Every opinionated argument must be backed up with facts.

Stay on topic.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Heritage is a biased source; use more reliable sources.

Crime:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ states the undocumented are less likely to commit victim producing crimes.

Welfare:
I support an open border policy and the undocumented should get kicked off of government aid programs like welfare and food stamps. If you want to come here, be productive.

I want as many people as we can get here because according to my calculations, it would be wonders for the stock market. Quadrupling the US population would roughly quadruple the US stock market, making my stock $130,000 more valuable.

-->
@Public-Choice

In cases like this, the debate can often come down to disagreements over the terms, so I could see taking that route. Wouldn't like doing it, but I can understand it.

-->
@whiteflame
@YouFound_Lxam

Honestly, my approach would have been to sidestep PRO's line of reasoning entirely, use a completely different definition of "secure" (since neither a dictionary nor a definition was provided in the description) and then built my case off that.

I'd also make some case about Merriam Webster being a joke dictionary written by hacks (there's NO SHORTAGE of academics and experts who state this) and, if necessary, go into the lexicographical origins of "secure" to prove my definition is more reliable. PRO would be forced to defend his definition, which is the crux of his whole argument, and the debate sides in my favor from there, since I have successfully discredited his dictionary and therefore his definition, and remade the debate in my favor.

And THAT is why I always say which dictionary I am using for debates. Because someone actually did something similar to ME before and demolished me. I had to spend the whole debate on damage control and fighting two fronts instead of arguing the topic.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Fewer still will take a debate where the instigator has explicitly stated that they will define the terms in their opening round, most likely to their great favor. This will either become a semantic debate where your opponent makes hay out of the extreme definitions you will almost certainly provide, your opponent will just run a Kritik, or they’ll just forfeit every round.

If you want a well resourced, thorough examination of the issue as your description suggests, then be straight up with your definitions and provide them in the description.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

The resolution, as it's currently worded, is extremely vague - few people will take a debate that's going to be 90% arguing about definitions.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

As a former trapsetter, yes, I can't trust you if you are going to define everything once this debate is accepted.

I would define what I mean in my first argument.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

How secure is secure and how open is open? I believe essentially what you are trying to argue for is that a measurable value under a threshold is more fit than if the value is over. Without defining how this value can be calculated would bring forth numerous models that are not only different but conflicting.