Instigator / Pro
4
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#879

Migration is a Human Right

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
0

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description

--Overview--

This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO above 1,505 to accept. I am taking the Pro position.

--Topic--

Transnational migration ought to be a human right.

--Definitions--

Ought: expresses moral desirability
Human Right: a right afforded to all persons
Transnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

-->
@Tejretics

Thanks.

-->
@bsh1

>But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.

I don’t necessarily mean you should’ve done that in your R1 case. I just mean, in your response, you should’ve perhaps advanced some combination of ethical theories. But really, you didn’t need to, you could’ve built on the intuition line, which I think is fairly strong if you go a bit further. You know more about ethics than I do, so I’m confident you’d have come up with something that would have won even if kritiks were allowed -- I’m just saying that it seems like you had the space, so it could be useful to bolster your responses more.

-->
@bsh1

It didn’t receive a mention in the RFD since I didn’t view it as relevant to why you won the debate. I think the first response doesn’t really make sense -- your response to “that’s false” can’t be “oh, but that’s an axiom that doesn’t need justification.” I like the second response about moral intuition, would have liked to see more of that -- the reason it wasn’t debate-winning, though, is that it merely proved *possibility,* not *probability.* Con was pushing the burden of proof on you to prove your assumption of moral realism (which was clearly a kritik, so pointing that out was enough to win you the debate, but I think it’s good strategy to do “even if” responses in case there’s some judge who doesn’t buy that).

-->
@Tejretics

But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.

-->
@Tejretics

You write: "justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it...runs into an infinite regress of justifications...because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion." I don't think Con clearly articulated that argument until R2, which is why I didn't offer any type of response sooner. Even in R2 it felt like more of an afterthought, albeit one that could have proven potentially lethal. The lack on emphasis from Con on the first argument you articulate is why I chose to emphasize instead my discussion of the second.

I did try to offer *something* of a response to this line of argumentation after I saw it had appeared, writing: "There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one." I take it this wasn't sufficient on that point?

-->
@bsh1

Since you asked for feedback: The tl;dr of this is that, even though you’re right that Con basically ran a post-fiat kritik, you should take Con at their best case and do an “even if”-style engagement (e.g., “even if you don’t buy that this is a kritik or that this is irrelevant, here’s why Con’s argument is false”).

The best non-kritik version of Con’s argument would be to challenge you to justify a coherent ethical theory based on which your first and second arguments were true. I’d recommend doing that, perhaps in R2. For example, your first argument appears vaguely Rawlsian or libertarian, while your second argument seems vaguely communitarian. It’s possible to reconcile those two frameworks and offer a justification for both -- for example, you could say that moral uncertainty means we should weigh ethical considerations from a variety of normative ethical theories, including liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarian ethics. Or you could simply argue that moral intuition is valuable. You’re significantly more educated about these arguments than I am and I think they’d have bolstered your case.

I would also recommend taking Con at their best case and arguing against moral skepticism beyond just saying “we can accept moral axioms” (which is a bare assertion, though I suppose rule 6 allows you to make that bare assertion and let it be uncontested). The simplest response to skep arguments, as far as I know, is to simply say that insofar as moral realism is logically possible, it is less potentially costly to act as if moral realism were true. I believe you made a similar argument in your debate against 16kadams on animal rights, in which you said: “Presume Pro because it’s more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren’t.” You didn’t say that in the context of metaethics, but I would guess that it’s as compelling in that context as well.

-->
@bsh1

I offer to provide you with more detailed feedback on your case and/or your handling of the is/ought issue if you wish, either here or in PMs if you would prefer.

Also, 100 comments.

Still would love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...

-->
@Sporkicide

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Sporkicide // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: Pro

RFD: Con lost the moment he started behaving childishly and disrespecting his opponent.

Reason for mod action: First and foremost, this user is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. This user has done none of those things and so this vote is removed.

Furthermore, this vote fails to meet the COC standards. To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

I love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...

The difference is that my pointing out a rules breach was never personal. All your insults were.

-->
@bsh1

Let's just be clear on this. I am not the one who started with the accusations. If you don't want to receive, then you shouldn't give. It's that simple. I'll gladly end this conversation for the sake of your personal liberties, but just know that your hands are not clean in all of this.

It's not that I'm not trying to understand you, it's just that we flatly disagree. When it comes down to it, you think that your contingencies were productive to the debate and I don't. You think that debates are merely competitive and I don't. One could say that beating each other to death with toddler bodies is competitive and the context doesn't matter. But once you walk out of that sporting ring, you still have to go to sleep at night contending with the fact of what you did in the ring. If you think being in a debate ring suspends reality for you, I assure you that you are sadly mistaken.

I accuse you have being obtuse because I believe it. I am willing to concede things that I think are true even in a debate where it would lose me the debate. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything that you say when you are the type of person to disagree with a person's entire debate arguments wholesale. If you were arguing honestly, then there would have been at least a few points that I made that you could have agreed with, but it's just a game to you. You've admitted as much.

I'm going to throw you a bone though, because I sincerely like to see people improve even when they seem hopeless. If you want an example of what an objective debater looks like. Go look at Dustandashes. You could learn a thing or two from him. I know I have.

>> The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?

Because anyone who took my debates seriously on that level would be gravely mistaken, and because I doubt my debates are silver-tongued enough to be the decisive force in how they come down on a particular issue. Most of the time, people understand that debates are just all in good fun, and nothing more.

-->
@bsh1

I understand that, but it's not the same. I can enter a debate as an industrialist and do it in a way that is still in line with my beliefs. Maybe I advocate for soft industrialism. Now if you want to just full on play devil's advocate, then that's your prerogative obviously. On a practical level, I would suggest you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate, but that's just my opinion.

The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?

If someone because a theist because I lied, I would hold myself morally responsible for that. Now they might because a theist because of my atheism. But at least in that case I took every action possible to try and make that not happen and I certainly didn't roll the dice on it like you are.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

So, I think I've been fairly conciliatory and patient in my responses to you here in the comments, because I understand you are upset or frustrated. Please understand that this was not the way either of us wanted the debate to turn out.

However, it seems that you are largely unwilling to try to understand where I am coming from, despite my efforts to explain my position. I am also not keen on having prolonged conversations in which people insinuate falsely that I am a liar or a jerk or lack integrity. Given that I have thoroughly explained my stance and addressed yours, I see no further need to carry on with this conversation. I feel as if I have met my obligation to try to assuage your concerns and then some, so I am done with this ancillary debate.

I will allow my comments to speak for themselves, and I continue to hope to get some good feedback from voters moving forward.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I think you are missing an important difference between "debate" broadly and "competitive debate." This is competitive debate--it is literally about scoring points.

I genuinely believe that we have a moral obligation to protect our forests, and I act on that obligation to the extent I am able to in real life. But, when I enter a space like debate, where it is generally understood that we do not have to argue for our own beliefs, then I am not being dishonest in taking up the position of the industrialist. I am not being dishonest precisely because I am not advocating that people *actually* take up that position, but rather I am trying to outdo my opponent within the bubble of the debate. It's roleplaying. Actors on stage are not being dishonest when they portray people who are not them; they are roleplaying in a context where it is understood that roleplay is going on.

-->
@bsh1

I don't know what a background of competitive debate would look like exactly, so I can't say for sure. But I would assume that I do not. Does this make me wrong? I might not have the stomach for dishonestly spitting out rhetoric, but I have a long history of being honest and that's all I care about. I think honesty would probably be my one and only true axiom, since I generally don't accept axioms. Is it a bias on my part? Maybe... Probably. But there's not much I can do about that since I wholeheartedly believe that honesty is important.

If I have to lie to win a debate, then in my mind, I didn't win that debate.

To me, winning a debate is arguing for that which you believe and being good enough at it to convince other people. If I can only convince people of things by lying, then I'm nothing more than a grifter. I would consider that immoral because one of my lies might spread a false belief and that is unacceptable to me.

-->
@bsh1

Here's the way I see it. People believe things for reasons. If they believe it wholeheartedly, especially if it's related to morals. Then they will act according to those beliefs.

If I'm against something because I think it's morally wrong and then I go and play devil's advocate in a debate without any regard for my true position, then I'm being dishonest. It's that simple for me. Because to advocate for something that you think morally wrong is a life issue. Is it a debate issue? No, but who cares about debating if there's no knowledge seeking behind it. If I wanted to just argue and score points, I would just go to youtube or reddit and ream people there.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

First, I am not advocating for it outside the context of the debate. Debate is a bubble. Much like Vegas, what happens there stays there, and should not be interpreted as real world advocacy. In debates, it is generally understood that debaters put forward arguments which may not reflect their own views, and therefore there is no presumption that these views reflect debaters beliefs. Ergo, there's no dishonesty. It's rather naive to think otherwise. Second, I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs, so there was no dishonesty on that level either.

You obviously do not come from a background of competitive debate, which is fine. But it does mean we're going to see things differently. That we don't see eye-to-eye does not make either one of us dishonest. It just means we have different paradigms for conceptualizing the activity, what is or is not appropriate in the activity, and so on.

-->
@bsh1

That's nonsense. If you're advocating for something that you don't believe in, then you're not being honest. If you want to lie to yourself and say it is honest, then be my guest. But just know that you're deluding yourself.

-->
@bsh1

Okay, fairness is an adjective that I'm applying to the word liberty. I'm not saying they're the exact same thing. I'm saying that the liberty has to be fair. My liberty ends where yours begins. However, in the case of a debate, there is no way for my liberty of making an argument to trump yours, so we'd both and full liberty and it would be fair because we both have it. When you make a contingency that is tailor made for your argument, that is neither fair nor liberal.

-->
@RationalMadman

Thanks for the vote. I still don't think I challenged any rules of the debate. That was just a strawman that bsh1 made of me. I pretty much knew I was going to lose the debate going in. I'll tell you what I've told you in the past. If you assume that my goal was to win the debate, then yes I lost. But that is rarely my goal except maybe in rap battles or debates that I don't care about personally.

But in this case, I take logic seriously as I think the lack of it causes a lot of problems in society and my real goal is to get people to think about their axioms. It always has been. It's the reason I started debating in the first place.

If I have to lose 1,000 debates and become a joke to the community, then so be it. None of that matters to me. If I can teach even one person to justify their own claims then I've done my job (I think I'm at about 3 people now, but who knows if any of that stuck with them. [fyi none of those people are on this website, at least I think they're not])

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Full liberty is not fairness either, it's anarchy. Fairness implies rules, which in turn implies restrictions on liberty.

Besides, a debate requiring you to argue something which you do not personally believe is hardly revolutionary. *Most* competitive debating require debaters to argue things they don't believe. I did not argue my own beliefs in this debate, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest, because I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs.

-->
@bsh1

I didn't say it was. I said it was fairness. My point is that if I have to lie about my position to win a debate, then the debate is not fair. If I honestly believe my argument to be true, then I should be able to present it the way that I believe it. If I am wrong, then it's for the voters to decide. Not my opponent.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Full liberty is not the same thing as honesty.

-->
@bsh1

That wouldn't demonstrate anything. That would just demonstrate that people want to vote for you. If your opponent is not allowed to argue in the way that they find most honest, then the debate is not fair. The only fair debate is one where people are allowed to make their arguments with full liberty. Anything less than that would be arbitrary restrictions.

Thanks also to those who cast votes so far.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

As I said to RM, I am willing to take this exact same topic as Con using the exact same set of rules. I believe the rules are fair, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is to demonstrate that.

Humanism is boring. Nationalism is much more exciting.

-->
@bsh1

My problem wasn't that you were pointing out what you considered to be rule violations. My problem was that I made it clear after your initial accusation that I was not challenging your resolution assumptions.

I made it clear in my opening statement that my comments about your resolution were for clarification of terms. It was a genuine effort to understand your topic as well as possible before moving forward. When I do this with other debaters. They usually just clarify and then move on. But not you, you decided to make a show out of it and if you think that my accusations of your are unfair, then all I have to say is "if the shoe fits"

If you were being an honest debater, then when I initially told you that I was not challenging your topic assumptions, then you should have took that at face value and moved on into the next subject. But instead, you kept repeating ad infinitum that I was exhibiting poor conduct when I wasn't. I don't care what you're intentions were. The road to ruin was built on the best of those right? I only care about your actions. Your actions have exhibited bad faith arguing.

I would suggest that if you do indeed care about honest competition, then maybe you should reconsider the way you debate. Because everything that you did was framed toward giving you a winning advantage.

You using the Description bar as a tool the way you did basically gave you an extra round.

You saying that the person in the last round can't make new arguments gives you an extra round.

There is nothing fair about your competitions. You're the guy who challenges someone to chess and then says they have to pull the your queen off the board to make it fair, but you, the instigator, still get to keep your queen.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for the vote. It's not that I never wanted to discuss the topic. My opponent would never let me get that far. I merely wasn't going to throw away a whole sale truth about the is/ought problem just to have the discussion. Like I said before, if my opponent had been honest and admitted the is/ought problem as every philosopher in history since hume has admitted, then we could have talk about it pragmatically. But instead, my opponent wanted to grandstand and make a shit show over the resolution instead of conceding a reasonable point and moving on in the debate.

-->
@bsh1

You say you were wiling to have a discussion, but this is just hog wash. You denied literally everything I said (including the Is/ought problem which is the second most widely accepted philosophical position in history second only to "I think, therefore I am"). While I admitted everything in your topic as being true with the exception of one thing that was categorically false.

Which one of use was REALLY trying to have a discussion here? I'm on record conceding truths in debates and even entire debates when I'm disproven. Don't you dare insult me by saying you try to have honest discussions. That diminishes the wounds that I suffer by wearing my beliefs as a badge instead of a mask.

-->
@David

My argument was that ought doesn't exist. How is that any different. You're just picking a different word in the topic than me. This is stupid. I don't know where you guys came to the conclusion that making caveat's in the description about how the opponent argues was a good thing. The description is for presenting the instigator's definition and round structure. It is not an R0 statement as you try to use it.

-->
@bsh1

Okay, you think debates are about competition. That's fine for you. I do this for knowledge. If I merely wanted competition out of this, I'd go play chase or a MOBA.

If you really think your description's are not get out of jail free cards, then something is wrong here. Either you don't understand the implications of your caveats or you don't care and you think they're justified.

If I post a rebuttal to your topic (as is my job as a debater) and you respond by saying I lose for that, then you're not debating honestly. I didn't challenge your definitions nor did I challenge any assumptions. Saying your position on the topic is wrong (once again, as is my job as a debater) is not challenging the assumptions of your position. Furthermore, do you not understand that telling my I can't challenge your assumptions is dishonest? No knowledge should be sacred. If your belief was true, then there shouldn't be any point that I could make that would ruin things for you. You would have been able to routinely rebut me without having to resort to accusing me of bad conduct.

But to be honest, I don't think you care all that much. As you said, you do this for competition, you only care about winning and that means that we're not on the same people

-->
@RationalMadman

If you think the rules skewed Pro, I am happy to debate you as Con with the exact same topic and exact same rules. As long as the debate doesn’t start until June. If the debate truly is unwinnable for Con, it should be a nice auto-win for you. As the saying goes, “put your money where your mouth is.” I will.

-->
@RationalMadman

I see multiple paths to victory con without running a K. That being said if I was to debate this as con, the most direct way to K the resolution is to argue that rights don’t exist.

Bsh1 won the debate because this description's rules make it unwinnable for Con.

-->
@Alec

No. I’ll explain why after work.

-->
@David

I think Bsh1 won the debate.

Arguments: Bsh1

I did not see Con make an argument. Bsh1's argument was composed of 3 reasons(The "Right to Leave", Communities Require Migration, The human community).

Conduct: Bsh1. His opponent called him "frivolous" in R4. This is poor conduct.

Is this a good RFD?

To voters:

I would enormously appreciate any feedback on my opening speech. Thank you.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I am sorry you think I am a jerk. Ultimately, the rules I impose on debates are not meant as a "get out of jail free card," but are rather designed to ensure a fair playing field for competition. Notice, "competition"--not discussion or truth-seeking. For me debate is primarily a competitive exercise. Because it is a competition, I do not hesitate to cite rule breaches when I perceive them, but that does not mean that the rules exist to give me any special advantage. Calling out rules violations then is almost never personal for me; I just see it as part of the activity. If you took it personally, then you should be aware that is not how it was meant.

From my point of view, you were not holding true to the spirit of the debate: to have a discussion about migration, not prior questions regarding the Is/Ought problem. That being said, I did try to earnestly engage with your arguments, and I devoted a significant number of my character space to discussing why the problem did not apply to my case. I explained my reasoning. To the extent that I did so, and to the extent that you had the chance to challenge any alleged rule violations, the debate, in my mind, proceeded honestly and openly. Having disputes about the meaning of rules, or their interpretations, is not dishonesty. It's disagreement, and that's what debate is all about.

Debates can be aggravating, even maddening, but they are not, as a rule, personal for me. I hope then that any enmity generated by this debate will not be long-lasting. I disagree strongly with the implication that I was either dishonest or unfair in the debate, and I chose not to reciprocate with identical language precisely because those are incredibly strong accusations to bandy about in the context of this activity. I take pride in my debating well and fairly. To some extent I can sympathize with your frustration at how the debate turned out; I hope you can sympathize with my own as well. I hope you can let any animus you have go.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Thanks for the debate. Can you please bring it to a close?

-->
@Tejretics

I agree with all those points.

-->
@Tejretics

2) Colonialism helped 3rd world countries. Ethiopia resisted colonialism, and they're one of the poorest places in the world, despite being an empire pre-colonialism. The US and Australia were colonized, yet they're pretty rich. Europe made Africa more united then when it came. There were thousands of tribes in Africa, each basically being it's own nation. Europe's influence helped reduce that number to about 50 countries.
3) To the countries that receive migration, in the situation in Europe, the Muslims there are causing Europe to implement portions of Shariah law. Eventually, Europe would be a shariah continent. This is bad because I don't want radical Muslims getting access to British and French nukes because if that happens, you can expect the west to be nuked off the map since if the US strikes back, the Muslims won't care since it would be martyrdom to them. Radical Islam wants to destroy the west and if Muslims get their hands on western technology, like nukes, then the west is dead. The whole non Muslim world would probably be dead. So much for religious diversity worldwide if all the other religions get nuked.

-->
@bsh1

When I first saw the topic, I came up with these three thoughts, would be interested in hearing your opinions since they’re kind of different than your case:

(1) Not allowing people to immigrate into your country is a form of discrimination because you allow people to be born within your home. The fact that they just happen to be from a different country—often because they were born there, an arrangement they didn’t choose to have—is just random luck and that random luck has very real implications for the quality of life of people. Access to economic opportunity and a social safety net shouldn’t be based on a random lottery of birth, so justice requires that migration is a human right.

(2) A large proportion of migration would be from developing countries to developed countries under such a model. Developed countries are often responsible for the suffering of people in developing countries today in two ways: the first is they directly engaged in process such as colonialism that resulted in diminished long-run economic capacity and weaker institutions, and the second is the process of drawing borders—in other words, the existence of borders in much of the developing world, such as in Africa, is the product of developed country government officials drawing lines on maps, which cut off access to opportunity and caused violence. Thus, there’s a restorative obligation to not shut the doors to people whose condition you are responsible for. This doesn’t apply in all cases or even a majority of cases of migration, but certainly a significant amount.

(3) This has the potential to improve the lives of people—both people who remain in the developing world (due to remittances and increased human capital development) and people who move. Reducing poverty and saving the lives of thousands is a good in itself. To add to this, it helps the countries who get more migration, since it allows them to have a new, younger, more mobile workforce and boosts demand.

-->
@bsh1

I am mixed on immigration. I don't want deportations, that tends to break families apart. But I support the wall, and even want it made of cupertino wire to prevent people from climbing on it. Hyper assimilation should be mandatory in order to prevent separatist movements as history has confirmed. If here illegally, they should get a pathway to citizenship that they pay for. Hopefully, the left and the right can agree on it. Donald Trump offered DACA for the wall, but the democrats rejected that idea.

-->
@Alec

I agree that migrants have a moral obligation to assimilate to *some* extent with the country in which they settle. I do think that, ideally, migration should be legal, but neither do I think that coming here illegally is all that serious an offense.

-->
@bsh1

Lets say that an immigrant is hard working, doesn't know English, is willing to learn, and can get a job as a laborer. They have heard about America and are more ideologically aligned with America then their home country. They should come to this country legally. They should assimilate in order to prevent separatist movements and they should accept American values. American values can be found in the following link: https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/USValues.html. Are you advocating for open borders with the whole world?

You think my fears about unassiliminated immigration is absurd, but it's confirmed by history.

-->
@oromagi

Thank you! I appreciate that.