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

-->
@bsh1

I’m impressed by the Quality/speed ratio

-->
@Speedrace

Lol. Glad you're enjoying the debate.

-->
@Alec

I did not say your plan was biased, I said your "your characterization of the would-be immigrant" was. I don't know what your plan is.

As for your fears about immigrants, they read as deeply paranoid and absurd.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Gotcha

-->
@Speedrace

"You might find I'm being as illogical as you think I am."

Meant to say "I'm not being"

-->
@bsh1
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I’m gonna have a ball judging this

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

What typo? I’m going crazy trying to find it

-->
@bsh1

I'm sincerely sorry that I couldn't address the end of your R2. I'll try to come back to it in the next round. So don't assume I'm not going to address it.

-->
@bsh1

Epic typo at the end of my R2. You'll notice it right away. I apologize in advance for the finger slip.

-->
@bsh1

You call my immigration plan biased, but we both have bias. Bias ideally does not affect one's ability to persuade.

If you want to immigrate to a country, you should do it legally, otherwise with open borders, a bunch of pro-big government immigrants would eliminate the freedom that America means. They would turn America into a left wing 3rd world country that they left. If they don't assimilate, they lead to separatist movements, as history has confirmed.

"it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties."

I don't know what shrinking their duties means.

"I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries."

So you advocate for open borders? It's fine, I know someone who wants open borders, I wouldn't call it a "straw man" position since there are arguments for it.

-->
@Alec

I think your characterization of the would-be immigrant is already ideologically loaded and biased.

Your argument about the asylum-seeker is also problematic, as it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties.

I am not going to talk about what I am arguing in the debate, as that may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. What I will say is that, personally, open borders are aspirational and inadvisable at this point, though I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries.

-->
@bsh1

Are you advocating for open borders? Lets say you were Mexican and you wanted to come to the USA. You don't know any English, you are unwilling to learn, you are willing to work but can't since you don't know English and you merely see the USA as a place for you to receive welfare checks. You don't accept American values. Should you be allowed in the US? No. You would be a burden to society. If there were tens of millions like you in the country (there are) then it could be the grounds for a separatist movement in the near future.

Now lets say you were an asylum seeker from Mexico, everything else above is true about you. You were fleeing for your life. This still isn't an excuse to be in the US because there are other countries that you can go to. You can go to Spain for example. They have a crime rate that is lower then the US and if you are coming for a better life, that has to be earned by going through the legal process.

Out of curiosity, are you advocating for open borders?

Posted.

Also my 500th comment...

Posted.

-->
@Ramshutu

It's not a rule in every debate you've ever seen. I can disprove that due to the fact that you've seen my debates and I don't abide that standard. As far as I know, it's not an official rule of Dbart (correct me if I'm wrong) and the only time I've ever seen it come up is as a caveat that one side makes.

I think caveats are fine within the confines of a debate. But making a caveat on how the debaters make their arguments is not in the spirit in debate and I've never even heard of this outside of Dbart.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It does matter when you use an argument. If you make a brand new argument when the other add can’t reply, it’s not possible for any voter to assess the argument as both sides haven’t discussed the point or had a chance to refute.

How on you’ve taken that to mean I need to read minds in order to assess one the argument hasn’t been discussed by both sides - but trying to work out how an argument fits into both sides of an argument when only raised by one side is very much problematic - which is why literally this is an expected rule in pretty much every debate I have ever seen.

-->
@Ramshutu

Implicitly implies? Do you really believe that? You're now saying that you can read minds. If the debater has a good argument, they should use it, It doesn't matter when they use it. The instigator had X amount rounds to cover all relevant points, if they let one slip by, it's their fault. If the point is irrelevant, then the voter will not be able to find logical entailment and the argument will fail on it's own. The caveat is both unnecessary and flies in the face of honest debating.

-->
@bsh1

Have it your way.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I am not interested in debating these rules with you, tbh. By accepting the debate, you accepted those rules. If you objected to them, then you should not have accepted. Plus, Ram said almost everything I would've said anyway, lol.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

If you had already had rounds to discuss the claim - then this would be a point - provided it stems directly from the claim.

If you were raising a new point in defense or against the resolution - unrelated to specific individual claims - that’s a new argument.

Other arguments have had time to be used, rebutted, refuted and defended: so as a tabula rasa voter you have enough information to weigh a decision on arguments. For a new argument in final round, you haven’t heard from both sides and haven’t had time to hear both sides points, so you can either ignore the point (as Bsh - and literally everyone else agrees), or you can weigh the point - as it’s impossible to weigh the point in isolation of other arguments without bringing in external factors if you’ve only heard one side - accepting last round arguments implicitly implies you want judges to insert their personal opinion of your argument.

-->
@bsh1

If you want to separate yourself from the voter than fine. I'll ask you this.

Do you think the debaters should argue non tabula rasa? Because if you're saying that you're allowed to develop preconceived notions about how your opponent is allowed to make their arguments, then you're advocating for non tabula rasa.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for setting the pins up for me. Now let me show you why your point is arbitrary.

Bsh1: I make this claim.

Me: Your claim is wrong because bsh1 eats babies.

that was just a development and a point instead of an argument by your standards. Your standards are arbitrary and I can say whatever I want in a specific way in order to make it a point. So the distinction is arbitrary because it did not change the context or subject matter, but rather forced me to add an arbitrary descriptor on the end stating that it "developed" from the previous argument. You could come back and say that it has to "logically follow" but that would be dubious saying that a particular argument doesn't logically follow flies in the face of tabula rasa.

-->
@bsh1

I don't understand. How would voting on an argument made in the last round require a preconceived notion? That's not what I said at all. You're implying that I want the voter to invent a rebuttal in their head to the new argument. I made this clear that this was not the case. What I said is that if the instigator had covered all relevant points, then there would be no relevant point that the contender could make that wouldn't have already been addressed by the instigator. Therefore, the voter can vote in a tabula rasa system because they can use the prior rebuttal that the instigator already made in their RFD to show that it was not there logic that refuted it.

“What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development?”

This is a development - the progression of an argument into new information of challenge

“You're just making arbitrary distinctions.”

This is a new point. A corollary statement or thesis based on an extension of the previous argument thread.

“Bsh eats babies”

This is a new argument.

-->
@bsh1

What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development? You're just making arbitrary distinctions.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It's clear to me that you do not understand what "no new argument" means, and that is leading to much of your confusion. Not all new points are new arguments. As I said: "New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments."

It implies non-tabula rasa judging because only that kind of judging would allow a judge to vote on arguments which were not up for debate (as new arguments in the last round are).

Obviously, I am not a voter in this debate, so it is a false equivalency to compare me with a potential voter.

-->
@bsh1

Also, wouldn't your argument be non tabula rasa because you're the one starting off with preconceived notion about how one should argue with your arbitrary limitation.

-->
@bsh1

How does my argument imply non tabula rasa? I don't see how that follows.

-->
@bsh1

Okay then, here's my question, what is the point of rebutting an argument if you can't use a new argument? rebutting with an old argument MAY be an option, but at some point no matter who stops using new information, there will always be a round with possible new arguments, followed by an argument that rebuts that argument without being able to use new arguments. This is not balanced because a rebuttal to a new argument is quite often a new argument. This is why I say it's an infinite regress.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It applies to BOTH debaters final rounds. And, let me repeat: New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments.

Your argument rests on the presumption of non-tabula rasa judging. Since judging should be tabula rasa, your argument holds no weight.

-->
@bsh1

It's funny that you make the race car reference, because that's exactly what your caveat does. The instigator gets to bring up new arguments all throughout the debate but the contender has do bring up new arguments for one less round. So who's standard is really the cheap one?

You didn't seem to address my critique. Is it not true that if your argument was sound that the opponent would not be able to bring up a new argument that is actually relevant?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I don't think you know what "no new argument" means. It does not mean "no" arguments; that is you can defend and explain and add on existing points up to a point. But if we have gone the entire debate without you making argument X, it would be categorically unfair for you to talk about X in the last speech. It's really a commonsense type judgement.

Believe me, debaters throughout the US have been using that rule for decades, and we have not infinitely regressed.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Cheap tricks are "cheap" because they unfairly benefit one side. If you started one racer a mile behind the other, the contest is not a fair one, and thus not worth having. So yes, there are cheap tricks--they are perhaps better known as cheating.

-->
@bsh1

If there's no new arguments in the last round, then the last round is pointless and the round before it becomes the last round too.

Since that new round is the last round, that means they can't bring up new points in that either, because the person in the final round can't rebut them without bringing up new points. So that one is useless too.

So then the round before becomes last, can't bring up anything new there either since the following two rounds can't bring up new arguments.

Infinite regress. It's the same as telling somebody they can't button mash in mortal combat. I would urge you to rethink your position on this if you care about honest debating.

-->
@bsh1

There is no such thing as a cheap trick. The real trick is telling somebody how they're allowed to argue.

The fact is that if one's argument is complete in it's analysis, then there is no point the opponent can bring up to shake their structure.

If the opponent brings up an argument that is a non sequitur, they will just be hanging themselves.

That's like a chess player telling me I can't use a fork tactic because it's a "cheap trick"

-->
@bsh1

Lol

Also, people should use all this passion and channel it into something for the site...like commenting on this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1754

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It's a cheap trick, not good tactics. Good tactics are innovative ways to win fairly, not ways to short-circuit the argumentative process entirely.

Lol. Everyone should chill out. I haven't even presented my case yet and people are freaking out about what I am or am not going to argue. Wait and see, and may the force be with us.

-->
@Alec

The modern world has a wonderful tool called “Google” where you can “search” people places and things. Alternatively, there is also a magic tool called a “scroll bar” which you can used to reveal hidden texts at the bottom of a page!

If you had done this, instead of apparently assuming your own personal interpretation is correct for no reason, at the bottom of the article, you could have read:

“Rutger Bregman is the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek”

So he absolutely does advocate for those things.

The more utterly absurd question you ask : is why does a newspaper publish opinion peices if it doesn’t support them. Do you know how newspapers work? Are you assuming they closely vet their opinion peices for ideological purity? While this maybe true of many ultraright wing news outlets that you may follow - but the majority of online news outlets I’ve read share conflicting ideas and opinion happily in order to reflect the various types of debate that are at the political core. This is no different - and this guy probably got a bit of exposure due to his outburst at Davis.

I strongly suspect you have a massively distorted idea at how this sort of media works, just as you have a vastly distorted understanding of the lefts posiions on open borders.

-->
@Ramshutu

How do you know the author advocates for a 15 hour work week? If he did, how could a mainstream organization allow him to preach?

-->
@Alec

The author advocates for 15 hour working weeks, and open borders.

He is a fringe figure, and his position is a fringe position. This is after you confused a news organization publishing an opinion peice by a fringe figure with that organization supporting that position.

Open borders are a fringe position - not ostensibly held by any major left wing organizarions or figures, to any meaningful degree. It’s just typical right wing misrepresentation and mischaracterization.

-->
@Ramshutu
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The author is not an extremist.

-->
@Ramshutu

ooof.

I got my lawn chair

-->
@Alec

No, Fortune doesn’t support open borders. Newspapers and sites frequently allow contrasting opinion pieces to be written and publish by various groups. This is just an opinion price by why appears to be a fringe group that was published by fortune.

-->
@Alec

Okay, so what if your link had someone that wants open borders? What does that have to do with us? Do we want open borders?

-->
@bsh1

You might be confused that I accepted this after previous comments. After reading your description. I have concluded that I disagree with your argument on a semantic level. I await your opening.

-->
@Ramshutu
@Wrick-It-Ralph

http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/ supports open borders, and they're not that far left.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Alec

I find it strange that when somebody wants a vetting process, that you automatically equate it with wanting open borders. I don't know too many people who want open borders. This is a strawman.