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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con’s case is as follows. In order for Pro to prove that migration “ought” to be a human right, they need to justify a particular normative ethical theory. The problem is that justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it either (1) runs into an infinite regress of justifications or (2) attempts to ground itself in real-world facts. The first of these is a problem, according to Con, because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion. The second of these is a problem since that would be committing a naturalistic fallacy -- the fact that something is the case doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. The problem for Con, though, is that this would be a post-fiat kritik. It’s a classic example of what formal debaters often call a “moral skep” argument -- it seems to argue in favor of either moral non-cognitivism or error theory, which challenges the resolution’s assumption that an “ought” is coherent. Rule 6 forbids that. Given that this debate operates under the assumption that moral realism is true, the question is: given moral realism, should migration be a human right? Pro offers two substantive reasons why it should be -- one is the argument that there is an individual right to the freedom of movement that shouldn’t be constrained by the random luck that determines where you are born and the other is the notion that humanity functions as a moral community, and movement within moral communities holds moral significance. Apart from the kritik, Con doesn’t attack these two claims. I understand Con’s frustration, but it’s their job to pay close attention to the rules. Thus, I vote Pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

"Right to leave"; Pro's argument in support of this right is strong, but Pro's connection of this to the resolution is weak. Pro's argument that migration within a community should be permitted is strong, but Pro's case for a human community is weak.

Con's hyper-technical is/ought approach to the resolution is not convincing. The resolution isn't ambiguous. Viewing this most charitably, it appears to be an attack on the lack of an objective, logical basis for morals. Con didn't attack the weaknesses of Pro's case. Con didn't make much of a case of his own.

These problems are largely pointed out by Pro within the following round. Con double's down on his is/ought argument, but I must reject this argument for the reasons Pro provided; It's unappealing due to being too technical and overly semantic. Con follows by making accusations of bad faith debating, none of which are true. Con finishes off with more accusations and sticking to the is/ought line of reasoning. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to have been a substantive debate on this topic.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con literally concedes that non-migrating area-traps are the equivalent of prison in terms of human rights, at least to some degree and due specifically to not being able to leave. The Kritik that it isn't a human right but ought to be was kind of lost on me anyway since the entirety of expanding upon it became instead about the banning of Kritiks in debates and a couple of other rules like evenly shared BoP and vaguely 'no trolling'. In fact you could say Con's later Rounds were the definition of trolling as it became about making Pro feel shit for being a coward. Being a coward isn't being a troll, it takes a troll to expose a coward usually but that's how life goes. Don't overplay your hand against a coward when the coward is very willing to be aggressive when the time is right. This is poker strategy vs chess strategy, Con needs to learn not to mess with someone like bsh1 who understand how to use the opponent's aggression against them.

It's fine that you did this honestly, I agree with Con outside of this debate about bsh1 but the fact is you step into the arena you gotta respect the rules. You can't eye gouge and then say 'well in a real fight I can do that to you, coward!'

Tbh, I back bsh1 up on this; rules in the description are sacred to me (actually a lot more so than they are to bsh1, as evident by some cases of vote-modding). You agree to the description, if you lost then admit it and concede with grace.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

1.) Kritiks are prevented by the rules. An assumption Inherent in the resolution, is that the resolution is answerable (as outlined by pro), con clearly challenges this assumption and therefore is guilty of a kritik. As this was cons whole argument - pros argument is not addressed and is dropped. Pro wins

2.) I am and have been willing to ignore rules if one side can argue why I should not accept the rules, that they are unfair or unreasonable. Pro points out the rule is there to keep the debate as a discussion on the merits of a plan - not a crappy nitpicking logic fest unrelated to the resolution. Con does not clearly elaborate on any harm that would be imposed for the rule. Rules upheld. Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins

3.) Cons case that moral imperatives are not possible and so the resolution is unanswerable, appears to be mostly dealt with as a value statement. That if one presupposes a particularly moral framework that guides moral decisions, then oughts are possible. Pro elaborates on this in Round 2. Con doesn’t seem to have much of an answer to why I shouldn’t accept this other than to object to the notion of an axiomatic value (pro covered in R3). Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins

4.) Even If I accept all that, is/ought are accepted problems and normally aren’t a part of policy debate. For me to accept the kritik even if I waive the three issues above, con imo has to show a clear harm of accepting this assumption as is. If pro can’t show why there is a harm in accepting the resolution - I can’t see any practical or meaningful reason I should accept the premise. Kritik rejected - pros arguments dropped. Pro wins

5.) even if I ignore the above, accepting the resolution in my view offers no negation of the resolution. As the BoP is evenly shared in the rules. Even if I reject everything pro said, and accept everything con said. It’s still a tie.

Given the above, pro had me at point one, and thus arguments go to pro.

Conduct. Not only was con engaging in a ridiculous nitpicking argument outside both the intent and normal practice of a debate, he then launched into an inherently anti social debate approach. This was rounded up with his 4th and 5th round:

“I apologize, I was under the impression that this would be an honest discussion.  That was my fault for making assumptions.”

“How frivolous of you.  I've already made my case and you simply hand wave it off saying it's not a problem. “

“I hope your votes keep you warm at night.  Because your thoughts won't. “

Cons behaviour deteriorated into the petulant and obtuse. Pro patiently responded, did not call names, or flip any tables, despite the degree of apparent provocation.

Cons behaviour was egregious. He didn’t appear to debate in good faith on the clear intent of the topic, he resorted to petulance and sarcasm that was clearly both objectionable to any reasonable person and showed a profound lack of respect for his opponent.

This Conduct was extremely disrespectful and would clearly warrant a conduct violation if it was allowed, but also severe enough and a loss on these grounds alone.

As a result, pro wins here in 5 different ways.