There are at least 3 reasons I can think of as to why this new coronavirus is scarier than ebola.
1. Ebola has existed for at least 40 years, which means we've had plenty of time to develop treatments and/or cures, so not as many people will die from that nowadays, whereas coronavirus has only been around for a couple months, so we haven't had much time to develop treatments and/or cure yet.
2. It's not fair for you to compare the number of deaths without looking at the death rates. Even though ebola technically did kill more people than coronavirus, coronavirus is killing people at a much faster rate. 40 years is equal to 480 months. In 480 months, ebola killed 11,310 people. In 1 month alone, coronavirus killed over 2000 people. Multiply 2000 by 480, and that means that, in 40 years, unless a cure or treatment is created soon, coronavirus will have killed off at least 80 times the amount of people, that ebola killed off in 40 years:
(2000 * 480) ÷ 11,310 = 84.8806366047745358090186
3. Coronavirus is also spreading faster than ebola, and has infected more countries than ebola. I live in Queens, New York. The virus has already made it here, and I, or any of my loved ones, could catch it, die, and be added to that list of victims.
I apologize if I came across as someone who does not value any immigrants at all, but allowing more and more people into this country is getting riskier and risker every day. We need to be more cautious and careful, especially around those who recently traveled here. Nobody wants their own loved ones catching this and dying, and the decisions of countries like the United States to allow more and more people into said countries is the reason it's spreading to begin with.
It was not "retarded" and I don't find "your native language" to be a valid excuse for not organizing your stuff better, and at least putting Con's arguments in quote boxes to at least make some things easier to follow.
I would argue that comprehension was tough because of a combination of the difficulty of the subject, some of your grammar errors, some of your irrelevant arguments, and you failing to organize things property like Con.
If you find that it would take over more characters just to explain a few things, you should have set the character count to as high as possible (which it wasn't), and/or focus on 1 or 2 specific key arguments that you believed or knew would be the strongest arguments against Con's case.
Yes, your source confirms over 3000 deaths... in only a few months.
It's bad enough that we have Americans committing so much crime, I get that, so we can at least cut down on the crime involving the illegals so we don't have more crime on top of the crime we already have, and also figure out why Americans are committing so much crime too, if that helps
I suppose legal immigrants would be valuable if they had skills and higher forms of education that were in high demand, and would be productive, but it's tricky for me to answer "by how much?"
Even if they somehow could pay for a home, there's still the issue of homes being in low supply with a high demand at the moment, meaning that many people would have to wait until either new housing is constructed, or until some people move out of their homes.
We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to.
The coronavirus is deadly and is killing off thousands of people and infecting millions. It most certainly is not overblown.
It isn't even just coronavirus that these people could be carrying. Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases.
We don't let them in if either we don't know if or think they can be trusted, or if we are too low on resources for it. We already have lots of homeless people living in tents on the sidewalks and you want us to bring in more people when we are already struggling to care for the people already here.
How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families? Unless you want them "work for their families" while living on the streets and have little access to good quality health care and other valuable scarce resources.
As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns. Having legal immigrants is important, but having too many immigrants becomes a problem since it requires more and more resources to care for them, and it becomes harder to manage. Too much of any good thing tends to be a bad thing.
Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it.
There's just too much risk and too many problems with blindly accepting every immigrant without making sure it's okay to let them in and that we have the resources necessary to help them and our own people.
Now that we have new diseases and stuff like this new deadly coronavirus that's been popping up all over the world, it's even more important now than ever, that anyone we allow into this country is checked to make sure they didn't pick up this virus. Any illegal immigrant that enters this country illegally who turns out to have this virus is putting our entire nation at risk, even if they're just "the small minority" like you claim.
At this point, I'm more afraid of people sneaking in illegally than people who first come in illegally but then overstay their visa, since anyone sneaking in illegally without being first checked for this virus risks infecting our people with it, whereas we can at least know that those who came in with a visa weren't bringing the deadly virus with them.
There are a variety of ways to address illegal immigration. It's only a matter of figuring out what the best or most optimal option is.
Getting rid of free health cares and other services for illegals, and fixing the terrible countries they come from, would reduce the incentive to come here illegally.
The ones that enter through the southern border illegally were not checked, so the question becomes can we address the issue of those overstaying their visas, and if so, how?
Ironically, now that I think about it, the countries of the Africans and the jews are partially to blame for slavery and the holocaust respectively, since the jews' country had their government which was the nazi party that blamed jews for the problems, and I don't know why the African governments allowed their people to get taken and brought somewhere else to be sold as slaves in the first place. The Africans probably didn't have governments at all, and instead had tribes and tribe leaders, so they would have been more vulnerable overall. Regardless, It's still difficult and tricky trying to compare them to illegal immigrants.
You'll have to ask someone else why we don't have enough of those things I mentioned. We don't have enough of it because we didn't create enough of it yet. That's the best answer I can give at the moment.
The terrible countries are the main problem because if you fix those countries, people won't have to leave them to try coming here in the first place, plus some of the immigrants who are already here would likely self-deport and go back home once their home is fixed, which will free up resources and space, thus allowing us to accept more immigrants that want to come here, thus resolving the issue of people not being able to come here. Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem, which will result in our immigration quota being able to accept more people. Changing our immigration quota alone does not address the root of the problem. Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution.
Fixing those countries fixes the source of the problem. Letting more immigrants in to use up more of our resources without fixing those countries only addresses the surface of the problem they are having.
I answered you on the difference between legal and illegal immigration: legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not
We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants.
Even if you slightly change your nazi and slavery analogies, not only is living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily go become a slave or a member of a comcentration camp, but then the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust.
Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place.
Once again, you're mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. I call you out on this and you still keep doing it. You have shown that legal immigrants help us increase our prosperity. The sources you cite talking about the benefits of immigration refers to legal immigration specifically.
If our resources are increased to the point where we are able to afford to care for more migrants, then I suppose we could consider talking about allowing more and more migrants in to help us. Our lack of the necessary resources to take in and care for all of them should be enough "evidence" that we can't do such a task, at least not at the moment.
No, the jews and Africans did not volunarily leave their homes and go out to get themselves killed and enslaved in other places. They were taken from their homes and brought to those places to be killed and enslaved.
Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from, with their terrible governments who are too lazy to properly address the crimes and violence in these places that causes many of these immigrants to flee in the first place.
In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble.
There is a limit on how many migrants we can take in and care for. We don't have enough time, money, space, housing, medicine, and resources for all of them.
It's not about which is "more valuable". It's that we don't have enough for all of them. We cannot provide what we lack or don't have to every migrant.
We can't take care of "they" if we don't take care of "us" first. "They" need "us" to take care of them, so we have to care for "us" so "us" can in turn help care for "they".
It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing". This means that we have no way of figuring out what their real names are, where they could have come from, or why they are here, since they won't have any form of identification. The only thing we will have to go on would be their testimonies, which often aren't reliable, if ever.
Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will.
To answer your first question: It depends on what exactly they are "in need" of, and how many of them we can reasonably afford to take in. If we can confirm that they are truly in need of genuine safety from some bad things bad home, and we can reasonably afford to take them in without costing us too much time, money, or resources, then we will have them sent to a court where a judge can review their asylum applications and make the final descision as to whether or not we let them in. However, a lot of these migrants will claim or pretend to be "in need" of safety when they really just want to be allowed into this country to cause trouble, or if we can't afford to keep taking in more migrants, then we cannot and should not "help" them. We must put our country, our safety, our security, and our people first.
To answer your second question: It's not about whether or not we "think that these immigrants are fleeing opression". It about whether or not we can verify their stories, prove that they're actually fleeing opression, and confirm that they're not bringing in any dangerous diseases, or lying or making things up just so they can be allowed into the country. We cannot be too trusting towards those who claim they're "fleeing" something, because then, liars will be able to come and take advantage of the same trust that we give to innocent genuine asyluk seekers. When they enter illegally through the southern border, we are running the risk of having them turn out to be bad people, or having them infect our people with a foreign disease we don't know about, since we cannot possibly verify their claims or check them for diseases or drugs or anything they might be carrying. If they enter this country illegally, they obviously aren't seeking a better life. They are obviously looking to cause trouble, since if they wanted a better life, they wouldn't enter illegally and put themselves (and their children, if they have any) at risk of being arrested, deported, and/or separated for doing so.
Employers usually pay their workers within a certain range of money per hour. They usually don't pay too little or else they risk losing employees and going out of business, and they don't pay too high or else their profit margins will go down too too much. An employer with a profit margin for 8 dollars an hour for example means they can pay their employees between $0.00 and $7.99 so they have to figure out what the best amount to pay is from there. Raising the minimum wage, or even having one in the first place, means they have less flexibility.
The reason there are places with little job alternatives to begin with is because of minimum wages, and the minimum wage going up. Companies with large profit margins like Walmart love when you raise minimum wage because it drives out competing smaller businesses with smaller profit margins, thus contributing to this lack of job alternatives that you complain about so much.
Like if you and I have a fast food restaurant a few blocks away from each other or something, and I make a lot of money, but you make little money, and we have a minimum wage that you can't afford but I can afford, you risk not being able to pay your employees the minimum wage because you don't have that much money and would go out of business while I stay in business. This leads to less job alternatives as there are now less businesses due to the minimum wage messing up and/or destroying businesses.
Competition should be what drives wages up or down, not the government. It's hard to have lots of competition when you have minimum wages, and it's hard to justify minimum wages when you have lots of competition. Without minimum wage, new businesses can be created to compete with already-existing businesses to offer the best prices to attract employees without having to worry about government interfering with that.
Also, I just noticed something else: in this debate you said "There are more available jobs than people to fill them in the US" but now, here in comments, you admit that not everyone has job alternatives, which contradicts your claim that there are available jobs for everyone to begin with, which actually makes it harder to justify minimum wage since that would lead to even less competition, less new businesses, and less job alternatives.
How much your labor is worth depends on what exactly you do with your labor.
If you work for, let's say, a car company and your job is to build cars for people to use for getting around faster, your labor is going to be far more valuable than if you invest your labor into creating mud pies that have little to no value.
If mud pies are worth only 1 or 2 dollars, and we have a minimum wage of let's say 3 dollars, then it's not fair to the employer to pay you that much for such cheap service.
If you work at like a fast food restaurant and a hamburger is only worth 4 to 5 dollars, and the minimum wage goes to 6 dollars, then it's going to cost too much to the owner of the restaurant, and they will have to cut costs somewhere or raise prices.
But with minimum wage going to 6, 7, 10, 15, or whatever dollars you think it should go to, you assume that all goods and services are worth that much, and you artificially make all goods and services worth that much, often ignoring supply and demand, which is the main factor that determines prices and costs.
What do you mean by taking "advantage of workers who have no alternatives"?
If an employer pays you less than what you think you deserve, how can you prove that they are being malicious and taking advantage of you? What if they have to pay you that low not because they are evil or something but simply because costs are too high for them and they just can't afford to pay you that high?
So the government steps in and forces an employer whose costs are already high to pay you more even though your work isn't really worth that much, thus increasing their costs, which would now mean that you are taking advantage of them, wouldn't it?
If most people already produce more than 5 dollars an hour, then there is no need to have or enforce a minimum wage of 5 dollars an hour, since they will already be paid at least that amount regardless.
If you have no minimum wage and you aren't being paid at least 5 dollars an hour it means your work or productivity wasn't found to be worth at least that much.
If you think your work is worth at least 5 dollars an hour and your employer disagrees, it becomes a matter of who is right and who is wrong. If you think you should be paid 15 dollars an hour (the amount of money that today's politicians want to raise the minimum wage to) for flipping burgers or scrubbing toilets all day, and your employer disagrees, see if any employer out there is willing to pay you that much to do that. If there isn't then it's probably not worth that much.
Minimium wage assumes that you the worker are right and the employer is wrong no matter what. Pro points out that the worker isn't always right and the employer isn't always wrong: "This also ties into college. If you didn't go to college for whatever reason, you're value as a employee is very low, most of the time even lower than the minimum wage. But, without the minimum wage, you can sell your labour no matter what. And this becomes very apparent when people with a form of college degree earn $0.8 million more in their lifetime than ones without."
If employers pay workers less than the workers deserve, the employer risks losing workers and going out of business, so employers will have to pay workers a certain minimum amount regardless of a minimum wage law.
It's an issue of how much employer is willing to pay you vs how much pay you're willing to accept, and both you and the employer have to come to an agreement on that, as Pro pointed out: "You can now start at the bottom, making $3/h, and work your way up! In fact, the average number of jobs a person will have is 12, so people can easily work their way up. But, if there was a minimum wage, then some people don't even have a place to start!"
I just now noticed your RFD. Sorry you didn't get time to actually post that in your vote.
Regarding "URL shorteners," I often archive certain sources because sometimes the original source gets edited or deleted which still lets the archived source be seen, or if the original source is one that requires a monthly fee or registration/subscription to view, and having an archive lets you bypass those. Also because URL shorteners allow me to save characters. Like if a certain source is like: http:www.website.com/ejofa8ojff0q98urjifjoufiheiaofueohiafhoeuhaoifuehoaufiopaeruhuorhwuiohg3uwhpou9ghu
That is a ridiculously long link so I shorten it with something like http:archive/asdfgh
Instead of bringing in completely new reasoning, what I instead did was weigh your strongest argument against DynamicSquid's strongest argument.
I determined that minimum wage does more harm than good because with minimum wage, people risk having no job and no money, whereas with no minimum wage, people can at least have a job and some money, even if it's less.
DynamicSquid pointed out: "If you can only produce $5/h worth of services, but the minimum wage is $10/h, then no one's going to hire you!"
So I weighed having less money vs having no money and determined that some money was still better than nothing.
Then you argued that "Removing minimum wage decreases employment overall as many employees will leave seeking higher pay."
I also weighed this against having no minimum wage, and determined that even if you leave seeking higher pay, at least it was your choice to stop earning money temporarily, whereas with minimum wage, you risk losing your job if the employer can't pay you, and you are forced to stop earning money, as Pro pointed out.
Being forced to stop earning money is worse than choosing to stop earning money.
I have edited and re-posted my Reason For Decision (RFD) so that it only considers information within the discussion, and within the sources of the debaters.
http://archive.ph/VuDov
I don't agree that people commit these murders for fame. Most people, even criminals/gangsters, are smart enough not to trade away their lives/freedom for just a couple hours of fame. You're much better off trying to be famous by doing good things and following the law.
Fame is useless if you're not alive to enjoy any of it, and most people understand this. When all those african american negro people shoot each other up in Chicago, it's not for fame. It's for drugs, money, girls, sex, territory, or to just show the others who's boss or whatever.
I think these people shoot up schools because of things like drug abuse, mental abuse, and bullying. If you read some of the manifestos of shooters like Brenton Tarrant and Patrick Crusius, you'll see that they carry out attacks because of things that have nothing to do with getting famous.
"the damage they can cause" is precisely why some law-abiding citizens would want to own a gun in the first place.
If you're hunting buffalo, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to your target so that you can kill it quickly and efficiently, and have something to cook and eat.
If you're defending yourself from a criminal that wants to harm you, you're gonna want something that can quickly deal enough damage to the criminal so that he/she can no longer harming you.
If you're fighting against an oppressive government, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to them so that they can't oppress you that easily.
We need the second amendment for:
number 1: hunting
number 2: self-defense
number 3: fighting back against the government if they ever become tyrannical
"wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?"
Depends on what exactly you're trying "extra hard" at. This is because our world is rapidly changing and evolving. In the past, doing assembly line monkey work may have been enough to "earn you a stable living," but nowadays, more and more employers are looking for resilient people who can adapt to sudden changes, be creative, think critically, invent valuable things, and do more practical useless stuff than assembly line monkey work.
Nowadays, nobbing "A into slot B all day every day" won't cut it. That assembly line monkey work is becoming obsolete, with more and more people starting to use robots to do that assembly line monkey work instead of employees. If all you're doing is nobbing A into slot B all day every day, and you're making very little money off of that, then no, "trying" "harder" to nob A into slot B all day every day, "harder," won't help you much.
Back then, employers valued people who could "nob A into slot B all day every day" and they valued people who could it "hard" and "try hard," nobbing "A into slot B all day every day," but that was only because robots either did not exist back then, or were not very popular or advanced back then. Now, employers can have robots do that since robots are now much more popular and much more advanced, so you can no longer get paid much to do what a robot does, better, and for a cheaper price.
Trying hard is pointless if what you're trying hard at is becoming obsolete and being rapidly replaced by cheap robots.
So to answer your question... no. I do not "expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability" if they're rapidly being replaced by robots and not looking for better careers that employers want nowadays.
How do I edit my vote so I can put the newly update/fixed links?
My link somehow linked to a different RFD instead of the one for this debate. Web archive must have gotten the 2 links mixed up. I fixed it, and I need to put it in the vote.
If you're using a mobile device or smartphone, then use the mobile/smartphone link in my vote. I fixed that one too.
The mobile smartphone link is easier to read on smartphones than the first link is.
You two should at least vote on this, since you both seem to be very passionate about this issue.
The Democrats' ultimate end goal is to take over America and achieve absolute power over this country and everyone in it. The only reason they have not yet succeeded is because our country has several lines of defense that stand between the Democrats and absolute power, and President Donald Trump is one of those lines.
First, they want to let as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, into this country as they can so they can give those immigrants voting power, which will make them all vote Democrat and ensure that Democrats win every future election. President Donald Trump has been combatting this since he was elected into office in 2016-2017.
Next they want to restrict free speech as much as they can and only allow speech that agrees with their point of view. We're already seeing this kind of thing happen with people getting attacked/harassed over wearing Maga Hats, as well as certain phrases being banned from college campuses.
Then they want to bribe people with stuff like "free college" "free healthcare" and all sorts of other (not) free stuff, so that more people vote for them, but they will use our tax dollars to pay for all of it, and tax the wealthy unfairly.
Finally, they want to restrict our access to guns as much as possible, since the second amendment is our last line of defense against them. Without guns, we are vulnerable to both criminals and oppressive governments. Nations like Venezuela, China, and North Korea all disarm their citizens so that their governments can oppress them freely without them being able to fight back. We can't end up like them, but the Democrats know they can't ban guns outright, so they do the next best thing, which is to restrict them as much as they can by passing hundreds of worthless "common sense gun regulations" that do not stop criminals, and only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Ramshutu keeps deleting my RFDs/votes everytime they aren't "thorough enough" so I had to make sure I explain things in much greater detail so that it meets the site's requirements.
I'm gonna see if I can prepare an RFD beforehand in advance, seeing how the debate is just about finished at this time, with only one more argument to go.
I recommend having at least 1 week for arguments, and at least 2 weeks for voting, next time. 4 and 5 round debates require more time to survey arguments, weigh them against each other, and reach a conclusion. Less time for voting means anyone who does vote will have to rush through everything to avoid running out of time, especially those who have other real-life responsibilities, but still want to contribute their vote.
Are you sure you should be spreading yourself too thin? You're debating me, another person, AND Lazarous too. You can't be doing so many debates all at once!
You caught Billbatard plagiarising? Impressive. I wouldn't have known, although I suppose it was suspicious that Billbatard's grammar was bad for the first 3 rounds, but then at round 5, his grammar suddenly drastically improved and he was actually using proper punctuation. I guess that alone must have what made you suspicious about potential plagiarism. When you observe how someone writes, whether they have decent grammar or poor grammar, and then suddenly that way of writing drastically changes, that is one of the ways teachers and college professors begin to suspect plagiarism, because it suggests that it may not actually be their own words.
Still, I find it odd that you tied spelling and grammar even though Billbatard's spelling and grammar was like elementary school level or something.
I finished my homework assignments and I have some free time on my hands before I get more to do later on, so let's re-do this debate, under the same Time for Arguments, same Voting System, same number of rounds, and same rules, but with me as the opponent this time, instead of Billbatard.
There are at least 3 reasons I can think of as to why this new coronavirus is scarier than ebola.
1. Ebola has existed for at least 40 years, which means we've had plenty of time to develop treatments and/or cures, so not as many people will die from that nowadays, whereas coronavirus has only been around for a couple months, so we haven't had much time to develop treatments and/or cure yet.
2. It's not fair for you to compare the number of deaths without looking at the death rates. Even though ebola technically did kill more people than coronavirus, coronavirus is killing people at a much faster rate. 40 years is equal to 480 months. In 480 months, ebola killed 11,310 people. In 1 month alone, coronavirus killed over 2000 people. Multiply 2000 by 480, and that means that, in 40 years, unless a cure or treatment is created soon, coronavirus will have killed off at least 80 times the amount of people, that ebola killed off in 40 years:
(2000 * 480) ÷ 11,310 = 84.8806366047745358090186
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
3. Coronavirus is also spreading faster than ebola, and has infected more countries than ebola. I live in Queens, New York. The virus has already made it here, and I, or any of my loved ones, could catch it, die, and be added to that list of victims.
I apologize if I came across as someone who does not value any immigrants at all, but allowing more and more people into this country is getting riskier and risker every day. We need to be more cautious and careful, especially around those who recently traveled here. Nobody wants their own loved ones catching this and dying, and the decisions of countries like the United States to allow more and more people into said countries is the reason it's spreading to begin with.
I made a spelling/grammar error in one of my sentences.
Where it says "addition 20 votes"
It should say "additional 20 votes"
It was not "retarded" and I don't find "your native language" to be a valid excuse for not organizing your stuff better, and at least putting Con's arguments in quote boxes to at least make some things easier to follow.
I would argue that comprehension was tough because of a combination of the difficulty of the subject, some of your grammar errors, some of your irrelevant arguments, and you failing to organize things property like Con.
If you find that it would take over more characters just to explain a few things, you should have set the character count to as high as possible (which it wasn't), and/or focus on 1 or 2 specific key arguments that you believed or knew would be the strongest arguments against Con's case.
There should be a 2-month voting period, 5 rounds, and/or 10,000 characters per argument
Yes, your source confirms over 3000 deaths... in only a few months.
It's bad enough that we have Americans committing so much crime, I get that, so we can at least cut down on the crime involving the illegals so we don't have more crime on top of the crime we already have, and also figure out why Americans are committing so much crime too, if that helps
I suppose legal immigrants would be valuable if they had skills and higher forms of education that were in high demand, and would be productive, but it's tricky for me to answer "by how much?"
Even if they somehow could pay for a home, there's still the issue of homes being in low supply with a high demand at the moment, meaning that many people would have to wait until either new housing is constructed, or until some people move out of their homes.
We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to.
The coronavirus is deadly and is killing off thousands of people and infecting millions. It most certainly is not overblown.
It isn't even just coronavirus that these people could be carrying. Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases.
We don't let them in if either we don't know if or think they can be trusted, or if we are too low on resources for it. We already have lots of homeless people living in tents on the sidewalks and you want us to bring in more people when we are already struggling to care for the people already here.
How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families? Unless you want them "work for their families" while living on the streets and have little access to good quality health care and other valuable scarce resources.
As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns. Having legal immigrants is important, but having too many immigrants becomes a problem since it requires more and more resources to care for them, and it becomes harder to manage. Too much of any good thing tends to be a bad thing.
Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it.
There's just too much risk and too many problems with blindly accepting every immigrant without making sure it's okay to let them in and that we have the resources necessary to help them and our own people.
Now that we have new diseases and stuff like this new deadly coronavirus that's been popping up all over the world, it's even more important now than ever, that anyone we allow into this country is checked to make sure they didn't pick up this virus. Any illegal immigrant that enters this country illegally who turns out to have this virus is putting our entire nation at risk, even if they're just "the small minority" like you claim.
At this point, I'm more afraid of people sneaking in illegally than people who first come in illegally but then overstay their visa, since anyone sneaking in illegally without being first checked for this virus risks infecting our people with it, whereas we can at least know that those who came in with a visa weren't bringing the deadly virus with them.
There are a variety of ways to address illegal immigration. It's only a matter of figuring out what the best or most optimal option is.
Getting rid of free health cares and other services for illegals, and fixing the terrible countries they come from, would reduce the incentive to come here illegally.
The ones that enter through the southern border illegally were not checked, so the question becomes can we address the issue of those overstaying their visas, and if so, how?
Ironically, now that I think about it, the countries of the Africans and the jews are partially to blame for slavery and the holocaust respectively, since the jews' country had their government which was the nazi party that blamed jews for the problems, and I don't know why the African governments allowed their people to get taken and brought somewhere else to be sold as slaves in the first place. The Africans probably didn't have governments at all, and instead had tribes and tribe leaders, so they would have been more vulnerable overall. Regardless, It's still difficult and tricky trying to compare them to illegal immigrants.
You'll have to ask someone else why we don't have enough of those things I mentioned. We don't have enough of it because we didn't create enough of it yet. That's the best answer I can give at the moment.
The terrible countries are the main problem because if you fix those countries, people won't have to leave them to try coming here in the first place, plus some of the immigrants who are already here would likely self-deport and go back home once their home is fixed, which will free up resources and space, thus allowing us to accept more immigrants that want to come here, thus resolving the issue of people not being able to come here. Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem, which will result in our immigration quota being able to accept more people. Changing our immigration quota alone does not address the root of the problem. Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution.
Fixing those countries fixes the source of the problem. Letting more immigrants in to use up more of our resources without fixing those countries only addresses the surface of the problem they are having.
I answered you on the difference between legal and illegal immigration: legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not
We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants.
Even if you slightly change your nazi and slavery analogies, not only is living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily go become a slave or a member of a comcentration camp, but then the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust.
Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place.
Once again, you're mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. I call you out on this and you still keep doing it. You have shown that legal immigrants help us increase our prosperity. The sources you cite talking about the benefits of immigration refers to legal immigration specifically.
If our resources are increased to the point where we are able to afford to care for more migrants, then I suppose we could consider talking about allowing more and more migrants in to help us. Our lack of the necessary resources to take in and care for all of them should be enough "evidence" that we can't do such a task, at least not at the moment.
No, the jews and Africans did not volunarily leave their homes and go out to get themselves killed and enslaved in other places. They were taken from their homes and brought to those places to be killed and enslaved.
Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from, with their terrible governments who are too lazy to properly address the crimes and violence in these places that causes many of these immigrants to flee in the first place.
In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble.
There is a limit on how many migrants we can take in and care for. We don't have enough time, money, space, housing, medicine, and resources for all of them.
It's not about which is "more valuable". It's that we don't have enough for all of them. We cannot provide what we lack or don't have to every migrant.
We can't take care of "they" if we don't take care of "us" first. "They" need "us" to take care of them, so we have to care for "us" so "us" can in turn help care for "they".
It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing". This means that we have no way of figuring out what their real names are, where they could have come from, or why they are here, since they won't have any form of identification. The only thing we will have to go on would be their testimonies, which often aren't reliable, if ever.
Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will.
I meant to say "third round" not "thirs round" in my vote.
My bad.
Darn. Only 1 vote so far. Should have requested a longer voting period.
To answer your first question: It depends on what exactly they are "in need" of, and how many of them we can reasonably afford to take in. If we can confirm that they are truly in need of genuine safety from some bad things bad home, and we can reasonably afford to take them in without costing us too much time, money, or resources, then we will have them sent to a court where a judge can review their asylum applications and make the final descision as to whether or not we let them in. However, a lot of these migrants will claim or pretend to be "in need" of safety when they really just want to be allowed into this country to cause trouble, or if we can't afford to keep taking in more migrants, then we cannot and should not "help" them. We must put our country, our safety, our security, and our people first.
To answer your second question: It's not about whether or not we "think that these immigrants are fleeing opression". It about whether or not we can verify their stories, prove that they're actually fleeing opression, and confirm that they're not bringing in any dangerous diseases, or lying or making things up just so they can be allowed into the country. We cannot be too trusting towards those who claim they're "fleeing" something, because then, liars will be able to come and take advantage of the same trust that we give to innocent genuine asyluk seekers. When they enter illegally through the southern border, we are running the risk of having them turn out to be bad people, or having them infect our people with a foreign disease we don't know about, since we cannot possibly verify their claims or check them for diseases or drugs or anything they might be carrying. If they enter this country illegally, they obviously aren't seeking a better life. They are obviously looking to cause trouble, since if they wanted a better life, they wouldn't enter illegally and put themselves (and their children, if they have any) at risk of being arrested, deported, and/or separated for doing so.
That's assuming anyone else is going to even want to adopt the baby
Employers usually pay their workers within a certain range of money per hour. They usually don't pay too little or else they risk losing employees and going out of business, and they don't pay too high or else their profit margins will go down too too much. An employer with a profit margin for 8 dollars an hour for example means they can pay their employees between $0.00 and $7.99 so they have to figure out what the best amount to pay is from there. Raising the minimum wage, or even having one in the first place, means they have less flexibility.
The reason there are places with little job alternatives to begin with is because of minimum wages, and the minimum wage going up. Companies with large profit margins like Walmart love when you raise minimum wage because it drives out competing smaller businesses with smaller profit margins, thus contributing to this lack of job alternatives that you complain about so much.
Like if you and I have a fast food restaurant a few blocks away from each other or something, and I make a lot of money, but you make little money, and we have a minimum wage that you can't afford but I can afford, you risk not being able to pay your employees the minimum wage because you don't have that much money and would go out of business while I stay in business. This leads to less job alternatives as there are now less businesses due to the minimum wage messing up and/or destroying businesses.
Competition should be what drives wages up or down, not the government. It's hard to have lots of competition when you have minimum wages, and it's hard to justify minimum wages when you have lots of competition. Without minimum wage, new businesses can be created to compete with already-existing businesses to offer the best prices to attract employees without having to worry about government interfering with that.
Also, I just noticed something else: in this debate you said "There are more available jobs than people to fill them in the US" but now, here in comments, you admit that not everyone has job alternatives, which contradicts your claim that there are available jobs for everyone to begin with, which actually makes it harder to justify minimum wage since that would lead to even less competition, less new businesses, and less job alternatives.
How much your labor is worth depends on what exactly you do with your labor.
If you work for, let's say, a car company and your job is to build cars for people to use for getting around faster, your labor is going to be far more valuable than if you invest your labor into creating mud pies that have little to no value.
If mud pies are worth only 1 or 2 dollars, and we have a minimum wage of let's say 3 dollars, then it's not fair to the employer to pay you that much for such cheap service.
If you work at like a fast food restaurant and a hamburger is only worth 4 to 5 dollars, and the minimum wage goes to 6 dollars, then it's going to cost too much to the owner of the restaurant, and they will have to cut costs somewhere or raise prices.
But with minimum wage going to 6, 7, 10, 15, or whatever dollars you think it should go to, you assume that all goods and services are worth that much, and you artificially make all goods and services worth that much, often ignoring supply and demand, which is the main factor that determines prices and costs.
What do you mean by taking "advantage of workers who have no alternatives"?
If an employer pays you less than what you think you deserve, how can you prove that they are being malicious and taking advantage of you? What if they have to pay you that low not because they are evil or something but simply because costs are too high for them and they just can't afford to pay you that high?
So the government steps in and forces an employer whose costs are already high to pay you more even though your work isn't really worth that much, thus increasing their costs, which would now mean that you are taking advantage of them, wouldn't it?
If most people already produce more than 5 dollars an hour, then there is no need to have or enforce a minimum wage of 5 dollars an hour, since they will already be paid at least that amount regardless.
If you have no minimum wage and you aren't being paid at least 5 dollars an hour it means your work or productivity wasn't found to be worth at least that much.
If you think your work is worth at least 5 dollars an hour and your employer disagrees, it becomes a matter of who is right and who is wrong. If you think you should be paid 15 dollars an hour (the amount of money that today's politicians want to raise the minimum wage to) for flipping burgers or scrubbing toilets all day, and your employer disagrees, see if any employer out there is willing to pay you that much to do that. If there isn't then it's probably not worth that much.
Minimium wage assumes that you the worker are right and the employer is wrong no matter what. Pro points out that the worker isn't always right and the employer isn't always wrong: "This also ties into college. If you didn't go to college for whatever reason, you're value as a employee is very low, most of the time even lower than the minimum wage. But, without the minimum wage, you can sell your labour no matter what. And this becomes very apparent when people with a form of college degree earn $0.8 million more in their lifetime than ones without."
If employers pay workers less than the workers deserve, the employer risks losing workers and going out of business, so employers will have to pay workers a certain minimum amount regardless of a minimum wage law.
It's an issue of how much employer is willing to pay you vs how much pay you're willing to accept, and both you and the employer have to come to an agreement on that, as Pro pointed out: "You can now start at the bottom, making $3/h, and work your way up! In fact, the average number of jobs a person will have is 12, so people can easily work their way up. But, if there was a minimum wage, then some people don't even have a place to start!"
I just now noticed your RFD. Sorry you didn't get time to actually post that in your vote.
Regarding "URL shorteners," I often archive certain sources because sometimes the original source gets edited or deleted which still lets the archived source be seen, or if the original source is one that requires a monthly fee or registration/subscription to view, and having an archive lets you bypass those. Also because URL shorteners allow me to save characters. Like if a certain source is like: http:www.website.com/ejofa8ojff0q98urjifjoufiheiaofueohiafhoeuhaoifuehoaufiopaeruhuorhwuiohg3uwhpou9ghu
That is a ridiculously long link so I shorten it with something like http:archive/asdfgh
Instead of bringing in completely new reasoning, what I instead did was weigh your strongest argument against DynamicSquid's strongest argument.
I determined that minimum wage does more harm than good because with minimum wage, people risk having no job and no money, whereas with no minimum wage, people can at least have a job and some money, even if it's less.
DynamicSquid pointed out: "If you can only produce $5/h worth of services, but the minimum wage is $10/h, then no one's going to hire you!"
So I weighed having less money vs having no money and determined that some money was still better than nothing.
Then you argued that "Removing minimum wage decreases employment overall as many employees will leave seeking higher pay."
I also weighed this against having no minimum wage, and determined that even if you leave seeking higher pay, at least it was your choice to stop earning money temporarily, whereas with minimum wage, you risk losing your job if the employer can't pay you, and you are forced to stop earning money, as Pro pointed out.
Being forced to stop earning money is worse than choosing to stop earning money.
Okay, answer me this then: What do you think was your strongest argument for minimum wage, in this debate?
I have edited and re-posted my Reason For Decision (RFD) so that it only considers information within the discussion, and within the sources of the debaters.
http://archive.ph/VuDov
It's a link to my Reason For Decision RFD. I use it to make my RFD when it would normally exceed the character limit on debate art.
I can't believe you people are debating over a song
We should also get at least a week for arguments.
The voting period should be at least a month.
I don't agree that people commit these murders for fame. Most people, even criminals/gangsters, are smart enough not to trade away their lives/freedom for just a couple hours of fame. You're much better off trying to be famous by doing good things and following the law.
Fame is useless if you're not alive to enjoy any of it, and most people understand this. When all those african american negro people shoot each other up in Chicago, it's not for fame. It's for drugs, money, girls, sex, territory, or to just show the others who's boss or whatever.
I think these people shoot up schools because of things like drug abuse, mental abuse, and bullying. If you read some of the manifestos of shooters like Brenton Tarrant and Patrick Crusius, you'll see that they carry out attacks because of things that have nothing to do with getting famous.
I'm very busy. I have a lot of studying to do. I don't have time for challenges at the moment.
3?
You mean 2.
Only those with 2 non-forfeited non-troll debates, not 3.
"the damage they can cause" is precisely why some law-abiding citizens would want to own a gun in the first place.
If you're hunting buffalo, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to your target so that you can kill it quickly and efficiently, and have something to cook and eat.
If you're defending yourself from a criminal that wants to harm you, you're gonna want something that can quickly deal enough damage to the criminal so that he/she can no longer harming you.
If you're fighting against an oppressive government, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to them so that they can't oppress you that easily.
Also, Sir_Pigeon is correct.
We need the second amendment for:
number 1: hunting
number 2: self-defense
number 3: fighting back against the government if they ever become tyrannical
"wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?"
Depends on what exactly you're trying "extra hard" at. This is because our world is rapidly changing and evolving. In the past, doing assembly line monkey work may have been enough to "earn you a stable living," but nowadays, more and more employers are looking for resilient people who can adapt to sudden changes, be creative, think critically, invent valuable things, and do more practical useless stuff than assembly line monkey work.
Nowadays, nobbing "A into slot B all day every day" won't cut it. That assembly line monkey work is becoming obsolete, with more and more people starting to use robots to do that assembly line monkey work instead of employees. If all you're doing is nobbing A into slot B all day every day, and you're making very little money off of that, then no, "trying" "harder" to nob A into slot B all day every day, "harder," won't help you much.
Back then, employers valued people who could "nob A into slot B all day every day" and they valued people who could it "hard" and "try hard," nobbing "A into slot B all day every day," but that was only because robots either did not exist back then, or were not very popular or advanced back then. Now, employers can have robots do that since robots are now much more popular and much more advanced, so you can no longer get paid much to do what a robot does, better, and for a cheaper price.
Trying hard is pointless if what you're trying hard at is becoming obsolete and being rapidly replaced by cheap robots.
So to answer your question... no. I do not "expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability" if they're rapidly being replaced by robots and not looking for better careers that employers want nowadays.
I fixed my RFD and all of the links.
Yeah okay, that would work too.
How do I edit my vote so I can put the newly update/fixed links?
My link somehow linked to a different RFD instead of the one for this debate. Web archive must have gotten the 2 links mixed up. I fixed it, and I need to put it in the vote.
Try this link instead:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029125616/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit
If you're using a mobile device or smartphone, then use the mobile/smartphone link in my vote. I fixed that one too.
The mobile smartphone link is easier to read on smartphones than the first link is.
Thanks for letting me know. Working on fixing it right now.
You two should at least vote on this, since you both seem to be very passionate about this issue.
The Democrats' ultimate end goal is to take over America and achieve absolute power over this country and everyone in it. The only reason they have not yet succeeded is because our country has several lines of defense that stand between the Democrats and absolute power, and President Donald Trump is one of those lines.
First, they want to let as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, into this country as they can so they can give those immigrants voting power, which will make them all vote Democrat and ensure that Democrats win every future election. President Donald Trump has been combatting this since he was elected into office in 2016-2017.
Next they want to restrict free speech as much as they can and only allow speech that agrees with their point of view. We're already seeing this kind of thing happen with people getting attacked/harassed over wearing Maga Hats, as well as certain phrases being banned from college campuses.
Then they want to bribe people with stuff like "free college" "free healthcare" and all sorts of other (not) free stuff, so that more people vote for them, but they will use our tax dollars to pay for all of it, and tax the wealthy unfairly.
Finally, they want to restrict our access to guns as much as possible, since the second amendment is our last line of defense against them. Without guns, we are vulnerable to both criminals and oppressive governments. Nations like Venezuela, China, and North Korea all disarm their citizens so that their governments can oppress them freely without them being able to fight back. We can't end up like them, but the Democrats know they can't ban guns outright, so they do the next best thing, which is to restrict them as much as they can by passing hundreds of worthless "common sense gun regulations" that do not stop criminals, and only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Thanks.
Ramshutu keeps deleting my RFDs/votes everytime they aren't "thorough enough" so I had to make sure I explain things in much greater detail so that it meets the site's requirements.
I'm gonna see if I can prepare an RFD beforehand in advance, seeing how the debate is just about finished at this time, with only one more argument to go.
I recommend having at least 1 week for arguments, and at least 2 weeks for voting, next time. 4 and 5 round debates require more time to survey arguments, weigh them against each other, and reach a conclusion. Less time for voting means anyone who does vote will have to rush through everything to avoid running out of time, especially those who have other real-life responsibilities, but still want to contribute their vote.
How do you define "challenging assumptions in the resolution"?
Virtuoso
Are you sure you should be spreading yourself too thin? You're debating me, another person, AND Lazarous too. You can't be doing so many debates all at once!
What did Trump do that was illegal and warranted impeachment?
You caught Billbatard plagiarising? Impressive. I wouldn't have known, although I suppose it was suspicious that Billbatard's grammar was bad for the first 3 rounds, but then at round 5, his grammar suddenly drastically improved and he was actually using proper punctuation. I guess that alone must have what made you suspicious about potential plagiarism. When you observe how someone writes, whether they have decent grammar or poor grammar, and then suddenly that way of writing drastically changes, that is one of the ways teachers and college professors begin to suspect plagiarism, because it suggests that it may not actually be their own words.
Still, I find it odd that you tied spelling and grammar even though Billbatard's spelling and grammar was like elementary school level or something.
This is a book on Complete English Grammar Rules:
http://93.174.95.29/main/2239000/d97cbedd58c608801e6bff8ed30da269/%28The%20Farlex%20Grammar%20Book%29%20Farlex%20International%20-%20Complete%20English%20Grammar%20Rules_%20Examples%2C%20Exceptions%2C%20Exercises%2C%20and%20Everything%20You%20Need%20to%20Master%20Proper%20Grammar.%201-Farlex%20International%20%282016%29.pdf
Anyone who visits this link will have a 3.47-megabyte PDF file automatically downloaded, which is the book.
It's a good book for those who struggle to have proper spelling and grammar.
So are you saying that Con should hurt himself to hurt Pro more, like go against his own arguments to attack Pro's more?
What do you mean by "kamikaze" in your Reason for Decision?
I finished my homework assignments and I have some free time on my hands before I get more to do later on, so let's re-do this debate, under the same Time for Arguments, same Voting System, same number of rounds, and same rules, but with me as the opponent this time, instead of Billbatard.
Thanks for the feedback.
I would still award conduct to dustryder since NotClub waived 2 rounds and did not use that opportunity to make more strong arguments.
Both side's sources were good; neither was necessarily bad or fake or anything. I just find dustryder's to be more detailed and better.