That's fine. I came up with a good round structure to stick to.
R1 con waive
R1 Pro posts constructive
R2 Con posts constructive
R2 pro refutes
R3 con refutes and Crystalizes (make final appeal to judge as to why I win without adding new points, just summarizing the debate.)
R3 Pro defends against refutations and summarizes why he won.
This way you don't need to waive, and my final points won't be refutations that go unanswered.
I just realized that the debate structure won't work given the number of rounds.
The only thing I ask is that you waive the last round so that we have an equal number of rounds of posted text. Sorry about that.
You said that there were jobs that needed to be filled, but you never explained why illegal immigrants had to fill those jobs. Most importantly though, you never explained the harm in letting the jobs go unfilled. Where is your stats about businesses failing? While Wylted's case was flawed, he offered a lot of quantifiable points. He offered lots of examples showing that the wall would work. I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
Just because something isn't bad for the economy doesn't make it a good thing. If you proved significant economic harms that have quantification (i.e. the wall will de-incentivize trading with Mexico because it leads to populist anti-US leaders gaining power who aren't going to cooperate on trade deals,) then your argument would of had an impact.
Perhaps, but I thought that if it was a Nationwide problem, that the TB would affect everyone in Mexico regardless of social class. I would recommend making the distinction you just made if you plan to run this point and suggest an increase in legal immigration.
I checked. I said that the same problems associated with your 1st 2 points also applies to your economic point. It's defensive and offers no real impact.
I really like the idea of this. I don't think people are engaged enough in the actual debate section of the website to care much. If some people want to volunteer, I wouldn't have a problem joining them though.
FYI, I did a similar debate before. I will be using the information from that debate to make this case. It will read similarly, but I though I should let you know so that people don't cry foul.
Didn't vote yet. I just wanted to say that given the topic, it's going to be hard to talk about some legitimate harms without the point bleeding over into "moral" territory. I haven't read the full debate yet, so maybe it's better defined in the debate as to what constitutes a legislative failure without factoring morality into the debate.
Thanks for the vote. Yeah, I didn't realize I could only defend. I wanted to add more refutations. It would have been unfair as it was the end of the debate though.
"This debate is only for Wisdom of Ages. Do not accept unless you are him. It is also for Virtuoso's Tournament."
This was in the description for the debate.
He chose the side of the argument he wanted to be on. This is for the tournament, so we both had to decide in a resolution. This is the one he picked and I have no complaints.
For reference, when I said that the debate was about an increase in the military budget in my RFD, I was simply confused. I meant to say that the debate was about keeping a strong military.
That's fine. I came up with a good round structure to stick to.
R1 con waive
R1 Pro posts constructive
R2 Con posts constructive
R2 pro refutes
R3 con refutes and Crystalizes (make final appeal to judge as to why I win without adding new points, just summarizing the debate.)
R3 Pro defends against refutations and summarizes why he won.
This way you don't need to waive, and my final points won't be refutations that go unanswered.
I just realized that the debate structure won't work given the number of rounds.
The only thing I ask is that you waive the last round so that we have an equal number of rounds of posted text. Sorry about that.
No problem. Life can happen.
Did you want to take the Pro position?
No problem! I'm going to waive the round so that Pro( you) starts.
More like explain why the examples shown are not good representations of what a border wall would look like between the US and Mexico.
You said that there were jobs that needed to be filled, but you never explained why illegal immigrants had to fill those jobs. Most importantly though, you never explained the harm in letting the jobs go unfilled. Where is your stats about businesses failing? While Wylted's case was flawed, he offered a lot of quantifiable points. He offered lots of examples showing that the wall would work. I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
Just because something isn't bad for the economy doesn't make it a good thing. If you proved significant economic harms that have quantification (i.e. the wall will de-incentivize trading with Mexico because it leads to populist anti-US leaders gaining power who aren't going to cooperate on trade deals,) then your argument would of had an impact.
Perhaps, but I thought that if it was a Nationwide problem, that the TB would affect everyone in Mexico regardless of social class. I would recommend making the distinction you just made if you plan to run this point and suggest an increase in legal immigration.
I checked. I said that the same problems associated with your 1st 2 points also applies to your economic point. It's defensive and offers no real impact.
That's fair. Perhaps I missed where you said that. The RFD is ok besides that, yes?
Fun fact, I spent more time on the vote than on my college paper.
No problem. I'm one to talk about debate length. Some of my debates could qualify as novels 😌.
God this is long. I'll try my best to judge but I am really busy with work and all.
I really like the idea of this. I don't think people are engaged enough in the actual debate section of the website to care much. If some people want to volunteer, I wouldn't have a problem joining them though.
Thanks. I don't take offense to it. I do 'try hard' at debate because I like it.
Cartels raise prices by upwards of 20%. That's a problem. This is especially true if product quality is cheapened and worker pay doesn't keep up.
FYI, I did a similar debate before. I will be using the information from that debate to make this case. It will read similarly, but I though I should let you know so that people don't cry foul.
Will consider it. Working on a case now. Hopefully, I am not busy so it doesn't go to waste.
Didn't vote yet. I just wanted to say that given the topic, it's going to be hard to talk about some legitimate harms without the point bleeding over into "moral" territory. I haven't read the full debate yet, so maybe it's better defined in the debate as to what constitutes a legislative failure without factoring morality into the debate.
Hope my RFD explains the debate well. It was hard to analyze all of those complex arguments.
Challenge considered...
The nation or part of the US?
Thanks for the vote. Yeah, I didn't realize I could only defend. I wanted to add more refutations. It would have been unfair as it was the end of the debate though.
The green background behind the instigator would suggest Pro.
Cool! Sorry, I forgot to post.
Thanks! I was talking about you though. I don't think population is the same as greatness. I am guessing that you are Texas, since you asked.
Kentucky. I say this mostly because of Rand Paul being a senator from there.
Perhaps, what state would I be? I think that I am in a state of perpetual confusion, but that's just me.
I guess you could say that you were being... a smart-Aleck.
No problem. Good debating folks.
Thanks for the vote
Yep
Summarize previous points and explain to the judges why you won the round.
Please don't, it's against the rules.
I was asked to do so. I have no problem with you judging. However, I need to follow the rules that I agreed to when I made the debate.
Thank you for the vote.
You can choose the position you want to debate when you start the debate.
I am fine with it.
Look at the color of the profiles. Red means con, green means pro.
"This debate is only for Wisdom of Ages. Do not accept unless you are him. It is also for Virtuoso's Tournament."
This was in the description for the debate.
He chose the side of the argument he wanted to be on. This is for the tournament, so we both had to decide in a resolution. This is the one he picked and I have no complaints.
This debate is specifically for WOA. I hope he does, but it possible that he won't.
Ah crap, that's what I get for writing it on my phone.
For reference, when I said that the debate was about an increase in the military budget in my RFD, I was simply confused. I meant to say that the debate was about keeping a strong military.
According to your profile pic, you like:
1. Ace Attorney
2. Persona
...
Friended
Gah, I wish I explained my data a bit better.
It was agreed over PM that I could put my evidence here.
1. https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-10/can-you-name-five-remaining-communist-countries-world
2. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2152322/removal-north-korean-border-artillery-can-destroy-seoul-under
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-north-korea-war-south-koreans-die-killed-day-pentagon-analysts-rob-givens-james-stavridis-h-r-a7970356.html
4. https://taskandpurpose.com/us-military-defeat-war-china-russia
5. https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-us-military-comparison-2016-8
6. https://www.thebalance.com/china-economy-facts-effect-on-us-economy-3306345
7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/yemen/overview
8. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/08/03/Airstrikes-on-Yemeni-hospital-and-market-kill-at-least-55/1581533299688/
9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen
10. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/yemen-us-made-bomb-kills-and-maims-children-in-deadly-strike-on-residential-homes
11. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/yemen-aqap/
12. https://www.transparency.org/country/LBN
13. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
14. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/22/us-soldiers-tell-detainee-abuse-iraq
This is my 6th source. Sorry about that.
Fair enough, you did send a challenge. I will accept it shortly.