Build the Wall

Countering Our_Boat_is_Rights vote since he doesn't fully explain how these sites are " conspiracy theorist sites"

Until Our_Boat_is_Right properly explains his vote, my CVB will stand.

Con used known conspiracy theorist websites such as the NY Times, USA Today, and the guardian. Pro used RELIABLE sources such as factcheck.org and reason.com.

For the record, I hold a Bachelor of Art's Degree in Homeland Security, and immigration enforcement / border security is one of my favorite topics. So, suffice to say, I was looking forward to this debate. I didn't realize it was going to turn into a rap battle, and that certainly put an interesting spin on a debate I've seen many times before, but also makes it a lot more difficult to evaluate the specific "arguments" used here. A lot of what was said (about issues like Obamacare or Trump) were also off-topic and largely irrelevant.

Pro offered very few arguments, which was particularly disappointing because I personally know many arguments which could have been used in this debate and never saw the light of day. Pro's main points were the number of illegal immigrants in our country (which he provided a source to support) and the fact that these illegal immigrants were taking jobs from legal citizens. Although a valid point on immigration enforcement in general, these arguments didn't really support why a wall should be built, since a wall won't do anything to address the immigrants who are already here or their economic impact. Pro also brought up Obamacare, which was off-topic and irrelevant (particularly since the individual mandate has been eliminated).

Con provided a rebuttal of Pro's argument about illegal immigrants taking jobs by citing an article which claims that illegal immigrants bring a net benefit to the economy that creates more jobs. Con also provided a key argument against the construction of the wall by citing the expense of building it and inferring that Trump would fail in his promise to make Mexico pay for it. Con also peppered his opponent with many off-topic arguments, such as the claim that Trump colludes with Russia and gay adoptions...? Pro's only rebuttal that I saw was that we should pay for the wall anyway because it would be worth it.

On the arguments, I have to award points to Con. Pro's initial argument was weak and Con's rebuttal was more than sufficient to topple it. Most other arguments were off-topic and irrelevant.

On sources, I also award points to Con. Con used sources for almost all of his main arguments, including both the on-topic ones (such as the cost of the wall) and off-topic ones (such as slim shady). Pro used only three sources in one round, no sources in any of the other rounds and of the sources he did provide, only one source pertained to his main argument (about the number of illegal immigrants). Con used more sources and used them more effectively.

As a recommendation to Pro, make sure you hit me up for some suggestions before the next time you debate immigration enforcement issues. I can recommend a LOT of extra sources and arguments. Just saying "they took our jobs" is too generic and will resort in the outcome you saw here, where your opponent dragged you off-topic with a lot of general bickering about Trump.

Conduct: it’s a rap battle, both sides name called. It’s fine - geez! Tied

Spelling and grammar: no problems on either side in the context of the rap battle.

I did very much find Con harder to follow than pro - I honestly don’t care for cons style - inline links and long lines made it harder to scan as a rap, but it’s style only and didn’t substantially affect readability.

What I did have a problem with, wasn’t readability, but that I just didn’t understand the relevant of some parts. But that’s accounted for in arguments.

I did prefer pros more simple style, but did find that con had a more complex and well thought out flow and rhyming structure - but that is just for bragging rights - not for the score!

Arguments:
While not explicitly stated, the structure implies shared BoP. I haven’t touched upon everything, a lot of items were raised that I felt were not relevant (manafort, Hilary Clinton, extra details trump lies, talk of trade), and I have mostly ignored them to summarize everything I felt was relevant only:

Con: R1 cons starts with the argument is that it’s going to be expensive, and it’s not true that Mexico will pay for it (This was a campaign lie). There seemed to be other arguments there related to trade - I honestly couldn’t follow the train of thought for these, nor were really sure how they fit the contention so cannot include them I think it was fitting into the general theme that Trump was a liar, but was mostly stumped.

R2: Pro talks about illegal immigration - but does not explain what effects are bad enough to warrant building a wall, nor how he feels building a wall would address them. He attempts to refute con on cost by mentioning the cost can be offset by repealing Obamacare - or getting Mexico to pay.

Con points out in this round that immigrants pay taxes - this provides an argument that illegal immigration provides some benefit to the government in taxes - so they are not as much of a net drain. Con also adds they support the economy, and information about criminality has been overblown.

R3: Pro argues immigrants are taking our jobs. This is his only argument relevant to the contention in this round. He implied again - without sourcing - that Obamacare would pay for it.

Con attacks the job argument - pointing out they create jobs and giving farmers access to labor they wouldn’t otherwise get - he also points out Obamacare has a net benefit - so should be left alone.

I felt that con didn’t really address that immigrants are taking teens jobs at the end of this round - I couldn’t figure out what he meant (I’m sorry), but do feel that his earlier argument (farmers and that their work creates jobs) also has relevance.

R4: pros only relevant argument in support is related to R3 - claiming as a result of immigrants Americans aren’t getting their share. He doesn’t not provide any positive justification for this.

As pro does not provide any causal argument, or any sources to support the specific claims above, his argument in support of a wall is incredibly weak.

Weighing all of this, I felt that Pro didn’t really provide a substantive argument here, mainly relying on generalities: “they are taking our jobs”, and didn’t offer a firm positive case for how the wall would help.

I felt that con threw doubt on the overall claims of pro relating to “taking our jobs”, by stressing the overall benefi - though didn’t land an absolutely knock outt. Con doesn’t quantify the benefit - which is the key problem I find with his position - but erodes pros case.

Cons argument that the wall is expensive and we can’t afford it was well argued - and wasn’t refuted by pro at all. Pro made an attempt using Obamacare, but I felt this was batted away by pro.

I would have liked to see more quantitive analysis here: if that had happened I may have awarded arguments differently. However, with the above, I felt both cons initial argument, and rebuttal was stronger and more concrete than pros - so arguments to con.

Sources: Pro offered no real relevant sources to support key claims, other than volume of immigrants - but as the sources don’t bolster the negative implications he argues - these don’t help his argument much. Con used lots of sources, most of which were not directly relevant in the same way (they are good at pointing out facts or events - but most don’t give the knockout). However: in the volume of sources a couple of key sources pop out: the costing of the wall (the telegraph link),
The taxpayer implication, the farmers link, and that they are creating jobs: takes the core claims of an arguments and throws a concrete foundation under them.

Such arguments with little argument can be challenged or batted away, but with sources, pro has to go to much more detail to refute the point: which he did not do. As cons sources laid a solid foundation (but for the love of god don’t use so many), I have to give sources to con.