Instigator / Pro
0
1600
rating
24
debates
72.92%
won
Topic
#5480
Trump's border policies would be harmful to the U.S. Economy (part 2) - For Mall Only!
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
See part 1
Round 1
I've said most of what I want to already, so I guess I'll just jump right into rebuttals.
You have failed to prove that there aren't enough people alone in America to fill jobs. Until the unemployment rate is no more, we can talk.
I already did prove this, but if you would like more, here ya go.
- https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage#:~:text=Workforce%20participation%20remains%20below%20pre,compared%20to%20February%20of%202020.
- https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/post-pandemic-labor-shortages-have-limited-the-effect-of-monetary-policy-on-the-labor-market/
You enter a store, what does the store represent? You went into the store legally, is that right?
Sorry for this one, I am super bad at analogies. The store doesn't represent america, buying the apples does, but I could see how you could have confused that.
but illegal aliens have the choice to go through the proper channels.
Ah, but here's the problem, they don't have a choice. Just like in the analogy, many of these people have already tried the legal way. They would much rather do it the legal way, but they cannot, and thus are forced to illegally enter if they are in any danger by staying in Mexico. The choice is to stay and severely risk death, or attempt to get in, and only risk deportation and arrest. What kind of a choice is that?
Again just a desperate excuse for dismantling a protective security measure in the states.
I think you keep accidentally moving to the national security part of this issue, but I remind you, this is strictly an economic debate. You can argue all you want that letting these people into the country is going to put us all directly in harm's way, but even if that were true, they would still help our economy reemerge from the pandemic slump.
I'm not trying to help you out but perhaps a more practical example, running through airport checkpoints. The security ought to just let you run through because you're being chased . Instead of sacrificing one security measure disabling it to perhaps deploy another separately, the proper authorities are there to aid in whatever appropriate capacity. Highly unlikely for one thing, that the pursuer wouldn't be ceased anyway so what do you think is going to happen at a border?
This is what I'm saying. Of course security shouldn't let you in just like that, but if they did, (end analogy here), then you and your fellow immigrants will bolster our economy. This is a strict economic focus on this issue.
Sources only prove somebody has wrote something. They don't demonstrate reality of what you can see for yourself which is evidence. You're just trusting what somebody has written calling it "it must me true ". You still have to find corroboration in an observable reality of it.
Yeah, but the people I'm quoting are the smartest and most learned economists on the planet. We can't predict the future, but if anybody can make a good educated guess, they can. And besides, they are mostly looking back at old historical data to show what has happened in similar scenarios, so this is the best were going to get.
To help with an economy, there's industry progression and development. There's free enterprise, commerce, capitalism, etc. that aid in an economy as opposed to socialism, another subject. But this laser tunnel focus on illegal aliens is unnecessary.
Sure I might have a bit of tunnel vision here, and yes these other things you mentioned will help too, but more workers will get us out of this economic slump much faster than other forms of economic help. I'm not saying immigration is the only way to help, but I'm just saying that it will help. You can't deny that unless you have a bunch of extremely credible sources, which you don't.
I yield the floor.
"I already did prove this, but if you would like more, here ya go."
No you explain how the states which I believe the states has approximately 333 million people according to 2022 numbers, isn't sufficient to fulfill job demand .
Don't give me what somebody wrote. You're in the debate, you demonstrate. Is the unemployment rate non existent?
How many jobs are approximately needed to be filled?
What are the unemployment numbers?
If this is really an issue, I should hear this surrounding politics. I should be hearing this in the morning news .
Those are your narrowed down questions right there . If you know your position well and can demonstrate it, you can be direct and precise as that in lieu of me going here and there and other sites just reading.
"The store doesn't represent america, buying the apples does, but I could see how you could have confused that. "
The citizens of America cannot buy America, let alone non citizens.
"Ah, but here's the problem, they don't have a choice. Just like in the analogy, many of these people have already tried the legal way. They would much rather do it the legal way, but they cannot, and thus are forced to illegally enter if they are in any danger by staying in Mexico. The choice is to stay and severely risk death, or attempt to get in, and only risk deportation and arrest. What kind of a choice is that?"
Ok well this has to be unpacked. There must be a reason why they can't pass through legally. We're not going to skim over that.
You ask what kind of a choice. It's the kind that positioned them in a circumstance based on whatever fair proper channels were processed in the name of security.
Why weren't they legally admitted? What happen? Was it justified? Was it something that gave just cause for them not to enter the states?
Was there a security issue, questionable background with them?
Where they determined a threat, a risk?
See all this has to be vetted because that's the whole point of this. Don't skirt passed it to avoid it. It's more than just because they want into the states, let them in.
I already touched on about the dire circumstances that any given person is in and it doesn't mean at first crack you just break the law. That's what you're arguing.
I don't believe you answered all the ques from the other debate session. None of them were rhetorical by the way .
Let me ask , do you just champion breaking the law, cutting corners before trying to do it the right way?
You mentioned these folks already tried legally, so don't keep trying. Break the law to come into the states. From this principle, they can just start breaking u.s. laws. They're already accustomed. Not a good example.
What kind of danger are they in that they can't receive protection from where they are?
How can we ensure that they'll have protection in the states being there illegally and all?
You really have to expound here to prove the point. Otherwise, your points are incomplete and insubstantial.
"I think you keep accidentally moving to the national security part of this issue, but I remind you, this is strictly an economic debate. You can argue all you want that letting these people into the country is going to put us all directly in harm's way, but even if that were true, they would still help our economy reemerge from the pandemic slump."
This is incoherent. You say it may be true of American citizens being in harm's way by negating the security of the policy but helping the economy. You're just admitting here that you'd sacrifice security meant to minimize harm for the sake of strengthening a "weak economy "that people would otherwise suffer from and be harmed by .
All because of this apparent false perception that the states need non citizens to become citizens. Not to mention the false perception surrounding the so called pandemic. There wasn't a shutdown everywhere, businesses still continued, people were still working.
I think your view is coming too much from the media, what people have written versus what you should see for yourself with your own eyes. That's the evidence of everything around you.
"This is what I'm saying. Of course security shouldn't let you in just like that, but if they did, (end analogy here), then you and your fellow immigrants will bolster our economy. This is a strict economic focus on this issue. "
Incoherent again. You agree with me on security. The point of security is obvious. "Of course security shouldn't let you in just like that".
That's correct for safe protective measure mitigating harm. It's like a disconnect with you that when you speak of two different vectors, they don't interrelate when they actually do. It's all interconnected.
You want an economy strong enough to support its constituents but don't want a policy that'll endorse the protection of those constituents at the same time to be able to be supported by that economy see.
This is why I say, sacrificing security at the expense of criminality and life expectancy just to maintain a monetary system to aid in supporting that very same life expectancy which would thrive on but is in jeopardy to be able to because of the security compromise.
We gotta get the home base where citizens live secure first. Otherwise, no structured home base to live in a wellness of an economy.
This reminds me of a scene from the film "Lean on Me ". The "Joe Clark" character was questioned why he was downplaying a part of the educational curriculum. I believe it was Shakespeare or something of an elective art . I think it was learning a song. I can't recall exactly right now. His job was to fix up the school. Just like a president's job to fix up the country he's presiding over right.
Joe Clark had a goal of getting the students to pass an exam to make it to graduation. He made a point regarding all these electives that perhaps serve good lessons, constructive content and enhance creative abilities or artist potential.
But the priority or what cannot be sacrificed is preparing to pass the state exam. What good is it for a student knowing a song that can barely read to sufficient level, pass an exam, graduate, then after can't go out and get a job?
"Yeah, but the people I'm quoting are the smartest and most learned economists on the planet. We can't predict the future, but if anybody can make a good educated guess, they can. And besides, they are mostly looking back at old historical data to show what has happened in similar scenarios, so this is the best were going to get."
You act like people can't make mistakes. Does this really sound sufficient? You're arguing how smart somebody is when that individual can be in just as much if not more error than I am. Not to mention credibility, trustworthiness and truthfulness.
So because of these flaws, you don't hold these sources as THE evidence. Sources have their place and you take them with a grain of salt corroborating them with what YOU SEE as reality. This is how you protect yourself against other biases. What you can see for yourself.
"Sure I might have a bit of tunnel vision here, and yes these other things you mentioned will help too, but more workers will get us out of this economic slump much faster than other forms of economic help. I'm not saying immigration is the only way to help, but I'm just saying that it will help. You can't deny that unless you have a bunch of extremely credible sources, which you don't."
My source is reality itself so we don't even have to worry about credibility issues. Like I said, outsourcing, "we're hiring" signs, all types of methods alone to fill jobs.
Start with making the unemployment rate non existent. If you haven't cleaned that up , we don't have to worry about non citizens. The states have a duty to clean up their own house first before inviting the rest of the world cleaning them up.
Round 2
No you explain how the states which I believe the states has approximately 333 million people according to 2022 numbers, isn't sufficient to fulfill job demand .Don't give me what somebody wrote. You're in the debate, you demonstrate. Is the unemployment rate non existent?
I am demonstrating. I have demonstrated. You're just trying to dodge around my clear scientific evidence. You're saying your argument is better because of a lack of evidence? how does that make any sense?
And when you said that my sources only demonstrated that we don't have enough people to fill jobs, yeah, that's what I wanted to do!
You ask what kind of a choice. It's the kind that positioned them in a circumstance based on whatever fair proper channels were processed in the name of security.Why weren't they legally admitted? What happen? Was it justified? Was it something that gave just cause for them not to enter the states?
You make good points about the moral sides of this issue, but this debate isn't about ethics. You said that if people can't get in illegally, they will go through the proper channels. So I went on to demonstrate that entering illegally was usually after all legal methods have been exhausted. Most of the time, the people being denied entry are being turned away for good reason, but that still means less people come in, which means less workers, which means prices go up, and the consumer suffers. You can argue all you want that trump's policies towards the border are okay ethically, but the truth is that they do hurt our economy. Making illegal immigration harder will not make more people immigrate legally, because they have already tried that, so less people immigrate in total.
This is incoherent. You say it may be true of American citizens being in harm's way by negating the security of the policy but helping the economy. You're just admitting here that you'd sacrifice security meant to minimize harm for the sake of strengthening a "weak economy "that people would otherwise suffer from and be harmed by .
I'm not wanting a good economy over people's safety, I just haven't addressed that part of the issue, because it has nothing to do with this debate. If you want me to talk about it so much, I would say that letting more people in, generally is pretty safe, because we have very advanced screening methods, and most of trump's rhetoric is xenophobic and not true, but again, I remind you, this is debate is about the economics of the issue, not the ethics.
I'm not being incoherent, your trying to throw this debate off of it's original target.
You act like people can't make mistakes. Does this really sound sufficient? You're arguing how smart somebody is when that individual can be in just as much if not more error than I am. Not to mention credibility, trustworthiness and truthfulness.So because of these flaws, you don't hold these sources as THE evidence. Sources have their place and you take them with a grain of salt corroborating them with what YOU SEE as reality. This is how you protect yourself against other biases. What you can see for yourself.
Sure people make mistakes, but unless you have any definitive proof defending your side, then this is the closest any of us is going to get. I'm not saying this is "THE EVIDENCE", but your not coming up with ANY EVIDENCE, so the things I gave are as close as it gets to proof.
My source is reality itself so we don't even have to worry about credibility issues.
See, this is what I'm saying. You can't hide behind claims like that, you need to cite some actual sources, or we can't really have a debate here.
"I am demonstrating. I have demonstrated. You're just trying to dodge around my clear scientific evidence. You're saying your argument is better because of a lack of evidence? how does that make any sense?
And when you said that my sources only demonstrated that we don't have enough people to fill jobs, yeah, that's what I wanted to do!"
I'm trying to stay on track and solve your issue. One way is to answer questions in order one at a time before going to another.
So once again:
No you explain how the states which I believe the states has approximately 333 million people according to 2022 numbers, isn't sufficient to fulfill job demand .
Don't give me what somebody wrote. You're in the debate, you demonstrate. Is the unemployment rate non existent?
"So I went on to demonstrate that entering illegally was usually after all legal methods have been exhausted. Most of the time, the people being denied entry are being turned away for good reason, but that still means less people come in, which means less workers, which means prices go up, and the consumer suffers. You can argue all you want that trump's policies towards the border are okay ethically, but the truth is that they do hurt our economy. Making illegal immigration harder will not make more people immigrate legally, because they have already tried that, so less people immigrate in total."
You have not demonstrated or prove this is true. Many of my questions were not answered because you have no answers to them so therefore you can't demonstrate.
"I'm not wanting a good economy over people's safety, I just haven't addressed that part of the issue, because it has nothing to do with this debate."
It is totally relevant because it has to do with border policy. Why is the policy there in the first place? To do some type of good for the states. You're arguing the void of the policy for what? Some type of good for the states , bottomline. So of course it's relevant. This is why you can't see your inconsistency. Then you say you don't want one over the other. Well then don't oppose the policy because that's what it's about, safety.
"If you want me to talk about it so much, I would say that letting more people in, generally is pretty safe, because we have very advanced screening methods, and most of trump's rhetoric is xenophobic and not true, but again, I remind you, this is debate is about the economics of the issue, not the ethics."
You keep looking at it as ethics. Again I'm only arguing good of the states as you are. I'm trying to get you to see the connection. You're stuck on the disconnection.
Letting people in generally being safe is not substantiated. The "screening methods " you bring up is what the policy is about. You're not thinking of this policy in that regard as your bias over Mr. Trump has given you a twisted or misconstrued view on the policy.
"I'm not being incoherent, your trying to throw this debate off of it's original target."
Not true.
I'm trying to get you to see the connection. You're stuck on making the disconnection.
"Sure people make mistakes, but unless you have any definitive proof defending your side, then this is the closest any of us is going to get. I'm not saying this is "THE EVIDENCE", but your not coming up with ANY EVIDENCE, so the things I gave are as close as it gets to proof."
The evidence is what you can see for yourself I said. The questions I asked are based on reality. You haven't answered them to refute the questionability in your case causing this questions to arise to corroborate with reality.
At least not to a sufficient manner where you have a complete coherent case .
"See, this is what I'm saying. You can't hide behind claims like that, you need to cite some actual sources, or we can't really have a debate here. "
Again, you're not debating sources or what somebody wrote, you're debating me. I can't hide behind reality as it reveals everything and is THE EVIDENCE. Not what somebody wrote and you don't prove anything by being close to evidence as possible. It's with evidence itself.
You either have it or you don't . This is why you have not gotten to the roots of my questions in the answers to them. You're just regurgitating what somebody has said probably without challenging it with what you see and compared to what you know.
I told you basically not to hold others as a standard because they've said or written something like their minds are above yours. They are flawed just the same.
Now you can argue against this, fight against this.
But you'll be fighting and arguing for selling yourself short.
Round 3
Forfeited
Case closed.
Heard a post saying that Biden actually built more of the wall than trump did. If that is true, it would have been hilarious.