Instigator / Pro
4
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#879
Migration is a Human Right
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
bsh1
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description
--Overview--
This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO above 1,505 to accept. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
--Definitions--
Ought: expresses moral desirability
Human Right: a right afforded to all persons
Transnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Round 1
Thanks to Wrick-it-Ralph for accepting this debate. I look forward to a convivial exchange of ideas and a fun debate.
----------------
I. Overview
To possess a human right is not to possess an unlimited right. All rights are subject to restrictions and limitations which arise from the balancing of those rights against the rights and legitimate interests of others. The human right to life, for example, is not absolute; we recognize that it is morally permissible to kill to protect oneself or others from imminent danger.
When we say then that a human right is a right afforded to all persons, we are not saying that all persons can exercise that right in all circumstances. Rather, we are saying that all persons have this right prima facie, but that whether they can exercise it in any given circumstance is dependent on the balancing act that must take place to resolve competing rights claims.
Therefore, while my advocacy is that all persons possess a right to transnational migration, I recognize that limitations can and should be imposed on that right where necessary. Legitimate concerns related to public safety, public health, and public administration are just some of the interests against which the right to migrate must be balanced.
II. The Right to Leave
A. The "Right to Leave"
Imagine for a moment that I was born on a farm somewhere in rural Wyoming, and that, having spent my whole life there, I have a strong desire to see the world outside of my farm. Due to this strong desire, I do not wish to continue living on the farm, and so I make a conscious choice to pack up my belongings and leave.
Suppose, however, that my family prevents me from leaving. They catch me at the fence and say: "You were born here on this farm, and so you must remain here for life." There is obviously something morally wrong about this situation, namely, that I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander about the farm itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
Now, imagine for a moment that I am a citizen of some nation (let's call it Farmistan), and that, having spent my whole life there, I have a strong desire to see the world outside of my country. Due to this strong desire, I do not wish to continue living to continue living within Farmistan, and so I make a conscious choice to pack up my belongings and leave.
Suppose, however, that Farmistan prevents me from leaving. It catches me at the border and says: "You are a citizen of Farmistan, and so must remain here for life." Here too there is something obviously morally wrong about the situation, because, again, I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander within Farmistan itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
The moral demand that individuals not be held captive sans just cause is one powerful reason to believe in a "right to leave," that is, a right to be able to leave one's country. But there are other reasons as well, reasons which demonstrate the importance of the "right to leave" to the protection of other rights. Suppose that Farmistan is an oppressive country filled with crime and violence and corruption. My human rights to free expression, safety, life, due process, free association, and equality before the law may all be jeopardized. Possessing a "right to leave" is therefore fundamental for protecting a slew of other key rights.
Even if Farmistan were not such a bad place, the potential for any country to become dangerous or oppressive indicates that the right to leave is a necessary fail-safe against such a development. Similarly, even if Farmistan were wonderful, my human rights to pursue happiness, to have access to healthcare, to be with or found a family, etc. may require me to leave Farmistan. Hence, the "right to leave" is essential for the protection of these other rights as well. This is likely why the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights--an international treaty and human rights document--states: "Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own." [1]
Consequently, it can be confidently stated that all persons possess or ought to posses a "right to leave" their own country. That is true both because the right to leave is itself a right and because it is essential to protect and underpin other rights.
B. Leaving is Migrating
The right to leave implies that individuals have the right to cross borders and refuse to return. Thus, the right to leave is the right "of persons to move and resettle across international borders." To exit one place is the right to enter another, and so every right of exit is also a right of entry. This affirms the resolution.
Even if the right to leave and the right to migrate were not literally synonymous, the former would necessarily entail the latter. If I wanted to exercise my right to leave Farmistan, but was precluded from doing so because all the other countries in the word said, "the right to exit is not the same as the right to enter" (though I contend that is a false distinction), it would be the case that my right to leave would be useless. I cannot have a meaningful right to leave Farmistan if I do not have a right to go somewhere else, because without the right to go somewhere else, my right to leave is toothless and unenforceable. Ergo, any meaningful right to leave must be accompanied by or entail a right to migrate. This affirms the resolution.
Consequently, the right to exit is just another way of saying the right to enter; if you have one, you must have the other.
III. Community Ties
A. Communities Require Migration
As an American, I have the right to move to New York. Once in New York, I have the right to decide I do not want to stay, and would rather move to Arizona. Once in Arizona, I can decide to move to Idaho instead, or to any of the country's other fifty states. Being a citizen gives me license to move within my country, and I can make these moves for any reason I choose. Perhaps I'm moving to find a better job, perhaps I'm moving to be with a hot boyfriend, perhaps I just decided that bears were my spirit animal, so I just had to move to California. But the choice of when and where to move is my own. California cannot decide one day to say, "hey, we're not going to let in any non-Californians." This example clearly connects back to the preceding contention about the right to leave (and the two reasons for it), but it is also suggestive of a wholly new point related to community welfare.
In order to function properly, communities must have free movement internally. Imagine an America in which California suddenly became inaccessible. As familial ties slowly wither away and previously shared trajectories dis-align, California would become increasingly less tied to the rest of country. Not merely in the literal sense, but also socioculturally, governmentally, and cooperatively, etc. If, 100 years later, California suddenly became accessible once more, would it still be a part of our "American community" or would it have evolved into its own, distinct entity? To maintain community, you must maintain and cultivate the links that bind the membership together; the longer those links go untended, the more apart the membership is invariably going to become. The more isolated two populations are, the harder it becomes for them to maintain or construct communal bonds.
Therefore, any community ought to afford all of its members a right to migration in order that the community can function properly for the common welfare.
B. The Human Community
Humanity itself should be seen as a community. We are all intimately enmeshed with one another on a global scale, and the actions of one person or one population can deeply and seriously impact, from across the world, the welfare of another person or population. We are linked not just by trade ties, shared media, shared instruments of global governance, and shared ancestral and diasporic connections, but also by the cooperation we are engaged in to address global crises as diverse as HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human trafficking. If a community is a group of people cooperating for a common interest, then humanity clearly counts. That does not mean that humanity cooperates perfectly--no community does--but to suggest that we are just a pocket of isolated or barely linked groups is obviously and patently false.
Given this analysis, "we should not view national boundaries as having fundamental moral significance. Since boundaries are not coextensive with the scope of social cooperation, they do not mark the limits of social obligation." [2] Indeed, if it is the case that humanity counts as a community, then there must be a human right to migration. The community of humankind ought to afford all of its members a right to migration in order that the community can function properly for the common welfare.
Therefore, the resolution is affirmed by the acknowledgement of a common human community, a humanity deeply and inextricably interwoven.
IV. Conclusion
I have provided two (three, depending on how you count them) reasons to vote Pro. The first is rooted in the right to leave, which is both (a) a right itself and (b) necessary to protect other rights. The second is rooted in an understanding of community and the need for communities to have liberal movement internally. Both reasons demonstrate that, prima facie, the right to transnational migration ought to be a right afforded to all persons. Thus, I strongly affirm.
V. Sources
I thank my opponent for giving me an entertaining opening statement. The narrative led me by the hand through the story and it was very easy to read. Lets do this.
Terms
In your description, you clarified the topic by saying:
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
I will paste your definitions so it doesn't look like I'm cherry picking.
Ought: expresses moral desirabilityHuman Right: a right afforded to all personsTransnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
One problem I have with this is that a human right is defined as a subset of rights. I understand this is a distinction from say... animal rights, and I'm okay with that, but you didn't define what a right is. This means all I can know from your definition is that a human right is a kind of right (whatever that is) that is afforded to all humans.
I would define a right as being a liberty that is morally justified to have. Would you agree?
If not, I'm willing to hear your definition and we could work off that instead.
When you say Ought expresses moral desirability, Are you saying "x is objectively morally desirable" or are you saying "If I were you, I would find X morally desirable"?
Until we have resolved these terms, I will address your argument based off both generic definitions and based off my interpretation of your definitions.
The "Is/Ought" Distinction. (Hume's Guillotine)
In a nutshell, this philosophical problem has demonstrated that an ought statement can only logically follow from another ought statement. This causes an obvious infinite regress unless there is an intrinsic ought that can be drawn upon.
More specifically any "is" or even "if" statements (because "if" statements are logically congruent to is statements) cannot imply an ought statement. For instance, if it is raining outside and I say "it [is] raining, therefore you [ought] to use an umbrella" the person in question can infinitely ask you why this is the case and one will never be able to imply the ought. The conversation would go as follows.
P2: Why should I care if it's raining?
P1: Because you'll get wet without an umbrella.
P2: Why should I care if I get wet?
P1: Because if you get wet you'll be uncomfortable
P2: Why should I care if I'm uncomfortable?
P1: Because if you're uncomfortable for too long, it might cause you harm
P2: Why should I care if I'm harmed?
P1: Because if you get harmed for too long, you'll die.
P2: Why should I care if I die?
P1: Because people want to live in general.
P2: Why should I care if anybody wants to live?
From here it pretty much bottoms out and starts going into a circle that will revolve around either life or suffering until one side gets sick of talking.
This is why philosophy seems to indicate that Is can never imply ought. With respect to ought statements implying ought statements. A justified ought has already broken the barrier and can transfer it's justification up the chain of ought.
Let's assume in this case, that the life ought is intrinsic true. (hypothetically)
P1: You ought to live, and not having an umbrella could make you get sick and die, therefore you ought to take an umbrella.
P2: Okay.....
This is directly analogous to the topic. Although we can agree that the law does afford migration rights in some cases and in fact, we can agree on most of this topic, what I will not agree on here is that migration ought to be a right.
Right to Leave
I would agree that objectively the person in your scenario would indeed be a prisoner and would be having his legal rights violated assuming that such legal rights exist on that particular farm. However, due to the is ought distinction, there is no situation where we can say that the parents ought to allow their child to leave. The difference is that one of these statements is descriptive and the other is prescriptive. A prescriptive statement, is the equivalent of saying "This is what I would do if I was in your shoes". Technically, the statement is true in the sense that might be objectively what they would do in your situation, assuming they know everything that you know as well. However, nowhere in the statement is any sort of driving imperative that can objectively judge the morality of one's actions. Every moral that we draw is necessarily pragmatic and cannot be justified with logic, only explained.
I will extend this line of thinking to your community argument as well. I will say that such rights may be objectively enforced by the law of the land, but cannot be given as intrinsic imperatives.
Conclusion
Due to the is/ought distinction, combined with the implications of the topic, we must conclude that the right to migration follows the same rule and cannot be implied in the form of an ought statement. This means that Pro can never justify the topic with any kind of evidence, but rather make a pragmatic appeal. Saying we should accept some ought statement as an axiom to draw from. This would not be logical nor would it hold truth value. It would only be pragmatic. If pragmatism is all that matters, then vote Pro. If logic matters, if Con. If they both matter equally to you then good luck.
Your floor jefe
Round 2
Thanks to Con for his reply. I will now defend my case.
----------------
I. The Is/Ought Problem
So, there are four things to note here right off the bat:
- Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof, he cannot successfully negate unless he either (1) runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
- Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
- Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
- The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case.
As I found Con's explication of this question somewhat confusing, I will attempt to clarify here what the Is/Ought problem is precisely. The problem states that moral precepts cannot be derived from natural facts and states. For example, the statement "animals kill each other, and so killing is okay because it is natural" runs directly into the Is/Ought problem. That it "is" the case that animals kill each other does not mean it "ought" to be the case that killing is okay. This logic impermissibly transforms an "is" into an "ought," and so wrongly attempts to derive a moral precept from a material condition. This, however, does not mean that material facts are irrelevant to morality, just that moral values cannot be derived therefrom. But more on that in a moment.
Given that it will be necessary to clear up the confusion on this issue, "morality" is defined variously as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," "conformity to ideals of right human conduct," and "set of standards for good or bad behavior." [1-3] What is important in each of these definitions that morality is composed of a set of principles, ideals, or standards which inform the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the conduct being assessed.
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done. Take the case of utilitarianism, which argues that the moral precept is the maximization of happiness. This precept functions axiomatically. So, if as a utilitarian I say that "we ought to do X because it is going to save net lives," I do not run into the Is/Ought problem. If we are already defining the promotion of happiness as a moral precept axiomatically (and thus not derivately, as from a material fact), there is no dilemma. The axiomatic nature of the precept also prevents infinite regress. This is one example of how material facts are relevant to morality, and how this can be the case without running into the Is/Ought problem.
Unless Con is planning to argue that values running the gamut from life to liberty to safety to community should not be included in such an axiomatic scheme, then it is hard to see how his argument here makes any sense. At the heart of it, our moral intuitions clearly guide us to the notion that these values should be included in such a scheme, which creates a strong presumption against any argument for their dis-inclusion which Con might attempt to make.
Therefore, if we include as axiomatic those values and principles I name in my case, then we "ought" to act in ways which will uphold and respect them. So, if we value freedom, we ought not to keep people captive on farms. Indeed, we ought not to allow others to keep people captive on farms. Similarly, if we value community, we ought to ensure that the community is able to function well. This logic is hardly ground-breaking, and it is counterproductive for Con to challenge it.
Finally, this train of thought brings up another reason to throw Con's whole Is/Ought problem out of the window. If we constantly have to rehash prior questions like the Is/Ought issue, we will never get a chance to debate the later issues like the one expressed in the resolution. Keeping us at a single stasis level, which may never be fully resolved, is discursively counterproductive and serves to hold moral discourse hostage to a small set of foundational debates. While there are good times and places for raising these objections, where real violations of the Is/Ought problem occur, this is clearly not one of them. In the interest of debate and communication, we should reject this tactic of Con's outright.
II. Miscellaneous Issues
Given that Con has asked for a definition of a "right," which he could have done prior to accepting the debate, I will suggest to him that a right, in a moral context, is a moral entitlement, i.e. a freedom, capacity, good, outcome, etc. to which one is morally entitled. [4] I think this is a fairly straightforward and common-sense way of understanding the word.
I would add that I took time in my overview to clarify, in part, my understanding of human rights and how such rights are subject to certain limitations. Notice that I am referring to human rights as things we hold in the abstract (prima facie) and which may or may not be applied to certain circumstances based on the balancing calculations at play. As I wrote earlier: "Rather, we are saying that all persons have this right prima facie, but that whether they can exercise it in any given circumstance is dependent on the balancing act that must take place to resolve competing rights claims."
I would conclude by strongly urging my opponent to engage with my actual advocacy, rather than making semantic arguments regarding prior questions, and by asking voters for a Pro vote. Thank you. I await my opponent's next posting.
III. Sources
Let's jump in.
You said:
Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof,
This is simply false. My case against you is the claim that the is/ought distinction necessarily implies that one cannot derive an ought statement from and is statement, you've admitted it yourself. What you're really trying to say is that I'm not arguing from the position that you think I should be arguing from (migration ought not be a right) This is fallacious.
If I have a jar of gumballs and you claim that there are an even number of gumballs and I say I don't believe you, that is not the same as saying that there is an odd number of gumballs. I am saying that I don't believe your claim. Now I am still taking on a burden of proof. But the difference is that I'm not taking on the burden of the claim that you think I ought to take on and since is can't imply ought, that means that you can't tell me I'm not accepting the BOP. My claim is that you can't derive ought from is and I have met my burden of proof by citing Hume's guillotine and giving a detailed example.
runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
Let me post what was said in the description so that it's clear what my opponent is talking about.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
I want to be clear that I did not challenge any assumptions made in the resolution. I did not try to invalidate any definitions nor did I violate any of the contingencies that my opponent put forward, no matter how arbitrary they may or may not be. The only thing I did was ask for clarification of my opponent's definitions in order for us to have a better and more honest discussion.
Nowhere in the description at all does it say that part of the resolution was for me to take the "ought not" position here. Anybody who doesn't believe me can read the entire description and prove demonstrably that I'm correct. Just to make it official, here's the source.
Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
I will address how you're doing this in a moment, but I would like to point out that you're kind of missing the point here. The whole point of the is/ought distinction is that we have no way to derive an ought statement at all. That's why I agreed with some of your points. If you want to descriptively tell me that X is a human right and people want X to be a human right and it's good for survival to make X a human right. I would agree with all of that.
But the topic is as you put in the description:
"--Topic--
Transnational migration ought to be a human right."
That ought in your sentence is my problem with the argument, it's the reason for my claim and it's where my BOP lies. I want to be clear on this again. I am not trying to refute the definition of ought that you gave at all. What I'm saying is that ought does not logically follow unless you have another ought which leads to an infinite regress unless you have an ought that is not justified by anything at all, which makes it an axiom, which makes it unjustified. This is supported by our collective studies of epistemology as a species.
Now as for how you're falsely deriving ought, let's jump in.
Suppose, however, that my family prevents me from leaving. They catch me at the fence and say: "You were born here on this farm, and so you must remain here for life." There is obviously something morally wrong about this situation, namely, that I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander about the farm itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
This argument you made is absolutely loaded with is statements. "They catch me at the fence" that's an is statement. You're saying "they are catching me at the fence" It's descriptive. You're describing all of the things that are keeping you from leaving and then saying that you ought to be able to leave. Honestly, I could do this with any of your arguments because this is why the is/ought distinction is taken so seriously in philosophy. There's no way around it. You would need an ought statement to support your topic and that ought statement would need another ought statement which would need another ought statement, which would need another ought statemnet, which would need another ought statement. etc. etc. etc. etc. all the way to infinity.
Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
This is a tad disingenuous. My arguments were not vague nor was it unclear what I was positing. The is/ought problem is well known. It's not like I'm speaking Chinese and just because the language might be confusing to you doesn't me it's confusing. That's subjective to the person reading it. I'm using common philosophical language, so if you don't understand my position, maybe it's because you don't talk that way. Would that be my fault? Are you going to say that I [ought] to use your language?
The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case
That's a nice claim. Where's your evidence. Do you really expect me to believe that every philosopher in history couldn't overcome this obstacle, but somehow, it's nothing for you? Am I to also believe that your position is so virtuous that you can just state it to be the case without evidence? You're making the positive claim that it's not a problem. Now I'm asking you to justify it with evidence instead of attacking me with false claims about my conduct. Honestly, you've spent more or you rebuttal debating my conduct than my arguments. You talked about an unfair burden of proof because I'm not explaining. Where is your explanation to my rebuttals? There is none. You're just attacking my conduct when I'm doing a great job of following your arbitrary rules mostly out of good faith that you might drop this tactical BS and engage me in a way so that we can learn something today.
Given that it will be necessary to clear up the confusion on this issue, "morality" is defined variously as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," "conformity to ideals of right human conduct," and "set of standards for good or bad behavior." [1-3] What is important in each of these definitions that morality is composed of a set of principles, ideals, or standards which inform the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the conduct being assessed.
I agree that morality derives from certain principles. If you're telling me descriptively that "people abide by these X standards for their morality" I would 100% agree with you. However, once you cross that prescriptive threshold and say "therefore you ought to do those things" That is where Hume's guillotine chops your head off. You must understand that this is a semantic argument. Ontologically, I agree with you on every prong. But semantically, your language does not logically follow. You can never get past a practical appeal with this argument. There must be an axiom involved for your argument and it will not be justified unless it's intrinsic. these are all simply facts.
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done
I just want to point out that I addressed this in my opening even though you falsely claim that I'm not presenting arguments. "if" statements, are merely repackaged "is" statements and they don't logically follow either. The distinction here is more subtle, But I'll show you because I like having a BOP ;)
You: If you want to live (principle) then you ought to keep yourself alive (imperative) {Looks solid at first glance, but just wait.}
Me: Why should I care about being alive?
You: Because if you want to, then you're going to.
Me: Why should I care if I'm going keep myself alive?
You: Because you want to (is statement)
Me: Why should I care if you want to?
You: Because if you want to then you're going to.
Me: That doesn't mean that I should want to. It only means that I'm going to (and the infinite regress continues)
The bottom line here is that having a principle can indeed tell you what the objectively best outcome would be by your standard. The problem is that you can't say that they ought to follow the standard even if they want to because you can't say that they ought to want to follow it or want the outcome or anything of the sort.
I'm running out on my word limit so if there was something key that I missed, just let me know and I'll address it in later rounds.
I hope we can put aside the accusations about conduct and really talk about this. You might find I'm being as illogical as you think I am. Our disagreement is actually small in my opinion.
Round 3
Thanks to Con for his reply. I will now refute his remarks.
----------------
I. Burdens
As I said last round, Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof, he cannot successfully negate unless he either (1) runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden. Let's explore this claim in a bit more depth, since Con seems to be missing the point.
Con misunderstands how equal burdens function in a debate. My burden, as Pro, is to prove the resolution true within the context of the debate via a preponderance of the evidence and argumentation. The equal counterpart to that is to prove the resolution false within the context of the debate via a preponderance of the evidence and argumentation.
Con's arguments are not attempting to prove the resolution false, but are rather focused solely on preventing me from proving it true (namely, by suggesting my approach is fallacious due to the Is/Ought issue). Negating Pro's case is not the same as negating the resolution. At best, if my case is negated, we have to default to a tied debate, since Con has not given voters any reason to believe the resolution to be false. In such a scenario, neither Pro nor Con would have met their burden.
Alternatively, Con is suggesting that the resolution is unanswerable given that, to quote Con directly, "every philosopher in history couldn't overcome this [Is/Ought] obstacle." Con is literally saying that because there is an "ought" in the topic, we cannot hope to answer it. This is a Kritik, as the resolution assumes its own answerability. Debate resolutions have to assume answerability because their goal is to create fair conditions for discursive victory--these are not conditions which can exist without assuming that both debaters can answer the topic.
Therefore, Con is either running a Kritik or failing to meet his burden of proof in this debate. Neither is a winning strategy for Con.
II. The Is/Ought Problem
The Is/Ought Problem is not an obstacle for my case. I devoted five paragraphs of text last round to explaining why it is not an obstacle, yet Con has not taken the time to address the substance of the argument I presented. Instead he chose to respond to a hodgepodge of quotations selected seemingly at random and which are only tangentially related to my core argument. Let me therefore restate the primary argument I made last round, which has so far gone unrefuted:
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done. Take the case of utilitarianism, which argues that the moral precept is the maximization of happiness. This precept functions axiomatically. So, if as a utilitarian I say that "we ought to do X because it is going to save net lives," I do not run into the Is/Ought problem. If we are already defining the promotion of happiness as a moral precept axiomatically (and thus not derivately, as from a material fact), there is no dilemma. The axiomatic nature of the precept also prevents infinite regress. This is one example of how material facts are relevant to morality, and how this can be the case without running into the Is/Ought problem.Unless Con is planning to argue that values running the gamut from life to liberty to safety to community should not be included in such an axiomatic scheme, then it is hard to see how his argument here makes any sense. At the heart of it, our moral intuitions clearly guide us to the notion that these values should be included in such a scheme, which creates a strong presumption against any argument for their dis-inclusion which Con might attempt to make.Therefore, if we include as axiomatic those values and principles I name in my case, then we "ought" to act in ways which will uphold and respect them.
In other words, defining morality as an axiomatic scheme, where certain values and ideas are axiomatically treated as moral, solves the Is/Ought problem and avoids infinite regress, including the infinite regress implied by if/then statements. So, if we axiomatically include such things as freedom of movement and life in our moral scheme, then it is moral that we should promote these things. Again, this isn't ground-breaking, and it obviates Con's quarrel with my case altogether.
In fact, Con concedes the point when he writes, "I agree that morality derives from certain principles." If we are deriving morality from principles, we are not deriving it from material fact, ergo, there is no Is/Ought problem.
Con does offer one interesting objection, though still fallacious, which relates to the justification of axioms. His objection is:
There must be an axiom involved for your argument and it will not be justified unless it's intrinsic...The problem is that you can't say that they ought to follow the standard even if they want to because you can't say that they ought to want to follow it or want the outcome or anything of the sort.
There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one.
III. My Case
Con continues to fail to establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all or how they are successfully rebutting my case.
Con nit-picks at the sentence level, pointing to snippets such as "They catch me at the fence" to make his point. Con's tactic here fails to consider my case in context, and that is where Con errs. In context, it is clear that I am appealing to moral principles such as free association, free movement, and respect for life to justify my positions. Since I am ultimately appeal to values and principles, not to material facts, to derive ought statements, my case does not run into the Is/Ought problem.
And remember, material facts can be relevant without being derivative sources of moral precepts. As long as I am not deriving my values from material facts, I can consider those facts in the application of prior values.
Thus, I will conclude by once more asking the voters for their vote. Thank you. I await my opponent's next posting.
I apologize, I was under the impression that this would be an honest discussion. That was my fault for making assumptions.
As I stated, I did not challenge any assumptions made in the description. You're not arguing for you case, you're just using your description as a tool to win your debate. How frivolous of you. I've already made my case and you simply hand wave it off saying it's not a problem.
I have no more to say on the topic. I rest my case for the remainder of the debate unless you want to argue honestly.
In the mean time, I'm off to find some honest debaters.
Round 4
My opponent wanted an honest discussion and got an honest discussion. The irony here is that Con, rather than having a substantive debate about the actual subject of migration, instead chose to present a nit-picking and semantic argument which obviously ran counter to the spirit of the debate.
I engaged extensively with the arguments Con provided, explaining precisely why they were flawed. Con chose to ignore those arguments, failing to address my points on axiomatic systems and moral intuitions.
Since Con has dropped all of my key arguments, please extend them as dropped. Con cannot not now reply to them without making new arguments. Please vote Pro. Thank you to Con for the debate, such as it was, and to the voters for reading and voting.
My opponent is so contrarian that he has completely missed the points of my arguments. This is why he keeps saying that I haven't made any. I made a semantic argument, which is a valid form of argument. My argument stems from a philosophy problem that directly applies to his proposition. He has acknowledged the is/ought problem while committing a special pleading fallacy to dodge them. There is nothing honest about this. If my opponent wanted to talk about the subject at hand, all he had to do was admit what every other philosopher admits and then we could have discussed the ways in which someone would ground their morality of migration.
My opponent says that he makes no is statements in his argument. This is Ludacris. All arguments are made up of is statements. There is no way around this. I think the real issue here is that my opponent does not understand the is/ought distinction as well as he claims.
My opponent says I challenged assumptions made in the topic. This is not true. I accepted all definitions of the argument as well as I accept the topic for what it was. This is the dirty trick that my opponent uses to attempt to win this debate. He conflates challenging the topic with challenging assumptions made in the topic. His strategy is simple. In his mind, anybody who makes a claim against his topic is challenging it's assumptions, so he wins automatically.
I hope your votes keep you warm at night. Because your thoughts won't.
You can win as many debates as you want. In the end, I win at life because I'm not petty enough to be dishonest in my arguments. I'll state the truth even if it loses me 1,000 debates and you can just keep kissing the respective behinds of the voters like the pseudo politician that you are.
Also, not, that it matters since I'll never willingly debate you again, but don't rush me to post a closing statement next time you jerk. I was at work making money for my children and I will take as long as I damn well please.
Thanks.
>But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
I don’t necessarily mean you should’ve done that in your R1 case. I just mean, in your response, you should’ve perhaps advanced some combination of ethical theories. But really, you didn’t need to, you could’ve built on the intuition line, which I think is fairly strong if you go a bit further. You know more about ethics than I do, so I’m confident you’d have come up with something that would have won even if kritiks were allowed -- I’m just saying that it seems like you had the space, so it could be useful to bolster your responses more.
It didn’t receive a mention in the RFD since I didn’t view it as relevant to why you won the debate. I think the first response doesn’t really make sense -- your response to “that’s false” can’t be “oh, but that’s an axiom that doesn’t need justification.” I like the second response about moral intuition, would have liked to see more of that -- the reason it wasn’t debate-winning, though, is that it merely proved *possibility,* not *probability.* Con was pushing the burden of proof on you to prove your assumption of moral realism (which was clearly a kritik, so pointing that out was enough to win you the debate, but I think it’s good strategy to do “even if” responses in case there’s some judge who doesn’t buy that).
But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
You write: "justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it...runs into an infinite regress of justifications...because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion." I don't think Con clearly articulated that argument until R2, which is why I didn't offer any type of response sooner. Even in R2 it felt like more of an afterthought, albeit one that could have proven potentially lethal. The lack on emphasis from Con on the first argument you articulate is why I chose to emphasize instead my discussion of the second.
I did try to offer *something* of a response to this line of argumentation after I saw it had appeared, writing: "There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one." I take it this wasn't sufficient on that point?
Since you asked for feedback: The tl;dr of this is that, even though you’re right that Con basically ran a post-fiat kritik, you should take Con at their best case and do an “even if”-style engagement (e.g., “even if you don’t buy that this is a kritik or that this is irrelevant, here’s why Con’s argument is false”).
The best non-kritik version of Con’s argument would be to challenge you to justify a coherent ethical theory based on which your first and second arguments were true. I’d recommend doing that, perhaps in R2. For example, your first argument appears vaguely Rawlsian or libertarian, while your second argument seems vaguely communitarian. It’s possible to reconcile those two frameworks and offer a justification for both -- for example, you could say that moral uncertainty means we should weigh ethical considerations from a variety of normative ethical theories, including liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarian ethics. Or you could simply argue that moral intuition is valuable. You’re significantly more educated about these arguments than I am and I think they’d have bolstered your case.
I would also recommend taking Con at their best case and arguing against moral skepticism beyond just saying “we can accept moral axioms” (which is a bare assertion, though I suppose rule 6 allows you to make that bare assertion and let it be uncontested). The simplest response to skep arguments, as far as I know, is to simply say that insofar as moral realism is logically possible, it is less potentially costly to act as if moral realism were true. I believe you made a similar argument in your debate against 16kadams on animal rights, in which you said: “Presume Pro because it’s more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren’t.” You didn’t say that in the context of metaethics, but I would guess that it’s as compelling in that context as well.
I offer to provide you with more detailed feedback on your case and/or your handling of the is/ought issue if you wish, either here or in PMs if you would prefer.
Also, 100 comments.
Still would love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Sporkicide // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Pro
RFD: Con lost the moment he started behaving childishly and disrespecting his opponent.
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, this user is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. This user has done none of those things and so this vote is removed.
Furthermore, this vote fails to meet the COC standards. To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
The difference is that my pointing out a rules breach was never personal. All your insults were.
Let's just be clear on this. I am not the one who started with the accusations. If you don't want to receive, then you shouldn't give. It's that simple. I'll gladly end this conversation for the sake of your personal liberties, but just know that your hands are not clean in all of this.
It's not that I'm not trying to understand you, it's just that we flatly disagree. When it comes down to it, you think that your contingencies were productive to the debate and I don't. You think that debates are merely competitive and I don't. One could say that beating each other to death with toddler bodies is competitive and the context doesn't matter. But once you walk out of that sporting ring, you still have to go to sleep at night contending with the fact of what you did in the ring. If you think being in a debate ring suspends reality for you, I assure you that you are sadly mistaken.
I accuse you have being obtuse because I believe it. I am willing to concede things that I think are true even in a debate where it would lose me the debate. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything that you say when you are the type of person to disagree with a person's entire debate arguments wholesale. If you were arguing honestly, then there would have been at least a few points that I made that you could have agreed with, but it's just a game to you. You've admitted as much.
I'm going to throw you a bone though, because I sincerely like to see people improve even when they seem hopeless. If you want an example of what an objective debater looks like. Go look at Dustandashes. You could learn a thing or two from him. I know I have.
>> The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
Because anyone who took my debates seriously on that level would be gravely mistaken, and because I doubt my debates are silver-tongued enough to be the decisive force in how they come down on a particular issue. Most of the time, people understand that debates are just all in good fun, and nothing more.
I understand that, but it's not the same. I can enter a debate as an industrialist and do it in a way that is still in line with my beliefs. Maybe I advocate for soft industrialism. Now if you want to just full on play devil's advocate, then that's your prerogative obviously. On a practical level, I would suggest you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate, but that's just my opinion.
The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
If someone because a theist because I lied, I would hold myself morally responsible for that. Now they might because a theist because of my atheism. But at least in that case I took every action possible to try and make that not happen and I certainly didn't roll the dice on it like you are.
So, I think I've been fairly conciliatory and patient in my responses to you here in the comments, because I understand you are upset or frustrated. Please understand that this was not the way either of us wanted the debate to turn out.
However, it seems that you are largely unwilling to try to understand where I am coming from, despite my efforts to explain my position. I am also not keen on having prolonged conversations in which people insinuate falsely that I am a liar or a jerk or lack integrity. Given that I have thoroughly explained my stance and addressed yours, I see no further need to carry on with this conversation. I feel as if I have met my obligation to try to assuage your concerns and then some, so I am done with this ancillary debate.
I will allow my comments to speak for themselves, and I continue to hope to get some good feedback from voters moving forward.
I think you are missing an important difference between "debate" broadly and "competitive debate." This is competitive debate--it is literally about scoring points.
I genuinely believe that we have a moral obligation to protect our forests, and I act on that obligation to the extent I am able to in real life. But, when I enter a space like debate, where it is generally understood that we do not have to argue for our own beliefs, then I am not being dishonest in taking up the position of the industrialist. I am not being dishonest precisely because I am not advocating that people *actually* take up that position, but rather I am trying to outdo my opponent within the bubble of the debate. It's roleplaying. Actors on stage are not being dishonest when they portray people who are not them; they are roleplaying in a context where it is understood that roleplay is going on.
I don't know what a background of competitive debate would look like exactly, so I can't say for sure. But I would assume that I do not. Does this make me wrong? I might not have the stomach for dishonestly spitting out rhetoric, but I have a long history of being honest and that's all I care about. I think honesty would probably be my one and only true axiom, since I generally don't accept axioms. Is it a bias on my part? Maybe... Probably. But there's not much I can do about that since I wholeheartedly believe that honesty is important.
If I have to lie to win a debate, then in my mind, I didn't win that debate.
To me, winning a debate is arguing for that which you believe and being good enough at it to convince other people. If I can only convince people of things by lying, then I'm nothing more than a grifter. I would consider that immoral because one of my lies might spread a false belief and that is unacceptable to me.
Here's the way I see it. People believe things for reasons. If they believe it wholeheartedly, especially if it's related to morals. Then they will act according to those beliefs.
If I'm against something because I think it's morally wrong and then I go and play devil's advocate in a debate without any regard for my true position, then I'm being dishonest. It's that simple for me. Because to advocate for something that you think morally wrong is a life issue. Is it a debate issue? No, but who cares about debating if there's no knowledge seeking behind it. If I wanted to just argue and score points, I would just go to youtube or reddit and ream people there.
First, I am not advocating for it outside the context of the debate. Debate is a bubble. Much like Vegas, what happens there stays there, and should not be interpreted as real world advocacy. In debates, it is generally understood that debaters put forward arguments which may not reflect their own views, and therefore there is no presumption that these views reflect debaters beliefs. Ergo, there's no dishonesty. It's rather naive to think otherwise. Second, I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs, so there was no dishonesty on that level either.
You obviously do not come from a background of competitive debate, which is fine. But it does mean we're going to see things differently. That we don't see eye-to-eye does not make either one of us dishonest. It just means we have different paradigms for conceptualizing the activity, what is or is not appropriate in the activity, and so on.
That's nonsense. If you're advocating for something that you don't believe in, then you're not being honest. If you want to lie to yourself and say it is honest, then be my guest. But just know that you're deluding yourself.
Okay, fairness is an adjective that I'm applying to the word liberty. I'm not saying they're the exact same thing. I'm saying that the liberty has to be fair. My liberty ends where yours begins. However, in the case of a debate, there is no way for my liberty of making an argument to trump yours, so we'd both and full liberty and it would be fair because we both have it. When you make a contingency that is tailor made for your argument, that is neither fair nor liberal.
Thanks for the vote. I still don't think I challenged any rules of the debate. That was just a strawman that bsh1 made of me. I pretty much knew I was going to lose the debate going in. I'll tell you what I've told you in the past. If you assume that my goal was to win the debate, then yes I lost. But that is rarely my goal except maybe in rap battles or debates that I don't care about personally.
But in this case, I take logic seriously as I think the lack of it causes a lot of problems in society and my real goal is to get people to think about their axioms. It always has been. It's the reason I started debating in the first place.
If I have to lose 1,000 debates and become a joke to the community, then so be it. None of that matters to me. If I can teach even one person to justify their own claims then I've done my job (I think I'm at about 3 people now, but who knows if any of that stuck with them. [fyi none of those people are on this website, at least I think they're not])
Full liberty is not fairness either, it's anarchy. Fairness implies rules, which in turn implies restrictions on liberty.
Besides, a debate requiring you to argue something which you do not personally believe is hardly revolutionary. *Most* competitive debating require debaters to argue things they don't believe. I did not argue my own beliefs in this debate, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest, because I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs.
I didn't say it was. I said it was fairness. My point is that if I have to lie about my position to win a debate, then the debate is not fair. If I honestly believe my argument to be true, then I should be able to present it the way that I believe it. If I am wrong, then it's for the voters to decide. Not my opponent.
Full liberty is not the same thing as honesty.
That wouldn't demonstrate anything. That would just demonstrate that people want to vote for you. If your opponent is not allowed to argue in the way that they find most honest, then the debate is not fair. The only fair debate is one where people are allowed to make their arguments with full liberty. Anything less than that would be arbitrary restrictions.
Thanks also to those who cast votes so far.
As I said to RM, I am willing to take this exact same topic as Con using the exact same set of rules. I believe the rules are fair, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is to demonstrate that.
Humanism is boring. Nationalism is much more exciting.
My problem wasn't that you were pointing out what you considered to be rule violations. My problem was that I made it clear after your initial accusation that I was not challenging your resolution assumptions.
I made it clear in my opening statement that my comments about your resolution were for clarification of terms. It was a genuine effort to understand your topic as well as possible before moving forward. When I do this with other debaters. They usually just clarify and then move on. But not you, you decided to make a show out of it and if you think that my accusations of your are unfair, then all I have to say is "if the shoe fits"
If you were being an honest debater, then when I initially told you that I was not challenging your topic assumptions, then you should have took that at face value and moved on into the next subject. But instead, you kept repeating ad infinitum that I was exhibiting poor conduct when I wasn't. I don't care what you're intentions were. The road to ruin was built on the best of those right? I only care about your actions. Your actions have exhibited bad faith arguing.
I would suggest that if you do indeed care about honest competition, then maybe you should reconsider the way you debate. Because everything that you did was framed toward giving you a winning advantage.
You using the Description bar as a tool the way you did basically gave you an extra round.
You saying that the person in the last round can't make new arguments gives you an extra round.
There is nothing fair about your competitions. You're the guy who challenges someone to chess and then says they have to pull the your queen off the board to make it fair, but you, the instigator, still get to keep your queen.
Thanks for the vote. It's not that I never wanted to discuss the topic. My opponent would never let me get that far. I merely wasn't going to throw away a whole sale truth about the is/ought problem just to have the discussion. Like I said before, if my opponent had been honest and admitted the is/ought problem as every philosopher in history since hume has admitted, then we could have talk about it pragmatically. But instead, my opponent wanted to grandstand and make a shit show over the resolution instead of conceding a reasonable point and moving on in the debate.
You say you were wiling to have a discussion, but this is just hog wash. You denied literally everything I said (including the Is/ought problem which is the second most widely accepted philosophical position in history second only to "I think, therefore I am"). While I admitted everything in your topic as being true with the exception of one thing that was categorically false.
Which one of use was REALLY trying to have a discussion here? I'm on record conceding truths in debates and even entire debates when I'm disproven. Don't you dare insult me by saying you try to have honest discussions. That diminishes the wounds that I suffer by wearing my beliefs as a badge instead of a mask.
My argument was that ought doesn't exist. How is that any different. You're just picking a different word in the topic than me. This is stupid. I don't know where you guys came to the conclusion that making caveat's in the description about how the opponent argues was a good thing. The description is for presenting the instigator's definition and round structure. It is not an R0 statement as you try to use it.
Okay, you think debates are about competition. That's fine for you. I do this for knowledge. If I merely wanted competition out of this, I'd go play chase or a MOBA.
If you really think your description's are not get out of jail free cards, then something is wrong here. Either you don't understand the implications of your caveats or you don't care and you think they're justified.
If I post a rebuttal to your topic (as is my job as a debater) and you respond by saying I lose for that, then you're not debating honestly. I didn't challenge your definitions nor did I challenge any assumptions. Saying your position on the topic is wrong (once again, as is my job as a debater) is not challenging the assumptions of your position. Furthermore, do you not understand that telling my I can't challenge your assumptions is dishonest? No knowledge should be sacred. If your belief was true, then there shouldn't be any point that I could make that would ruin things for you. You would have been able to routinely rebut me without having to resort to accusing me of bad conduct.
But to be honest, I don't think you care all that much. As you said, you do this for competition, you only care about winning and that means that we're not on the same people
If you think the rules skewed Pro, I am happy to debate you as Con with the exact same topic and exact same rules. As long as the debate doesn’t start until June. If the debate truly is unwinnable for Con, it should be a nice auto-win for you. As the saying goes, “put your money where your mouth is.” I will.
I see multiple paths to victory con without running a K. That being said if I was to debate this as con, the most direct way to K the resolution is to argue that rights don’t exist.
Bsh1 won the debate because this description's rules make it unwinnable for Con.
No. I’ll explain why after work.
I think Bsh1 won the debate.
Arguments: Bsh1
I did not see Con make an argument. Bsh1's argument was composed of 3 reasons(The "Right to Leave", Communities Require Migration, The human community).
Conduct: Bsh1. His opponent called him "frivolous" in R4. This is poor conduct.
Is this a good RFD?
To voters:
I would enormously appreciate any feedback on my opening speech. Thank you.
I am sorry you think I am a jerk. Ultimately, the rules I impose on debates are not meant as a "get out of jail free card," but are rather designed to ensure a fair playing field for competition. Notice, "competition"--not discussion or truth-seeking. For me debate is primarily a competitive exercise. Because it is a competition, I do not hesitate to cite rule breaches when I perceive them, but that does not mean that the rules exist to give me any special advantage. Calling out rules violations then is almost never personal for me; I just see it as part of the activity. If you took it personally, then you should be aware that is not how it was meant.
From my point of view, you were not holding true to the spirit of the debate: to have a discussion about migration, not prior questions regarding the Is/Ought problem. That being said, I did try to earnestly engage with your arguments, and I devoted a significant number of my character space to discussing why the problem did not apply to my case. I explained my reasoning. To the extent that I did so, and to the extent that you had the chance to challenge any alleged rule violations, the debate, in my mind, proceeded honestly and openly. Having disputes about the meaning of rules, or their interpretations, is not dishonesty. It's disagreement, and that's what debate is all about.
Debates can be aggravating, even maddening, but they are not, as a rule, personal for me. I hope then that any enmity generated by this debate will not be long-lasting. I disagree strongly with the implication that I was either dishonest or unfair in the debate, and I chose not to reciprocate with identical language precisely because those are incredibly strong accusations to bandy about in the context of this activity. I take pride in my debating well and fairly. To some extent I can sympathize with your frustration at how the debate turned out; I hope you can sympathize with my own as well. I hope you can let any animus you have go.
Thanks for the debate. Can you please bring it to a close?
I agree with all those points.
2) Colonialism helped 3rd world countries. Ethiopia resisted colonialism, and they're one of the poorest places in the world, despite being an empire pre-colonialism. The US and Australia were colonized, yet they're pretty rich. Europe made Africa more united then when it came. There were thousands of tribes in Africa, each basically being it's own nation. Europe's influence helped reduce that number to about 50 countries.
3) To the countries that receive migration, in the situation in Europe, the Muslims there are causing Europe to implement portions of Shariah law. Eventually, Europe would be a shariah continent. This is bad because I don't want radical Muslims getting access to British and French nukes because if that happens, you can expect the west to be nuked off the map since if the US strikes back, the Muslims won't care since it would be martyrdom to them. Radical Islam wants to destroy the west and if Muslims get their hands on western technology, like nukes, then the west is dead. The whole non Muslim world would probably be dead. So much for religious diversity worldwide if all the other religions get nuked.
When I first saw the topic, I came up with these three thoughts, would be interested in hearing your opinions since they’re kind of different than your case:
(1) Not allowing people to immigrate into your country is a form of discrimination because you allow people to be born within your home. The fact that they just happen to be from a different country—often because they were born there, an arrangement they didn’t choose to have—is just random luck and that random luck has very real implications for the quality of life of people. Access to economic opportunity and a social safety net shouldn’t be based on a random lottery of birth, so justice requires that migration is a human right.
(2) A large proportion of migration would be from developing countries to developed countries under such a model. Developed countries are often responsible for the suffering of people in developing countries today in two ways: the first is they directly engaged in process such as colonialism that resulted in diminished long-run economic capacity and weaker institutions, and the second is the process of drawing borders—in other words, the existence of borders in much of the developing world, such as in Africa, is the product of developed country government officials drawing lines on maps, which cut off access to opportunity and caused violence. Thus, there’s a restorative obligation to not shut the doors to people whose condition you are responsible for. This doesn’t apply in all cases or even a majority of cases of migration, but certainly a significant amount.
(3) This has the potential to improve the lives of people—both people who remain in the developing world (due to remittances and increased human capital development) and people who move. Reducing poverty and saving the lives of thousands is a good in itself. To add to this, it helps the countries who get more migration, since it allows them to have a new, younger, more mobile workforce and boosts demand.
I am mixed on immigration. I don't want deportations, that tends to break families apart. But I support the wall, and even want it made of cupertino wire to prevent people from climbing on it. Hyper assimilation should be mandatory in order to prevent separatist movements as history has confirmed. If here illegally, they should get a pathway to citizenship that they pay for. Hopefully, the left and the right can agree on it. Donald Trump offered DACA for the wall, but the democrats rejected that idea.
I agree that migrants have a moral obligation to assimilate to *some* extent with the country in which they settle. I do think that, ideally, migration should be legal, but neither do I think that coming here illegally is all that serious an offense.
Lets say that an immigrant is hard working, doesn't know English, is willing to learn, and can get a job as a laborer. They have heard about America and are more ideologically aligned with America then their home country. They should come to this country legally. They should assimilate in order to prevent separatist movements and they should accept American values. American values can be found in the following link: https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/USValues.html. Are you advocating for open borders with the whole world?
You think my fears about unassiliminated immigration is absurd, but it's confirmed by history.
Thank you! I appreciate that.