Question: Should the state permit undocumented immigrants to attain citizenship?

Expel all Undocumented Immigrants: Persuade Me Otherwise

I'm hesitant to use overused arguments, but it's important to remember that we are a country built by immigrants. Do you speak a native language? Unless you're indigenous, you can trace your ancestry back to immigrants. Many Honduran women immigrants are escaping from gang violence, sexual abuse, and the horrors of human trafficking. Mexicans are often running from the brutality of drug wars. Of course, we should address criminal activities. But what about the rest? I mentioned the Bible because it guides my political views and teaches us to treat others with kindness and compassion. The immigrants, in many ways, are among the most vulnerable. I have a challenging question for you, sir: Are you genuinely open to changing your mind, or are you here to merely express your opinions? There's no judgment either way.

This rewritten document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original while preserving its relationship to the question about whether the government should allow illegal immigrants to become citizens. It also retains the conversational tone and the personal values expressed in the original text.

I believe that the border fence between the United States and Mexico is a vital part in reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. I think that legal immigration relations between the United States and Mexico could be improved though. As to address the cases in which illegal immigrants are dying to try and cross the border, here is my argument. The Arizona desert is one of the leading causes of killing illegal immigrants who try and cross it, however if there wasn't a fence people would still try and cross it anyways. According to huffington post the number of people who died trying to cross the U. S/Mexico border is the lowest it has been in 15 years as of 2014. More immigrants are entering through Texas instead of trekking across Arizona's harsh climate. Border enforcement officers say the reduced numbers are due to increased rescue patrols efforts and more Latin American based campaigns the discourage the Arizona hike. Now my friend, I would like you to address how the border fence reduces criminals entering the US. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

CONS Imagine a place where people don"t have a sense of belonging. Minors would have tremendous trouble becoming a citizen before 18; meaning throughout minor"s lives, until they became an adult they wouldn"t know where their nationality belongs. Citizenship is part of someone's identity and it"s not our right to steal that from others.Birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in the USA. Although there are good reasons for abolishing birthright citizenship, the reasons for keeping this law around outweigh any reasons for abolishing it. If we abolished it we would be deliberately disobeying the 14th amendment and there would become a permanent underclass. Not only that, there would be lots of money to propose though it is not likely to succeed because it is a right guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment. For one we would be deliberately disobeying the fourteenth amendment. Indeed the 14th amendment can legally be revised by our congress. which would be a challenge itself though when our congress didn"t amend the constitution to simply be amended its self. Yes it has been around for a long time but that is no reason for blindly abolishing one of the laws that 1) made our country unique and proud. 2) it made our country extremely successful and taking that away seems like we"re asking to fall behind as a country. The 14th amendment says clearly "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." therefore we shouldn"t even begin the think about denying our fathers. Additionally, it would be lots of money to propose and unlikely to succeed. Even if it was passed by congress the likelihood of the supreme declaring it unconstitutional is quite high. Sadly by that time we would have already spent 1000"s of dollars if not millions on advertising and carrying out this law. For this reason we would be wise to simply never start going "down" that path in vien. Instead we could use that money and pay of some of our billions in that we are in debt. No, "anchor babies" is not the problem. The phrase "anchor babies," which is at the heart of the arguments in favor of these bills, is completely misleading. U.S. citizen children cannot protect their parents from deportation, and they must wait until turning 21 to sponsor them for legal status. Having a child here is not a practical way for any immigrant to gain citizenship. The amount of people being left with no nationality would not be "accounted for". for one many of children born in the U.S. but denied birthright citizenship might also be ineligible for citizenship in their parents" home country, leaving them without a nationality and forcing them to live at the margins of the international community. Besides these children would be undocumented, drastically increasing the total number of undocumented people living in our country causing Americas taxable population effecting roads, schools, government, safety, recreation areas, etc. Almost everyone would be negatively affected allowing loopholes in our government allowing more illegals. It"s an endless predicament that we best not start into. All in all we would be woefully foolish of our congress to go down this path that clearly will hurt society way more than we could ever think it would help. Besides birthright citizenship hardly attracts the illegals; what attracts them is our government and economy style, safety and equality. Also abolishing birthright citizenship would effect our taxation system that our government so direly relies on. On top of that the likelihood of the law be declared unconstitutional is rather high while we all know how much capital would be required to advertise and debate this national law would cost. The thought of losing that money when we are billions of dollars into debt is stomach churning as falling farther into debt would be scary, maybe even fatal.

You should be careful when mentioning Nazi Germany in relation to an opponents points, odds are you will have fallen right into their trap. Just gonna point that out. P1 defense Unfortunately, Nazi Germany clearly had the right to commit mass genocide, because the state/nation is the one that can create and distribute rights, and therefore the state has infinite right. If Germany did not have the 'right' to do so, who would inforce it? Yes, other countries attacked, but that is not because Germany had no right to do what it did, but because, as I have mentioned, Germany had no justification to commit genocide. I should also like to point out that the German genocide was not just of Jewish Immigrants, but also of the native Jewish people. But, since we agree that justification is a better word than right anyway, I think that this entire defense is pointless. But, since Germany killed even native German-Jewish people, among other groups, clearly immigration was not the problem, it was simply anti-sematism, so my first does not lend itself to your second point, as you have claimed. Moving on... P2 defense Before I do this, I would like to mention that the 602% was a joke, and I made it clear it was so. But, I would be happy to go with my opponents 300 million, which is approximately the population of America. He gave the figure, so i assume he is good to use it. According to him (because, again, we can't check sources), the number of illegal immigrants in America is equal or greater than the population of citizens. Furthermore, the resolution merely says 'immigration'. This implies all immigration, and in context of America, most people who use the term 'anti-immigration' refer to illegal immigration. Let's not make this an argument of semantics, as, in America, the terminology is different than in Europe. Certainly, in Europe, we may use solely legal immigrants, as the majority of European anti-immigration speakers speak about mostly legal immigrants. But, in American immigration policy, anti-immigration refers to illegal immigrants almost exclusively. Your best bet would be to argue that America has no justification to argue against illegals, rather than attempt to change the American terminology of a word, which would, of course, be the terminology used when we are discussing American issues. Therefore, my second point clearly stands. P3 defense If one is not better than the other, why should it matter which culture is where and why and how and who makes what kind of food. In fact, your bitter explanation for why you support 'national identity' comes off nothing short of racist. 'Italians are italians' 'French are french'. What makes a Frenchman French? Someone is French even if they are immigrants from China who are citizens of Frace. Therefore, all citizens of a country still belong to that country. A French-residing citizen of France who immigrated from Mexico is still French. And why do these countries have a right to keep their identity? Besides, Identity is such an abstract concept, wouldn't it change according to how a culture changes over time? This 'something special' that you call identity sounds, quite frankly, non-existent. A made up idea, created by racists, to prevent other races from entering their states. There is nothing inherently 'French' or inherently 'Italian', as cultures will do what they have since the beginning of time -- adapt and change for differing times and circumstances. Perhaps I don't see where your argument in this point resides, other than 'there is something special' that magically makes your argument true. There is nothing 'special' about any culture that immigration would destroy. As to your best point, regarding ghettos, gangs, and racism, how is that not a problem as well in the US. If Europe has a right to be worried of that, so should Americans, both for legal and illegal immigrants. There are immigrant gangs in parts of America that are strengthened by increased immigration. Ghettos grow every year, populated largely by illegal and legal immigrants, as well as minorities. In fact, the biggest ghettos in the first world are not in Europe, but in America, cities such as Detroit and parts of LA. Also, if you would define the 'true American culture' as that of Native Americans, than it is native Americans who should have a say in whether or not we should be anti-immigration and, given the extremely poor conditions of the reservations, I would say they have total grounds to be anti-immigration. Furthermore, if America's 'testing ground for hundreds of cultures failed', than that means that America should be anti immigration, because they failed. Usually, if something is/will fail, you have a right or justification to be against that something, in order to prevent the failure from continuing. Your entire attack on my third point falls because of those reasons. P4 defense Well... I don't even really understand your first paragraph. Germany has a large population of immigrants (about 18.75%) you know, and their culture is one of the strongest in Europe. Not to mention Germany's booming economy, very powerful status, and good living conditions. They are getting tons of immigrants, they are doing very well, and their culture is not threatened in the slightest. Germany, by itself, disproves your argument, because the resolution states that European countries have this anti-immigration right, but Germany should not have it any more so than America. In order for your point to be correct, it must apply to all European countries (or, at least, the major ones, which Germany is). Even if it doesn't apply to Germany, your argument that they don't want any more culture is false. The BNP and other nationalist organizations are, usually, the ones calling for less culture. But, the majority of the population of nearly all European states support multiculturalism, the only exception being the United Kingdom. Also, your point that 'they have the internet for that' is kinda silly. Have you ever eaten authentic cultural food hand-made by a member of that culture through the computer? Or done/been to a cultural tradition or party through a screen? That's just silly. A computer can provide you information about a culture, but you will not experience it. P5: A country has every 'right' to go back on a mistake Apparently, according to you, a country, once it engages in a course of action is NOT ALLOWED WHATSOEVER to change that course in the slightest. In that case, France and Britain should still be at war, North Korea should forever continue concentration camps, Russia should never stop invading Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East should never end, and Australia should only ever be home to prisoners and exiles of Europe. At least, that is what logically follows from your argument that a path that a nation goes on 'cannot go back'. Let me ask, what is to keep America from going back on that, exactly? Especially if it is for the benefit of its people? P6: Meanwhile, European countries have no right to defend an abstract idea I have already pointed out that 'identity' and 'culture' are abstract ideas and, as they are abstract, they really can't be physically defended and, being abstract, they provide no practical and physical use to a country whatsoever. You can't really argue that they have a 'magical property' that makes them so valuable as to defend. In actuality, I don't see any reason why identity, from a non-sentimental and practical standpoint, should be defended, even if they were threatened. Abstract ideas provide no physical value to a nation to defend unless that abstract idea allows the government of that nation to function (examples being political ideas such as democracy and communism. Not 'identity'.) You think you have destroyed my points when, in actuality, you have only weakened your own.

Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...

An answer to this problem certainly is easy nor won't it cost money but it doesn't have to cost alot(atleast to the goverment). Nor will it be a waste of money. The North County Times reports that illegal immigrants directly cost the county of San Diego 101 million dollars last year and an indirect 155 million in unpaid health care. I know thats just San Diego county but California is one of the countys in California. California hosts 3 million of our illegal immigrants approximaTLY 1/5 Of the immigrants in our country. So if it costs one county of Californis that much money imagine how much it will cost our whole nation. I promise you I will get that info next round but i don't have much time. Now Harlan I'm sure you know that 256 million dollars is alot of money especially for on county in our country. And that was only last year. Imagine how much in the last 5 years. 10 years. What could we use that money? Maybe use that money to make sure the immigrants get our and don't get back in. Now im not saying that we have to put 100% of our effort immediatly but at least 25% or more has to be put in to at least get rid of a substantiol amount of them. Then when we see some results we can slack. We can even use the minutemen that patrol our borders. Use them as bounty hunters only w/out the kill. Place them in los angeles, san diego all the known places with high illegal poputations. It will take time and effort to catch these illegal immigrants. but for all the money they cost us its worth the time & effort

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally! They invaded. If someone comes into your home you shoot them! Someone invades the country (good ole USofA) they need to be shot, killed, skinned, hung! They have no right to be here! Ever since these Undocumented Democrats came to the USA crime rose. (1) The mexicans come here and do their crimes and litter all over the place. Illegals need to be shot deporting them dont do no good! Deporters always come back. THeir lifes are useless. They need to die. (1) http://www.renewamerica.com...

What would happen to the young immigrants that came here as babies? Would anyone have the heart to kick babies out of America? Yes for today immigrants are taking our jobs but they need money and places to live and take care of their young ones. Illegal immigrants should have the same rights as us Americans, unless someone like the government see's individuals as a treat the society, I believe that some immigrants move into the U.S.A. because they don't like where they are living and need a better place to raise their children and help the elders who are sick and dying. Shutting them out is like saying no to a hungry homeless child begging for someone to help them. We should start thinking and put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves how would you feel if you were deported and shut out from a better living area. This is not just my opinion but facts and some truth is combined into my debate.

Note Extended Arguments: Pro did not dispute the fact that Marriage is not an unalienable right. Rebuttals: State Rights: Pro says “While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state must recognize the marriage of another state.” This is half true, as it depends on which Government Agency you are dealing with… Federal or State. “Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA's definition of marriage as unconstitutional, the federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages. However, the eligibility rules for benefits do vary among federal agencies. Some agencies, such as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the IRS and the US Office of Personnel and Management, will recognize all valid same-sex marriages, regardless of where same-sex married couples reside. All legally married, same-sex couples will qualify for immigration status, federal tax benefits and federal employee benefits (if either spouse works for the federal government), even if they reside in states that don't recognize their same-sex marriage. But other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, only recognize marriages that are valid in the state where the couple resides. So a same-sex married spouse living in a non-recognition state will not qualify for Social Security benefits under his or her spouse's work records.”(1) So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not. The flaw in my opponents argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State. “recognize there are so many variances in our state to state laws, the average individual may have difficulty keeping up with those laws well enough to prevent them from breaking the law, especially as they travel.”(2) Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others. Pro says “Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle.” I agree, however the logic my opponent and I see in this is matters little. Pro argued initially that a ban on gay marriage "is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.” However, now that it has been established that such a ban is the result of the principles of democracy he rebuts by saying “Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though.” Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.” Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. (1) http://www.nolo.com... (2) http://www.handgunlaw.us...

There here illegally! why dont they just go back where they came form. we have enough problems to worry about ithout a bunch of illegals stealing jobs and education!

The Dream Act would not be beneficial to the United States because most of the "illegals" in the US are of Mestizo origin (1). Mestizos are more likely to use a form of welfare proportional to their population size than whites or even blacks (2). Mestizos are the most likely demographic to drop out of high school and the children of Mestizo immigrants are more likely to commit violent crime, be in a gang, live in poverty, and be single parents than European Americans (and blacks in terms of gangs) (3,4). The majority of Latinos in the US, legal and illegal, are of Mexican origin. 58% of Mexicans believe the US SouthWest belongs to Mexico (5). This means that the US would be legalizing individuals that very likely support ceding portions of the US to a foreign power. It is hard to think of a worse group to give US citizenship to. People of Mestizo origin on average bring a diverse language with them. This type of a diversity is a weakness and causes disunity within a country. Belgium and Canada are two examples of where two competing languages, even within the same racial group, helps to cause extra tension (6,7). Why should US taxpayers subsidize universities for people with these types of averages and afford them certain temporary and possible permanent benefits of citizenship such as voting? 1. http://pewhispanic.org... 2. http://pubdb3.census.gov... 3. http://www.pewhispanic.org... 4. http://amren.com... 5. http://www.wnd.com... 6. http://onlineessays.com... 7. http://www.independent.co.uk...


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

Illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship in the United States.

I would like to counter the three main points made in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country. Rebuttal 1: It is often claimed that undocumented immigrants pay a significant portion of the taxes they are subject to, while receiving fewer benefits than citizens. However, this argument fails to acknowledge the fact that many illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes, and instead rely on government services without contributing to the system. Furthermore, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) reports that undocumented immigrants do not contribute as much to state and local taxes as they claim, and their contributions to federal taxes are disproportionately small compared to the benefits they receive (http://www.itep.org...). Moreover, the median household income of undocumented immigrants is approximately $37,000, according to Pew (http://www.pewhispanic.org...). However, the government typically contributes more to those with incomes under $37,000 than it collects from them, which means that undocumented immigrants who do not pay income tax are costing the government less than naturalized citizens (http://taxfoundation.org...). This is because undocumented immigrants cannot claim federal services while not paying federal income tax, and around 46% of Americans are not required to pay income tax (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Additionally, undocumented immigrants contribute less to Social Security than they take out, as they pay for Social Security through their salary but lack the Social Security card needed to receive benefits (http://www.nytimes.com...). The claim that the majority of illegal immigrants are currently meeting their tax burden is therefore not supported by factual evidence, and is logically irrelevant, as undocumented immigrants would be more able to contribute their full share of taxes if they were not pursuing a policy of deportation.

Rebuttal 2: It is often argued that undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate compared to that of naturalized citizens, and that deportation does not positively affect the crime rate. However, this claim is unfounded and prejudicial. Four out of five busts for drug trafficking by the Border Patrol are by US citizens (http://cironline.org...), and the incarceration rate for US citizens is nearly ten times higher than that of Mexican young men without a high school diploma (https://img.washingtonpost.com...). Moreover, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) points out that the data on Federal facility incarcerations includes those incarcerated for the offense of

I concur the general welfare of all mankind should be taken into serious consideration. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are a vital part of the social tread that creates our societies. Latinos have become the largest minority in America. Unfortunately America is not very liked through out the world and many people want to destroy what we take for granted everyday. Many people want to take away from us the very reason Mexicans are crossing our borders...our freedom. (I use the term freedom loosely, but that is another debate.)It is important for all America no matter what your heritage, race, or country of origin, to be aware of ways that terrorist can get into our country undetected.The border is one huge red flag when it comes to security.

There's a lot that I can say in favor of the affirmative position; however, for now I'll stick with a very short argument. Since the instigator of this debate has not yet presented a legitimate case for his side, and because this is a debate with 5 rounds for which I have to present my case, for now I'll refute what little claims the Con has actually presented in his first round. I'd also like to thank Con for the debate, and wish him good luck. Here we go... To begin, Con says that the State should t allow people to carry guns even if it is legal. However, the State restricting citizens from doing something legal would be a huge infringement upon rights, and require taking legal action despite citizens not having broken any laws. That said, I doubt I have to head into a whole defense of the 2nd amendment at the moment, though retain the right to bring it up in future rounds. Moving on, Con's reasoning for saying that guns should be prohibited are because (1) people are crazy, and (2) people will shoot people regardless. First, a majority of the citizens in this country are sane, and they should not be punished for the mental illness of the select few. Additionally, gun laws could be enacted in which it is required that only people with sufficient mental health (along with other requirements) can legally attain guns. Second, Con has not provided any proof or incentive that average citizens would go around shooting people. Because of this, we cannot accept his claim to be true. Now I'm not going to waste my time crafting a R1 argument discussing democracy and the constitution, statistics, why gun rights are necessary, etc. as many of my opponents don't even bother coming back to post in future rounds. So, at this point, since I have negated all of Con's claims (and made some of my own), I am ahead. It is now up to him to present any legitimate arguments which I am prepared to deconstruct in future rounds. Back to ye, Con.

Well I believe that the Wet Feet Dry Feet Act (circa 1994) was a great way to show that their is some immigration justice to this world. For anyone that doesn't know what it is the act it is: • The United States agreed to no longer permit Cubans intercepted at sea to come to the United States; rather, Cubans would be placed in a safe haven camp in a third location. Justifying this policy as a "safety of life at sea" issue, Cuba also agreed to use "persuasive methods" to discourage people from setting sail. • United States and Cuba reaffirmed their support for the United Nations General Assembly resolution on alien smuggling. They pledged to cooperate in the prevention of the illegal transport of migrants and the use of violence or "forcible divergence" to reach the United States. • The United States agreed to admit no less than 20,000 immigrants from Cuba annually, not including the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. • The United States and Cuba agreed to cooperate on the voluntary return of Cubans who arrived in the United States or were intercepted at sea. • The United States and Cuba did not reach an agreement on how to handle Cubans who are excluded by the INA, but they did agree to continue discussing the matter. (Grounds for removal include health-related grounds; criminal grounds; national security grounds; Nazi persecution grounds; public charge grounds; illegal entry and immigration law violations; and lack of proper immigration documents.) • The United States and Cuba agreed to review the implementation of this agreement and engage in further discussions. - Well in here it shows that the Caribbean Natives has few advantages over the average illegal immigrant. This information is for another time. This act should stay for put some justice to the world and US safety.

Debating on the motion which is : This house would grant politicians immunity from prosecution. I on the opposition side believes that politicians should not be granted immunity from prosecution because of the following reasons: 1.) The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power : It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians. 2.)Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve : The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.

I would like to point out that marriage is not going anywhere anytime soon, and in order to be fair to every individual it should include everyone's will. Meaning two consensual adults should be able to marry each other regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, place of organ, or any other such factor. He seems to be worried that there will be an increase in immigration, which I do not oppose, however we could alter the rights so that in order to be married in this country both parties must have lived in the country for X amount of time, or the one immigrating must go through legal procedures. Of course I do not see why if immigration is the purpose they would want to marry same gender. I am aware that you can have wills and powers of attorneys, but it is not the same. If marriage exists it should be fair to all parties. Even if you are against marriage I am sure you can agree to equality. Also I'm sorry I was using that to define marriage and should have specified as such.

My opponent poses the question of which religion, The answer to this question is any religion, meaning the separation of church and state. Just a footnote as I see that it has very little to do with the validity of my claim, the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar, Yes even in the tora. If I need to validate that claim I can, I am assuming that it is not going to be objected to. Notice that my opponent does not place objection to my first point 1) Adultery is immoral, it is not illegal. The validation of this statement is enough to proves there is an enabling of people to legally commit immoral actions. The claim that my opponent has entered as to my second claim Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion. I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another. All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us. This I can prove. When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong, lets replace people with babies. does that change the intent of the verb? What about if we change babies to unborn babies, well we are still killing, and killing is opposite of love. therefore immoral. Regardless of some religious or individual beliefs the meaning of two words is undeniable. Moving to my third point 3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal. I assure you that it is not illegal, I say this with certainty because it happened to me. I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal. To address the second part of his claim, and I quote from a judge in Tennessee. " a persons moral character has no place in this court room, my judgements are based on fact, and the fact is that you were accused." Had the accusers moral character been evaluated the court would have seen a woman that committed seven affairs in a five year marriage, a drug abuser, and a person with no work ethic, yet the court deemed that she deserved soul custody of 2 minor children based on an immoral lie. Even neglecting the fact that she was a drug abuser with no work ethic we have already determined the act of committing adultery validates my claim. On to my opponent next claim. My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthanasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer. I will start with the first half of this claim, as for gay marriage, It is not a violation of the statement love on another as I have loved you. therefore not Immoral, weird maybe, not common maybe as well, but love is never immoral. Moving on to euthanasia, I will refer to the above statement where I explained the difference in love and killing, take that sentence and replace it with old person, the verb to kill still remains the same, in which case the act is immoral, however if one would to go about it the right way... IE. getting a legal documentation from the victim saying it was his will and he recommended no punishment, his will would have to be followed, I would recommend that paper be signed in front of an unbiased lawyer however. Next claim This would certainly be a conflict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving. I ask you, If a kid steals from you do you put him to death? this is why there are limits, maximum punishments, that fit the crime committed, either in time served, or by removal of the problem. and an unbiased judge appointed by the government to oversee the punishment requested by the victim, with the ability to overturn that request at his discretion, Should a 8 year old who goes into a store go to juvy? how bout the punishment being to work for the victim in the store for a day for no pay. Do you know that a United States Judge made the ruling years ago that a man would pay one dollar a week for life to the family members of the man he accidentally killed in an auto wreck. is that unfair, or should he have gone to jail. Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off the street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. What makes a Judge smarter than you when it comes to what should happen? Maybe you feel that the teenagers crime doesn't deserve a life sentence in jail, but you can't tell a judge that. the above statement is similar to saying that we can not decide for ourselves if we want an apple, orange, or banana for breakfast. Are you saying that a person isn't capable of knowing a punishment between nothing and a loss of a hand. and isn't capable of making a decision of what should happen. My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system. 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded. Is a man with no hands going to steal? no, thefts down. is a drug dealer with no fingers going to do drugs, no, drugs down. Is a man who runs from the law that has no more legs going to commit any more crimes, not without a wheelchair, and he probably won't get too far. Case proven. 2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals.. Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again. I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the unjustness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. The contest to this claim validates this claim and the last one based on the googled statistics of 56 percent of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders the last claim states nothing about the ability to make a punishment it just shows a democratic judicial system based on checks and balances between a judge and victim, where as my opponent admitted the claim of closure. Your rebuttal

There here illegally! why dont they just go back where they came form. we have enough problems to worry about ithout a bunch of illegals stealing jobs and education!

The Resolution: As Pro and instigator, Freeman offered this debate in legal terms. He did not write infanticide should just be morally permissible; he made clear the act should be legal in the US; therefore, the Constitution of the United States applies. I negate. Infanticide: Without playing with the definition too much, I will accept the killing of a newborn. . http://research.lawyers.com... Several definitions are available, but this one is fine and appears to be on the subject Pro is addressing. C1: Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects. Parents pretty much decide on operations after getting advice from the doctors. The state is not under obligation to provide certain life saving care over a parent's objection in cases of extreme birth defects and low likelihood of survival. . http://www.law.uconn.edu... In short, infanticide is already legal in the US, if one is willing to consider inaction (forgoing invasive medical treatment where results would be marginal) equivalent to overtly euthanizing the infant. But Pro wishes the law to go one step further and allow the overt act by, presumably, a doctor with a parent's permission. The problem here is that a child, once born, is an American citizen and arbitrarily denying a child the right to remain alive violates the 14th Amendment. In order to satisfy Pro's position, the Constitution must be removed wholesale for a specific group – disabled children. The fact that the child is not a rational agent is irrelevant in the eyes of the Constitution. Some rights are granted to children within limits, I agree, but a child is a citizen of the US and is protected under its laws. I submit that birth defects should not remove an American citizen from Constitutional protections. Secondly, Doctors operate under very important oaths, versions of the Hippocratic Oath in some cases, but not identical in all respects. They cannot change the horrid hands that nature deals people, but they must provide standard care in all cases to allow for what little life nature and modern medicine allow. If a child can live for one fleeting minute, then a doctor is under every obligation to allow for that minute. The assigned providers, parents, can prohibit the doctors from performing risky operations with marginal results, which falls well in line with respecting their wishes and the doctor's oath, but the doctor cannot take upon herself the overt act of killing while maintaining her obligations to the field. Death Penalty doctors are shunned for their practice of lethal injection. Compromising professional ethics for the crime of a major birth defect is not a positive path and is one we should avoid as much as possible to maintain the integrity of the medical field. Pro is offering homicide, plain and simple, for a group that does not live up to his standards. Pro listed several birth defects and I must add that intestines forming on the outside of the body is easily remedied now. The operation is not that big of a deal anymore. The death penalty is not needed for this atrocious crime. Pro's own source provides the same information. Here is a gentleman born with his heart on the outside of his chest. 34 years and counting. . http://abcnews.go.com... He has lived a good life and I see no need to deny such a life to another. Nor can I find it constitutionally permissible. Ryan, a baby born without skin covering all of his body also lived, and enjoys life and constitutionally he is allowed this much. . http://www.10news.com... Tri athlete? Not bad Ryan, not bad at all. Anencephaly is truly terrible. The babies are not aggressively resuscitated; they have no chance of life but they are still persons under the law and this debate is about legality. As much as an overt act of compassion seems appropriate, nature's cruel hand must be left alone for the few days of this infant's life. The lack of many portions of the brain suggests the patient feels no pain. . http://www.ninds.nih.gov... A painless death will come without the aide of a doctor and without opening a door, infanticide, better left shut. Baby K was a famous case of anencephaly, and issues of medical futility were at the heart of the case, not infanticide by overt acts. The latter was never considered by the doctors. . http://www.medscape.com... Lastly, Pro offered that infanticide should be legal within limits; since he offered this debate in legal terms, I ask that he write the law and present it in the second round. My request is fair. Those "technicalities" may be all that is needed to render this debate moot. C2: Infants are persons under the law and this debate is about legality so they can be said to be persons, Dr. Singer and utilitarianism aside. I ask that pro provide a legal, constitutionally permissible definition for person that can exclude those with birth defects of any sort from other infants and still provide for EQUAL protection of the law for all US citizens. Biology is not the proving ground here, rights granted under a legal document, the US Constitution, are the focus. Dr. Singer (in the source Pro provided) avoids full on discussion concerning adoption and admits that it complicates his position somewhat. Under the law, it appears to complicate it greatly. An infant is a US citizen and I agree with current laws allowing for a parent to decide, in cases of medical futility, on operations, but allowing for the overt act of euthanasia brings forth issues concerning the best interest of the disabled US citizen. Adoption renders euthanasia impermissible in light of the US citizen's legally granted rights as a legal person. C3: Dr. Singer's definition of human is not one that allows for Constitutional protections so it must be rejected in the sense of legality; therefore, I see no need to address the "potential" argument he focuses on so dearly. The Constitution is a legal document so the rights granted there must be our focus since the issue is legality. Conclusion: In light of the resolution, this debate's focus is legality, not morality. Pro must show how a naturally born disabled US citizen, natural born being a legal distinction so precious that a citizen must possess it in order to be president, should not be permitted the protection of the US Constitution offered everyone else. He has not done so.

Full resoluton:And so be it Resolved: In order to preserve the racial integrity of the United States, immigration should be limited to European countries alone. For this debate, Europe will be defined as the land East of the Atlantic, North of Africa, and West of Russia. Russia will not count as a European country for this debate. In accepting, my Opponent is agreeing to this definition.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The White American is dying out, that much is quite obvious to all. Indeed, it is predicted that the White race will become a minority by 2050[1]. It was estimated that the amount of babies born to minorities has since last year exceded that children born to whites.[2] Fully 5.6% of our children are now inter-racial,[3] and only one in six American babies are born with blue eyes. America now faces a more massive challenge than it did nearly 70 years ago, when it was dragged into war with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, or even its darkest hour, the illegal northern invasion of the south. The challange America faces today lies in it's extremely dangerous demographic change. The America of the past was populated by fine men, most of whom were white. The minorities of the time tried to be like their white peers, and did so well, serving our nation with great honor and furious strength. Quite unlike the racial cesspool our country is now, the American people, including the minorites, were proud of our country and were unified in their support of it. The minorities of the time TRIED to integrate, they learned our language, saluted our flag, fought for our country, and were, above all, Americans. Congress made the absolute right choice when it passed the Civil Rghts act, giving these wonderful people the full rights they deserved. However, they also, caught up in a fervor of White guilt, foolishly passed immigration reform, lowering the racial quotas for those wishing to immigrate to our country.Let's examine the average immigrant of today's world. Many of them (20% in California) do not even know English![4] They demand change, they demand equality, but they do not TRY to integrate! There have been demonstrations (called "civil rights protests" by our non-represtenting represtentatives) of immigrants marching under a foreign flag, and they commit massive amounts of crime."The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population"DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens comprise only 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population. A Pew Hispanic Center study found that, of those sentenced for federal crimes in 2007, non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders, 25 percent of drug offenders, 8 percent of white collar offenders, and 6 percent of firearms offenders. Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation’s adult population.[5]I think I've made my point for now.Immigrants continue to flood in, diluting our culture, our resources, and the purity of our blood. Indeed the racial barriers that divided our fathers, and their fathers before them are quickly falling apart. If we are to have any chance to take back our culture, and reunify our country, we must stop this disgusting mix of color our country is becoming. The racial differences MUST be preserved. I agree with Kevin Alfred Strom in his statement: "The birthrate of mixed-race children is rising steadily, while the birthrate for white children continues to drop. If the prevalence of interracial marriage and mating continues, the white race will eventually become extinct. Men and women of European lineage who enter into unions with members of other races are polluting the European gene pool. By marrying outside of the white race, they are contributing to the genocide of their people and the extinction of their culture."[6]Allowing non-European people into our borders, sending them to school with our children, and allowing them to do blanant harm to our country all encourages miscegenation. Do not think that only current citizens are harmed through the immigration problem, the immigrants themselves suffer harm too! Indeed, they are the victims of hate crimes and poverty. It is in the best interest for both of our two groups of people if we cut off this flood off persons coming from our south. That's all I have for now, I wish my Opponent a good debate and I understand this is a sensitive issue so I really do not want anyone to take offense.Sources:1. http://www.reuters.com...2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...3. 2010 U.S. Census4. http://www.ppic.org...5. http://www.cis.org...6. Strom, Kevin Alfred. "Interracial Marriage Is Genocide."

Firstly, I absolutely agree that the laws of the USA, as those of any country, must be such as to ensure that foreign influence is indeed kept to a minimum. There is not, nor will there be (unless my opponent asserts something extraordinary indeed in R2) any contention that my opponent is being intolerant or unfair. My opponent has put the following two propositions: 1. "Opening up the highest office in this nation to those who are not natural born citizens, opens the floodgate to possible foreign influence on the oval office. " 2. "An unnatural born citizen would likely not be as qualified to represent mainstream America. " I will now address them both in a single argument. I contend that the place of a person's birth does not bear on where the person's loyalty lies, nor does it bear on the person's ability and qualifications to represent mainstream America. As things stand at present, a person who was born outside of America but arrived in America at 2 days of age cannot ever be President, irrespective of how otherwise suitable a candidate he or she may be. Consider the two hypothetical scenarios: 1. Joe Smith. Both Joe's mother was born in the USA and lived there her whole life. She was a true patriot, completely devoted to her country. Joe's father was a Canadian citizen who lived in the USA since 10. In the 1970's they went on a weekend trip from their home in Altadena CA to Mexico. Joe's mother went into labor and gave birth to Joe on the Sunday. They remained in Mexico for another week, until she was well enough to travel back. Joe's father and mother divorced when Joe was 3 years old. Since then he was raised by his mother only. Since a every young age, Joe has been a model citizen, his loyalty undividied, a true American, as patriotic as his mother. Joe Smith will never be President. 2. Abu Ahdir Maka Abu's situation is almost the opposite to Joe's. His parents were from a hypothetical Middle Eastern country. In 1965 they went on a two week trip to Hawaii. This is where Abu's mother gave birth. Abu spent his entire youth hating America and everything she stands for. He was a member of an ultra-fundamental sect of a hypothetical religious sect that interprets its religious dogma in a way dictating the destruction of the Western culture, focussing on the USA. In 1995 he migrated to the USA, gave up his foreign citizenship, became a US citizen. As of 2009 Abu Ahdir Maka will be able to run for President. I doubt that my opponent would suggest that Abu Ahdir Maka is more likely to be qualified to represent mainstream America than Joe Smith is. I also doubt that he would further argue that Abu Ahdir Maka is less likely to bring foreign influence into the office if elected President than would Joe Smith (if he were able to run for President). These are extreme examples, I agree. They are here to illustrate a point. A point that place of birth, in today's climante of cheap and fast international travel, place of birth means little to nothing. There are scores of people born from an American parent and who have always lived in the USA with the exception of the first few days or weeks of their lives. They can never be leaders of their country. I contend that is not fair and not reasonable. There are also scores of people who were born from immigrant parents shortly prior to their arrival in the USA and who have lived in the USA ever since their arrival and yet can never be President. I again contend that this is not fair and not reasonable. When it comes to the question of loyalty or ability to represent the interests of mainstream Americans, the question of place of birth is simply of such minute relevance that it should not even be given consideration. WHAT THE PRESENT SITUATION IS At present, to qualify to run for President, a person must be born in the USA, be 35 years of age and must have resided in the USA for at least 14 years with a permanent resident status. At the minimum therefore it must be a person who has resided in the USA just under one half of his or her life. They are allowed to have lived in another country for a whole 16 (at minimum, if they are 35) years previously. They are allowed to have been a permanent resident of that other country, to have served in its Defence Forces (in some countries), to have held political and diplomatic positions of that country (of course this would only apply to those older than 35 at the present time), to have been educated in that country, to have children who are born and bred in that country. The question to be asked is then: Is it really the position that we are trying to minimise foreign influence? After all, the present situation allows ENORMOUS foreign influence and outside loyalty. All that a candidate has to be is born in the USA. If the true intention behind this restriction were indeed to minimise foreign influence and maximise the ability to represent mainstream America, would it not be more restrictive? Of course it would. A person born overseas, and having lived in the USA for 30 years (at present 35 years old) should arguably be considered infinitely better qualified for the Office than a person who was born in the USA, has lived overseas for 30 years and then again moved to the USA and lived there for 15 years. I would further contend that a President who has a foreign wife would be much more likely to be subject to foreign influence than one who was born overseas and yet lived his entire life (with the exception of a few months) in the USA. And yet we do not see a prohibition against presidents marrying foreigners. I conclude this round by saying that while the reasons are right, the measure is not. Perhaps it made more sense when it was originally implemented. However, in today's world it simply does not.


Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Firearms?

Right-to-Carry Legislation
States that have implemented right-to-carry laws have witnessed lower overall violent crime rates, in comparison to states without such laws. In jurisdictions where citizens' right-to-carry firearms for self-defense is respected, the total violent crime rate is reduced by 13%, the homicide rate by 3%, the robbery rate by 26%, and the aggravated assault rate by 7%. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the general public. For instance, in Florida, the annual average of firearm crimes among license holders is only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, a fraction of the state-wide rate. Since the implementation of the carry law in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked due to gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) The comprehensive research in "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, analyzed data from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3,045 counties over a 1977 to 1994 time span. Lott's research is the largest data set ever compiled for any study of crime, particularly for gun control studies. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates are crucial factors in influencing crime, non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also significant, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non-discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They decrease the number of attempted crimes as criminals cannot determine which potential victims are armed, capable of defending themselves. Secondly, victims with guns are in a much stronger position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime by increasing the risk for criminals. States with the most significant increases in gun ownership also see the most substantial decreases in violent crime. High crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a robust correlation between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits, there is a more significant decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law

Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.

Guns aren't a sign of weakness. Guns aren't a sign of strength. Guns are guns, plain and simple. GOP voters don't want to carry guns because they're too weak to fight, and they don't want to carry them to "look cool". People want to carry guns because guns are useful tools. People don't "want a gun so they can deal with any black teen in a hoodie they see on the street". Our nation has evolved past that, and people that don't think so are racists. People want guns so they can protect themselves from real dangers. It's saddening to see that former conservatives no longer view guns for what they are: tools. What's wrong with wanting to have a weapon when you go to a scummy 7-11? If there's a chance I'll be hurt, I should have the right to protect myself. Would you question someone that wanted a gun to travel the roads of downtown Chicago alone at night? Probably not. That's the kind of things guns are for, not a display of strength, and not to make up for weakness. It's stupid to "settle your disputes in a good scrape". All that does is get you hurt. You shouldn't settle disputes by killing people, but you shouldn't protect yourself from danger with your fists.

I'd like to expand a bit from my point of view on your last statement, which reads, "...but if they knew people were carrying guns, they'd be less willing to rob some place". First off, I'd like to debunk a myth conservative media has been telling you: there really is no correlation between lax gun policy and crime rate. Places such as Israel, which you have been told has an essentially no holds barred policy on gun ownership, actually have much stricter gun laws than you may believe. For instance, in an article in the Washington Post (source link below), it reads "...Israel laws, Rosenbaum [an American scholar] writes, 'are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street - even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army'" [1]. Israel has much lower crime rates than the US, but not because of its lax gun policy, but rather, its tendency to leave guns in the hands of professionals: police, soldiers, hunters, etc. Also, if citizens carried guns, and possible criminals were essentially out-gunned by the public, they wouldn't just roll over and die out; they'd probably look for bigger, stronger, more modernized weaponry to outclass any firearm citizens would carry on their person. Then, it'd just turn into a legally questionable arms race between gun-owning citizens and criminals, each trying to overpower the other with superior weaponry. Then, the police would have to overpower both of them just to keep civilian life civil; this means there'd be enhanced police vehicles, advanced firearms, more equipment like breaching charges, grenades, tear/poison gas, flashbangs, etc. being used on civilians and criminals in public, which means someone is bound to get caught in the crossfire, innocent lives will be lost. Then, there's the problem of making sure each citizen with a gun would actually act responsible with their newly acquired toys. Small, drunken arguments could lead to colossal shootouts just because some gun-toting badass wants to show his machismo to others. Then there's the idea that maybe gun-wielding civilians wouldn't be ready to actually kill someone who is a danger to others. If they aren't ready to take a life, then there really is no use for guns to be in the hands of many civilians, since they, meaning the civilians, may end up just running away or finding help. Here's one of the many cases where a regular citizen didn't end up saving the day, "In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine" [2]. Sources http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.motherjones.com...

Alrighty then. Let's get started. First of all, I'm going to ask a question. What is a gun? Well, it is a weapon. Technically speaking the very discharge of a firearm is a violent act, even if no living organism is harmed In the process. But, guns can be used for purposes which either harm an organism or do not harm an organism. Guns can, thus, be thought of as a physical manifestation of power. The idea behind gun control is that human beings, who have violent tendencies, should not be entrusted with this power, which can be used to hurt or kill one another. While human beings are violent, we can be restrained through factors such as the development of a sense of morality, religious belief, fear of legal repercussion, the fear of the other guy shooting back, etc. Thus, the statement that humans are violent isn't necessarily true under all circumstances. Likewise, this power can be used to protect ourselves and others from those who seek to harm us. In this way, power is a double-edged sword, one that need not be feared in the hands of the majority as long as the majority of people are "good". Also, removing this power from the populace is problematic, because the Government that put such a restriction in place still possesses guns, and more sophisticated weaponry. What results is a power imbalance; the Government has power and the populace does not. As long as the Government is benevolent, this is okay. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if, after 2,000 years of being a "good" Government it suddenly corrupts and turns on the populace? What then? Because Governments also have a potential for evil which cannot be wholly eliminated, there is no logical reason to trust solely the Government with power. It makes about as much sense as the U.S. Federal Government eliminating its own checks and balances so that power may be concentrated in the hands of one branch. Because neither the populace nor the Government can be trusted entirely, there should be a system of check-and-balance between the populace and the Government. That is, the Government would be powerful enough to handle a minority, but not the majority. The majority will remain good as long as that which society endorses, values, expects, teaches, and enforces is good. In a moral society the majority will be moral. If the majority of people are good, then a minority group of "bad" people will be few in number whenever attempting something bad. Being few in number, bad people can be suppressed by the Government. Likewise, when the Government turns bad, the majority will turn on the Government. Since the Government would not have the power to defeat the majority, it would be defeated and the majority could re-establish a good Government in the place of the corrupted one. However, the populace's power would rely upon them possessing not only weaponry, but every instrument used by militaries to increase power. This includes logistics, communications, mobility, and the likes. Thus, I argue that not only do gun laws need to be weakened, but that civilians should have access to much more powerful weaponry than they do. Civilians should have access to assault rifles, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, tanks, fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, advanced communication, armed drones, secure bunkers, advanced early warning systems, and the likes. An important balance must be preserved between the populace and the Government, with the populace having the upper hand at all times. It is the democratization of power, and it is good. Thank you.

Thanks for the debate, Pro. =Neg case=I. Ban PistolsPro makes no good responses here. His only arguments rely upon the idea that robbers would carry around easily visible long guns before committing crimes. This is untrue because, contrary to Pro's claims, criminals do not prefer handguns because they are cheaper. They aren't cheaper than many long guns (military surplus Mosin Nagants run at around $100 each, far less than the cost of an average pistol). Criminals prefer handguns because they are easy to carry and conceal. If gun control works, we would be heavily damaging the power criminals have by preventing them from obtaining their favored weapon. If it does not work, there's no reason to affirm the resolution anyway. Pro's position is just self evidently absurd. He wants to ban the weapons that are hardly ever used in crimes, even bolt action rifles and muskets, while wanting to permit the ones that are commonly used by criminals. He has literally no warrant for why people couldn't have long guns in their places of business for defense (they do in the status quo) if we ban handguns so his self defense advantge falls apart. Again, if you buy that gun control works vote Con because gun control advocates should use their political capital to push for a handgun ban, not a ban on long guns. If you don't buy that gun control works, the resolution is negated for obvious reasons. Pro attempts to salvage his concession on the hunting argument by arguing that people going out into the woods to shoot squirrels or deer somehow count as a professional group tantamount to the military and should not be viewed as civilians. I think this illustrates the mental gymnastics one would have to do to vote Pro at this point--Pro conceded that people should be sold long guns to hunt in some circumstances, so he loses the debate. It's as simple as that. Pro's only response is that civilians should run should an invasion occur. What he's failed to negate is that, historically, an armed popualce *deters* invasion. Disarming the citizenry has no benefit to the federal government. Pro's position is quite frankly ridiculous. He wants to ban guns that he admits have literally no negative utility, such as muskets, simply due to their barrel length. Hardly a basis for sound policy. II. Second amendment Pro totally dropped my legitimacy argument throughout the entire debate. This point vastly outweighs *everything* else in the debate by several orders of magnitude. Affirming the resolution would more or less destroy the federal government. Pro makes literally no response. You can stop reading and vote Con right here. Pro accuses me of being inconsistent but, as the negative, I don't have to be consistent. I just have to show that the resolution is false. My case shows that if gun control works you negate, and if it doesn't work you negate. My case is consistent in that it highlights the inherent absurdity of the resolution. Pro concedes that gun control doesn't work. Once again, you can stop reading and sign the ballot. His only argument is that long guns increase the potential threat of a person "exponentially", and yet, statistically, the vast majority of gun deaths occur due to handguns. Pro just has no ground here. Pro drops the point that democide is about 20x more common than homicide from fellow civilians. Even if you grant him limited homicide mitigation, the reduced risk of democide outweighs this. Pro characterizes the idea of an armed population deterring genocide as "naive". Kates and Polsby note[1]:"..not one of the principal genocides of the 20th century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenceless." It's simply logical that an armed population is going to be a tougher nut to crack for oppressive governments than an unarmed one. This is why the Nazi's did all in their power to disarm the populace. As Hitler noted[2]: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."III. Guns and crime Pro tries to make excuses for his lack of empirical evidence by stating he is not American, but this is just a cop out. At the end of the day, his nationality has no effect on his affirmation of the resolution. Granting him any leniency here would be discrimination, you have to judge the debate based on who did better, not by giving one side a blank check to spout opinions without the backing of statistics or sources. Pro realizes he's lost the debate on the practical front so he attempts to shift the goal posts by now arguing for an ideal. He made no response to my critique of idealism that if we're arguing for an ideal society, there would be no crime. Don't let him get away with having the debate judged on an idealistic plane--the resolution is a matter of policy. Even if you buy that he can make idealistic arguments, since all of his points rely on practicality as well you can ignore this paradigm. Since he's conceded that gun control wouldn't work because the populace is "stubborn" you can vote Con. Pro says he wants a society where the more lethal weapons are harder to get. Since pistols are about seven times more lethal in terms of death toll than long guns you can negate the resolution under my first contention. Pro argues that my statistics are useless because they don't address long guns specifically, but this is just absurd. He's given no reason, no reason at all, to think that more handguns would lead to less crime but more long guns would not. I don't know what else to say here--this point certainly stands. More guns means less crime, so banning the weapon kinds that constitute the majority of civilian owned arms is a terrible idea. The resolution has been negated several times. =Aff case=False dichotomyPro tries to shift the goal posts again. As I noted in my last round, he heavily implied in round 4 that these types of guns could still be sold to civilians as long as they had some kind of liscensing. As it stands, the fact that Pro wants to ban guns that he admits have no negative utility just because he wants a "clear" law is beyond asinine. If there's no reason to ban something, we shouldn't ban it and we should negate the resolution for being too broad. Easier for criminals Pro's argument lays in shambles because criminals simply do not buy weapons from stores. At this point given that he's already conceded gun control doesn't work, he gains no advantage from this or any other contention. Pro makes some strange responses to my argument about the Koreans defending their stores with long guns, but at the end of the day all that matters is his response here: "and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists". Thus he concedes that assault weapons (let alone all long guns) have some practical application in civilian hands. Therefore I've won the debate. Easier to solveAt long last, we come to the final point of contention. Pro once again tries to frame the resolution as an ethical question when it is quite clearly a matter of policy. Neither the resolution nor Pro's opening round make any mention of ethics or ideals, but rather a statement of policy that long guns should not be sold to citizens. This is pretty much all Pro says to this point but remember, even if you buy that this debate should be one of ideals since we've both argued pragmatism you have to vote on that. The judge is, after all, bound to the arguments the debaters make in round. Vote Con. Sources:1. http://www.theguardian.com...2. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com...

My opponent's opposition to gun control has now become clear - he dislikes it because it restricts personal freedom; the 'right' an individual has to go out and shoot people. Of course, using a gun as an offensive weapon is illegal, but sometimes people do break the law, and the fact that someone looses their temper and uses a gun to blow the head off the person that annoyed them will be of little consolation to the friends and family of the deceased. Also, in terms of self-defence guns just serve to escalate the amount of violence in a confrontation, often with lethal consequences. If an armed robber comes to your home you can use your gun to defend yourself but you and your family may be killed in the shoot-out. The best way to stack the odds in your favour would be to invest in a sub-machine gun and a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher. But what if the bad guys up the stakes again and attacks your home using an armoured-vehicle equipped with surface to surface missiles that are capable of being launched well out of range of your RPG's? You see, there have to restrictions on what type of weaponry should be available to the general public, so the argument that gun control restricts personal freedom falls flat on its face. In summary, gun control is designed protect citizens, not to deny them their rights. Thank you.

Once again is the purpose of the legislation necessary. The answer is no. In a capitalist society, one should be able to buy products that may be considered taboo. The state hurts the nation through unnecessary intervention in the economy. It doesn't matter about the checks and balances rationality is still subjective. Please name the European countries in which your law is enacted. The constitution must be upheld because it is the law. America like Canada and Australia is governed by the rule of law and so if people have the right to bear arms which are sanctioned by law than that MUST be protected. America is still unstable so the historical context does not work. It has been amended but you have not given a good reason why it should be amended again. Also, I defended why a living tree interpretation of the constitution does not work and is invalid. The high crime rates and instability in the domestic and international geopolitical arena make the 2nd amendment relevant. If one bans guns than they must disarm the military and police as well if you are not for this. Then your motion: The USA should abolish all firearms is a flawed and not well-written motion. The geopolitical situation goes against the idea of disarmament. I give an example of how someone could seize total power in America and it is not that likely. Also if no good person is armed than the criminals from the black market will continue to attack schools and cause trouble and nobody will be able to keep peace, order and good government ruining the American dream. On the militia. How do you think every other country that has had a successful rebellion take down the government? An armed populace engaging in small attacks in order to weaken and slow down a much larger force. Why call the police? What if the police don' get there in time. What if you can't call the police. What can the police do with guns that you can't? Also once again you lean into the fantasy that in a no gun America criminals who are already breaking the law wouldn't get guns from the black market. People who are unarmed don't fight back. None of the teachers or student in Florida were armed so... Okay, so I addressed this before. However, I will reaffirm. Guns have practical uses and I gave those uses. Banning Guns would help with anything. If the issue is mental health can what not then the Government should focus its attention on that and not guns. The material is not to blame the illness of the mind and heart is. Guns also play a role in the economy just remember. If I want to shoot up a bank or a school and the Government won't sell me but I really want to commit a crime than I will find a way and the black market is the key. For Britain. Your facts are true but here is the thing. The British Government puts more efforts into mental illness fighting and what than the United States so it isn't all the gun law changes that are dealing with crime. Also, Guns aren't "abolished in the UK". So an attack could still happen just as much as in the US. Also, what is an assault rifle? My Conclusion is simple. Constitutional rights must be upheld no matter what. You have to repeal the 2nd amendment if want to end so call Gun privileges. Banning Guns do not reduce death they increase crime and lawlessness. Guns have practical uses like cars and the black market is still a problem. You have not convinced me of your 2 premises and thus I dismiss the motion in question as nonsense.

Those gunmen are going to go nuts anyway. They will get their hands on firearms courtesy of the black market, as stated before. It's not hard. The restriction on firearms will only hurt law-abiding citizens, as stated before, It's fairly easy to trace "Oh yeah, this guy whipped out a gun, got a few shots off, and then the building got a few new and interesting holes in it." I think that the authorities would forgo prosecution in favor of corpse disposal in this case. Nice attempt at a trap. Presumably, kids would have a parent present for this kind of thing. I mean, I've known how to shoot a rifle (M1 Garand) since I was a little kid (I was 7), but I had the basics of gun safety drilled into my head before I even laid eyes upon it. Presumably, any parent intelligent enough to be able to afford a gun would have their children read the manual. It was a place where people went to hook up and have sex. Basically, it was a haven for libertines. The thing about your analogy is that it is flawed. People are imperfect, true, but the big thing about guns is that in the hands of a big guy, they make him more scary, but in the hands of some weedy guy, they're an equalizer that put him on par with the aforementioned big guy in terms of shooting power. God made Man, Sam Colt made him equal, and John Browning made him civilized. (Read: Sam Colt introduced widespread personal armament, and John Browning made, nay, set the standard for military-grade gear.) The speed limit is completely arbitrary for sure, but it's a nice standard. Earthquake-proofing is an insurance policy. Keep 'em both. A major plus to public armament is that having "a rifle behind every blade of grass" (attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral, IJN) would deter foreign powers from invading. Would you take an army into a city with a gun pointed out of every window, nook and cranny, and then deal with the actual military? I too believe in safety. I feel a lot SAFER when I am armed.

1. 2nd Amendment Says "Shall Not Be Infringed": The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Who could live with that? Would you want grade school children to be able to take weapons of mass destruction to school? Is it okay to take sarin gas into the subway? Should your least favorite religious denomination get to stockpile cruise missiles, ICBMs, suitcase nukes, mustard gas, military quantities of LSD, and weaponized anthrax? Should drug dealers arm themselves with grenades and machine guns? Unless you answer yes to all of the above questions, you favor infringing the right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment unambiguously says that should all of the above should be legal. That would be intolerable. We can't live with it. So, apart from a little lip service, we properly ignore it. Changing it would be good, to bring the law into conformity with practice. Doing it the other way, bringing practice into conformity with the 2nd Amendment as written, that would be crazy. 2. The Original Justification for the 2nd Amendment: The idea was that if the country were invaded, all the men of fighting age would grab their muskets and come to the defense of their country. Each man's domestic weaponry was to serve as military weaponry. A well-armed and well-trained citizenry was to serve as the nation's defense. For that to work today, one of your neighbors would need a couple of Abrams tanks, another would have to own a battleship, and you'd need a runway for that stealth bomber parked in your back yard. Not practical. The kind of guy who now shoots up a schoolroom full of kids would be able to do too much damage in that kind of world. Today's well-regulated militia is a professional standing army. The original justification for the 2nd Amendment just isn't practical in today's world: - We citizens don't have the weapons necessary to defend the country. - If we did have them, we would do intolerably greater damage to ourselves than we actually do with the weapons we're allowed today. - Our professional standing army obviates much of the need for armed citizens. Therefore, not only would the 2nd Amendment be intolerable if enforced, its justification no longer applies. 3. The 2nd Amendment Doesn't Justify Access to Small Firearms: The 2nd Amendment says anybody can have any weapon. "Shall not be infringed. " If we only let people have certain select weapons, then that right isn't based on the 2nd Amendment. Something else is going on. Our right to bear small firearms must then have some other basis. I posit that there is a right to defend ourselves and our property, an unenumerated right protected by the 9th Amendment. We have a right to own equalizers. This isn't part of my argument. It's just an example, one idea of how such a right could be defended. You can disagree with this idea and still vote Con. But you should agree with this: The right to own small firearms---to the extent that such a right exists---is not based on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed," which is obviously not what's going on. If the 2nd Amendment were in play, the BATF would just be the BAT. 4. Weighing Benefits and Harms: So, if our right to bear small firearms isn't based on the 2nd Amendment, what is it based on? The government weighs the benefits and harms of weapons ownership. On the one hand, we may not agree with their decisions (apparently we can take knives on planes again, but not bottled water) but we wouldn't want it any other way. We don't want children taking weapons of mass destruction to school. We don't want the Westborough Baptist Church to have a weapon that jams transmissions of the Jerry Springer Show. We do want someone to decide which weapons are, on the one hand, powerful enough to serve for defense and hunting and sports, but, on the other hand, not so powerful as to be unsafe in circulation. Somebody has to make that call. We reserve the right to gripe when we disagree the call, but somebody still has to make that call. 5. Benefits and Harms of Small Firearms: Public slaughter of school children and theater goers seems to be getting more popular in our culture. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable to limit access to high-capacity rapid-fire guns. I can defend myself with a six shooter. Some people might prefer faster guns with more rounds, but we have to, as a society, weigh how fast and how many rounds is reasonably safe. Given the increasing frequency of the public slaughter of strangers, somebody has to draw a line. Semi-automatic guns with thirty-round clips are not sacrosanct. If the legislature decides that banning such guns will save enough lives without making citizens unduly vulnerable to predators, that won't be an unreasonable decision. Personally, I'm for it. I think if you shoot ten kids you should have to reload. Every time. 6. The Resolution: The resolution is that no gun laws should be passed that restrict the right to bear arms. That means that, even if the harms of some guns outweigh the benefits, we shouldn't restrict those guns. That's not a reasonable position. Our gun laws are a hodgepodge of rules that don't make a lot of sense. For instance, your gun can't be .50 caliber unless it uses black powder. One very powerful gun was legal until somebody started using it to blow open safes. Our current statutes aren't sacred; they weren't handed down by gods. There's no reason that they shouldn't be adjusted as circumstances change. Pro isn't going to be able to prove that our current laws are perfect, or that they can't be improved, in some circumstances, by increasing restrictions on some kinds of guns. Conclusion: - We couldn't tolerate the 2nd Amendment as written. - Our current gun laws are clearly not based on the 2nd Amendment. - There is nothing perfect or unchangable about our gun laws, no reason not to change them as circumstances warrant. - Sometimes, increasing restrictions may provide a net benefit to the public. Therefore, it is not true that we should fetishise our existing set of gun laws by treating them as unalterable even when alteration would benefit the common weal. Therefore, the resolution is refuted.

Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.