Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The Legalization of Prostitution is Necessary
The legalization of prostitution is a necessary step in modern society. Here are several points to support this argument:

- Legalizing prostitution would lead to safer and cleaner services, reducing the number of people incarcerated and the spread of diseases.
- It would help diminish the stigmas and taboos surrounding sex, lust, and the human body.
- The economic benefits of legalization cannot be ignored.
- Legal prostitution would actually harm the human trafficking industry.
- Overall, it would increase happiness and decrease stress in the population.

(Pro) "Should trust a legislature to understand a mother"s body better than she can" I would like to know who's decision is it to get pregnant? Who's decision is it to have a penis inserted in to her? Who's decision is to have the penis inserted without a condom on?

I am so very happy to challenge that smexi Zealotical ;) "We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law?" The most obvious thinking to me for why men and woman are not penalized for having sex with another for no reason is because they are not purchasing the service. In whore houses (yes they exist), called "brothels" it is legal to purchase sexual services because they have a license to do such(I know like wtf lol..... license to be a whore lmfao!). So that is possibly why it is illegal to pay another for sex. The licensing is what is needed to be legalized, just like any other business. "They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition." Well I would agree on that part in itself because there are so many that can spread HIV and are out there selling their bodies while they know they have the virus. The acceptance of whore houses "Everywhere" still would not do much of a positive effect even though the woman are infection free. Since the services there are really expensive, trust me.... lol jk. The prostitutes are actually able to set their own prices which can be a way to make a client refuse to buy any absurdly priced services...... especially since they are fat and ugly as F%!# lol, which would make people seek out cheaper sexual services through illegal prostitution.

Thank you, Acetraveler, for taking this debate. I have read other debates you have had, and I am sure that you will provide me with a good challenge, which is definitely something that I look forward to. I understand you are not from the USA, however I can only argue about situations in the US to support my resolution. First I will refute your arguments then I will expand my own arguments. "First, basically, governments have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law The regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people.." If I understand this argument, basically you're asserting that the collective wellbeing of the many trumps the individual rights in question. I will agree that the collective well being is important, but I argue that it is not MORE important than individual rights. My arguments on this ground are 1)There is no evidence presented here that legal prostitution IN THE UNITED STATES is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. 2)The United States was founded on the ideals that individuals have the right to protection from unjust and arbitrary laws that were enacted for the purpose of bettering the majority of society at that time (the stamp tax, sugar tax etc. Were enacted without allowing the taxed to have adequate representation in Parliament, thus violating the rights of individuals in the colonies in order to support the well being of the larger English society in Brittan.) For further examples, a quick look at our bill of rights shows that, of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, every one of them, in one way or another, upholds the tenant that individual rights are paramount. "Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate." Almost anything can be twisted to harm the dignity of those involved in it. This does not invalidate the rights of the individual to choose to participate in those activities. Let me give an example of how the government actively has chosen NOT to uphold the dignity of women, because that is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... Shows that the courts in the United States have ruled, if a woman is in public, and she wears a dress, she has no right to view her body as ‘private' and her image can be captured, and distributed without her permission, or knowledge. We should all be able to agree that this creates a situation of indignity for women in general. I mention this not to debate whether these laws are just or not, but to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity, when the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws. Obviously, women that choose not to be objects of sexual gratification have no right to expect that choice to be honored, while the laws on prostitution also invalidate a woman's right to choose under what circumstances her body will be used for gratification. Further I will ask a question in regards to this argument. Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law. "Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it." I understand this to mean that you assert that prostitution harms marriage by promoting otherwise faithful men to seek out sex with another partner. I disagree. Cheaters are cheaters and they will cheat, whether they are paying for the chance to cheat, or not. Liars are liars and they will lie. The lack of legal prostitution does not stop infidelity. Please see the following web site for some statistics of cheating on spouses in the US. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage? I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society. "in addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sexes. " Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org...... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. Every one of the arguments at that website has a correlating response. I hold that the responses are clear and accurate and the rebuttals to your arguments at idebate.org are valid. However, the con stance presented does not show that the reason these laws were allowed to exist in the first place were for any reason other than morals (an extension of religious belief), The justifications I read here for the continuation of these laws seems to be primarily, "even if we made it legal and regulated it, some would still work outside of the law." This is of course an oversimplification of the many many arguments presented, but the over feel of the arguments was such. My argument to this would be that I am not against licensure of prostitutes, regulations of the profession, or high penalties for those that operate outside the bounds of those regulations. Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this. That in no way rebuts my resolution.

Hello I believe that abortion should be legalized. I will challenge you in this debate. I adamantly believe in the pro choice ethos. I will argue for on the basis of welfare, education responsibility and moralization. May the better debater win. Yours Sincerely BEM 1019.

In class this evening I was asked why legalizing prostitution and or marijuana would be a good idea, explained my position and from across the room a group of people threw their opinions in the air, saying that they believe that legalizing them is promoting them, and I don't see the tie. A parallel argument can be applied to the alcohol industry, where we had prohibition and times before and after to compare. Before prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store or from a friend who would make moonshine. During prohibition the problem was simply finding a corner store that would sell you the alcohol they had, and hopefully the moonshine wouldn't make you blind. After prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store, taxed and regulated, or from a friend who would make moonshine. Criminalizing the distribution and manufacturing of alcohol didn't stop people from getting it, it drove those people into the back rooms and basements to get it without being seen. It drove the crime syndicate nuts and there were a number of people who saw bad things occur afterwards. But in no way does the legalization of alcohol mean the government, or the authors of the changed legislation, promoted the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. For the purposes of these discussions, Promote means one of the following: 1.Further the progress of; support or actively encourage. 2.Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness. 3.Advance or raise to a higher position or rank

Abortion is a sensitive topic for billions of people around the world and to pose an argument in support of it is to bring upon you the scorn and disapproval of many. The issue of abortion is especially sensitive among those whose religion speaks against it, and why not? let us not shirk from the facts, abortion is murder of sorts, the killing of an unborn child, the extinguishing of a perhaps bright and promising future with a few simple drugs. A life put out as quickly and as painfully as blowing out a candle. Abortion can in no ways possible be argued to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience. What the religions say is clear cut, abortion is against god/gods/great ancestors will, and i cannot argue against this, and nor do I want to, nor is it possible for me too. And it is also very true that many people who do not follow a faith also are strongly against abortion, and I would just like to point out that neither do I find It a pleasing nor happy concept that abortion is legal, BUT I do strongly, wholeheartedly understand that it is a completely necessary process, just as was world war I and II, horrific, dreadful, but necessary to protect the world as we know it. And please excuse my perhaps crude comparison but that is exactly the reason why abortion should and will remain legal, it is a process of protecting the planet, because what is the planets most important concern? Not global warming, but over-population. The world is vastly over populated. Global warming, disease, war, is all derived from overpopulation. Contraception, education, and abortion are all methods of curbing the disastrous increase of human population. Again forgive my terrible analogy but we humans are like an infestation of rats on this beautiful planet, except in our case there is no exterminator. Nobody likes being told this and even less will accept it, but stop bloody ignoring it, because it's the truth. The fact that this planet has continued to sustain us humans as long as we have existed in our diabolical number, is a miracle in itself, far greater, than Moses splitting the red sea, or Jesus turning bread to flesh and water to wine. Agreed abortion is but one of the ways to curb the overpopulation of the planet, but it is still a way, a way that that would help millions of impoverished women to ease the strain on themselves and their families, already beset by poverty and in many cases starvation. By having a further child they are putting further strain on their family, and in many cases the new born child will not live to adulthood. Many charities these days are forever preaching to us more privileged ( the fact that whoever reads this has access to a computer, internet cafe or not, makes us privileged) that we must fight against children in poverty and give them a chance to survive and grow up and lead a better life. I am all for this, I have donated many times to children charities and recognise it as a heroic and worthwhile cause. But is it not fair to say that so many more children could benefit far more if, (dare I say it) there were less of them? Hard as it may seem to accept, this is a case where the unborn, unconscious child, has to be murdered so to help the survival of his born conscious living breathing siblings, who would otherwise would be murdered through war, starvation, and disease. And to whomever thinks that the birth of more siblings would not make a difference, to the rest of their families lives, I say, wake up. Simple abortion is a cruel and cold way of helping this planet, but it is a way, we must not forget that while we sit comfortably at our warm homes drinking cold beer while typing away on our laptops (me anyway) That millions people women, men and children could benefit from abortion. And I know the question all you readers are asking right now, is even though it is legal, why are these people still suffering? The answer is two reasons. The first understandably is the mothers reluctance to kill her own child, the second is religion, both of which unfortunately I cannot argue against for I am neither a mother nor religious. But still does not undermine my view the potential that abortion could have to these millions of families. Let us not think about our own needs, our own beliefs, or what we would want for ourselves and our children. But let us think what would help others instead.

The legalization of prostitution mirrors the legalization of many other things in America that would otherwise still be done regardless of its legality. During the era of prohibition, bootleggers still sold alcohol and gang related crime became more and more prominent. With prostitution people still sell themselves but in many cases it is in an unsafe and unregistered way.

I will be taking the Pro side of the debate: "Abortion shold be legal." First and foremost I would like to thank the Con for the opportunity to debate this topic! I would like to take this opportunity to define the argument further and common terminology that will be used. DefinitionsAbortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus [1]Legal: Permitted by law. [2]Argument structure:Abortion has a number of gray areas, one common one which the Con defined in her first argument was that of rape. If it is amiable to the Con, I would like to look only at black and white of the subject and leave the gray areas be. The argument will be looked at only in terms of legality. I look forward to the debate!Sources:1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.)https://www.google.com...

My opponent states that he hasn't conceded the ethical aspects of prostitution, but he unwittingly did. If you read my first round, I clearly gave an argument stating that prostitution is not immoral. By not refuting it in his first round, it can only be assumed that he has conceded it. In a debate, not refuting arguments is NOT a good way to go about. However, do realize that I never stated I would win this debate because he failed to refute it - I have not "proclaimed victory". I merely observed that my opponent shifted his attack from not moral grounds, but economic grounds - and I complied. For him to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when I am not is a stain on himself. Seeing as how he has given some arguments pertaining to moral grounds, I will refute that first then go on to the economic grounds. ==================== Taxation Ethical aspects of prostitution ==================== {quote}If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees. {endquote} ----> A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout? My opponent's argument is an obvious misunderstanding between the words "is" and "should" - a sad mistake indeed. {quote}. .. but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. .. But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES? {endquote} ----> There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along. {quote}Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors. {endquote} ----> This is an empty claim with no evidence to back it up. How does my opponent go from the fact that some men will be reinforced with "bad behaviors" when treating prostitutes, to saying that all women will be degraded? This is similar to arguments used by feminists against pornography, and it's unequivocally unconvincing. While psychology can be scientifically rigorous, many psychologists aren't. ==================== Economic aspects ==================== {quote}But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors. {endquote} ----> True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. This is because Vegas can now actually invest in large projects related to prostitution (a prostitution mansion? ), and with smart business moves profit much from their services. Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it. That being said, my opponent has yet again failed to refute TWO OTHER of my arguments - both on economic grounds. He has failed to show why Vegas' economy will take such an economic harm when gambling is it's primary motivation. He has also failed to show -- and this is most important -- why we should even care about Vegas! Why should an entire potential industry be based on the success of ONE area? ! If prostitution would be legalized nationwide, America OVERALL would benefit in so many ways. More jobs. More money. All these benefits shouldn't be forsaken just for Vegas' benefit when it already can sustain itself (more than that, it flourishes). ==================== Risk of spreading STD's ==================== {quote}Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer? {endquote} ----> This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc. Also, it should be noted that legalizing prostitution will in fact DECREASE the amount of STD's. Obviously, prostitution happens a LOT right now - and it's very dangerous(STD-wise) and illegal. If we legalize it, then we can curb the "bad" sides to it - just like how legalizing drugs will curb the crime that goes along with it. My opponent's other two rebuttals don't apply, since I don't use any of the hypothetical arguments he argued against. ==================== CON Claims: PRO has failed to make arguments of his own ==================== Why does my opponent constantly accuse of me of false claims? I certainly have made arguments of my own, and just a semi-concentrated read of my rounds will reveal as such. Here are my counterarguments, which my opponent falsely believes makes up the entirety of my rounds: 1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention 2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes 3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry NOW, let me give you a list of arguments I have made for my side. Even though some arguments are related to my counterarguments(above), it doesn't matter! I can formulate a new argument by the process of refuting another, it's perfectly okay! : 1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral 2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general 3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's Is it not obvious that I have fulfilled my burden? I have given rebuttals to each of his arguments, and given several for my own. If my opponent is keen on accusing me of things that aren't rightfully so, then shame on him. ==================== Conclusion ==================== All of my opponent's claims and arguments have been refuted, and mine still stand. He has failed to refute TWO of my arguments concerning economics, and his new arguments relating to STD's and morals have been adequately refuted as well. While he may taunt at my "semi-delusional state", it should be clear to the voters who won.

My opponent… “The declaration grants every human being, including women, the right to live a sex life as they desire, as long as it does not violate other people's rights.” Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. “Virgin praising is yet another factor that contributes to this culture. It is usually desirable for a woman to be a virgin, and virgins are well seen by society.” Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. “Girls should not be taught to be chaste and careful just to avoid rape, instead, men should be thought rape is as unthinkable as cannibalism, and not justified in any way by a girl’s appearance or behavior.” The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. My arguments First of all I would like to clarify that promiscuity in both males and females is wrong but for the sake of this debate I will argue how and why it is wrong in females. Unexpected Pregnancy One major social issue our society deals with is abortion. While some are pro-life and some are pro-choice I think it is clear we can all agree that abortion should be at least the last resort. The most effective way to prevent abortions is not getting pregnant and the most effective way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Effects of Unexpected Pregnancy The majority of the women who get pregnant before they are married will not end up getting married. This of course leads a huge burden on the mother having to deal with. According to the U.S Census Bureau %27.3 of single parents live in poverty. Also, the effects of children growing up without a parent can be drastic… Drinking problems.Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households Suicidal Tendencies.In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families. Disturbing news:Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem. Expelled:Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents. College odds:Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families. Criminal Behavior:The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way. As you can see promiscuity can lead to unwanted pregnancy which leads on to abortions and fatherless kids which carries out to more drastic measures such as the statistics mentioned above. Spread of STD’s Another result from promiscuity is the spread of STD’s. Often enough promiscuous women having unprotected sex will contract an STD. The woman could have it without knowing which is putting potential future partners at risk. Sad but true... A woman who is sexually promiscuous is more likely to be raped then a woman who is not. I am not saying that all rape victims are promiscuous or victim blaming in any way but a woman who dresses sexually provocative is more likely to be targeted by a rapist. Although it is not the victims fault in any way, women should make sure to be away and use protective measures to reduce the chance of falling victim to predators. I have proved that promiscuity leads to terrible things such as unexpected pregnancy, STD’s, and even rape. It is obvious that in today’s society men and women are held at double standards but I feel it is fair to say promiscuity is harmful regardless of your gender. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal :) http://www.policymic.com... http://www.photius.com...


Question: Should the State Grant Illegal Immigrants the Opportunity for Citizenship?

We should permit undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Undocumented immigrants are often accused of draining resources from America. Allegations include their reliance on welfare programs, taking jobs from native citizens, and posing a threat to the demographic composition of the nation. These claims are contentious and provoke strong reactions.

We'll start off with some definitions: 1) Marï¿½riage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Miriam-Webster @2009 2) abolï¿½ish: to end the observance or effect of Miriam-Webster @2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is my contention that marriage should cease to be recognized as a legal institution as it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of any number of Constitutional amendments (The 14th in particular). In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transfered to the legal contracts defining civil unions, thereby reaffirming marriage as a solely religious exercise. My reasoning for this course of action is two fold: 1) Constitutional Requirement for Equality. The 14th Amendment states: " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1). I will now demonstrate that "marriage" licenses as they are now understood are unconstitutional. Example A: Immigration rights A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration. Those with Civil Unions do not have the opportunity to do so, effectively denying them equal rights and protections under the law guaranteed by 14th Amendment. (2) Therefore, the ability of a marriage license to "abridge" the rights of one group of people when compared to another is illegal and must be abolished. Example B: Taxes. Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so they cannot file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. (2) This viewed in any legal context would be defined as systemic discrimination and economic persecution of a distinct minority group - something forbidden by the 14th Amendment as a lack of "equal protection under the law". Therefore, marriage licenses on the basis of their discriminatory application of federal benefits are unconstitutional. Example C: Socio-economic Benefits: The N.O.W. lists 1,400 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples, not also universally available to homosexual couples (3). The benefits exclusive to heterosexual couples, and denied to civil unions on the basis of legality, range from: 1) Federal Survivor Benefits through Social Security 2) Federally guaranteed "Sick Leave" for an ailing partner / child. 3) Access to COBRA unemployment insurance benefits. 4) Numerous tax breaks provided by the IRS to "married" couples. 5) Veteran's benefits ranging from health insurance to disabilities. 6) Legal visitation right of a spouse in the hospital / prison system. 7) Making medical / legal decisions if your partner is unable to. Any one of these benefits conferred to only heterosexual couples violates the 14th Amendment, again requiring that "marriage" be abolished as a legal contract based upon its discriminatory and selective application of benefits to a majority. It should now be resolved that we must remove these arbitrary benefits inherent to possessing a "marriage" license as is Constitutionally mandated. In turn, society must legally transfer those same benefits onto a non-discriminatory civil union contract, effectively curtailing the socio-economic discrimination and conforming to the legal necessities of equality as delegated by the constitution. 2) Rights of Religion Despite by personal beliefs about Religion, it has become a foundational belief of our society that people of faith should be allowed to believe whatever they want. In turn, their "rights to belief" as provided by the First Amendment must be protected. Therefore, I cannot morally justify forcing them to allow the "marriage" of people they see unfit to do so - they cannot legally be required to change their religious ceremonies as it would violate their "freedom". Instead, what society can do - and in my opinion morally must do - is remove any economic and social benefits granted to a discriminatory contract or belief system. Therefore those people that still wished to be "married" after receiving a civil union for the socio-economical benefits, and who are allowed to under the tenants of that particular religion, can do so knowing that the "sanctity" of their marriage is intact while society at large avoids supporting such "protected" discrimination. It should be readily apparent that this contention is the only logical course of action as it would both promote both a necessary and required equality under the law - a Constitutional obligation we have to uphold - and simultaneously would also reaffirm the rights of religions and their followers to be intolerant ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2: Kathy Belge; About.com 3: http://www.now.org...

I'm for a wall. Trump has said it doesn't have to be sea from shining sea and I'd agree with that. I'd say welfare money is a good reason to not want immigration as with the current rate of automation more people will be relying on that safety net to carry them through to more skilled based jobs. As in any population a percentage of illegal immigrants are breaking the law (besides the laws they're breaking by being here. ) I would make that distinction clear because to label 10. 7million illegal immigrants murderers isn't going to fly in any bipartisan conversation. That is not to undermine the problems being faced with illegal immigrants breaking the law. I only want to emphasize that the law hasn't been enforced and to start enforcing the law on 10. 7 million people at once is unreasonable. As far as dreamers are concerned. I believe that the 1. 8 million people he's offered pathways to citizenship could be misleading. I've heard the number of 3 million people possibly being given amnesty. Whether or not that includes 1. 8 million dreamers in the DACA program is unclear. But on the most positive end of the spectrum 4. 8 million out of 10. 7 million people is still a huge amount of people being unaccounted for. Deporting potentially 6 million people just isn't something I think would be profitable. The Ethical dilemma with deporting such a large number of people at once should be quite obvious. Trump has stated that he isn't in a rush to act on, The estimation at the time, 11 million people. It still leaves a question as to what is going to happen to about 6 million people living in the U. S. These are questions I'd want answered if I was responsible for an immigration bill. Last but not least is how new vistors in the U. S would be kept from overstaying their visa's. Are we going to have a cut off date? When will that date be and will these people be granted amnesty or pathways to citizenship? Are we going to end up in the same hole we're in now because we stopped only one part of the illegal immigration problem? I think the wall should go through but I want answers about the greater problem as a whole. Something that no politician seems capable of answering. Now just because trump said he has no plans to act on deportations immediately doesn't mean that he won't eventually. If we do end up with a mass deportation plan do you think their native countries, Mainly Mexico, Will be willing to accept them? What happens if they don't want these people either? This is a discourse that trump needs to have with L"pez Obrador before even proposing it. Having 6 million people with no place to be would be highly suspicious.

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.

Pro verifies that Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. He then says that humans lose the right to human life if they invades in someone's home. We do have laws that take the right of life away from some individuals but this is not for someone breaking and entering nor Undocumented Democrats. My opponent has not shown that Undocumented Democrats are taking jobs and turning white children into gangsters. My opponent must show that it is legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. I maintain that it is illegal to shoot someone who has broken into your house. My opponent mistakes the human right to live for the American constitution. All people have the human right to live. Pro has yet to provide justification for killing Undocumented Democrats. We cannot kill intruders, we contain them, we disport them. Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate. The state kills people for murder and other mandated violations of the law, like the Bible. Pro has not shown us that Undocumented Democrats are one of those violations.

I should mention that your definition for 'right' was the adjective, not the noun, which we are using. In noun form, which is the resolution. I feel sorry for you, but this means that your definition is invalid. Not only that, but it proves you are trying to play word games and trying to uses unjust tactics to secure the debate. I thought I would probably lose conduct because of my second round immigration joke statistic, but this is pure and simple backhandedness. A better definition that actually fits the prompt would be as follows: Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Just to be clear, this definition almost works in your favor, and you could have easily used it on your side. It is a shame you did not. Since a right is an entitlement, however, this clearly means that a country cannot have or be denied any rights, except, possibly, by other countries, which is not the case in this immigration issue, which is domestic. After all, who or what gives and takes away a countries right to do anything? Sanctions, possibly, but that, again, does not affect the actions a country may take, and is a foreign, not a domestic, issue. P1 and P2 conclusion Frankly, I am disappointed that, after all this good debating, you trip up on such a small error -- either that or it was a truly malicious attempt to take a victory when you were backed into a corner, instead of surrendering some points and trying to build on others. But, be that as it may, I have won on my points one and two (because your entire argument consisted on that which I have just disproven, and you provided no other evidence, of which there was plenty, and I thought for sure I was going to lose on). P3 Conclusion So, because it makes you feel good to be part of one, and only one, culture, we should therefor be anti-immigration because otherwise, people, and yourself, will feel sad about having to share your culture? Again, such an abstract idea can only be defended with emotions. Emotions, which, in practicality, are completely worthless. And the idea of having your OWN people sounds eerily similar to the idea of the Aryan race... I won't go any further on that, because I am sure that was not your intention. You probably just view your chosen country as only inhabited by people that look, act, talk, and think like you. Nothing nefarious about that... Also, it is super weird that you insist the ghettos and civil wars only occur because of immigration in America, yet claim that European countries have a right to complain about them while America does not. That is like a cutting somebodies arm off, and then saying that the person next to them has the right to complain about it, but not the person who's arm was chopped off. Furthermore, you say that Italians are oppresed in Louisiana, and act like that is not a genuine reason to not support immigration. Sounds to me like a perfect reason to be anti-immigration (because oppression is bad). P4 conclusion I would like to point out that I am talking about immigrants, not immigrant descendants. The actual amount of (legal) immigrants in America that are first-generation immigrants is 12.5%. To be anti-immigration means to oppose more people coming in, not usually to oppose third or more generation immigrants. If we look at it that way, 100% of every country's population outside of Africa are immigrants, because their heritage, if traced far enough, would not be from that place. Also, I would hate to have such a lack of diversity as to only be able to experience one culture, but that is a personal opinion. However, if we both moved to Italy, you could choose to only embrace Italian culture, whereas I could choose to embrace any culture that had set up in Italy. That's the beauty of most multiculturalism, is that it allows you to opt out of being part of it. Unless you absolutely hate the site of other cultures (making you a clear and easily defined racist), than there is no reason that those other cultures have to effect you in the slightest. P5 conclusion You didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Your suggestion that once a country makes a mistake (such as America in regards to immigration), it should be unable to change that mistake. I was siting anecdotal evidence. Proving a point, if you will. Instead, because you are too stubborn to try to figure out the meaning of those examples, I will try again. What was meant by them was that a country should be able to change its stance and policies to fix their mistakes, instead of having to commit to them. Because, if they MUST commit to them, than certainly places like North Korea should never change their policies on concentration camps, and countries like Australia should have never changed from being a place for exiles and criminals. P6 conclusion Because you did not, in fact, destroy my previous claim, and made no other arguments to destroy this one, I take it. Also, considering you never actually proved any real benefit came from having a 'national identity', you didn't even address this point earlier at all. You just said 'it's something special that we should keep' and left it at that, without explaining why it is valuable or why we should keep it. And no, saying 'it feels good' is not an adequate reason. Especially not when you, as an American who lives outside Detroit, have no experience to even know what it feels like. This is not Ad Hominem because the experience of having a 'national identity' (which you don't believe Americans have) is one that is critical to suggesting whether or not it is worth having. Without sources, as well, you cannot site anybody who HAS claimed that having national identity is a positive enough thing to be worth being anti-immigration on. And, as stated before, if any of my arguments make it through, than Pro failed to defend the resolution and, therefore, I have won the debate. I would like to clarify that the arguments this applies to are points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but not point 1, as that was largely semantic. I do wish we had another round for which you to respond, because I do believe there is still much argumentation to be had but, as it stands, I am fairly certain I won the debate. Thank you.

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!

I think they don't deserve rights because they aren't really paying taxes. Present your opener.

My opponent opened up with a quote, and I coincidentally have decided to do the same. My opponent quoted FDR, but I will quote a much lesser known politician. His name was Marc Morial and he served as the 59th mayor of New Orleans. "We must continue to have voting rights in the state, not to politicize this, but they must have a voice in the rebuilding effort in the community from which they have been displaced. " . http://www.brainyquote.com... What does this mean other than that we should expand voting rights? I think it means that the people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country. Five states have strict voter ID laws and many more have laws where ID is requested. Voter ID laws are a violation of civil liberties and should not be put in place anywhere. How can we call ourselves the land of the free if we require voter ID laws? . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . https://www.aclu.org... Another huge problem that currently exists in our voting system is felony disenfranchisement. That's right. If you are a convicted felon in this country, you lose your voting rights (usually for life). Of course, this has racist outcomes as well. Felony disenfranchisement was originally put in place in the south in order to silence the voices of black voters. It was and still is much easier to convict poor people (usually poor and black people) and so once they got out of prison, they couldn't vote, and they still can't. Poll taxes were also used for this same racist intention. We should constitutionally restore voting rights to all. . http://www.nytimes.com... Now I shall move on to my legal argument. Now, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting rights to all, but there are several steps that we have to add on to. Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point. Now for a moral argument. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " Notice he didn't say that our lives begin to end the day that educated people become silent. He said we, as in all people. I know this because M. L. K. gave his life for civil rights and voting rights. He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights? I await my opponent's rebuttals.

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Definition: illegal- forbidden http://dictionary.reference.com... immigration- the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there http://dictionary.reference.com... Cause we both live in USA, I guess this issue takes place in USA. 1. Illegal immigrant is helpful to our economy. Immigrants illegally entering united states is good because they help out our economy. They make up the 5% of the total number of USA labor force. Illegal immigrant pay taxes which help fund USA economy. http://teacher.scholastic.com... 2. Illegal immigrants work for low cost. Illegal immigrants do the same job as any native and for a cheaper wage. 3.Illegal Immigrant support big businesses. The Burearu of Labor Statistics thinks that there are about 22% percent of construction workers are foreign born. Nationial Association of Home Builders says that about 25%-30% of the workers are illegal immigrants. http://money.cnn.com...

As I have said in my previous statement, the abolition of birthright citizenship is a logical step for the United States to take. We are one of the only developed countries that still have this law in place. The 14th Amendment is being taken out context from when it was created in the mid-1800's. Finally, the money we would save from eliminating the welfare given out would greatly help our current debt problem. The Con brought up the point that those born in the United States would not have a country or a nationality for themselves to align with. Well what happens in all of the countries that have eliminated birthright citizenship? They survive. They get along because that is what we all do as humans. They can leave and go somewhere else, or go throught the naturalization process. They do what any of us would do in their situation and they survive. It is not our responsibility that they were born in the United States illegally. It is their parents' fault. We have no reason to reward their parents' illegal actions by giving their children citizenship. That is an outlandish thought. With birthright citizenship abolished, the issue becomes the parents' for giving birth to their children somewhere they will not have any national alignment. Finally, the Con fails to show any meaningful statistics or sources, but instead uses opinions to form his argument, such as speaking of uhe 14th Amendment as something the made the nation unique and proud and made the country successful. There is no proof to back such a statement and is therefore an opinion that holds no ground. Also, the Con uses many hypothetical situations that can not be proven under the changed circumstances, but cites information that uses current statistics of immigration to show what would happen after the 14th Amendment is abolished. These statistics obviously then lose all credibility in this debate. For all of these reasons above, and that Con has not refuted any of my points, please vote Pro in this debate. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.marketingcharts.com... http://pointersviewpoint.wordpress.com... https://www.numbersusa.com...


Question: Should the State Permit Undocumented Immigrants to Attain Citizenship?

Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Earn Citizenship: A Path to Progress

Permitting illegal immigrants to become citizens is a contentious issue, but one that deserves serious consideration. The idea that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to access benefits while they work towards citizenship is misguided. Instead, they should be given the opportunity to integrate into society and contribute to the economy. This argument will be supported by refuting common counter-arguments and presenting a more balanced perspective.

Counter-Argument 1: The Plan is Incoherent

The claim that the proposal to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants is incoherent is a tired argument often repeated by the Right-Wingers. However, a more nuanced rebuttal will be provided to counter these points:

1a) Illegal Immigrants Can Gain Citizenship

Illegal immigrants do not have to remain in that status. They can, in fact, gain citizenship. Under the Obama administration, immigration policies were more lenient, leading to an increase in illegal immigration. However, the federal benefits that would hypothetically be given to "illegals" are already being provided to "legal" immigrants and citizens. The additional costs of extending these benefits to illegal immigrants would be minimal compared to the current debt and deficit issues. The Bush Tax Cuts, health care, Medicare, wars, economic stimulus, and the Great Recession are the primary causes of the U.S's debt, not benefits for illegal immigrants.

1b) Rounding Up and Deporting Illegal Immigrants

The suggestion that the State should round up and deport illegal immigrants back to their home countries is not a practical solution. Many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to escape violence, crime, and political instability. If the U.S. truly wanted to eliminate illegal immigration, it would have to deport everyone except for the Native Americans, who make up only 2% of the population. However, this argument is irrelevant in today's context. The driving force for many illegal immigrants is the search for better living conditions. While immigration should be managed to prevent overpopulation, the U.S. is far from reaching its maximum population. Additionally, immigrants could choose to go to Canada, which has vast land and a small population.

Counter-Argument 2: Attracting More Illegal Immigrants

The argument that providing benefits to illegal immigrants would attract more people is flawed. This claim could be applied to legal citizens as well, as social systems like Welfare and SSI can draw more citizens to these programs. The argument is not exclusive to illegal immigrants.

Illegal Immigrants Des

I will be arguing that Undocumented Democrats should not be shot(killed). My opponent has the burden of showing why Undocumented Democrats should be shot(killed). I assume the first round is for acceptance. I send it back to Pro and await their response.

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. Humans have the right to life but humans can lose the right. If someone invades your home you can't just sit there. Just like illegals there taking our food jobs women turning white kids into white gangsters. There just like home take over robbers! We can shoot theves who are stealing our stuff. The Undocumented Democrats have a right to life if their legal or in their country! Undocumented Democrats don't have consititual rights because there not here legally! It would not be murder it would be justified. The illegals striked first in coming here expecting free everything. God lets people kill. The commandments ment not to unlawfully kill. Illegals are here illegaly and its lawful to kill em. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12) Kill Witches You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17) Kill Fortunetellers A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 ) Death for Hitting Dad Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15) You can kill it must be lawful! Undocumented dumbocrats need to be shot i prove it.

Refutations 1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands. 2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal. "According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. " This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate. 3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage. "Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant. " He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " "The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. " I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship. "Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. " Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship. Arguments 1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. 2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them. 3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U. S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair. 4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior. 5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round. 6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3]. My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now. I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.nationalreview.com...

Assertion: The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement in the constitution is absolutely necessary. It is reasonable and just. Lets look at the purpose behind this clause. The purpose is to safegaurd American politics from foreign influence. In the United States, we have laws in place to insure that foreign influence on the US political system is kept to minimum. Laws such as the the one that prohibits election donations from foreign origins, or the natural born citizen clause. Now lets dispell any idea that I am being intolerant and unfair to those who are not natural born citizens. I am not intolerant of them at all and i certainly agree that there are some who would serve faithfully and serve the purposes of America and not a foreign nation, however, there are some who will not. So lets lock in contention one. 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. Next, a minor point but a point none the less. A natural born citizen will be inherently more qualified to president 8 out of 10 times simply based on their experiences as an American. I dont want a president who understands how life can be difficult in Somolia. I want a president who knows how life can be hard here in America. I want a president who knows what being an American citizen is all about. I want a president who recited the pledge of allegence every morning at school. This president would be a man I could relate to. This president would be a man that the majority of Americans could relate to. So lets toss out contention number two: 2. An unnatural born citizen would likely not be as qualified to represent mainstream America. Lastly, foreign sympathy... Lets say that Daoud Nour is running for president. Nour is a natural born African, but a naturalized citizen. Nour wins the election and is the next president of the United States. Imagine for a moment the unfair and possibly harmful sympathy Nour would have for African affairs. He would undoubtedly be unable to hold a clear American viewpoint in conflicts and diplomacy with many African nations. When Nour would sit down with African leaders, he would speak as an African...not an American. He is, after all, African! This sympathy would be harmful in two ways. a. he would make unnecessary decisions regarding Africa. Perhaps he would spend too much on African aid. He may increase tension with African nations that have traditionally been an enemy to his own people. He would focus more on conflicts in Africa then he might focus on conflicts in the Middle East. b. He could quite possibly make decisions that are in the interest of other nations and not our own. Perhaps his native Nigeria would like American troop support for peacekeeping operations. The American government doesnt have the money, the troops, or the peoples support to deploy these troops, but Nour does anyway out of foreign sympathy. Perhaps he does it even out of his own heartfelt obligation. Either way, this is harmful to America because foreign influence has penetrated the white house. Nour loves America. He is very happy here, he has lived here for 35 years and he has served America well as governor of his home state. He is not purposefully biased and he doesnt intend to undermind American foreign policy, but he will. Unintentionally, he will by holding his unavoidable and understandable sympathy and foreign bias. So, Contention 3: Any unnatural citizen would have too much harmful sympathy to their foreign place of origins own causes. I look forward to a great debate!

1. Border Security is NeededBorder security is needed:1.1. To control immigration-related benefit costs. Under the Constitution government benefits must be provided to every resident of the United States, whether legal or illegal. For example, anyone can go to a hospital emergency room and receive free medical care. Children may attend public schools and must receive educational benefits without regard to citizenship. Even when times are tough in the United States, job opportunities are better than in poor countries. Immigration costs taxpayers an estimated $113 B, and in some states like Texas, the costs exceed budget deficits. [2] Without border security, the U.S. would be flooded with illegal immigrants, destroying the economy.1.2. For health and safety. The U.S. controls what can be imported into the United States so as to exclude unsafe food products, lead-based paints and ceramics. It regulates trucks and aircraft for safety. It forbids travel from places suffering outbreaks of communicable diseases.1.3. To protect against crime and terrorism. Watch lists are applied. There are visa restrictions that examine the suitability of immigrants from dangerous places in the world. Human trafficking is prohibited. "Human trafficking is the third-largest global criminal enterprise, exceeded only by drug and arms trafficking, … By some estimates, the industry is growing, and the [worldwide] illegitimate gain from the industry is as high as $32 billion per year." [1]California currently houses 19,000 illegals in its prison system, convicted of non-immigration crimes, comprising about 20% of it's $11 billion corrections budget. 17% in Federal prisons are illegal. [6, 7] Additionally, the crimes they committed extracted significant financial and emotional costs on their victims.1.4. To prohibit contraband. Recreational drugs are part of this, but there are also prohibitions on prescription drugs. Unregulated use of antibiotics, for example, poses a public health risk by facilitating the development of drug resistant strains. Endangered species and products derived from endangered species are prohibited. Fake prescription drugs, fake aircraft parts, fake luxury goods, and illegal use of intellectual property.1.5. To reduce illegal arms exports. Fences work both ways, so a border fence will help control export of weapons to drug lords and other unauthorized consumers.1.6. To collect taxes. Even if narcotics and other drugs were legalized, the US would still want to collect taxes on them. Judging from the "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco, the taxes would be steep, and well worth avoiding.2. A border fence is effective2.1 Most of the fence the US has built along the Mexican Border is ineffective because it can be easily traversed by climbing over it without a ladder or punching a hole thorough it. However, effective border fencing has been developed and proven. Effective fencing comprises two reinforced fences with a patrol road between them. Congress authorized building 700 miles of such fence, but only 36.3 miles have been built. [3]The effectiveness of the fencing is proved in San Diego where a double fence cut illegal apprehensions by 95%. [10] Other areas with double fencing show similar effectiveness. [4, p. 14 ff]The double fencing consists of two steel walls 15 feet high and 100 yards apart. Sensors placed between the walls, including cameras, detect intruders. [5] Additional obstacles may be included between the walls, such as barbed wire. The contained access road allows the Border Patrol to rush to an intrusion site before the intruders can traverse the second fence. One design features three rows of closely-spaced four-inch-diameter steel pipes filled with concrete and set in a reinforced concrete foundation. Other designs use welded steel walls.Fencing less effective than the proposed double fence reduced illegal crossings by 94% in the Yuma district. A 1.5 mile strip of even-more secure triple fencing is described as "impenetrable." [9]2.2 While most of the existing fencing is ineffective at keeping people from crossing the border, it is effective at preventing vehicle crossing. A vehicle barrier constructed on the ecologically sensitive border of Organ Pipe National Monument reduced crossings to nearly zero. [11]2.3 The cost of double fence varies between $3.8 million and $10 million per mile. [5] Some urban areas have higher costs, but there are not many urban areas on the border, and costs could be lowered by legislation tat block nuisance lawsuits. 700 miles of the fence would cost between $2.6 B and $7 B. The 2012 budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $57. billion. However, a fence would last for many years, say 20 years, so the amortized construction cost at the top estimates would be about $ 0.35 B. Maintenance costs would increase that, so $ 0.5 billion per year is a reasonable cost estimate. That's a trivial part of the Homeland Security budget, and it would be repaid if it it reduced illegal immigration costs by even a half percent.Present short segments of double fence are not fully effective because illegal routes are pushed to more remote areas. That raises the question of how effective a completed fence would be. We know it would be extremely effective because the Israelis have installed a complete fence and found it works.In Israel, a 500 mile high security fence was constructed in 2003 to deter terrorism. "Pursuant to the security fence's "sole purpose of saving lives of innocent citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000," there has been more than a 70 percent drop in the number of fatal casualties – … Israel is paying about $3.7 million per mile for its fence – which includes all the techno-sensors and monitors that go with it - and the castle-like structures - once all of the engineering, construction, and operational costs are calculated." [8] Terrorists, willing to die in suicide bombing, are considerably more determined than either ordinary illegal immigrants or drug smugglers, yet their fence is effective.100% effectiveness is neither expected nor required. The goal of a border fence is deterrence. No border security measure is 100% effective, yet most nations have some border security. The goal is to reduce the costs to society of uncontrolled borders. The cost of border fence would easily be repaid even if the reduction were a small percentage.3. A border fence will allow more legal immigrationThe U.S. wants and needs immigration. However, the country benefits from screening immigrants to keep out criminals, to select skills important to the country's economy, and to control the conditions of residence. We would benefit from having many more skilled workers. Unskilled workers should be limited to employers who need them and who apply for work visa permits. A border fence helps bring immigration under control. The purpose is to stop illegal immigration, not to prevent immigration. The resolution is affirmed.[1] http://www.payvand.com...[2] http://www.foxnews.com...[3] http://nation.foxnews.com...[4] http://www.americanpatrol.com...[5] http://www.globalsecurity.org...[6] http://www.california-criminal-law.com...[7] http://archive.newsmax.com...[8] http://www.hstoday.us...[9] http://www.csmonitor.com... [10] http://www.npr.org...[11] http://www.nps.gov...

Contrary to common belief illegal immigration is more of a problem than many people think. More than 15 million illegals are in the U.S. right now and more are coming. Illegal immigrants put a strain on tax dollars and take jobs from hard working legal americans. Our country is not a free sample cart sitting in the middle of the supermarket that is life you can't just come on in a try some of it.

Okay I will do a very early rebuttal of your very complex points: P1 rebuttal: You say that no matter what a country even ABSOLUTELY HEINOUS they still have a right to do so? So Nazi Germany had a right to invaded foreign lands and commit a mass genocide of Jewish immigrants. Something that would be very hard to do if the Jews had their own nation in some are of the promised land. Also I accept your new written resolution. So your first supports my 2nd in saying that European countries have right to be anti-immigration. P2 rebuttal: Any country including America should not support illegal immigration and most illegals come from Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador. America has no culture, no official language and no really true anything besides Jazz and Hamburgers. Also with the 7 trillion using 602% of our resources...the voters can deiced on if that is true. I say about 300,000,000 using 97%. The rest are Natives. Your 2nd paragraph is irrelevant because I wish to talk about fully legal immigration. Yet 45% of all Italians came to America illegally and America didn't care because the times were different. P3 rebuttal: I am not arguing that one is better than another but they something very special and it forms to their lifestyle. Italians are Italians, French are French. If you let mass immigration you still have France, but not French. No one is truly American unless you are a Native American. Greece has a more different immigration history but nothing like America does. These countries have an identity which they should have a right to keep. Also even if immigration on a large scale occurred in these places it would take a long to intermix, creating ghettos, gangs, racism and eventually mixing of nationalities. Yemen accepts Muslims into their countries and Brazil and Argentina speak different languages, Portuguese, and Spanish respectively. America was a testing ground for hundreds of cultures and languages to mix together along with Democracy and if you look the test failed. P4 rebuttal: The reason behind Germany not losing culture is because the other nearby countries do not want to lose their people and also mesh with German culture. With this issue almost all of the European countries are on the same page. The problem with your second part is #1 They don't want anymore new culture and #2 they have Internet for that. Argument: America has did herself over for choosing the path she did and cannot go back. European countries have justification, rights, and just don't want to be pro immigration to preserve physical identity, language, culture, etc. I feel as though I have destroyed your points and now you must do the same. Looking forward...

My opponent recently votebombed me on a debate that I clearly won[1], so I've decided to let him prove himself.When I PMed him about it, he responded: "birthright citizenship is unfair, plain and simple", with no analysis of any actual argument made in the debate, and that annoyed me. So if birthright citizenship is unfair, let him prove it. He can make his case in round one. 1. http://www.debate.org...

The drean act would benefit The United States.

I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do. One thing I wish to reiterate is that, opposite to the beliefs of the pro, Marriage should not be abolished as a legal institution. [i] Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses. To lead off with my arguments, let me just appoint the readers to a recent decision by the Church of Sweden to conduct homosexual marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Amendment 14: 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ http://www.usconstitution.net... It's all very fine for you to quote a single phrase or section of the entire section of the Amendment, but the interpretation you are looking for is, indeed, incorrect. It continues to state, '...without due process of the law.' I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions. In fact, the majority of the States completely reject homosexual marriage. They are supported by the courts, to a large extent. As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution. And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th. And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties. To the contrary, most important recent laws have to do with the legalization of Civil Unions and the repealing of certain laws that prevented homosexual marriage to occur. Steps have been made in such states that support homosexual marriages and civil unions to match their rights with those of heterosexual couples. Now, homosexual couples are allowed to file income jointly in certain states (such as California). Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way. Also very important is the fact that a Civil Union or homosexual couple realizes exactly what they are getting into when they perform the deed. The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise. Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals). Yet, even though a full realization is made (also a realization of breaking a very moral decision), and the Civil Union/Homosexual marriage conducted, anyway. With Full recognition by Both parties. I think it is you who are being stubborn. Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples. How does such an intimate relationship discriminate? In the United States, it is true that not everyone can be married, but that is only because they choose to defy natural law, order and societal standards. Any man can marry any woman if the consent of both is given. I think this is another place you err. The married couples themselves don't 'lord' anything. Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another. Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money. A couple living together often results in problems - heartbreak, seperation before marriage and perhaps even a legitimate child and then single mother. Any parents who wish to see their children grow up with family values do not encourage their children to live with another until they are married. Thus, even if it is not distinctly considered 'immoral' among society, living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values. And your following statement is quite discriminatory in itself. Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that.