Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

Believe me, you do not know who you are talking to. So, before you start to trade insults think about who you could be debating with. Firstly, yes I did do debating at high school. I was the leader of the school team and have both judged and competed at national competitions. Now, I don't know what kind of debating you did/do at school but I did both British parliamentary and Mace debating. Neither of those debating formats required any articles in order to make a point. I'm also studying history at university so I would exercise some restraint when you call me out for having no regard for history. Now what is credited above all else in competitive debating is logical argument. Examples are complementary and useful to SUPPORT an argument. An example can be any historical or current case study where what you are arguing about seems to have taken place. I for one have never heard of 'cards' because usually when I debate me and my other 2 team members get 15 minutes beforehand to plan without access to the internet or to books; we write down our arguments and some supporting examples down on paper and use this when we stand to give a 5 or 7 minute speech depending on whether it's Mace or BP format. But I thank you for explaining that to me. It's important in this debate to be clear what evidence is. If you think that articles are always more reliable and accurate than historical or contemporary analysis then you are mislead. Articles are not at all reliable. They are raw and unfettered opinion. I could write an article using cherry-picked statistics filled with exaggerations and misrepresentations. What is more accurate and reliable is actual, empirical, analysed examples because you can cherry-pick statistics but things like significant historical events are undeniable. Now in this debate you provided articles. I admit that yours seem reliable. However, I have provided more convincing overall evidence. My evidence is broad and overall which means that it encompasses the whole context and consequences of a case study rather than focusing on individual statistics. I also provided the example of Poland and the UK. I think this is a great case study of what could likely happen under your model. Why? Because although yes these are different countries that doesn't mean that people are generally motivated by the same factors eg. job security, better wages... Now one case study isn't enough but combined with many and believe me there are many e.g. Mexico to US migration and Morocco to France migration my suggestion of what could likely happen under your model is more accurate. Furthermore, your evidence is based upon current information. Now, since we are talking about a hypothetical model of immigration your evidence is less realistic. Ultimately, because you don't know what will happen because things will change under your proposal you cannot be sure that your evidence is fair and representative. After all, cherry-picked statistics from un-representative, non-multi-variable studies seems a lot less reliable when they are judge something they have no idea about. To support my mechanism I give you the empirical example of the Brexit vote in the UK. Now, just like you in this debate, the UK Government, the IMF, the Bank of England and even the Obama administration claimed based upon economic evidence that the economy would collapse the morning after the vote itself! But what actually happened. The economy is performing very well the unemployment rate is getting lower and lower and GDP is growing. Don't be fooled by statistics they are very good at giving you a picture of an aspect of society but not an overall idea of the future. If you do some history source work you'll work with this kind of reasoning a bit more. So in the same way your cards are not representative of American society and certainly not of it in the future. Whereas, I can show that when this has happened in the past racism was incurred. Again, don't use the argument from authority. It's a dumb one. All sorts of journalists have very good degrees (believe me, I know some columnists) and yet they are completely biased and admit to it! As for immigration hurting the working class, no I don't need to cite a dodgy article. I can give you examples. We can see evidence in the real world for ourselves. Look at low-paid workers in across the western world they will tell you that their wages are depressed and there is a housing shortage. Look at the UK. 300 000 net migration and a massive housing crisis. Immigration is a cause of economic problems and does hurt poorer people. I don't need a citation to know a fact. How do you know that 2 + 2 is 4? Give me an article from an author with a maths degree please. Furthermore, with the Trump example. Fair enough. Given I can't prove that all Trump voters were anti-immigration but it's obvious to see that his vote embodied a general negative immigration attitude and moreover many Americans consider it a problem. After all, their President wants to have a border wall? I mean, do you seriously think there are more positive attitudes towards immigration now? Finally, it is crucial that I clarify my stance in this debate because you have misconstrued and misrepresented my position and role of Con. Now firstly, yes in this debate I am of the opinion that the status quo is still better than your proposal. Why? Because, based on raw logical reasoning and historical analysis mass migration increases racial tension and hurts working people. Furthermore, uncontrolled immigration limits controlled migration's benefits because it doesn't solve the problems of skill shortage and leads to wealth inequality and poverty. However, just because I think this that doesn't mean that I believe the status quo is good. The status quo is merely better than your proposal. Your proposal is like an infected sticking plaster. It attempts to solve problems and rather makes everything worse. However, in a debate CON is not limited to just being the side of no action. Con can also support changes to the status quo. My proposals are different from yours that's all. I credit your classic argument that I encounter a lot (and often use myself). This argument goes: I propose some progress and you propose no progress. Some progress is better than no progress. Therefore, support my side. This is a fair argument and usually works. But it is used too much! In this case it doesn't work. Why? Because firstly, I do propose change just in a different way. The only thing this debate requires me to do is to explain that your change is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that your change is wrong BECAUSE my change is better. It means I'm arguing your change is wrong full stop oh and also here's a better option. Secondly, in order for this argument to work you have to prove that your proposal will bring about progressive and not regressive change otherwise no change is better than some change. This is a straight out of high school debating argument. Sorry, but no. So to sum up. Debating is not about waving statistics and articles. Or at least not what I'm used to. This is because stats and articles are often unreliable and unrepresentative and further to that when talking about hypotheticals aren't really as useful. Seriously, just listen to politicians using stats to claim some kind of divine prophecy and then get it completely wrong in real life when the policy is enacted. Just look at drug legalisation! How about Prohibition for Christ's sake?! Stats get it wrong time and time again. Do not rely on articles no matter how many micky-mouse degrees the author has. Furthermore, the best evidence is reliable, repeated and accurate. You can fool people with a statistic but you can't fool us with a significant historic event. If you're going to advocate a scientific approach then use a scientific method: hypothesis, repeated observation, test then conclude. I'm not throwing out your articles I'm just saying my evidence is equally valid and there are alternative ways of looking at predictions for a hypothetical policy. Finally, my job is to prove that your change is bad NOT that the status quo is good. Your policy is bad because it intensifies and doesn't solve the problems you have rightly identified e.g. racism in the immigration department. Also I have better options. I am allowed to say this by the way. Increase taxes to provide better education, anti-discrimination laws, investment in infrastructure in the Rust Belt communities etc. My stance is acceptable, reasonable and fair. Based upon my analysis: Premise 1: Immigration from India is encouraged Premise 2: Immigration from India drastically increases Premise 3: Working classes are squeezed (high school level economics) Premise 4: More fear and suspicion towards Indian immigrants Premise 5: More racial tension and more deprivation in poorer areas Therefore: Lots of immigration from India is bad Therefore: It should not be encouraged (dabs) This is very entertaining. You certainly debate well. This should be some food for though. So I hope you enjoy your meal. Bon appetit.