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

Now, onto the round; since you did not define the word: "Status Quo" and just used the word while placing your stance on it. The definition is as follows: "the existing state of affairs" defined by . https://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, as Con, your position cannot be an alternate position to what IS. That is my position as Pro, I am arguing to present a change to the current, existing state of affairs, and you, as Con, must argue why Pro is not a good idea to change, and AFFIRM ONLY, the current status of affairs. As a result, everything in your argument about sidestepping BOTH, my plan, and the status quo is abusive. You simply cannot argue an alternative, its like you don't want to argue what truly is the issue at hand. I'm not saying you agree with the status quo. In Debate we have to argue sides we don't personally agree with all the time, I chose Pro, you accepted Con. So argue FOR the status quo ONLY please. Since you have conceded my arguments proving that there is a problem with the Status Quo, and as you have not argued against it, why it is ok to have those issues, you only prove my Inherency, and I win that stock issue. Onto you defending you attack on Racism. Firstly, you continue to make claims that my plan will incur racism, I have READ CARDS, that say otherwise. My friend I don't think you understand how Debate works. Your claims do not stand up unless you have a warrant. My cards are self-warranting (for themselves, via the citation, IE: author and their qualifications). Those cards single-handedly warrant my claim. You continue to argue with the line: " My argument is simple and strong. Large scale Immigration from India will not solve the problems you have identified. It will only lead to racial tension and will hurt the working class. " Ok, that is your claim. Now present evidence that backs up this claim, LITERALLY CITE AN ARTICLE, word for word, and show that your argument is backed. Next, onto you defending why you don't need cards. You may have cited something that may very well have been said, however I am in no form a scholar, and as such I can't recognize lines from some article, you need to CITE THE ARTICLE please. It's abusive to make a claim and then in a later speech say it was cited from somewhere as now you have a weight-bearing argument that I wrongfully dismissed, and lost a fair chance to argue it, and it automatically would go to you, which is unfair. Now, you continue to bring up evidence with no citation, "This evidence was a long-term historical evaluation of Polish immigration to the UK and how now there is actually more racism towards Polish people and other groups in the UK. My evidence is also the Brexit vote. This is evidence that 52% of British people are not happy with immigration. " I have two responses to this. 1) You NEED TO CITE IT for the reason stated above. 2) The resolution is over Indian immigration, not Polish immigration to the U. K. As a result, you failed to cite it, and it isn't topical, that argument should be thrown out. Next, "My evidence is the election of Donald Trump by 47% of Americans. This is evidence that 47% of Americans are unhappy with immigration as immigration was one of the most key elements in Trump's campaign. " First, , you're committing logical suicide, by making a hasty generalization, assuming that 47% of Americans don't like immigration? That is most certainly not the case, I don't need to present a card, I'm just using logical explanation and intuitive reason. Further, you provide examples of the past, examples from old U. S. immigration, while they could have some merit, if it were arguing the impacts of nuclear war, or something that doesn't change, but Immigration did. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The fact is that we do have immigration by Chinese to the U. S. today. This shows that while yes, you finally presented evidence correctly Good for you! This evidence is unfortunately outdated by current facts and legislation. And I can tell you didn't do debate in high school, or simply didn't care for the history, how ironic. .. As "cards" come from the usage of notecards, which debaters used to write the evidence onto that notecard, and they informally called them, "cards". Next, you try to attack the debate as a whole, arguing that it is all hypothetical, and doesn't actually matter, then that means, since you conceded my Inherency, means that the problems are present, but nothing after that matters, ok! Then I still have offense that proves the Status Quo, what you SHOULD be arguing, is still worse than my plan, as you haven't provided any CARDS over why the Status Quo is better. To close, you argue that your side is just as strong, and that you don't need to provide examples, which is another logical fallacy as you can't argue that a lack of evidence works against me and for you. The lack of evidence doesn't support or deny. It just simply does not exist, see the word "lack" Thank you for continuing the debate, I look forward to your final response. TL;DR You can't debate by throwing claims at me with no warrant, that's literally the whole point of debate. That we argue with NOT ONLY logic but with evidence.