avatar
11 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @nickochs Congrats for advancing to the next round!
      @mattrawlson Hard luck on this one! Hope to see you on our next tournament starting next week - registration is now open:
      https://www.qallout.com/tournament

      • 2 years ago

        👌🏻

        • 2 years ago

          http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/ Here's the article I was talking about which discusses the notion that Sweden is the rape capitol of Europe. Sorry I wasn't able to get into the statistics!

          • 2 years ago

            @mattrawlson
            Cool, I like the part where Snopes says women in Sweden are over reporting rapes and lying about how many times they were raped (check the end of the article!). Very progressive. Snopes.com has been a joke for two years. Might be good to settle whether sasquatch exists but the site is run by liberals and has a massive bias towards statistics that suit them. It's like me quoting Breitbart as a starting point.

            The Swedish government's own stats have rape up 40% from 2006-2015, mirroring immigration trends. But draw your own conclusion, don't let me lead ya on.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.gr/2016/01/11/sexual-parenoxlhsh_n_8957410.html

            And there's a cool infographic from the Huffington Post (I know you need liberal sources cause my unbias numbers bounce right off you) letting you know where you're most likely to get groped. HINT: SWEDEN

          • 2 years ago

            @nickochs The point Snopes makes is that Sweeden has a very broad definition of Rape, different than most other European countries. Thus the statistics are not readily comparable from act to act because what would not be a rape in Germany is a rape in Sweeden.

            Snopes is not judging who is correct, only noting that a direct comparison of the government statistics is not a direct comparison of the number of like crimes. The same for year to year reporting in years when Sweeden broadened its definitions.

            While I voted Con (barely) on this debate I personally think that they should seek to slow down the tide of immigration, especially when it is concentrated from one region. I think there are significant cultural challenges that nations need to address with immigrant communities. And that immigrants should, by and large, make an effort to integrate with the nation they imigrate to.

        • 2 years ago

          Additionally, I WAS wrong about there being no studies showing an increase in crime. This is the article that was referenced by my opponent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/migrant-crime-germany-rises-50-per-cent-new-figures-show/ I believe there are some problems with the data, but this isn't the place for a debate so I digress. Thanks for the awesome debate man, and I apologize for essentially saying that statistic you brought up was false. Good luck in the future!

        • 2 years ago

          I love @nickochs attitude in this debate, very cool and civil. The opening case could be a little more "technical" but it did do a good job setting the stage. I dodged this topic due to its complexity.

          Pros second speech is a little weaker. It's OK to make a common appeal to knowledge, but it helps if you can back it up with a citation or two. I do agree I see increased terrorism in Europe, but I want to know to what scale, is it reality or perception?

          @mattrawlson has some citations, but as I listen closely to them, they seem very generalized rather than focused on the specific Muslim immigration and specifically in Europe. Con does point out that Pro hasn't yet made a good argument for restrictions as a policy.

          Con throws in a counter case for immigration in general for population issues. It is one of the better pro-immigration arguments.

          Pro could use some practice in framing plans. The thing you need to do is to show us how enacting harder restrictions will lower immigration and thus lower the impacts from immigration. You take a stab at that, but you could use a better, cleaner presentation of it. Just watch some of the experienced debaters do this and you should pick it up quickly. Pros response on population is a little unfocused.

          Con is really hard to follow due to his bad internet connection. He presents alternate solutions to issues, for instance, job availability. That may well be true, but I'm not sure he offers a good comparison of that alternate policy to the Pro's implied one.

          Pro shifts his stance away from statistics and into culture wars. Not a bad strategy, but the way he does it is a bit dismissive. The problem with the culture melding argument is it has been used for centuries every time anyone argues against immigration, Yet over time they do seem ot assimilate. They said it about the Italians, the Irish, the Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, Germans, Chinese, and so on. Mind you, if Con doesn't address it, I won't hold it against you.

          Con argues no study shows any rise in crime, that is a bold claim, I'm not incluned to believe it. The studies you read are all "adjusted" for other factors. That isn't bad, but it also doesn't really say that crime didn't rise, they just ascribed it to other factors that are secondary from immigration.

          Pro, good response backing up your citation and offering the source for us. The heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence is a little weak. Though my observation of the media (as bad as that is) jives with your observations so it finds some fertile ground.

          Oh god, a trump hat... the horror! ;)

          Con continues to run his line on immigration benefits which Pro has not addressed. It's a good argument when paired with his mitigation of crime and terrorism.

          Pros rape charge would be powerful if it were true, I did look it up, it's not. and that claim really undermines his other arguments.

          And so it ends... not an easy call. I didn't feel like either side really knocked this one out of the park. Con had the stronger structure and better debating technique, and his economic argument was a good one. I still get the feeling that the level of immigration europe is seeing is a serious problem.

          I am not strongly persuaded either way here. I'm giving the nod to Con on the economic argument that was unchallenged by Pro as where the crime and cultural impacts were challenged to at least a partial Pro win on that line of argument, though weakened by that last false claim.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried yeahhhhh my internet has been bad all day. That’s what you get when you have a debate during a World Cup qualifier game in a dorm full of college kids I guess lol 😂