@ninadabit Hi Nina! Thanks for your feedback. You're totally right about the improvements I could make. I was attempting to go for a more general discussion about immigration laws instead of discussing a specific policy, but obviously, that backfired. I'll definitely take your comments into consideration and implement them next time.Thanks.
@ninadabit Thank you for your feedback. I understand entirely where you're coming from on structure. Most of the freeform nature of my response is due to the nature of the discussion. The overly broad question lead me to think it was going to be a discussion more in the realm of Brexit and I had to shift gears and work off of general knowledge to respond to Drewster. This unfortunately required me to be more freeform and less precise as my prep was aimed at a different aspect of the immigration question regarding the EU.
@xtomjames I think at the point where you prep for a different area than the debate ends up going, the best practice would be to bring up that sort of information, while also making sure to engage with what the other side is bringing you. There's no right or wrong answer!
@drewster236 @xtomjames Between audience votes and our judge we have a tie!We'll bring a second judge to make the final decision
@navapanichz Thanks so much for your comments. I needed to take the resolution in a more specific direction. I think that would've solved a lot of the problems you pointed out.
@navapanichz Thanks again for the feedback. As I said in response to the previous judge, this debate I unfortunately had to fall back to general knowledge as the debate topic was too broad going in and my prep work was focused more on intraEU immigration, that is regular immigration, rather than refugees. That said I agree that my argument could have been structured more and hopefully I can think ahead more in future debates so as not to be blindsided. Thank you again.
@drewster236 Honestly, as I said, this was a really difficult round for me to make a decision on and ultimately it came down to the ideas of circumvention negating the impacts of the pro, and in terms of your case the dependency on a link between the current issue and accessing all of the benefits of curbing immigration that wasn't developed enough in specificity. So yes, in the future I think your debating style was incredibly effective and your argumentation was great, but you have to watch out for solvency.
@navapanichz Thanks :) and congrats to @xtomjames for a great debate and for advancing.
Source on the 69,000 number: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/migrants-linked-to-69000-would-be-or-actual-crimes-in-germany-in-first-three-months-of-2016-police-idUSKCN0YT28V
@drewster236 I didn't get to say one last thing, the reason behind the loose laws and poor processing is country bureaucracy, not capability to actually process refugees.
@drewster236 Also one of my key sources https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-european-union
@xtomjames Haha. If you'd said that, I would've disagreed ;) If anyone wants to see any of my sources, let me know and I'll post.
@drewster236 I suspect you would have :P
The video seems to be down all of a sudden.
@xtomjames Should be fine in a couple of minutes!
The judges have spoken!@xtomjames Congratulations for advancing to the next round!@drewster236 Hard luck in this one but hope to see you at the next tournament starting next week - registration is now open:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
@gigi That was unexpected.
@xtomjames :-) Good luck in your next debates!