Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @drag0nbait @sharkb8 I ran out of time before I could say the following:

      There was a LOT of meat presented in this debate--so much so that my first two viewings left me with a lot of rabbit holes I wanted both of you to go down further, but for the lack of time in which to do so. That's a major testament to both of you.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom This is really well laid out. Thank you very much for the detailed explanations of how you weighed the arguments, and for taking the time to watch the round 3 times. Good point about how I didn’t need to accept his phrasing of “merit based” since merit is primarily determined by the job sector itself. That actually never crossed my mind in the lead up to the debate but you’re right it would have been a better way to tie all my points together without ceding him the rhetorical ground. Thanks for the pointers!

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom thanks so much for taking the time to watch the debate and write all these notes. I definitely aggree with you that my response strategy to low skill workers was a bit wonky and had multiple strategies.

      I disagree with you though on whether or not con should win that argument because even though my points were obviously simple to knock down con never directly responded to the idea that the gaped could be filled internally. It went virtually uncontested in the round even after rewatching his speeches I cannot find a refutation.

      Regardless of that second point I very much appreciate you doing this very well thought out video to explain how you felt about the round! The feedback is very much appreciated!

    • 2 years ago

      @drag0nbait @sharkb8 Your second judge, @navapanichz, will come in today for the final decision!

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @navapanichz Thanks for the judgment! The community votes had made me worry that that my differentiation between the two worlds wasn't clear enough, so I'm glad you and Thom both saw/understood what I was talking about. Much appreciated!

    • 2 years ago

      @navapanichz Thank you so much for your time, And congrats to @sharkb8 for advancing he deserves it! :thumbsup:

  • 2 years ago

    Let me know if either of you dispute the logic of open borders and would like to debate that :D

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 That was a great debate!

      • 2 years ago

        Daniel when you say the merit based system discriminates against the H1B for low skilled workers, I’m not clear how exactly.

        Can’t the low skilled workers apply through company sponsored h1bs, while the rest of the world can apply through canada’s merit based system?

        I think the fact that u didn’t clarify how the two systems cannot coexist together was the biggest reason why I think pro wins

        Great debate - thx!

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz Dammit that's not what I'm saying at all. It's unfortunate that you and Michael both heard that, which means I may have been unclear.

          Let me explain:

          A merit based system by it's nature discriminates against low skilled workers, because they don't have the "merit" that will let them get through the system. As Nat even says, maybe they don't speak the language, or they don't have a bachelors degree, etc. So if we switch to a merit based system, we do NOT have low skilled workers who come through. My whole case is that this is a bad idea. We don't want to switch to a merit based system since we need both high skilled and low skilled workers.

          Moreover, the H-1B system is different than the Canadian Merit Based system. The H-1B system requires a business to sponsor you, which means when the immigrant gets here, they have a job waiting for them. This is why their unemployment numbers are very low. But the Canadian system, while it does factor in if you have a job offer, is just based on whether or not the Canadian government thinks you have a lot of merit. As such, their rates of unemployment or poverty are higher, because they don't have a job waiting for them. The current H-1B system is better.

          So what I was advocating is that the United States keeps it's current system. We allow more H-1B's to come in, and we also keep allowing low skilled workers to remain. This is preferable to the Canadian system.

        • 2 years ago

          I wont comment on the debate because I only watch the 2nd half but in general Daniel is right "we" "need" low and high skilled works. By "we" I mean society/the economy. "Need" is in the sense that they are objectively good for the economy (and therefore society). The math on this is pretty simple actually. Just open the borders and let's all get rich.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 but Nat argued that you don’t have to get rid of h1b, you can have *both*
          So any non-English speaking low skilled laborer who cannot get in to the US through the newly implemented Canadian immigration system , can still get in using the h1b..
          that’s my point

        • 2 years ago

          I mean, it seemed like the debate ended up being about whether the US should adopt the Canadian system for the mainstream (while keeping all other forms of Visa like h1b for those who need that specific type of Visa to get in, such as Low skilled non-English speakers)
          Just doing more of h1b without adopting any new systems

          Both are valid options , but con didn’t seem to respond to why it would be bad to have both, the Canadian as well as the h1b simultaneously , whereas the pro explained why it would be good to have both together

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz It's really frustrating that I might lose this round simply because it takes too much time to explain the visa process. I'm gonna be really disappointed if that happens, but I suppose that's what I get for taking a topic that requires multiple technical levels, but to answer ya,

          1. The resolution is that we adopt the Canadian system. If we just take one piece of the Canadian system, but keep every aspect and visa category of the US system, we haven't adopted the Canadian system at all.

          2. You can't have a "merit based" system while allowing people to come in who don't have merit. It is fundamentally impossible to have low skilled workers while having a merit based system. The only possible thing Nat could be saying would be that we switch our high skilled visa program to a merit based system, or add an entirely new category that does basically the same thing as the H1B system but worse. Either way it isn't helpful.

          3. H1B's and a Merit based system are in conflict with each other. In an H1B system, the employer sponsors an immigrant to come. With a merit based system, the government picks people who they think have good qualifications. When an employer sponsors an immigrant, they have 1% unemployment. When the government picks, they have 13% unemployment, and 2/3rds live in poverty. The H1B system is better.

          4. If we switch to Canada's system, we let people in based on merit. This is not good, since we want multiple visa categories, like the US already has. The preferable solution is the current US system, but without the quota.

          5. Low skilled workers aren't on the H1B system. They come via H2A visas for temporary work, or H-4's as a family member. We still want them to come, so it's not beneficial to switch to a merit based system that would exclude them.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 Nat kept asking if he said we should abolish the h1b (or even the h2a) at any point in his case , since his case was about bringing in canada’s merit based system, while keeping the current h1b and h2a

          Now if you say you can’t have both, as you are saying now in point 2 above, I feel you should explain why it won’t be feasible to have both - the Canadian merit based and h1b simultaneously, Or even the Canadian merit based and h2a simultaneously

          You say it is fundemnatally impossible to have both.. why? why can’t there be a quota for low skilled workers who can’t make it through the merit based system, and then have the rest of the majority apply through the merit based system?

          The stats you’re talking about are good for sure, but I guess what I’m saying is, he suggested having a system that has the Canadian system together with existing worker visas, and you said that this doesn’t work, without explaining (even now in your comment) why you can’t actually have both..

          Or am I still missing something?

        • 2 years ago


          How do you bring in a merit based system? You either:

          a. Switch the current visa's to make them be the Canadian merit based model. This would be the appropriate reading of the resolution, since it would actually be adopting Canada's system. But this is bad, because it removes the low skilled workers, so the current system is preferable.


          b. Add a new visa category in addition to H2A/H1B's, which is intended to bring in high skilled workers through the merit based process. But this new visa will do the exact same thing as an H1B visa, while not working as well as the H1B, as per the stats. You technically could do this, but it would be preferable to just have unlimited H1B's. There's no reason to switch to government processing of merit based immigrants when we could just uncap H1B's and let businesses do it.

          And even if we assumed Nat meant adding a new visa category, that still isn't adopting the Canadian immigration system, it's just adopting one part of it, so he loses on topicality. And it's a worse visa system in the first place.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 there’s definitely a case to be made for both sides, whether more h1bs or more Canadian immigration visas would be better.. I’m not saying Canadian is better than h1b

          I’m saying his case is you can have both, and you said you can’t have both because having both means it discriminates against low skilled workers (h2a and h2b) who otherwise can no longer get in.. that’s a valid point! If it were true, but he said you can *still* have those, even you add his new category..

          So my point is, if adding the Canadian system does in fact prevent low skilled workers from getting in , then your case wins in my opinion
          But if you can still have low skilled workers (by maintaining and keeping certain quotas of h2a and h2b and tapping into illegal immigrants, etc..) then his Canadian system could still bring the merits he claims they’ll bring , without losing out on the low skilled workers which is what u claimed it would do..

        • 2 years ago

          I actually don’t think his argument about America wanting it being good enough to be the winning argument , I just think that if you were able to really show how a Canadian system does prevent low skilled workers from coming in (because you made a very good point on the importance of Low skilled workers!) that would have made me vote con immediately.

          The fact that he keeps h2a and h2b in certain quotas in his solution, and that he leveraged the pool of existing illegal immigrants, together with his Canadian system (whether Canadian is better than h1b is besides the point, the debate is about Canadian versus the status quo), is why I feel his case was not effectively shot down based on consequences to low skilled workers, which I agree with u, is a hugely important factor.

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz there’s two options.

          Either we make a new, government run, merit based system to bring in new immigrants, or we bring those immigrants in with the H1B system. Remember, my case was unlimited H1B’s. Every single person he wanted to bring in with this new merit based system, I was saying we should bring in on an H1B. There is direct clash on how to go about this.

          If we agree the H1B system is better than the Canadian system, Con should win. I bring in all the same high skilled immigrants, in a better system.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 The misunderstanding I think you have made is that we are only talking about workers. I am advocating for the US changing the way people become citizens. The H – 1B program is a temporary work visa. I am saying we need to change how people become citizens not change how people work in United States.

          You never argued why our current system of immigration is better you instead argued that we shouldn’t let these people become citizens at all and instead force them to only be workers to the H1B program. Bc of that you never actually debated the resolution.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 if the debate is H1B and no Canadian vs. Canadian and no H1B , you might be right.. but that's not the debate nor is it his case.

          another thing that would have made me, personally, vote con (potentially) is if you accepted/conceded that his case might allow for low skilled workers still (so if you accepted it would be feasible, rather than say it won't be feasible) and focused your time entirely on why a fully employer-sponsored system is better than a government-based system, which i am not saying you didn't, i know you did, but you also spent a lot of time talking about low skilled workers and discrimination against them, which the Pro addressed sufficiently..

          i'm not a debate expert but i feel, for me personally, if you as Con said early on in the debate "let's assume your Canadian system still allows for low skilled workers, etc.." let's move on to other arguments.. that would have made me maybe vote Con.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait that's actually true, and i didn't really think of that to be honest.. (nor did you make that as clear as you just did now).

          So basically you can't compare a citizenship system with a temporary working system...

        • 2 years ago

          i guess technically the H1B offers a path to citizenship, but is not an application for citizenship in and of itself

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz It was something I was trying to make clear, by stating that we were not changing that part of US government and that this obviously brings about not just economic but social benefits. Every time I mentioned it he wouldn’t respond even when I was asking questions about it directly to him he wouldn’t give a straight answer.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait i watched the debate twice and I know you did allude to that several times, but a crisp distinction between a 'citizenship' application and a 'temporary working visa' (as you did now) would immediately show the apples vs. oranges comparison.

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz yeah I clearly didn’t explain it as well as I thought I did within the round.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait Judging by the votes, it looks like you’re gonna win this one. I should have realized that my arguments only make sense to people who already know the visa process and how it works. But in real life, what you’re saying isn’t actually true.

          You and Michael and Yaz have all alluded to this idea that immigration/citizenship is a separate process from temporary work visas, but that’s a completely made up distinction. They’re actually part of the same process.

          There is almost no scenario where an immigrant is offered citizenship before entering the country. It takes 14 years at a minimum to become a US citizen, which only happens if you have a family member in the country. Usually the process takes longer than that. Immigrants aren’t just waiting in Jamaica for 14 years. They come to the US on work/student visas, which integrates into their citizenship application, allowing them to have legal status in the country during the time their citizenship application is processed.

          Immigration, naturalization, and temporary work visas are all part of the same process, but the starting point of the system is the initial visa the immigrant enters the country on. We can’t talk about (legal) immigration without talking about the visa system they enter on.

          Now, what I’m gathering from your comment is you might have meant that the US Citizenship process will now be instant, and that new immigrants will immediately be citizens? If so I totally didn’t pick up on that from your case since your advantage was about economic benefits, which are equally gained through the H1B system. But I would agree that citizenship should be a much streamlined process, although that has nothing to do with it being a merit based process.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 regarding my personal vote, it had less to do with this new realization between citizenship vs. work permit, and more to do with the feasibility of having H1B, H2A, H2B etc.. *along* with a Canadian merit-based immigration system. which was Nat's case.. (actually, they're the same thing.. it only get ever more clearer after the debate)

          It really came to that, for me at least.. because if you CAN have all these together, with quotas and requirements for each system, then you can have the best of all systems.. That's why I said earlier, in my personal opinion, it may have helped your case if you spent less time on why it doesn't work (when Nat repeated multiple times that you CAN have all of these permits together without abolishing them).

          I would like to emphasize, i am by no means a professional debate adjudicator, this is just my personal layman observation/assessment of the debate :-)

      • 2 years ago

        Bronson's 4 step immigration plan.

        1) . Close all overseas US military bases and reposition US troops on US soil. Most can be dismissed, but some can be repurposed for law enforcement.

        2) . Abolish the minimum wage and any health care requirements for employers, so that ex-federal bureaucrats will have jobs available at their market value.

        3) . Open the borders. Anyone may immigrate. The government will be on the lookout for terrorists and other dangerous criminals thanks to the fact that the military is now focused on protecting America rather than adventurism in the Middle East and elsewhere.

        4) . Profit, as open borders doubles GDP which solves a host of other issues affecting the country.

        • 2 years ago

          @bronsonkaahui I’m totally down with this actually. I’d clarify that I’d still support Ellis Island protocols, but after an immigrant has had a disease check, background check, that’s essentially all we need, then let the market handle the rest.

      • 2 years ago

        CON keeps saying H1B for low tech, agricultural, etc. IIRC - that would be an H-2A. H1B is for high tech workers. [And PRO makes the mistake, but less frequent. HOWEVER - on a 'merit based system' - looking for high tech workers - then H1B would probably be the correct term; H-2A is 'low tech'.]

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard Thx for clarifying I was genuinely confused by the end of the round which visa program was which lol.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait A lesson - check out 'basics' before the debate.

          BUT - I would argue that H-2A are VISAs to allow temporary workers to come in and help in the agricultural community meet needs. (NOW - a nation might decide to tell the 15 year olds to 30 year olds who don't have jobs, looking for welfare - to get off their duff and go work in the field...AND - the companies hiring workers ARE required to pay at least minimum wage - and meet all safety standards - whether the workers are citizens or temporary VISA workers.)

          H-1B are also TEMPORARY WORKER VISAs - and they are 'under fire' -because there is evidence that companies will often use H-1B to bring in much lower cost workers rather than pay prevailing wages to citizens. (Disney was under fire - they hired a bunch of foreign workers - and forced the citizens/workers to train their replacement - then released them into the unemployment market!)

          One could argue that, properly used - H-1B and H-2A are temporary programs (not intended to bring in citizens...) - but are still 'merit' - based on need and the person having the skill set to do jobs where there is supposed to be a shortage of workers.

          Immigration is NOT a VISA program...it is bringing in possible future citizens.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I absolutely am not saying that at all. I have said America needs both high skilled and low skilled workers. We need to keep the H-2A, which provides for low skilled workers, but if we switch to a merit based system, the low skilled immigrants who were coming on the H-2A won't be skilled enough to get through the merit based system.

          So my solution is that we can still get the increase in high skilled workers, by removing the cap on H-1B's. We expand H-1B's, and keep the H-2A, so we keep both high skilled and low skilled workers.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 Distinction is immigration (topic) vs. temporary workers. H-2A and H-1B are VISA programs for temporary workers. PRO was arguing for a merit based IMMIGRATION system. You seemed to be arguing about VISAs for workers - vs. how the US, at present - provides for immigration. HINT - we have a large number of immigrants that are due to 'chain migration' (a former immigrant sponsors a new immigrant)...or the lottery - and both of these systems are no where near as desirable (IMHO) as the discussed merit based system. (It was 1965 that the US changed form primarily 'merit' and went to 'other than merit'...thanks to Ted Kennedy's bill.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard But the immigration process is way bigger than that. It takes 14 years at the earliest to become a citizen, but during that time frame, immigrants are here with legal status. The majority of those with legal status either came on an H-1B, in order to work, or an H-4, as a family member of an H-1B.

          Yes America prioritizes family members, but thats actually relatively the same as Canada, where only 25% of immigrants actually come as economic migrants as well, and most of them still come because of family affiliation, so there’s no difference in reality between the two.

      • 2 years ago

        People need to be free to travel. Let markets decide what jobs and housing are available, not governments. I don't think America's immigration "problem" is the same thing as what is going on in Europe. In Europe what is happening is America/Europe are destabilizing the Muslim world which is causing an influx of certain "kinds" of immigration. This is compounded by the fact that we've already turned the people from these societies even more conservative/Muslim/radical through our foreign policy (support for Saudi Arabia who then exports Wahhabism worldwide, overthrowing secular regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and also trying in Syria). What "problems" that exist in Europe right now due to immigration can definitely be traced back to these policy mistakes from the past (that remain unaddressed and continue to this day).

        It also doesn't help if you give government welfare benefits to recent immigrants. Somehow in America, all the immigrants managed to find their own way even though they were coming by the boatload from France, Germany, Ireland, China, Eastern Europe/Russia, Japan, and now Mexico and South America. Somehow, everyone seems to have found their way in the past even though the nativists/nationalists always said in each and every single case that this would spell doom for America. They've been wrong every single time in the past. Immigration has never harmed America and never will. The only thing that ever happens is America changes -- for the better.

        I say we should stick to that system. Immigrants must make their own way and any help should be voluntary and non-coercive. Lets also not block the migrants with jobs and housing because they are "illegal." Let's take a laissez-faire attitude toward immigration and the economy in general.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 Congrats for advancing to the next round!

          @drag0nbait Great debate, thanks a lot for participating!