Something that didn't occur to me until just now is that even if immigrants committed zero crimes ever, the USA crime rate would still go up if natives were continuing to commit crimes, because the population is still going up. The fact that the crime rates are going *down* means it's a thing nationwide, as there is no reason to think that an extra amount of less-crime-committing population would reduce the crime rate, if the population is still going up. So this argument not only confuses correlation with causation, but it's completely nonsensical anyway.
I definitely would have made a better case if I simply knew more, and it's annoying the number of topics I'm not able to weigh in on that strongly because of that. I'm just too young to have gathered that much knowledge, but the time will come.
GG
Yeah, and I have a rather free schedule at the moment, it's not even that I can't do it in time, I just tend to wait and wait until the last day. Which I suppose would apply to any debate length, at least here it's over quicker. I don't know about you.
Yeah I did do that in the first round. However I had problems in the second round too, yet I didn't do any of that there.
Your messages are missing words all the time, mainly the word "the." You even miss it in your comment.
I don't think I add unnecessary words, I think I just have more to say. If some of my words were unnecessary, that means they could be removed and the paragraph would have the same value. But each sentence adds something new, so I think I just tend to have more thoughts on something, and that unfortunately gets the best of me when it comes to the character limit.
The character limit is making this difficult. I keep having to cut things short at the end.
This is also more difficult for me because I'm actually fine with legal immigrants, just go through the application process to enter the country. Illegal immigrants are a problem though.
Good call, luckily I'm able to edit the debate before it begins. I am now Con.
I have no idea what an ultrarated debate is, but yeah that was not very much time. I hope I did at least pretty well, I had to gather a lot of new facts about immigration because I hadn't done a lot of research on it beforehand. I also ended up running out of characters, but I think I managed to cover most of what you said. Good luck to my opponent as well.
Just make sure to type properly when you're in a debate, so it's easier for your opponent and for the voters to read. Typing badly will lose you points in any debate.
Why would you intentionally type with bad grammar?
Isn't it just a comment on a debate? This is not poetry. The only poetry I've ever seen on this site was a rap battle. It seems completely random to decide that the rules of grammar no longer apply when it's in the comments section of a pending debate.
Your grammar is awful.
I was not saying transgender people are awful, I was simply saying transgenderism is affirmed by the same logic as transracism.
Okay, here's what I was implying:
A person who advocates that people have a right to be transgender and to have procedures done to them to change their body must also advocate that people have a right to be transrace and to have procedures done to them to change the color of their skin (such as an insanely big tattoo).
But in my experience, people want to accept the former but not the latter. So through this debate, I want to figure out why. After all, it is possible to use the exact same logic and apply it to race, and lead to the condoning of transracism. If someone thinks transracism is racist (it's way more extreme than blackface), that logic also agrees that transgenderism is sexist.
Personally I think some people simply think transracism is icky and transgenderism is not, but aren't entirely sure why. It's a cultural thing. But this debate will settle that.
I already defined biological race: the melanin content of a human's skin. I'm not talking about how we're all the human race, so if ethnicity is a better word, I'll use that. But considering I defined it to use it in this way in this debate, I don't think I need to.
I think I'm just going to post the debate again. If any of you believe anything in the wording of this debate was made in bad faith, I can assure you it's not, so let me know if anything is off.
What is rated and unrated?
I've been busy. Also why did you say "vote pro?" Wouldn't you want people to vote con considering you are con?
Thanksgiving hits hard man.
I haven't had the computer available in a while.
