I'd say that's a fairly loaded statement. Under what standard are you judging a 'loss' to american society? Why bother including that part if you're inviting me to define what a loss would be? What would be the affirmative position and what would be the negative position?Turin wrote:Kinda narrow. Plus it's pretty much a legal argument, which is a little dull for me.irishmick79 wrote:How about this text for a topic?Worksite Enforcement raids conducted by the US Burueau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are a constitutional and legal application of law enforcement resources.
What about something with a little more meat to it, and maybe a little more controversy attached:Because this is a fairly broad argument, I'd be willing to open and let you tear it apart from there. I like this topic because it covers a reasonably broad range of issues without being overwhelming, and is subject to a bit of numerical analysis, which I find more interesting.The criminalization of illegal immigrants represents a net loss for American society as a whole.
There's a different issue with using 'criminalization of illegal immigrants'. You won't find too many people in government circles (republican or democrat) who would phrase it that way when drawing up policy, and it's a statement that mostly gets used by groups generally considered to be pro-immigrant. It's suggestive of a particular political point of view that has traditionally been resistant to immigration law enforcement, and it puts a pro-enforcement argument on a defensive footing from the start. We wouldn't necessarily be debating a particular point of immigration policy - we'd be trying to define the issue.
That's why the debate statement on immigration has to be pretty specific and neutral. There are so many components to the issue and it would be easy for us to get distracted by a topic statement that's too broad or too charged.