What the above results demonstrate:
In terms of the strength of the argument given, support for immigration finishes with an average strength score of 31%, while
opposition to immigration finishes with an average strength score of 33%.
There is only a slight difference of 2% between both sides.
In terms of the number of 0% scores, both sides scored this lowest possible percentage, with OPPOSE scoring it one more time.
An 80% strength of argument score was recorded by the OPPOSE side and this was the highest score of either. The closest high SUPPORT score was 75%.
Both sides managed 0% scores, but since both had absurd
reason category arguments, they can be ignored. The only other example is the OPPOSE
side that scored 0% for the guilt
reason category. For that same category, the SUPPORT side managed 5%. The difference in each side's highest
score percentage is exactly the same.
Some key reminders
- the major purpose of this thread was to see if historical arguments (not just the Historical reason category) were important factors to consider on
the topic of Immigration.
- immigration has consistently been kept to its basic definition (explained in the next section).
- everything that can be concluded is done so with Western countries as the focus. While they are not directly comparable even with each other, they
are overwhelmingly more developed nations than developing nations. Immigration is far less likely to be an important issue for developing nations.
- this topic is focused on examining the reasoning
behind the arguments, not hard data (explained in the next section)
Further Analysis: Part 1
Immigration was kept to its basic definition because there is widespread confusion about what immigration actually refers to. Refugees, asylums
seekers, illegal immigrants etc. do not carry the same type or number of variables that make them remotely comparable.
On this topic in particular, reasoning seems more important than hard data, because the access to documented data relating to all the reason
categories used would have been near impossible to access for an ordinary citizen like me.
Nevertheless, the above arguments are ALWAYS used whenever the topic of immigration is brought up. People never give evidence and can never cite
studies or statistics to properly back up what they are claiming. Therefore, I believed it was fair to determine the strength of reasoning while also
putting the reason categories into context, as mentioned near the beginning of this thread.
Further Analysis: Part 2
The most significant factor to establish now is if the strength of historical arguments used is on average higher or lower when comparing the two
sides of the debate (which takes us back to the “Support vs. Oppose” section from earlier). This will be done by counting the number of historical
the best answer for each side resorted to for their answer. After that, a final conclusion can be drawn.
For the SUPPORT side, the number of historical arguments (HA) used when answering each Argument Reason Category (ARC) are as follows: 5 (social), 6
(historical), 7 (guilt) and 8 (absurd) can all be reasonably considered as HA. That means 20%, 60%, 5% and 0%. An average of 21.25%.
For the OPPOSE side, the number of HA used when answering each ARC are as follows: 1 (survivalist), 3 (moral), 5 (social) and 6 (historical) can all
be reasonably considered as HA. That means 30%, 75%, 10% and 0%. An average of 28.75%.
The strength of HA used is on average 7.5% stronger on the OPPOSE side than on the SUPPORT SIDE.
Here is the twist you might not have been expecting: having a lower
average strength of HA is worse
. Why? Because one side
overwhelmingly uses more HA when they are pressed to substantiate their reason for answering their initial “best” answer in each of the ARCs. (The
percentage number didn't even matter, what mattered was which one was higher.)
One side overwhelmingly lies (unwillingly or not) to substantiate their claim that they are answering the question honestly. Which strongly indicates
they are resorting to past (historical) appeals because they actually do not have a known valid reason to argue for the original “best” answer
Without the convenience of resorting to history, the SUPPORT side has no plausible reason to argue in any category relating to the present. Therefore,
the OPPOSE side's arguments in almost every single category is more plausible.
Does this mean that immigration should be stopped, that we ought to oppose immigration of any kind because there is no justified reason to allow it?
The answer is: NO.
It is cruel and unfair to place a blanket ban on all immigration, because some individuals have no choice but to either stay and die, or flee and seek
safe asylum. It's also unreasonable to the majority of people that immigrate legally and try their best to integrate and assimilate In a way that
RESPECTS their new country they call home.
History is NOT a guide wise enough to rely on when it comes to examining the current circumstances of our planet. It is almost so irrelevant that if
the average person using an appeal to history actually thought about what they were arguing, there would be no debate to be had.
When people arguing in SUPPORT of immigration do so, they OUGHT to be pressed on why history is so critical to their answer when discussing the
present. They will attempt to use your emotion against you when making those appeals to the past, and you need to be aware of what they are trying to
do without revealing it at the time you notice. Just ensure everyone involved in the discussion understands which type of immigration is being
discussed before any pressing is done.
End: Page 2 of 2
edit on 27/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)