Is this racist?

Proper parenthetical citation would make it more readable, but your bro probably didn't bother because his team and coach are meatheads. Reminds me of a similar paper I wrote a few years ago.

Even though the majority are not diseased, you should demonstrate that the rate of infection among illegals harbored in sanctuary cities is higher than that of the native population.

A good point.

Might also want to mention that California had hospitals close do to ilegal immigration and that ER wait times are drastically longer in sanctuary cities

>incredibly racist
Meaningless, invalid concept. It's just labeling some person or thing heretical. Cowards and oppressors use it against us.

This

Also if they say you should use the term undocumented, respond that you wanted to use the same term through out the debate, and by deffinition convicted criminals as referenced in your first point are not undocumented. They have plenty of documentation,. But what they all have in common is being Illegal immigrants. So in this case the euphemism of undocumented would just add to confusion.

Demand that teacher be fired, play by their rules. Fuck that dude, she's the racist bully, you should not be punished and demeaned just because you don't have the same ideology as the teacher does. What she's doing is actually illegal.

It's an oral debate script, not a formal paper. You have to provide citations if they're requested, but you're not going to have in-text cotations and a bibliography.

This.
The sooner your bro realises that the term "racist" is a shaming tactic that only works on whites the better.
I've never heard of a chink giving a shit if someone thinks their treatment of anyone non arachnid is racist.
I don't think sand niggers give a fuck about claims of bigotry, in how they treat pajeets.
It's literally only us that let ourselves be shamed.

He is right, they are retards.

Who gives a fuck if they think facts and numbers that are objectively and quantifiably true make him racist?

Theyre gonna think he is anyway, because they all live under the fear of being the next one to be singled our a stop the bigot.

They are soviets, afraid of the purges to the point that they'll call the nkvd on their wives and wives' sons for thought crime.

Best that your bro learn that, and just opt out.
Focus on sorting himself, getting the bare minimum in terms of education etc that's required to get him into his chosen field, and excel through obvious hard work and achievement.

The people who see through this identity politics horseshit will notice, and he'll go far.

>singled our a stop the bigot.

Singled out as a bigot.

Fucking phoneposting in bed.

The teacher's probably more concerned it's going to bomb in front of a normie judge. OP didn't mention that in debate competitions, you alternate your position between rounds, meaning his brother also has a case for why sanctuary cities are awesome.

Fucking hel my little brothers debate class doesn't allow any discussion even near politics

>You're a racist for arguing against a proposition we told you to argue against

liberals are really that stupid.

>meaning his brother also has a case for why sanctuary cities are awesome.
>turns out they're not. Next oresentation, please

Might wanna just bring a mortar and trowel and tell them to get to work.

idk but make sure he mentions that muslims are being treated better than blacks and then the niggers will chimp out at mozzies and he'll be all sweet

Racist is one of those words libs use to shut down the conversation and destroy your credibility when they can’t make a counterpoint to your argument. This stuff is golden and decent redpilling material, if a bit long.

Didn't read it all, but picked up a couple of things to improve on:

Kate Steinle wasn't a resident of San Francisco, she was from somewhere in the East Bay and was visiting The City.

"Undocumented immigrants" should be referred to as "illegal aliens".

It's not racist at all to be for an orderly and controlled immigration program or to expect that state and local governments comply with constitutionally valid federal law. You can't go picking and choosing what laws you're going to obey because that leads to a breakdown in the very fabric of society. (If the city can pick and choose laws to follow then why can't I?)

Stand your ground and challenge your accusers to point out how what you have said fits the actual definition of racism: The belief that one race is superior to another.

Wow. Thanks for the free win :) Most debate students understand they need to argue points they don't personally believe in in order to compete, but it's refreshing seeing someone who doesn't let having a chance of making it past first elimination get in the way of their principles ;)

>get in the way of their principles
>letting anything get in the way of your principles
You're the reason we have debate classes and sanctuary cities in the first place, don't throw stones you clod.

Euro Americans = Caucasian
Spics = Caucasian
Will a liberal plz explain how defending my national borders is racist?

This: The ICE term is Criminal Alien.

Remove the "Obama admin" part, just state the year.

Stick to hard facts as much as possible, provide short citations to assertions.

What you really need to do is provide educational backgrounds for illegals and cite overall welfare usage etc etc.

The system of governance is establish by people to establish a system so we as people can succeed.

The question needs to be asked how much of your money do they deserve and why?

You also need to examine LEGAL immigration and cite positive facts about that to deflect the retarded bullshit about you being racist.

Not many of us have issues with legal qualified value added immigration

Attached: 1469129725116.jpg (600x890, 474K)

It's not a class, it's an extracurricular competition. If you can't bear to argue both sides of a debate, you don't have to participate.

>debate
>ad hominem attacks are permitted to stand

He should just say that facts can't be racist, and if he got any facts wrong he would gladly have them corrected. If they keep insisting that he is racist than he should ask them to prevent the evidence of that, otherwise they are implying they can read his mind.

Otherwise, are they expecting him to debate like this?

youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

Tell your brother to create a real debate group away from this "coach".

Another point: allowing for illegal immigration is disrespectful towards legal immigrants who respect the law and have to stay in line while waiting for their papers to be processed.

Allow me to repeat myself.
>letting anything get in the way of your principles
>ANYTHING

Attached: 1523190524169.jpg (640x534, 48K)

Pretty much seems it up. And help your brother use the right words, as exemplified by the illegal aliens bit. Find the sweet spot between not using rayciss lingo but also don't use jewish terms. A good example of "scientific" terms in those cases is pretty much any discussion on race that took place before the Civil Rights movement. Read a fragment from some paper from that time and you'll get the gist of it. Be aware though that your brother is unlikely to "win" this debate, as the school is built to smash dissent. This is really a fight to preserve your brother's sanity and perhaps light some doubt in some of his colleagues.

Well hopefully someone was educated on the matter.

Attached: 1521956424480.png (1018x763, 204K)

Latinos are mestizo.

He makes the claim that sanctuary cities lead to violence, and supports this with statistics already centered on the prison population and hand wringing about one off events. The MS-13 claims are totally unsupported and sound like Fox news hysteria. The obvious counterargument he will face is that metropolitan areas with higher immigration populations have lower levels of crime in general and immigrant populations have lower levels of crime than native populations (thanks black ghettos), which he appears to be trying to avoid by focusing on stats related to immigrants who have already been in prison.

The point about health insurance feels extremely weak when the central point of the argument is about sanctuary cities bringing violence. It seems tacked on at the end in an "oh by the way" fashion.

If your brother wants to put everything on "immigrants cause violence" then put everything on that and don't try to put in the healthcare stuff.

If your brother wants to make an argument that can win, ditch the scaremongering and focus entirely on the financial impact of sanctuary cities, especially the financial impact that goes beyond the city itself.

He should make up a politically correct speech to make everyone happy and then we he actually goes on stage he should drop his original redpill speech on them.

I absolutely guarantee you that the skull on the left is not a human skull. There are differences between different races and their bone structure, but it is not that significant. Skull on the left is most likely a Neanderthal.

Allow me to repeat myself. If you refuse to argue both cases, you will be out of the tournament by the first outround. You are competing of your own volition and don't have to if you don't want to. You're not enduring slings and arrows by only arguing the case you agree with. You're just wasting people's time by participating in an event whose rules you don't want to follow.

Yeah, stick to your principles no matter what, but that's contingent on your principles not being fucking stupid.

>but what about muh debate club
You're fucking pathetic.

We're talking about debate club. Again, if your principle is 'never argue something you don't believe, even in a controlled setting where the purpose is to know the opposing view so well you could literally argue it for them,' then the principled response is to not participate. If you participate anyway, you're not acting principled, you're acting retarded.