Adjudicator Feedback 14/75(Spanish) > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

Note: Below Adjudication Texts were translated from English to Spanish by Google Translation.

http://debatewise.org/debates/2255

Mocin: LA ORIENTACIN SEXUAL DEBE CONSIDERARSE COMO MOTIVO DE ASILO.


Defending: Mongolia, Opuesto: Ghana


Decisin del juez: Rose Helens-Hart


Felicidades a ambos equipos por avanzar a la segunda ronda. Emit mi voto para la Proposicin de Mongolia. Despus de leer los argumentos de cada equipo, concluyo que los GLBT son discriminados en algunos pases y cuando dichos pases se rehsan a proteger los derechos humanos de los GLBT y crean leyes que amonestan a sus propios seres que esas personas deberan tener derecho a buscar asilo. Tres preguntas guiaron mi decisin:


1. ¿GLBT es un grupo social perseguido?


Hay pocas dudas en mi mente sobre si los GLBT son o no discriminados y / o perseguidos. El conocimiento comn y la evidencia de la Proposicin pintan una imagen clara de lo que son. La oposicin ofrece evidencias contrarias que dicen que los GLBT funcionan bien (tenga en cuenta que esta evidencia proviene de los EE. UU. ... que tienen leyes antidiscriminatorias para proteger a los GLBT y otras minoras) pero se niega a explicar por qu su evidencia debe ser suprema ya que parece contraria intuitiva. Luego se contradicen al afirmar que la mayor parte del mundo aborrece los comportamientos homosexuales.


Prop no define bien el grupo social, solo afirma que hay muchos GLBT y que han formado organizaciones. Entonces asumo que su definicin de grupo social es un grupo de personas que se ha organizado en torno a un factor comn. Esto no parece inconsistente con la definicin de Opp de "grupo social". Opp afirma que los GLBT no son un grupo sino una "clase", pero no dice cul es la definicin de una clase. Parece que una clase social sera tan importante como un grupo social y la Proposicin no necesita demostrar que es un grupo social, sino solo que a ellos tambin se les debe otorgar asilo para que el ataque de definicin no se cumpla.


A lo largo del debate, Opp usa las estadsticas de poblacin de EE. UU. Desde 1980 (¡incluso una desde 1979!). El Prop y Opp deberan haber examinado la evidencia con ms cuidado ya que estas fechas perjudican gravemente la credibilidad del Opp. El comienzo de los 80 en Estados Unidos vio el comienzo del movimiento por los derechos de los homosexuales, as que estoy seguro de que el nmero o la identificacin de GLBT ha aumentado a medida que la ley y la sociedad se han vuelto ms liberales. La "evidencia deficiente" no afecta mi decisin ya que la Prop no lo ataca por esos motivos y puede superarlo sin mencionar las fechas publicadas, pero la Opp debe ser consciente de que las pruebas obsoletas no son un apoyo slido.

2. Would asylum benefit GLBTs?

Seems like a straightforward answer. Yes. Prop could have used more solid evidence of non-discrimination laws from countries where seekers could go to prove asylum would provide a better life…but Opp kind of does that for them by giving stats about how great GLBTs are doing in the US?they are wealthy because they can't have children(ouch…) and they are college educated. I agree with Opp when they say that safety cannot be 100% guaranteed but it is reasonable logic to claim that (as Prop does) that GLBTs would be better protected in a country that actually attempts to protect them rather than making the way they were born a crime against the state.

Prop has two great “slams” on Opp evidence under this particular area. In Opp point 2, they discover another statistical problem when Opp claims 98% of the world population opposes GLBTs yet 3.5% are supposed to be “homosexual” themselves. Either Opp is claiming gays hate themselves or they were not paying close attention to their evidence and the credibility of their evidence. The other slam comes when Prop points out that the UK discretion test was overturned and questions the credibility of blog posters. Opp should be warned again that blogs often provide biased, lay commentary and are not sources of credible evidence. Wikipedia is also a questionable source as it can be altered by lay and biased persons.

3. How would asylum for this group effect culture?

So, Opp may be wondering how they could have won this debate without sounding cruel and bigoted. I think a couple of times they started to sniff out the right trail but got sucked into the easy, yet offensive arguments such as “Considering this sexual orientation for asylum will only put innocent individuals such as children, women and teenagers at risk base on the well known life style of homosexuals…” Sounds like Opp is really suggesting that HIV infected GLBTs would molest and rape children, women and teenagers because that is just a part of their “well known life style”…Anyways, Opp starts to make a couple of interesting arguments about culture.

1. Could start a culture war among counties.:

This argument needed to be developed more. How would telling a country that they do not treat their GLBTs well be anymore of an act of war than telling them that they do not treat their political dissidents or ethnic minorities well?