– Strategically, what
is the weak point that you see in your argument? – It seemed like when you
weren’t in class doing your work you were talking
about the debate. – It is the creation of
an even larger problem. The only viable
solution at our disposal is to grant local school
boards the ability to deny. (energetic rap beat) – How’re we gonna
prove that we should, public schools in America
should have the ability to deny undocumented students? – It’s a challenge, right? If we win that
argument, we really win. – [Debater] Yeah,
yeah ’cause it’s– – If we lose, that’s
two losses in a row. – [Debater] Yeah,
we can’t have that. – [Debater] You can’t have that. – It’s good to be on
the stage with Harvard, but it’s much better
to be on the stage with Harvard and win. – Ladies and gentlemen,
today we’re here to debate a very serious topic that deals with our
undocumented children. They currently find themselves
trapped at the nexus of two dysfunctioning systems
– our nation’s immigration law and public school systems. (curious, bouncy music) – There’s enormous
opportunity-cost to not educating these
undocumented students. As is well known,
there is huge tie between education and
income in the future. Students who have not
completed a high school degree earn $10,300 less than
high school graduates. The result of this is
a high cost to society as these students are
essentially forced into a cycle of unemployment,
crime, and poverty. – These children end
up in poor schools. Indeed, they went on to speak about these children in
a very negative manner. These children, if
we do not let them in our public schools
will end up as criminals, they will end up
in prison someday. They will fail in life. Let me point out, this will
not result from our proposal. This results from the
way things are now. – So we were split
as a judging panel, there were three judges
and it was a two-one split. And the two-one split
was in favor of Bard. (audience applauds)