EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
822

That we should accept all refugees

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
6 points
WCS7WCS7 (CON)

It's completely ridiculous notion that we should accept all refugee. 
(I will just use the word "all" the same as it's dictionary definition)
Accepting every refugee into any country, regardless of country would be catastrophic to the accepting countries' politics, inter-country relations, economy and many more.

Let me just give some examples:
  • For economical, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources against the people living there.
  • For social, there might be a divide (a sort of culture clash) for these natives which cause a great divide among the people in the country.
  • And lastly for political, the refugees, which might be caused by religion, gullibility or any on there factor are usually swayed into one political party or another causing a much lower outcome from the other side

When people talk about refugees, they usually make a "think of the children" argument but changed to "think of the refugees". We've seen the crisis migrants caused in Europe. Now multiply those migrants by 10 and you have basically doomed your country.

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-01 01:28:28
| Speak Round
unknown777anonymousunknown777anonymous (PRO)
Excuse me, I  missed my deadline last argument

Mostly people worry if the Refugees are Terrorist that are just pretending so the solution for that is Security or testing the migrants to find out the 'real'refugees


Just like the other citizen, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources, there's no problem with that, if we accept refugees its like we accept them as the citizen inside the country, but you're right, they have nothing and they can't provide for themselves so they need others,  the solution for this is to find some organization that volunteer to help them. 

For social and having different cultures,  there's no problem if people have different beliefs or religion culture and tradition as it cause no harm. 

A powerful country is not 'that doomed' if they add many migrants and the Europeanas didn't complain  in the migrant crisis but instead accepted the Syrian refugees,they actually more cared about the experience of them traveling from a dangerous journey.



We should accept refugees for it is moral to do so, just imagine if you were the refugee and you'll be at risk if you stay at your homeland. 

We know financial, economic,  social,  population, safety,  resources,morality, employment are affected by these but I see no wrong sacrificing these for humanity. Refugees are not just a burden.  

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-02 15:41:39
| Speak Round
unknown777anonymousunknown777anonymous (PRO)
Economical argument
.
  • Alex Nowrasteh cites a 2013 International Labor Organization survey of Syrian refugees in Lebanon which found they had a wide range of skills. “Half of the workers were skilled or semi-skilled while the other half were low-skilled workers in agricultural or personal services such as cleaning,” writes Nowrasteh. “Few spoke English but lower-skilled jobs in the United States require more manual strength than English ability.”

Social argument
  • Beside the Social impact of low birthrate that Germany is facing, there are several economic challenges. According to Peter McDonald who is a professor of demography “very low fertility substantially reduces the size of the labour force within one generation just as the population is ageing rapidly”(2008). When a country faces demographic decline, the majority of the working people will be aged which deprives the country from the diversity of ideas brought by new generations. As Seamus Grimes said “It is generally accepted that societies dominated by 50 and 60 year olds are unlikely to be very forward-looking”(1994). Hence, the lack of the young human resources creates social and economical issues. In order to lessen its demographic shrinks during a reasonable time, Germany decided to host Syrian refugees.

Political argument
  • Accepting refugees is necessary to defeat ISIS.

ISIS’s strategy is to goad the West into turning against Muslims, driving people back to its caliphate. Forcing refugees back toward Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who refugees say that they are fleeing, would play into ISIS’s hands and actively aid the recruitment that has already proven to be instrumental to their success.

US intelligence officials have complained for years about their lack of intelligence on ISIS. One official told theLA Times in 2014 that Syria was “a black hole.” Patrick Eddington, a former-CIA intelligence officer, calls Syrian refugees “the single best source of information on life inside ISIS controlled territory.”

Moral argument
  •                    This image of a young boy who drowned in the Mediterranean and washed up on a Turkish beach deeply affected us all. It was a sign that things needed to change, and that we need to take in those who need protection. What would the alternative be? If we close the borders, we’ll find new images of thousands of people lingering on the European border. Is that what Europe should be? We don’t want that. That’s why we decided to take them in. And it was the right decision. Even after the events in Cologne, the decision stands, and that’s also the right decision.

  • Many of the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the brutal oppression and terrorism of ISIS – the very force we are fighting against ourselves. Others are fleeing the mass-murdering regime of Bashar Assad, which at this point is only modestly less oppressive than ISIS. Even if they are not forced to return to their original homes, for most of them the alternative to admission to the US or some other Western nation is life in refugee camps with little freedom, and horrendous living conditions. For that reason, the moral case for allowing them to migrate freely is even stronger than for most other migrants.

  • We cannot take everyone. We have to exercise caution when refugees arrive from a region that breeds anti-Western terrorists. But we remain that shining city on a hill. We must not close our arms to the world, or to the family on a raft.


Sources
  • https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=bsocial+enefits+of+accepting+refugees
  • http://auwanthology.tk/archives/781
  • https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8962710
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/23/the-debate-over-syrian-refugees/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91a2c1b1ce47
  • http://time.com/4024901/the-u-s-has-a-moral-obligation-to-help-syrian-refugees/



Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 08:12:05
| Speak Round
WCS7WCS7 (CON)
For this round i will be responding to both of your arguments: (My counter argument starts after >)
  • Mostly people worry if the Refugees are Terrorist that are just pretending so the solution for that is Security or testing the migrants to find out the 'real'refugees
>How will we do this? Did we invent some kind of "terrorist detector"? It's very hard to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't.

  • Just like the other citizen, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources, there's no problem with that, if we accept refugees its like we accept them as the citizen inside the country, but you're right, they have nothing and they can't provide for themselves so they need others, the solution for this is to find some organization that volunteer to help them.
>First of all, it is a problem that refugees will be competing for jobs. It really isn't fair for the people of an area to compete with tens thousands of people (because you said ALL refugees) who were let into the countries just to survive, also in last half is another problem: it is fair for the poor people in the area that an organization help the refugees and not them.

  • A powerful country is not 'that doomed' if they add many migrants and the Europeanas didn't complain in the migrant crisis but instead...
>They didn't complain just suffered. Also they didn't accept every immigrant imagine the problems is they did.

(The next post was pretty long so i won't be copy-pasting the parts)

Economical argument
>Half of the workers are low skilled which means they are competing for the same jobs as teenagers like me with low qualifications. For me vs. a refugee for example it would be 50-50 chance of getting the job because we have the same skill level. now imagine half of the thousands of immigrants vs. the Low qualified people the area fighting for a job.

Social argument
>There are plenty of ways to do this without refugees. Like a more than 3 child policy.

Political argument
>I didn't understand what he was trying to argue about ISIS. Also see above. Why couldn't the ISIS sneak among the refugees. You would have to accept them because you would accept "All of them".

Moral argument
>First of all, appeal to emotion argument.
>Secondly, I never said anything about closing borders, some refugees should be let in but not all of them.
>Lastly you contradict you self. You are are arguing for "That we should accept all refugees" but yet in your argument you say "We cannot take everyone" this is because you just copied and pasted one of your sources (see screenshot) 

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 17:05:45
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
ImbsterImbster
Too many economical sacrifices
Posted 2018-06-08 01:15:47
unknown777anonymousunknown777anonymous
@Prakash. depends to the countries' laws and economical condition but besides that, accepting refugees is fundamentally a kind thing.
Posted 2018-06-06 08:17:24
Prakash kumarPrakash kumar
They should not be allowed to enter the others country territory
Posted 2018-06-01 13:08:14
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2018-06-08 01:32:31
ImbsterJudge: Imbster
Win awarded to: WCS7
Reasoning:
It is disappointing that one of the participants copy pasted a few lines from their source of which was beautifully crafted by the original author deserving better recognition. The sudden shift away from the 'all' notion to 'not everyone' is a clear sign of drifting away from the absolute topic above and which I will subjectively deem as a weakening of one's stand. The participant should have thought of other and more ways to present accepting all refugees look like the least radical decision to perform. Both participants have done their utmost to organize their arguments and it is evident and a good mark. WCS7 presented his arguments well and smashed arguments as well as fallacies during his time to counter.
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2018-06-19 21:27:53
GuitarKirbyJudge: GuitarKirby
Win awarded to: WCS7
Reasoning:
Con had a well-constructed argument. Pro chose to copy-paste from someone else and didn't argue for the absolute topic.

Feedback:
Con, watch the formatting; some of your speech was difficult to read. Otherwise a well-constructed argument.

Pro, plagiarism isn't just something they use as a buzzword in school, it's a real thing and it immediately destroys all credibility of the offending party. Also, when the topic is an absolute (one where "ALL" or "NONE" are mentioned), you have to be prepared to argue that topic as written.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2018-06-23 12:32:19
Penrose stairsJudge: Penrose stairs
Win awarded to: WCS7
2018-07-01 18:32:16
UpscyfeesJudge: Upscyfees
Win awarded to: WCS7

Feedback:
Feedback for WCS7 :
1. Check your posts with caution. Mistakes in grammar and dictation can predisposition both the judges and the crowd negatively.
2. In an arguement, the pro user stated : " Half of the workers are low skilled which means they are competing for the same jobs as teenagers like me with low qualifications. For me vs. a refugee for example it would be 50-50 chance of getting the job because we have the same skill level. now imagine half of the thousands of immigrants vs. the Low qualified people the area fighting for a job.". It seems as if you took the arguement out of context when your opponent didn't have the chance of stopping you. Your opponent was referring to manual labor, where refugees would work for lower prices, enhancing the economy. Teens often do not compete on this sector because the working hours are extensive and in many countries, there are restrictions in the working hours, when it comes to not adult people.

Feedback for unknown777anonymous :
1. Though you did include your sources, you used them improperly by not connecting some of them to the goal (see economical arguement) and by contradicting your side (in your last arguement). That is a result of the lack of work with your sources so you can form arguements of your own.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29