The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
mmurph123
Con (against)

Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mmurph123 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2016 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 295 times Debate No: 94706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Allow Muslim immigrants equal opportunity.

I see no reason to place a ban on Muslim immigrants. I feel that banning Muslim immigrants would be a victory for evil and terrorists. Yes, a few more terrorists may immigrate and thus incidents may happen in our country and people will probably die. Yet, this is the price for doing what's right and freedom.

Furthermore, the terrorists would have just found a different target anyways. So, instead of killing people in country A they kill people in country B. Instead, we should be merciful and allow Muslim immigrants, many of which are women and children into our country.

Thanks for the debate.
mmurph123

Con

I negate and contention one is the Social Contract Theory. Aondohemba '15 explains that the social contract "... is a notion that the state is the result of a contract entered into by men who originally lived in a state of nature; that there was only one contract, the social pact to which government was not a party. Individuals surrendered all their rights to the community and therefore, after making the contract may have only such rights as are allowed to them by what Rousseau calls the General Will(Law). Sovereignty, which belongs to the community of such individuals, is absolute, not the government that is absolute. And that every individual is a sovereign-being that makes up the whole sovereign community. This means that the individuals still have freedom from depending on any other body rather than themselves in a contract so entered into by them in a society. The government so formed by individuals after this social contract is very much dependent on the people. As such, people only appointed from their equals some trustees who would ensure the execution of the objectives of the General Will (the common Law) for collective security in the overall interest of the community."



When you vote Pro, you break the social contract between the government and the people, because you put a group of non-citizens, who are not apart of the social contract, on the same level as citizens, who are apart of the social contract.


Contention 2 is Safety



Subpoint A is Security

Large resettlement efforts prompt a response from right wing extremists. Dearden '14 explains Norway’s domestic intelligence agency says the national threat level has increased as a result of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in the country. But it is the response of far-right groups, rather than the asylum seekers themselves, affecting the security situation

Subpoint B is Terrorism.

I will use this point to refute my opened case. First, he concedes that Terrorism is an issue. Flow Security directly to my side as a result. But Secondly, he also claims that letting people die is the price for doing what is right and for freedom. Recognize that this puts the burden on him to prove that taking in refugees is both right and is a prerequisite for freedom. But third, recognize that it isn't the right thing to break the social contract theory and harm your own citizens. Kassam '16 explains that despite making up only 2% of the population, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers committed 6% of the crimes in Germany. At that point, is it truly right for a nation to give a forgeiner the same rights as a citizen? When they commit portionally more crime than normal citizens it can't be considered right for a government to put them on the same level as a citizen. Please Negate.

Sources:

Kassam '16 : http://www.meforum.org...

Dreaden '14: http://www.independent.co.uk...


Aondohemba '15: http://www.academicjournals.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"When you vote Pro, you break the social contract between the government and the people, because you put a group of non-citizens, who are not apart of the social contract, on the same level as citizens, who are apart of the social contract." mmurph123


This could be said for any immigrants in any country. Many immigrants are hard working. Japanese for example are known for non-violence.


"Subpoint A is Security

Large resettlement efforts prompt a response from right wing extremists. Dearden '14 explains Norway’s domestic intelligence agency says the national threat level has increased as a result of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in the country. But it is the response of far-right groups, rather than the asylum seekers themselves, affecting the security situation" mmurph123


Here's the problem, large resettlement efforts. If it was just a few, we could assimilate them fully into our culture, country, and turn them into full citizens. Yet, when you take a huge amount of immigrants in at once from a vastly different culture, there is going to be a culture gap and culture shock.

Can you imagine fleeing from a country where gays are publicly executed to a country that allows gay marriages? This will surely result in culture shock. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is we must find a way to better assimilate mass amounts of immigrants from a radically different culture.

Think of the Borg from Star Trek. [0] Do they simply allow new comers to keep their old cultural identity? No, they strip away the old culture and implant the new. This may sound harsh, but overall there is three choices, and this is the best.

0. Assimilate the immigrants.
1. Allow the immigrants to migrate with doors wide open and keep their own radically different culture which leads to conflict, as seen in Germany.
2. Mercilessly refuse the immigrants.

Considering option 1 is not working and option two is too cruel, option 0 seems the only viable choice.

Note, this should also cover subpoint B.

The terrorists are acting as if they are within their own country. We are being too respectful of their violent and vile culture. We must purge them of their cultural identity and assimilate them into western culture. Then, the chances of terrorist attack should be minimal. Thank you for debating.


Sources
0. http://www.startrek.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mmurph123 3 months ago
mmurph123
that's the name of the source i used.
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
What's up with the "Kassam '16"
Dreaden '14
Aondohemba '15

Is this some sort of secret code or something? Seems irrelevant and kind of scary.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
ban islam
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.