The Instigator
Lrhodes9019
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Nonsense
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Allow refugees into the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Lrhodes9019
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 83756
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Lrhodes9019

Con

I don't believe that we should allow the Syrian refugees into the United States for numerous reasons. If you contradict, please enlighten me as to why.
Nonsense

Pro

The reason the war in Syria began was that USA had an issue with the extent to which Assad was abusing his people, when he began with chemical weapons then USA lost its temper and began sending drones and funding the rebels (I'm pretty sure they were funding the rebels beforehand but were having Saudi do it and giving the money to Saudi to give to the rebels but that's another story).

Anyway, since the entire war began due to USA, regardless of if they are on the 'good' or 'bad' side, it was also their fault due to lack of research and foresight that ISIS/ISIL began gaining power. You see, Assad and Putin were the main leaders whose armies were intimidating ISIS beforehand, since Assad's army is being heavily weakened by USA's efforts, ISIS saw an opportunity to terrorize Syria's populace and took it. Assad's army is too afraid to attack ISIS head on because they fear that will give the rebels and USA the perfect opportunity to topple them so the entire terrorism of the people is now due to what USA did.

Since the entire war began for moralistic reasons, it is also sensible that the moral duty to take care of those who have now been terrorized as a result of the war be taken care of. Not all refugees are coming because of ISIS, some have simply had their villages either blown up or left in fear of that happening.

It's unfair to expect European nations to harbor all the refugees because of something USA did.
Debate Round No. 1
Lrhodes9019

Con

Well said, however; i believe that because of our human nature to get involved in conflct, that someone would have gotten involved in the middle east sooner or later. ISIS is not a result of the United States getting involved. It's a result of radical pieces of crap. To think that out of said 10,000 refugees, none would be members of ISIS or terrorists, is absurd to me. Why take an unnecessary chance like this?
Nonsense

Pro

You are correct that ISIS didn't form as a result of USA's actions, but you are incorrect that USA's choice to attack Assad's army wasn't the sole cause of ISIS's sudden growth and power spurt. On top of weakening Assad's army the very fact that the big bad America is the one getting involved only adds to the ability of ISIS to radicalise people in protest against USA's constant nosiness and arrogance to force nations to run the way it wants them to be run (meaning run by easily palpable imbeciles rather than hardheaded dictators).

As for your argument of 'why take the chance of one of hte refugees being a terrorist posing as one' I can simply reply 'why be so inhumane as to let these people drown in the sea at USa's border or to send them back to Syria when they are there as a result of the actions your nation chose to do?
Debate Round No. 2
Lrhodes9019

Con

I think that although there are actual refugees seeking help and shelter, we cannot take the chance. Some claim that we have a vetting process that will not allow for terrorists to enter the country as refugees. False, where do you expect to get accurate information on these "refugees," from the Syrian "government." Syria is practically dominated by ISIS and they have no formal government. Not to mention that veterans coming home from war right now are not properly sheltered nor fed. What would be the logic in letting more people take up space?
Nonsense

Pro

Con states that ther eis no vetting process because the information is hard to get. Lack of foresight on USA's part when going to war means they have to take in the refugees with little information as a price. Next time do your research before going to war and if you think USA didn't know about ISIS before the war you are wrong. Saudi was the founder of ISIS and it alerted USA when ISIS turned on them so do not be confused, USA knew what it was risking when it went to war and now is whining that it has to pay the price.

As for the attack of Con on Syria stating that "Syria is practically dominated by ISIS and they have no formal government." I would like to remind Con that there was a formal government in Syria and ISIS was nowhere near dominating it prior to USA's assistance of rebels and drone strikes.

Veterans not being properly sheltered or fed is due to people whining about paying tax, every time Obama wishes to increase taxation to perhaps provide care for veterans and the poor, people whine and moan about the government taking their money so he is scared to do this in case of a violent riot like there was when the original Obamacare plan came out.

The logic is that if you go to war for moral reasons, you must pay the moral price.
Debate Round No. 3
Lrhodes9019

Con

Pro has failed to rebute the fact that there is no accurate vetting process in place, as a result of an accurate vetting process being impossible to achieve.

(1)Saudi was not the founder of ISIS, ISIS claimed to be a group revolting the president of Syria, Bushar al-Assad. ISIS recieved donatios from wealthy individuals from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They are continuing actions radically, as they control oil fields.

Pro does not comprehend the fact that actions would have likely been taken by Russia, had it not been for us. It is not our responsibility to care for those seeking help from terrorist-infested countries, from a political and economic standpoint, when we cannot afford to bring our own veterans home safely.

Pro also fails to recognize that while he claims that people are strongly opposed to increasing taxes, bringing in thousands more would do nothing but increase these so-called complaints and violence.

(1) Source- http://www.bbc.com...
Nonsense

Pro

Nonsense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Lrhodes9019

Con

That's that.
Nonsense

Pro

Nonsense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GreedyMutha 1 year ago
GreedyMutha
With all due respect, lrhodes opinion isn't worth as much as a velvet painting of a whale and dolphin getting it on. Jus sayin!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Lrhodes9019NonsenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO approaches the issue from the moralistic point. The US take responsibility for its actions by taking in refugees. CON states the US should not take chances due to lack of proper vetting and since we don?t care for our own Veterans. Neither side had any particularly strong rebuttals mostly it focused on morality vs. pragmatics. S&G tied, Conduct to CON, PRO forfeited
Vote Placed by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
Lrhodes9019NonsenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF