Australia needs to do its fair share in accepting Syrian refugees
Debate Rounds (3)
Australia does need to do its fair share in accepting Syrian refugees for the following reasons:
1) Population and Landmass demographics
Australia is the 6th largest nation in the world in terms of overall landmass (at twice the size of India), while at the same time only the 235th in terms of population density (out of 241 listed entries) https://simple.wikipedia.org... Australia is therefore one of the emptiest countries in the entire WORLD, second only to maybe Greenland or Antarctica, and therefore has far better capability to take in Syrian refugees than any European nation can.
Meanwhile, a very large chunk of Australia is arid or semi-arid desert, which Syrian refugees are already accustomed to since Syria is almost all desert... This contrasts with Europe or Canada, which have far milder and colder climates compared to the Middle East, which means that climate wise, Australia is far better prepared to easily accomodate Syrian refugees than any nation in Europe or the Americas.
2) Geographic Isolation from terrorism
Australia is one of the most isolated landmasses in the entire world, in that it takes almost a full day or night of flying from another major city in the world to even get to Australia. The reason Isis's top targets are European countries is because they are very easy to get agents inside European nations, whereas slipping agents into faraway Australia would be a tremendously harder effort to undertake.... Its the geographic isolation that is the main reason why Australia ranks around 60th in the Global Terrorism Index, which measures the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a nation on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being no risk at all to 10 being only a matter of time.
Australia scored a 3.12
So Australia is not only one of the best equipped nations to handle refugees from the Middle East, it is also one of the lowest nations at risk of a terrorist attack compared to major nations in Europe or the United States
3) Strict gun control with high legal gun ownership
Following a couple mass shootings in the 1980's, Australia made it very difficult to illegally acquire a handgun within its borders, while at the same time still holding a large gun ownership rate at 1 person in every 4 people owning a handgun in some territories... About 20% (The US averages about 30% by comparison)
Any terrorist activity that does go down in Australis has a decent chance of being thwarted due to both tough gun control laws meant to bar people from illegally getting guns, along with a decent sized population who legally own guns as well, setting it apart from European nations (where people rarely own guns) and the US (where gun control is very lax). This only adds to Australia's ability to handle any terrorist activity that does go down in the country, making it far more capable than others to take in Syrian refugees.
4) Manageable percentage of Islam in the population
Australia is about 2% Islam for a nation of 23 million (meaning about 400,000 Muslims) in 2012
If Australia took in 100 times the number of refugees it plans on taking in for 2015 (12,000 times 100 is 1.2 million), then the percentage of the population that will be Muslim in Australis would only go from 2% to about 6.5%, which would put it on par with Belgium.....
Australia therefore has a very large capability to take in Syrian refugees without the country risking 'Islamification', to the point that increasing the number of refugees it takes in 100 times over would still put the entire population as just over 5% Muslim total......
Australia is one of the best equipped nations to handle taking in Syrian Refugees compared to almost any other nation in the world. Therefore Australia should do its fair share in taking in refugees, since they are far better equipped to take in refugees than other nations who have already taken in way more refugees than Australia has (Such as Canada, Germany, or Sweden)
manige123 forfeited this round.
manige123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.