The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Australia should accept asylum seekers.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 81877
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This debate is to argue whether Australia should be accepting asylum seekers. You have 30 minutes to post each argument with a maximum of 10 000 characters available. Anyone can accept this debate. I am on the pro (for) side and anyone accepting would be against, voting period is 3 days. Good luck


There is no duty for anyone to take any refugees. Arab problems are Arab problems no matter how much you'd like to blame the west for it. When you screw up your own country so bad you have to leave, Europe has some weird duty to take you in?

Allowing immigration can have a humanitarian aspect, but it's got to serve the indigenous population. What we can say about these Arabs is that they are really, really, really bad guests. Go home.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all can i just say that this is only a friendly debate, also this debate is about whether "Australia" should accept asylum seekers.
You have not provided me with a proper argument or a proper point, furthermore, you have only stated an empty meaningless stereotype about Arabs that happens to offensive and even somehow racist. Yet i would still however, take on this debate in a more educated manner than you have and i will prove you wrong.

It is sung in assemblies and heard in ceremonies, the Australian national anthem its self clearly states that For those whom come across the seas we've boundless plains to share;
(Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We"ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
"For those who"ve come across the seas
We"ve boundless plains to share"
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.)


retrovision forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


The debate states whether Australia should accept asylum seekers or not, yet when you posted your first argument you implemented that these asylum seekers are Arabs or of middle eastern background, even though asylum seekers can be of any background, but i will consider that you are referring to recent events with the Syrian asylum seekers. These people fled from warfare and fear of been killed, many of them are innocent children and mothers whose fathers have been killed, i'am sure that these innocent civilians do not have the power or even resources to "screw up there country", seen as this power lies within governments and other groups or organisations, yet when there homes are bombed and there relatives, friends and family members are killed, they decide to flee but no body wants to accept these asylum seekers. These people have the right to education, shelter and a normal life but even that is not considered a good idea to be given to them because people, for example your self take the stereotype that Arabs are bad guests into consideration. I am for sure not convinced that these children, have any fault in what is happening to there country and so they deserve a normal life. Australia and many other countries have signed and agreed to the declaration of human rights which states;
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

I am also certain that you are knowledgeable that many other articles state that everyone has there right to religion and nationality with out been discriminated upon or criticized.


Who else is seeking Asylum in the numbers of millions except Syrian Arabs and people pretending to be Syrian?

Your use of the word "should" would imply some duty which overrides what Australians think about it. They practically torpedo Indonesians to send them back if they show up in a boat.

"Should" would indicate you support coercing or forcing Australians to do something against their will. How do you justify that?
Debate Round No. 3


you stated "If the effect of taking in these refugees in Germany and Britain were benign then we would not be having the discussion of whether Australia "should" take in refugees." but others have stated differently. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, said that "Europe is facing a great challenge for our generation. Never before have so many people fled political persecution and war as today. Many of them are seeking refuge here with us in Europe. In view of the crises in our neighbourhood, we must assume that this could remain the case for years. And as Europeans, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to help them.", and Michael MacKellar, the Liberal MP who held Tony Abbott"s seat for 25 years before Mr Abbott assumed it, said, "As a matter of humanity, and in accord with international obligations freely entered into, Australia has accepted a responsibility to contribute towards the solution of world refugee problems." Mr Mackellar promised that the government"s "full resources" would be made available to asylum seekers. While many of the people are against Australia accepting asylum seekers, many are also with. It is completely undeniable that Australia's attitude towards asylum seekers has been shockingly dreadful, and so it is time for a change.

yes the word should, indicates duty, propriety, or expediency, but we must remember that not all duties are taken on, i am not forcing anyone to take any actions against there will, this is more like a debate to determine whether it should be a duty or it shouldn't. Yet i should also state that taking on asylum seekers doesn't have to be a duty, but can be looked at in a humanitarian approach.


retrovision forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by retrovision 11 months ago
I got an error on this debate twice while trying to post.

Is there a censor in there that doesn't like open discussion?

The end of my debate is that Australia shouldn't take in refugees because it's people don't want them. They have that right.
Posted by retrovision 11 months ago
I bumped me from round two for some reason:

Here it is:

Facts aren't racist. These refugees contain a whole lot of undesirables. If the effect of taking in these refugees in Germany and Britain were benign then we would not be having the discussion of whether Australia "should" take in refugees.

Here's an article from Australia where 59% of their population says they're being too gentle with the Indonesians.

"Should" Australia take in Syrians? I think we should ask them. The answer of the general public would be no. Next question.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 11 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture