Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees
Debate Rounds (3)
Your initial argument focuses solely on incidents of terrorism, but there are other pros and cons to allowing refugees.
1.) it can be economically beneficial. Many European countries have aging and shrinking populations. They will need a larger labor forces to provide the tax revenues to fund government obligations in the near and distant future.
2.) Accepting more immigrants is better for the vibrancy and innovation of the economy. After all, they could be accepting the next Einstein, Steve Jobs, Carlos Slim, Donald Trump or Naghuib Mahfouz (a famous Egyptian novelist)
3.) There is a moral argument that we should be helping our fellow men, women and children who face death, disease and starvation in their home country.
4.) Free democracies must accept some risk in order to be true liberal democracies. We already face risk of home-grown terrorism but that doesn't mean we evict all Muslims or people associated with white supremacy or anti-government groups.
5.) From a numbers perspective, they would be saving more lives than they would be losing when you count people killed from terrorists compared to the lives saved by accepting refugees.
6.) Terrorism is not even close to the leading cause of death in Europe. Obviously more people die from homicide, auto collision, drugs, and probably many more preventable reasons, so the number of people that actually die from terrorist acts, while terrible and tragic, is infinitesimal compared to those. Why deny others their human rights when the negative results are such a small piece of public health and safety?
I guess 6 points is enough to get started. I will respond more directly to your first argument in my next argument.
1.)Anyways, European security officials have stated that there are far too many migrants for each one of them to security checked, this will increase the probability that ISIS sympathizers can break through and kill. Also, it costs more to resettle refugees in Europe and America than it does to resettle them in neighboring countries.
2.) The average Syrian IQ is 83, which isn't that high compare to Western standards.
3.) I'm all for helping the women and children, but 90 percent of the people coming in are able bodied men, who should be fighting or at least working in Syria. It's kind of obvious that a good portion of these men are ISIS operatives, looking to destroy Europe.
4.) I didn't say to evict all Muslims, I simply stated that the screening process needs to bolstered and reinforced, the Europeans are just letting them through.
5.) Like I said, I'm all for saving the women and children, but the able bodied men should return and go fight for what they think is right.
6.) I didn't say that it was the leading cause, I simply said that there have been numerous attacks since the first wave of refugees were admitted.
As to your broader point, I contend the amount of good that can be achieved by allowing refugees outweighs the risk of terrorist attacks. That was why I mentioned that far more people die from other causes than from terrorist attacks. If you think about it, the number of deaths in the EU increase by such a small percentage, it is nearly insignificant. These terrorist attacks are terrible, and we regret every single life, but as a broader threat to safety it is not very large. Especially if you add in the fact that a lot of these attacks are perpetrated by people already in Europe, not Syrian refugees.
The potential benefits are huge and I already identified them.
As to your point that American men stood and fought the US civil war, I have to disagree on a few points. Fist, all men did not fight in the war. As with most wars, it was mainly the poor who fought. In the South, men who owned certain amounts of land and slaves were exempt from service. Their sons were also exempt if they had large estates and many slaves. Check out the movie Free State of Jones for some insight into the men who fought for the South in the Civil War. Of course the North had its own army and did not have the draft. Sure, men signed up to fight. But in many cases, they signed up for the food and pay. Finally, as I said, this is a regional war. The US civil war was not a regional war, although some foreign countries did provide assistance. However, that assistance is no comparison to the Russian jets that are pounding Aleppo with bombs and bunker busters hundreds of times a day. That's not even counting the use of chemical weapons. So let's not compare it to the U.S. Civil War. You say they should stay and fight, I say it's marching to an assured death. Men should protect their families. It is a long, treacherous journey to Europe and I would get my family to safety at all costs rather than getting killed in a proxy war between the US and Russia. It's hopeless for them there.
To respond to your criticism of my points:
1.)European officials are most definitely overwhelmed by the influx, but that can be addressed by devoting more resources instead of turning away all refugees.
2.)Average IQ is a terrible way to measure potential economic contribution. For starters, you can still have an IQ of 150 in a group that averages 82. Also there are so many jobs that don't require a high IQ that these people can do. Their children can then have a better education and make greater contributions. IQ itself is not a good measure of contribution because there are many skills for which this number does not account.
3.)I already dismissed your claim about the majority of refugees being men. But of the men, how can you say it is OBVIOUS that the majority are looking to destroy Europe? It's not obvious to me at all. My assumption would be that they just want to find a safe and stable environment for their families.
4.)I agree that they need to bolster the screening process, but you're argument is that they should stop accepting all refugees. But the point was really that there are plenty of instances of home-grown terrorism that we face as part of being an open, liberal society. Accepting refugees does nothing to change that tradeoff
I think I addressed your other responses in the paragraphs above.
Additionally, the moral argument is so compelling. These people face certain death, after an unknown amount of suffering. If the West can't intervene to stop the killing, the least we can do is accept the people who choose life over death. Absolutely the women and children, and the men too.
Terrorism is the scourge of our age, and it is absolutely horrifying and appalling. Yet, it is a danger we face as liberal democracies. We faced it during the early 20th century and we prevailed and were strong. There are so many dangers in modern societies. Terrorism, while scary, is not our greatest danger, and it is far from the leading cause of death and social ill.
Europe should continue to accept refugees for their own benefit and to save so many lives.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 3 months 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con, because as con pointed out, one cannot assess potential based on IQ, as Pro suggested. Sources to Con, because as it turns out, Pro's sources were wrong.
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.