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

European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 60238
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




1st round is acceptance.
Sources cannot be used, after all it is a debate.
I will state my case in round two.


I accept.

Before we begin, however, I would like to know my opponent's reasoning behind not allowing sources during a debate. I would like this at the start of the next round, preceding the actual argument. His choice to ban sources is extremely strange and, without proper reasoning, I may proceed to use sources as needed in order to provide the most informative and intelligent debate possible (however, given the debate topic, I have a feeling they might not be necessary).
Debate Round No. 1


Reason for no sources. In debates that actually matter, like real life political debates or ones on TV viewed by possible hundreds of thousands need no sources and also lets true emotions run wild without wasting time trying to fine a possible wacky website as "proof".

This debate I would want to be specific on European countries because recently many political parties have taken strong opinions on this. European countries have something call national identity. Take Italy as example:
All Italians can be identified as Italians on common traits. They also have a common language which is their official language, Italian. They also share a common culture that includes religion, food, and music. If Italy followed suit with American ideology on letting thousands of immigrants come in, replace their physical traits. Influenced their food and music and made a wide range of religious ideologies it could not be called Italy. The countries in Europe have a rich history on which almost all people can relate to one another. If everyone was meshed together ethically they would be forced to form a confederacy or an union. These countries have an identity that sews the country-men together.
America is founded on the notion: you can come here for a better life. America was a booming country with not enough men to do all the jobs needed so they gladly accepted immigrants to come work, make more money than what they would in their homelands and give their kids a better future.
"...give me you poor, tired, huddle masses..." Statue of Liberty
America became a great nation because of this but the country already was founded on immigrants and had a slew of difference ethnicity like Germans, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish, and English along with African slaves. So along with the American dream and ideology She has made the permanent notion that if you can legally come here for a brighter future. America cannot pick and choose when She wants to accept foreigners just because She have more people than jobs. America cannot just used poor southern and eastern Europeans for hard jobs like sky scraping construction or brick laying or house building.
Conclusion: European countries have a national identity which even their names are contributed to their way of life language and personal identification. While America has founded the notion of accepting immigrants.
Thanks for accepting and I look forward to future arguments.


Wow... That was the worst justification for not using sources I have ever heard. Even in oral debates, especially professional oral debates (not the garbage ones that politicians do. Real debates, like between Ken Ham and Bill Nye), they have access to sources. They either have a folder of sources, or are given direct access to a laptop to use while an opponent is making a case. But, given your definition of 'wacky proof', I'm going to assume you meant to make this a troll debate. Since you mentioned this nowhere, I am still going to consider this an actual debate, complete with evidence, and all the voters should consider this to be an actual, non-troll debate.

Anyway, onto the actual argument:

P1: No country can be denied a right
The word you should have used was justification. A country cannot be denies a right. Even if a country does something absolutely heinous, they still have 'the right' to do so. They may not have justification but nations, in this context, being the ones that give rights, and being the highest jurisdiction for which to decide what rights are given, have whatever rights they choose. This may seem like semantics, but it is a very important distinction that does change the meaning. I will operate under the assumption that the resolution should read something like: "European countries have justification for being anti-immigration, while America does not."

P2: America does have real problems set forth because of immigration
While I disagree with many anti-immigrant policies, to say that the United States has no justification to be anti-immigration is insane. While, certainly, America is a nation of immigrants, with many cultures having immigrated here to make the American culture what it is today, there are many issues with modern immigration. Illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, is a huge issue. It is not an issue of preserving culture, but rather an economic and humanitarian issue. While I stand for immigration, there is an issue of illegal immigrants overpopulating the United States, no matter the side of the issue. In keeping to your awful rules, I won't use sources, but there are currently 7 trillion illegal immigrants in the United States, using up a total of 602% of our resources. Since you can't use sources to disprove me, you must take mine at face value.

But, in all seriousness, there is an issue of the illegal immigrant population being too high to easily sustain, as they have begun having the ability to get higher and higher paying jobs, becoming an actual (if minor) threat to jobs that Americans actually want (whereas usually, they take the jobs most Americans would not take). In addition, they are also becoming a large enough force that they are taking housing, welfare, and medical aid. This means that, no matter your feelings on the issue, there is a major immigration problem that, one way or another, must be addressed. One such way to respond to this very real problem is with a very real solution: anti-immigration policies. While they may not be the most elegant, they are certainly justified to be called for in the situation.

As I have mentioned, I disagree with anti-immigration policies, but those who call for them are completely justified in calling for them.

P3: European cultural identity is not a valid reason for justifying anti-immigration
Despite sentimental feelings, there is nothing inherently better about any one culture that would make 'tainting' it inherently bad. Some countries, such as Greece, may have similar immigration issue to the US, but most European countries do not. Even if culture was being destroyed by these immigrants (which I will prove is false in my next point), there would be nothing inherently wrong with the culture being removed or changed. To use your example, I will play off of it.
-What about the Italian language is so great that means that its loss would cripple Italy.
-What would be bad about Italy having more and different music, food, and religions alongside what they already have.
-Why is a group of people's freedom to live where they want a less important right than that of the culture.

Not to mention that the idea of National Culture is far too abstract to be of any physical value to either country. It being abstract means that it can fluctuate, it can change, and that it provides nothing for anybody that is not purely emotional. Pragmatism insists that, but nature, national culture and national identity is useless to any country as it does not provide any resources and does not prevent discord with other nations. In fact, if they were all one entity, as you have claimed they would be, it would promote peace if national identity shrank.

Furthermore, your idea that all European countries, should ethnicity be the same, would have to become one single entity is stupid at best. There are plenty of examples of countries that have the same ethnic and cultural makeup (Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Brazil and a lot of South America) as each other that did not become one or form a union. Borders don't cease to exist because ethnicities become more similar. And even if they did, what would be terrible about having one entity? Much more peace and unity, and individual areas would still retain their histories and cultures. Nothing about multiculturalism screams 'morally wrong' to me. Especially when you consider...

P4: Cultures are not destroyed when immigrants are added
You will notice that, despite many European countries, namely Germany, having fairly open immigration policies, they still have a very strong culture and a very strong sense of national identity. No matter what, save for military invasion or gargantuan plague, cultures will not disappear. Immigrants, in moving into other countries, do not destroy the culture they move to. Rather, they add their own culture. Thousands of immigrants moving into Italy would not remove Italian pride, vanquish Italian food, rewrite the Italian language, or destroy Italian music. But, they would add their own cultures music for both the locals and the other immigrants to enjoy, and embrace as a new part of their own culture. A child that would normally only see one rigid Italian culture can now be exposed to all the wonders and traditions and cultures of other lands -- like Mexican food or Buddhist traditions. Exposure leads to tolerance, so more cultures within one leads to more tolerance, as well as actually strengthening the original culture because most immigrants, as well as keeping their own traditions, also embrace local traditions, thus making both stronger.

There is no loss of national identity from increased immigration, save for a purely ethnic standpoint that would be racist (after all, a black person, or an Asian person, can be as invested in Italian culture as any other).

I. America has plenty of justification/right to be anti immigration.
II. Europe has no justification to be anti immigration, because:
A. National identity is an abstract idea that is not valuable enough to be worth being anti-immigration.
B. Immigration does not harm national identity.

In order to win, my opponent will have to remove both of my points, not just one. If he only removes one, than the other will stand, proving that my opponent, being on the Pro side, has not completely won the resolution, which must be required on pro side, with more than one premise in the resolution, which this is.
Debate Round No. 2


Okay I will do a very early rebuttal of your very complex points:
P1 rebuttal:
You say that no matter what a country even ABSOLUTELY HEINOUS they still have a right to do so? So Nazi Germany had a right to invaded foreign lands and commit a mass genocide of Jewish immigrants. Something that would be very hard to do if the Jews had their own nation in some are of the promised land. Also I accept your new written resolution. So your first supports my 2nd in saying that European countries have right to be anti-immigration.

P2 rebuttal:
Any country including America should not support illegal immigration and most illegals come from Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador. America has no culture, no official language and no really true anything besides Jazz and Hamburgers. Also with the 7 trillion using 602% of our resources...the voters can deiced on if that is true. I say about 300,000,000 using 97%. The rest are Natives.
Your 2nd paragraph is irrelevant because I wish to talk about fully legal immigration. Yet 45% of all Italians came to America illegally and America didn't care because the times were different.

P3 rebuttal:
I am not arguing that one is better than another but they something very special and it forms to their lifestyle. Italians are Italians, French are French. If you let mass immigration you still have France, but not French. No one is truly American unless you are a Native American. Greece has a more different immigration history but nothing like America does. These countries have an identity which they should have a right to keep. Also even if immigration on a large scale occurred in these places it would take a long to intermix, creating ghettos, gangs, racism and eventually mixing of nationalities. Yemen accepts Muslims into their countries and Brazil and Argentina speak different languages, Portuguese, and Spanish respectively. America was a testing ground for hundreds of cultures and languages to mix together along with Democracy and if you look the test failed.

P4 rebuttal:
The reason behind Germany not losing culture is because the other nearby countries do not want to lose their people and also mesh with German culture. With this issue almost all of the European countries are on the same page. The problem with your second part is #1 They don't want anymore new culture and #2 they have Internet for that.

Argument: America has did herself over for choosing the path she did and cannot go back.
European countries have justification, rights, and just don't want to be pro immigration to preserve physical identity, language, culture, etc.
I feel as though I have destroyed your points and now you must do the same. Looking forward...


You should be careful when mentioning Nazi Germany in relation to an opponents points, odds are you will have fallen right into their trap. Just gonna point that out.

P1 defense
Unfortunately, Nazi Germany clearly had the right to commit mass genocide, because the state/nation is the one that can create and distribute rights, and therefore the state has infinite right. If Germany did not have the 'right' to do so, who would inforce it? Yes, other countries attacked, but that is not because Germany had no right to do what it did, but because, as I have mentioned, Germany had no justification to commit genocide. I should also like to point out that the German genocide was not just of Jewish Immigrants, but also of the native Jewish people. But, since we agree that justification is a better word than right anyway, I think that this entire defense is pointless. But, since Germany killed even native German-Jewish people, among other groups, clearly immigration was not the problem, it was simply anti-sematism, so my first does not lend itself to your second point, as you have claimed. Moving on...

P2 defense
Before I do this, I would like to mention that the 602% was a joke, and I made it clear it was so. But, I would be happy to go with my opponents 300 million, which is approximately the population of America. He gave the figure, so i assume he is good to use it. According to him (because, again, we can't check sources), the number of illegal immigrants in America is equal or greater than the population of citizens.

Furthermore, the resolution merely says 'immigration'. This implies all immigration, and in context of America, most people who use the term 'anti-immigration' refer to illegal immigration. Let's not make this an argument of semantics, as, in America, the terminology is different than in Europe. Certainly, in Europe, we may use solely legal immigrants, as the majority of European anti-immigration speakers speak about mostly legal immigrants. But, in American immigration policy, anti-immigration refers to illegal immigrants almost exclusively. Your best bet would be to argue that America has no justification to argue against illegals, rather than attempt to change the American terminology of a word, which would, of course, be the terminology used when we are discussing American issues.

Therefore, my second point clearly stands.

P3 defense
If one is not better than the other, why should it matter which culture is where and why and how and who makes what kind of food. In fact, your bitter explanation for why you support 'national identity' comes off nothing short of racist. 'Italians are italians' 'French are french'. What makes a Frenchman French? Someone is French even if they are immigrants from China who are citizens of Frace. Therefore, all citizens of a country still belong to that country. A French-residing citizen of France who immigrated from Mexico is still French. And why do these countries have a right to keep their identity? Besides, Identity is such an abstract concept, wouldn't it change according to how a culture changes over time?

This 'something special' that you call identity sounds, quite frankly, non-existent. A made up idea, created by racists, to prevent other races from entering their states. There is nothing inherently 'French' or inherently 'Italian', as cultures will do what they have since the beginning of time -- adapt and change for differing times and circumstances. Perhaps I don't see where your argument in this point resides, other than 'there is something special' that magically makes your argument true. There is nothing 'special' about any culture that immigration would destroy.

As to your best point, regarding ghettos, gangs, and racism, how is that not a problem as well in the US. If Europe has a right to be worried of that, so should Americans, both for legal and illegal immigrants. There are immigrant gangs in parts of America that are strengthened by increased immigration. Ghettos grow every year, populated largely by illegal and legal immigrants, as well as minorities. In fact, the biggest ghettos in the first world are not in Europe, but in America, cities such as Detroit and parts of LA.

Also, if you would define the 'true American culture' as that of Native Americans, than it is native Americans who should have a say in whether or not we should be anti-immigration and, given the extremely poor conditions of the reservations, I would say they have total grounds to be anti-immigration.

Furthermore, if America's 'testing ground for hundreds of cultures failed', than that means that America should be anti immigration, because they failed. Usually, if something is/will fail, you have a right or justification to be against that something, in order to prevent the failure from continuing.

Your entire attack on my third point falls because of those reasons.

P4 defense
Well... I don't even really understand your first paragraph. Germany has a large population of immigrants (about 18.75%) you know, and their culture is one of the strongest in Europe. Not to mention Germany's booming economy, very powerful status, and good living conditions. They are getting tons of immigrants, they are doing very well, and their culture is not threatened in the slightest. Germany, by itself, disproves your argument, because the resolution states that European countries have this anti-immigration right, but Germany should not have it any more so than America. In order for your point to be correct, it must apply to all European countries (or, at least, the major ones, which Germany is).

Even if it doesn't apply to Germany, your argument that they don't want any more culture is false. The BNP and other nationalist organizations are, usually, the ones calling for less culture. But, the majority of the population of nearly all European states support multiculturalism, the only exception being the United Kingdom.

Also, your point that 'they have the internet for that' is kinda silly. Have you ever eaten authentic cultural food hand-made by a member of that culture through the computer? Or done/been to a cultural tradition or party through a screen? That's just silly. A computer can provide you information about a culture, but you will not experience it.

P5: A country has every 'right' to go back on a mistake
Apparently, according to you, a country, once it engages in a course of action is NOT ALLOWED WHATSOEVER to change that course in the slightest. In that case, France and Britain should still be at war, North Korea should forever continue concentration camps, Russia should never stop invading Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East should never end, and Australia should only ever be home to prisoners and exiles of Europe.

At least, that is what logically follows from your argument that a path that a nation goes on 'cannot go back'. Let me ask, what is to keep America from going back on that, exactly? Especially if it is for the benefit of its people?

P6: Meanwhile, European countries have no right to defend an abstract idea
I have already pointed out that 'identity' and 'culture' are abstract ideas and, as they are abstract, they really can't be physically defended and, being abstract, they provide no practical and physical use to a country whatsoever. You can't really argue that they have a 'magical property' that makes them so valuable as to defend. In actuality, I don't see any reason why identity, from a non-sentimental and practical standpoint, should be defended, even if they were threatened. Abstract ideas provide no physical value to a nation to defend unless that abstract idea allows the government of that nation to function (examples being political ideas such as democracy and communism. Not 'identity'.)

You think you have destroyed my points when, in actuality, you have only weakened your own.
Debate Round No. 3


P1 Attack:
adjective: right; comparative adjective: righter; superlative adjective: rightest

morally good, justified, or acceptable.
"I hope we're doing the right thing"
synonyms:just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More

Just. Short for the word Justification. Was it morally good? Justified, or acceptable?
Since I made a no link rule I will just say I got it from website called Google.

P2 Attack:
Since I proven to the common voter that right means just I successfully capture P2. America or American citizens have no right/justification to be anti-immigration.

P3 Attack:
The truth is their is difference between them. Different language, food, music, and looks. It is amazing to be part of that, to have your OWN people. You are untied til death with a common companionship. Together as one a whole. Why would anyone want to disrupt that, it is technical invasion. People are entitled to opinions and mine is strong on this. They need to stay together and be one happy untied country. Let the others be happy, they clearly are.
That is my point, mixture creates hate, and oppression, and unlawful trials and hate crimes. Ghettos, civil wars, and for the lesser to be worse off than the more. In Europe you don't have that. America turned out great until, a long bad choices of conservative values along with the economy and competition globally. It is not just, moral, and right for America to be anti-immigration illegal and legal. Most of the immigrants of the second wave and all on the first were legal yet received hate by earlier ones. The fact on Detroit and L.A. is true, I actually live about 5 miles from Detroit. The fact is true and it is because of immigration and oppression along with Italians hung in Louisiana, Irish hated in the north-east and Asians banned from here on the west coast. The Indians were invaded by horrible Caucasian settlers. They were conquered on the battlefield and instead of being completely wiped out they were given camps along with oppression. Many tribes have been killed in Europe along with vast empires. America still must maintain pro-immigration because since it failed people stop coming besides close to death, rape victims from Central America.

P4 Attack:
I trust your numbers and that means out of hundred 19 are not German?
America has 97.3% immigrant population, also from Google. That is 97 out of hundred. Who's more?
Italy has 8% immigrant not too far from Germany and closer than America.
If I was living in Italy I would want to never have another food besides Italian, why? Pride.

P5 Attack:
There was a winner in the war, Korea still has concentration camps, Russia will try until it is wins or gets destroyed, the middle east conflicts deiced and preclude to the end of the world, and Australians had children.

P6 Attack:
I have already ripped your point with the previous one ;)

I wait now...


I should mention that your definition for 'right' was the adjective, not the noun, which we are using. In noun form, which is the resolution. I feel sorry for you, but this means that your definition is invalid. Not only that, but it proves you are trying to play word games and trying to uses unjust tactics to secure the debate. I thought I would probably lose conduct because of my second round immigration joke statistic, but this is pure and simple backhandedness. A better definition that actually fits the prompt would be as follows:

Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Just to be clear, this definition almost works in your favor, and you could have easily used it on your side. It is a shame you did not. Since a right is an entitlement, however, this clearly means that a country cannot have or be denied any rights, except, possibly, by other countries, which is not the case in this immigration issue, which is domestic. After all, who or what gives and takes away a countries right to do anything? Sanctions, possibly, but that, again, does not affect the actions a country may take, and is a foreign, not a domestic, issue.

P1 and P2 conclusion

Frankly, I am disappointed that, after all this good debating, you trip up on such a small error -- either that or it was a truly malicious attempt to take a victory when you were backed into a corner, instead of surrendering some points and trying to build on others.

But, be that as it may, I have won on my points one and two (because your entire argument consisted on that which I have just disproven, and you provided no other evidence, of which there was plenty, and I thought for sure I was going to lose on).

P3 Conclusion
So, because it makes you feel good to be part of one, and only one, culture, we should therefor be anti-immigration because otherwise, people, and yourself, will feel sad about having to share your culture? Again, such an abstract idea can only be defended with emotions. Emotions, which, in practicality, are completely worthless. And the idea of having your OWN people sounds eerily similar to the idea of the Aryan race... I won't go any further on that, because I am sure that was not your intention. You probably just view your chosen country as only inhabited by people that look, act, talk, and think like you. Nothing nefarious about that...

Also, it is super weird that you insist the ghettos and civil wars only occur because of immigration in America, yet claim that European countries have a right to complain about them while America does not. That is like a cutting somebodies arm off, and then saying that the person next to them has the right to complain about it, but not the person who's arm was chopped off. Furthermore, you say that Italians are oppresed in Louisiana, and act like that is not a genuine reason to not support immigration. Sounds to me like a perfect reason to be anti-immigration (because oppression is bad).

P4 conclusion
I would like to point out that I am talking about immigrants, not immigrant descendants. The actual amount of (legal) immigrants in America that are first-generation immigrants is 12.5%. To be anti-immigration means to oppose more people coming in, not usually to oppose third or more generation immigrants. If we look at it that way, 100% of every country's population outside of Africa are immigrants, because their heritage, if traced far enough, would not be from that place.

Also, I would hate to have such a lack of diversity as to only be able to experience one culture, but that is a personal opinion. However, if we both moved to Italy, you could choose to only embrace Italian culture, whereas I could choose to embrace any culture that had set up in Italy. That's the beauty of most multiculturalism, is that it allows you to opt out of being part of it. Unless you absolutely hate the site of other cultures (making you a clear and easily defined racist), than there is no reason that those other cultures have to effect you in the slightest.

P5 conclusion
You didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Your suggestion that once a country makes a mistake (such as America in regards to immigration), it should be unable to change that mistake. I was siting anecdotal evidence. Proving a point, if you will. Instead, because you are too stubborn to try to figure out the meaning of those examples, I will try again. What was meant by them was that a country should be able to change its stance and policies to fix their mistakes, instead of having to commit to them. Because, if they MUST commit to them, than certainly places like North Korea should never change their policies on concentration camps, and countries like Australia should have never changed from being a place for exiles and criminals.

P6 conclusion
Because you did not, in fact, destroy my previous claim, and made no other arguments to destroy this one, I take it. Also, considering you never actually proved any real benefit came from having a 'national identity', you didn't even address this point earlier at all. You just said 'it's something special that we should keep' and left it at that, without explaining why it is valuable or why we should keep it. And no, saying 'it feels good' is not an adequate reason. Especially not when you, as an American who lives outside Detroit, have no experience to even know what it feels like. This is not Ad Hominem because the experience of having a 'national identity' (which you don't believe Americans have) is one that is critical to suggesting whether or not it is worth having. Without sources, as well, you cannot site anybody who HAS claimed that having national identity is a positive enough thing to be worth being anti-immigration on.

And, as stated before, if any of my arguments make it through, than Pro failed to defend the resolution and, therefore, I have won the debate. I would like to clarify that the arguments this applies to are points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but not point 1, as that was largely semantic.

I do wish we had another round for which you to respond, because I do believe there is still much argumentation to be had but, as it stands, I am fairly certain I won the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
Thanks for the advise and yes I understand some of the fallacies in doing so haha.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 3 years ago
To be honest, you still could be a troll, but you seem to know what you are talking about. Considering the topic, I don't mind agreeing to no sources, but just know that it is VERY strange to do that, and it allows incorrect figures to fly by, because you can't check sources. Just be aware in future debates that not using sources can easily discredit you from seeming legit and professional.
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
does my argument look like a troll?
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
No this is not a troll debate, just some points cannot be backed by websites.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 3 years ago
Oh my god.... Did I accidentally sign up for a troll debate. Damn...
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
verbal ones need no sources also with any debate that actually matters in the real world. Also lets your emotions run free.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
lol what?
"Sources cannot be used, after all it is a debate."
Why? Writing debates give us the possibility to use sources, let's use them.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 3 years ago
Sources cannot be used in a debate? What the hell... Okay, then...
No votes have been placed for this debate.