The Instigator
rikomalpense
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Immigrants ought to fully assimilate culturally for the good of the host country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,000 times Debate No: 67593
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

rikomalpense

Con

First round is acceptance and a brief explanation of your stance.

I argue that while some assimilation is necessary, full assimilation is not: that it is better for the good of the host country if both the immigrants and the long-time inhabitants assimilate to some extent to each other's cultures.

BOP is shared.

..............

Definitions:

Immigrants: People who've migrated to another country permanently or for a relatively long period of time.

Full cultural assimilation: The process of adapting or adjusting to the culture of the host country in a way that results in the complete loss of previous culture(s).

Host country: The country hosting the immigrants.
Zarroette

Pro

I thank Rikomalpense for instigating this debate.

As specified in the commens section, the BoP will be shared.

My general stance is that full assimilation allows for countries to remain unified, and thus should be required.

I await my opponent's opening round and wish her strength in argument.
Debate Round No. 1
rikomalpense

Con

Foreign interaction

We live in a globalized world. Chances are, most members of society will have to deal with people of other cultures sometime in their career, especially if they join a trans-national company. Would it not be easier for people of different countries to interact if they were already used to the idea of multiculturalism?

Furthermore, multiculturalism in a country encourages interest in bilingualism. In Canada, for example, it is mandatory in five provinces to learn French and in one to learn at least one second language [1], largely due to the fact that historically, it has been a multicultural country. This also helps with foreign interaction, but it has also been found that bilingual people tend to do better academically [2] [3].

It was also found that in America, children of immigrant households of varying origins that were bilingual were less likely to drop out of school than the children of immigrant households that spoke only English (or mainly English) [4].

Full assimilation is also often forced, due to the fact that it is rare that immigrants wish to completely lose their original culture. This thus promotes the idea of cultural imperialism in the host country, which also is not conducive towards international relationships.

Loss of beneficial cultural traits

To give an example, East-Asians, a large part of the immigrant population in many countries such as America and Canada, tend to do better in school than their non-immigrant counterparts. This has been determined to be the result of a culture that believes academic success to be a result of hard work rather than of innate ability [4]. This improves the national academic standing of the host country.

Of course, this cultural belief can often lead to East-Asian children having more psychological issues, such as low self-esteem, due to the high expectations placed upon them [5]. If non-immigrants assimilated the aforementioned East-Asians' cultural ideals to some extent, while East-Asians assimilated non-immigrants' cultural ideals to some extent, the result would be the best of both worlds.

It was also found that in America, children of immigrant households of varying origins that were bilingual were less likely to drop out of school than the children of immigrant households that spoke only English (or mainly English) [5].

By exposing people to many different cultures, they are allowed to draw from whichever of their cultures they wish without fear of ostracization, which allows for greater creativity, instead of being stuck in a rut of what society expects of them.

Less rebellion, more unity

Some may claim that full assimilation is necessary to prevent social problems. But partial assimilation and multiculturalism can do just the same, in an arguably better way.

In Canada, 94.1% of immigrants are citizens [6]. Canada makes the citizenship process relatively easy compared to other places, with even free English and French language classes for immigrants, allowing them to partially assimilate within the host country [7]. It still then turns around and often offers multilingual services in many public services, such as schools and public libraries for example: the Vancouver Public Library's website is available in eight different languages [8]. By doing this, Canada encourages the idea that Canadians are still Canadian no matter what their native language or culture, allowing people of different cultures and origins to identify as Canadian. This is done without creating resentment by heavily discouraging their native culture, as full assimilation often means.

Thus, in sum, the assimilation of immigrants is detrimental towards the good of the host country.

[1] http://www.cea-ace.ca...
[2] http://ijb.sagepub.com...
[3] http://www.cbc.ca...
[4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[5] http://www.latimes.com...
[6] http://www.thestar.com...
[7] http://www.cic.gc.ca...
[8] http://www.vpl.ca...
[9] http://swampland.time.com...
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, Rikomalpense.

Affirmative Case

A1: People prefer other people of the same culture; having different cultural identities creates disunity

I

In his novel, On genetic interests: family, ethny, and humanity in an age of mass migration, Frank Salter argues that “Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism” [1]. The argument is there which shows cultural factors to be of relevance in regards to a stable/loving/caring community.

As an example, further on in the novel, specifically on page 123, “…it follows that adaptive ethic nepotism not only selects for ethnic altruism, but for all gene-based characteristics distinctive to the group. This applies not only to traits with high heritability, such as cognitive profile… but to cultural traits passed on through socialization within the family…such as political culture” [2].

In English, what this means is that people are more likely to get along, be nice to each other and be more charitable if the other people are of the same culture.

II

To further support this conclusion, Professor J.P. Rushton, in his research paper, Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory, found that spouse and best friend relationships were influenced by ‘opinions and attitudes’ with a correlation of 0.5, with other factors like ‘physical appearance’ only at 0.2. Only ‘age, ethnicity and education’ scoring higher (0.6) [3]. This means that for relationships of value, people are definitely basing relationships on cultural factors (i.e. opinions and attitudes).

III

Implicit Egotism is the way in which people gravitate towards places, people and situations that reflect themselves [4]. Implicit Egotism, as explored in a multi-academic circle by John T. Jones (United States Military Academy), Brett W. Pelham and Mauricio Carvallo (State University of New York at Buffalo) and Matthew C. Mirenberg (Columbia University), shows “…[the research paper’s] evidence suggests that implicit egotism is a valid and replicable phenomenon that influences people’s choice of a lifelong romantic partner in much the same way that it influences their evaluations of a stranger on a semantic differential” [4]. As indicated in J.P Rushton’s work, people will treat strangers (effectively other members of the community) differently based on their culture. Therefore, on average, the absence of cultural similarity creates more disunity than the presence of it, and this will generally make people less happy, friendly, altruistic and trusting of each other than would be found in a culturally homogenous community.


A2: Language barriers


For all the supposed benefits of children being bilingual, having multiple languages in a country hurts it, overall. Not all immigrants are bilingual, and even the ones that are still hurt a community to a lesser degree. I am going to show you the damaging result of differing languages in a community.

I

According to Psychology Today, as a generous estimate, 20% of Americans are at least bilingual (which includes children under 5 years) [11]. That means at least 80% are monolingual. Clearly, what this means is that the vast majority of Americans will not understand you if begin talking in a different language. Furthermore, nearly one in 10 working-age U.S. adults—19.2 million persons aged 16 to 64—is considered limited English proficient [13]. This means that these ~10% will not understand you or understand little if you begin speaking in a language other than the one they know.

II

Even with the 20% of Americans that are bilingual, there is still a problem. According to Testyourvocab.com, most native English adult speakers know 20,000-35,000 +/- 10% words, whilst most foreign learners of English know 2,500-9000 +/- 10%, which is significantly lower [9][10]. What this means is that bilingual people will have at most half ~45% the vocabulary of native English speakers, at worst an appalling ~5%. Remember that these are the bilingual immigrants.

As you can see, bilingual people sacrifice greater competency in the languages they know.
Obviously, preservation of these non-English mono-linguistic languages hurts the community because of the language barrier. Furthermore, as relating to my first argument, the differing (cultural) language creates a disunity.


Counter-Arguments

Foreign interaction

“… Chances are, most members of society will have to deal with people of other cultures sometime in their career, especially if they join a trans-national company. Would it not be easier for people of different countries to interact if they were already used to the idea of multiculturalism?”


The fallacy committed here is false equivalence [5]. My opponent assumes because people interact with different cultures, this is the same as people living with different cultures. It is obvious that the operative words of ‘interact’ and ‘living’ are not equivalent in meaning, hence the false equivalence.

“…multiculturalism in a country encourages interest in bilingualism… it has also been found that bilingual people tend to do better academically… It was also found that in America, children of immigrant households of varying origins that were bilingual were less likely to drop out of school than the children of immigrant households that spoke only English (or mainly English)”

This is an association fallacy, in which my opponent has confused association with causation [6]. In form, my opponent assumes that because bilingual students are less likely to drop out of school, that bilingualism has a serious correlation to this (hence “tend to do better”). All that has been shown in my opponent’s sources is that bilingualism is associated with higher marks, not that it is the cause of them.

For example, in the first source used (number 3), to demonstrate the fault in the research with regard to this fallacy, “Block Design” was shown to be significantly higher in bilingual children than monolingual ones [8, page 51]. Block Design: “in this sub-test, children are shown patterns that they have to reproduce through the manipulation of several coloured blocks. It is a test of non-verbal, problem-solving ability and requires cognitive control” [8, page 49]. Please explain how knowing more words helps children do this and is not simply associated.

“Full assimilation is also often forced, due to the fact that it is rare that immigrants wish to completely lose their original culture. This thus promotes the idea of cultural imperialism in the host country, which also is not conducive towards international relationships.

The initial anecdotal evidence essentially renders the latter a bare assertion, in that anecdotal evidence is insufficient in debate, so much so that it is a fallacy [7].

Loss of beneficial cultural traits

“To give an example, East-Asians, a large part of the immigrant population in many countries such as America and Canada, tend to do better in school than their non-immigrant counterparts. This has been determined to be the result of a culture that believes academic success to be a result of hard work rather than of innate ability [4].”


This is an outright lie: (from the source) “these findings SUGGEST [what my opponent said]” [14]. NOT “this has been determined”, thank you.

To show that these suggestions are not correct, I’ll reference work that has been done in this field. From his study, Elliot Tucker-Drob calculated that roughly 58% of GSCE (final year in high school) marks are attributed to genetics [15]. From the documentary called “Brainwash: The Parental Effect”, Robert Polmin (of the Adoption Project, an organisation that tracts the effects of adopted children), stated that genetic differences accounted for 50-60% of academic results. Leif Edward Ottensen Kennair (a Norwegian psychologist) stated that genetics accounted for 60% of academic results, AND that the “family environment” accounted for 10% [16]. This FIRMLY DENIES that culture is the only determinant of academic success, and shows that innate ability plays a larger role than culture, indicating that culture has far less to do with academic success than my opponent would imply.

Less rebellion, more unity

“…By doing this, Canada encourages the idea that Canadians are still Canadian no matter what their native language or culture, allowing people of different cultures and origins to identify as Canadian. This is done without creating resentment by heavily discouraging their native culture, as full assimilation often means.”


It does not matter what the intentions of the government are. As demonstrated with my initial argument, people will naturally divide, dislike and discriminate based on cultural differences.

References

[1]http://books.google.com.au...
[2] http://books.google.com.au...

[3] http://www.euvolution.com...

[4] http://new.dixie.edu...

[5] http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

[6] http://rationalwiki.org...

[7] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[8] http://ijb.sagepub.com...

[9] http://testyourvocab.com... (Average adult vocabulary)

[10] http://testyourvocab.com... (+/- 10%)

[11] http://www.psychologytoday.com...

[13] http://www.brookings.edu...

[14] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[15] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

[16] https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
rikomalpense

Con

Re-rebuttals

Foreign interaction

"It is obvious that the operative words of "interact" and "living" are not equivalent in meaning, hence the false equivalence."

While "interact" and "living" are not equivalent in meaning, it does not change the fact that "living" with different cultures is conducive towards "interacting" with them. When people live in a monoculture, it tends to be that people pretend- or even genuinely believe- that racism and other culture-related social issues do not exist, as can be seen in countries such as Japan [1] and Sweden [2], to name a couple. Certainly there are still issues of racism in multicultural societies, but even recognizing the problem is much better than pretending it does not exist.

"Please explain how knowing more words helps children do this and is not simply associated."

It has been found that bilingualism in itself indeed has positive effects on the brain.

"To maintain the relative balance between two languages, the bilingual brain relies on executive functions, a regulatory system of general cognitive abilities that includes processes such as attention and inhibition. Because both of a bilingual person"s language systems are always active and competing, that person uses these control mechanisms every time she or he speaks or listens. This constant practice strengthens the control mechanisms and changes the associated brain regions." [3]

This helps with learning abilities (explaining why monolingual adults have a harder time learning a second language than bilingual adults have learning a third language, for example), and even can help stem age-related decline [3].

It is of course true that bilingualism has been found to have some negative effects, such as possibly hindering communication due to the interference of another language [3]. However, this effect can be lessened with practice as the brain's control mechanisms improve, and the numerous positive effects, such as increased visual-spatial skills and social benefits from interacting with different cultures directly, clearly outweigh them [3].

Forced full assimilation

The examples of Aboriginals in Canada, America, and Australia clearly show the cultural imperialist nature of forced assimilation: in Canada for example, Aboriginal children were wrenched from their parents into residential 'schools' where they were malnourished, beaten, and even sexually abused- something that the Aboriginals greatly objected against [4].

As in the examples of Japan and Sweden, having a monoculture encourages racism due to cultural beliefs that it does not exist in their country, which does lead to problems internationally. For example, Japan is often at odds with South Korea and Chinese due to its refusal to recognize its racist actions both in the past and the present, even pretending that they did not exist altogether: something that would be much more difficult to claim in a multicultural society [5].

Academic success

I recognize that my claim was ill-worded. However, it does not change the fact that culture does play a part in academic success, since as Pro mentions, family environment, which is based heavily on culture, is a significant factor. Furthermore, a multicultural environment attracts more immigrants, which in turn would attract East-Asians who've been as mentioned before found to be doing better academically, which contributes to the economy.

Natural divisions

People cannot help their race, and race cannot change no matter how assimilated one becomes. Even if people will naturally divide, dislike and discriminate, better that they recognize that it is an issue and work past natural impulses than live in a monoculture that refuses to acknowledge their racism.

Rebuttals

"People prefer other people of the same culture; having different cultural identities creates disunity."

I concede the point that people tend to prefer people of the same culture. However, as interaction with different cultures and ethnicities is inevitable in today's society, multiculturism is important to allow people to work past this natural impulse, as monocultures breed ignorance, as mentioned before. Even in a world where it were possible to completely assimilate all immigrants to the dominant culture, if they were still of a different ethnicity, they would still face racism, according to Pro, given that she quotes that 'age, ethnicity, and education' scores higher than other factors in terms of correlation with spouse and best friend relationships.

Of course, as Pro noted previously, correlation does not imply causation. She claims that "people are definitely basing relationships on cultural factors," but there is no evidence that the two are not simply associated with each other. Furthermore, 'opinions and attitudes' can differ within the same culture, which does not necessarily mean that having a monoculture will result in more amity between people.

Language barriers

Pro claims that bilingualism harms a country due to the fact that the United States is primarily monolingual. To begin with, the United States is simply one example: numerous other countries in the world are multilingual. In Canada, for example, 98% of the population can conduct conversations in either English or French (the national languages) [6], and it was found that 56% of the EU is multilingual [7]. The United States is a country that comparatively makes it difficult to be an immigrant and to learn the language, as mentioned before: if it would adopt a similar practice as Canada, who provides free English and/or French lessons for immigrants, there would likely be much fewer problems with a lack of English proficiency.

Pro also talks of the lower vocabulary of second-language speakers. Testyourvocab.com is not a trustworthy source- it likely includes many, many users from foreign countries who are not immersed in an English-speaking culture. In fact, Pro's source itself states:

"Anything much beyond 10,000 words generally only comes from living abroad in an English-speaking country for a significant period of time, or else spending tremendous amounts of one's own time exposed to English media (books, sitcoms, movies, etc.)."

In other words, living in an English-speaking country increases vocabulary. This brings us back to the point that some amount of assimilation is necessary, and learning the host country's language falls under that category. Providing immigrants with the tools they need to learn the host country's language properly: such as setting up free classes: will ensure that there is a common language spoken among the populace. Even if as consequence as the generations pass, the first-generation immigrant's language is lost, this is not full assimilation as long as other cultural aspects are retained.

Back to Pro now. Thanks.

[1] http://america.aljazeera.com...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.cbc.ca...
[5] http://www.cfr.org...
[6] http://www12.statcan.ca...
[7]https://dana.org...
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, rikomalpense.

Affirmative Case: reponses


A1:People prefer other people of the same culture; having different cultural identities creates disunity

“I concede the point that people tend to prefer people of the same culture.”

Concession accepted. Due to this concession, it should now be apparent that cultural differences are a source of tension, unease and disunity, hence why immigrants should assimilate fully. But I will give you a quick (due to character limit) example of the products of cultural diversity:

A cartoon of Muhammad sparks outrage and death-threats from Muslims around the world [6]. In the words of Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi of the Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, “Whoever has done this [drawing], he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get [huge rewards]” [7].

“However, as interaction with different cultures and ethnicities is inevitable in today's society…”

And later, under ‘Foreign Interaction’:

“While "interact" and "living" are not equivalent in meaning, it does not change the fact that "living" with different cultures is conducive towards "interacting" with them.”

My opponent begs the question in saying that “as interaction [implied as ‘living’] with different cultures…is inevitable”, we should allow immigrants to keep at least part of their own culture (the resolution) [5]. It not “inevitable”; we are arguing whether it should happen!!

Also, again, my opponent’s logical fallacy of false equivalence conflates “interaction” with living. For example, foreigners could visit a country for a couple of days and interact, all without necessarily living there. People could also “interact” with others via the internet, and that clearly is not living together.

“Furthermore, 'opinions and attitudes' can differ within the same culture, which does not necessarily mean that having a monoculture will result in more amity between people.

This is a red herring [4]. Yes, ‘opinions and attitudes’ can differ within the same culture. However, they will differ between different cultures, which is the point. Whether opinions differ within cultures is irrelevant to whether they differ against different cultures.

Racism

“multiculturism is important to allow people to work past this natural impulse, as monocultures breed ignorance, as mentioned before.”

Multiculturalism does not allow for people to work past this natural impulse. Racism is natural, and my opponent is saying that “ignorance” leads to racism (under ‘forced full assimilation’: “having a monoculture encourages racism”). This is wrong:

In a 1997 study, performed on African people, it was found that, “high ethnic diversity is closely associated with low schooling, underdeveloped financial systems, distorted foreign exchange markets, and insufficient infrastructure” [1].

In a 2003 study which also evaluated past study findings, this study found that despite “there [being] often multiple plausible ways of partitioning the “ethnic groups” of a country… It is interesting to learn, then, that despite sharply different formulations of “ethnic group,” the aggregate measure of ethnic fractionalization based on the Atlas Narodov Mira (a previous study that this new one looked a) data and the data presented here are moderately well correlated, at .75” [2].

Furthermore, “Very similar correlations obtain between the Soviet ELF [Soviet Atlas study data], and the “ethnic” and “linguistic” fractionalization measures produced by Alesina et al. (2002). Roeder’s (2002) several measures correlate at around .81 with my measure F and at about .88 with the Soviet ELF. So as a measure of aggregate ethnic diversity across countries, fractionalization appears to be fairly robust to the looseness of the concept of “ethnic group” [2]. In other words, there is a super strong correlation between people dividing based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences.

“Even in a world where it were possible to completely assimilate all immigrants to the dominant culture, if they were still of a different ethnicity, they would still face racism”

Race is not equivalent to culture, and so I do not have to show that racially different people should fully assimilate. All I have to show is that people of different cultures to the country that they live/ intend to live in should assimilate fully.

So, you cannot expect people to stop being racist (at least at the sub-conscious level) because it is an evolutionary by-product, and thus it occurs naturally.

Correlation and causation issues

“Of course, as Pro noted previously, correlation does not imply causation.”

My opponent attempts to ‘move the goalposts’ here, which is another logical fallacy [3]. She argues that because it is not the cause, the obviously strong correlation (which suggests a cause, rather than the cause) is not sufficient as evidence, despite me referencing 3 different studies (now 4: my second reference this round which mentions a super heavy .81-.88 correlation with linguistics). Is it reasonable to assume that this is not a factor, despite having medium to heavy correlation in 4 studies?

Conversely, my opponent’s correlation/causation fallacy came about because she argued that arranging blocks in a particular pattern (“Block design”) was helped by knowing more words.

“She claims that "people are definitely basing relationships on cultural factors," but there is no evidence that the two are not simply associated with each other.”

In conjunction with the 3 other studies, I think it is unfair for Con to say I have “no evidence”.

A2: Language barriers

“Pro claims that bilingualism harms a country due to the fact that the United States is primarily monolingual.”

No. I used the US as an example for having multiple languages in a country.

“The United States is a country that comparatively makes it difficult to be an immigrant and to learn the language”

Here, my opponent makes an unreferenced, unargued, bare assertion.

“…if [the USA] would adopt a similar practice as Canada, who provides free English and/or French lessons for immigrants, there would likely be much fewer problems with a lack of English proficiency.

Fewer to what degree? What if it were a small degree? My opponent has not shown the degree to which this will have an impact, and hence fails to meet her burden of proof.


“Testyourvocab.com is not a trustworthy source- it likely includes many, many users from foreign countries who are not immersed in an English-speaking culture…”

“Users from foreign countries” = potential immigrants; this has everything to do with the debate.

My opponent continues in the paragraph to say that immigrants should have access to “free [English] classes”. Obviously, this is going to cost the country money, and disunity until the immigrants can speak decent English.

Again, for all the supposed benefits of bilingualism, there are problems with engineering this for a country.


(From my opponent’s argument title: ‘Foreign Interaction’)“… and the numerous positive effects [of bilingualism], such as increased visual-spatial skills and social benefits from interacting with different cultures directly, clearly outweigh them [3].

Since this is a direct quote, go to her 3rd source. Control+f ‘clearly outweigh them’. It is not there. This is another time my opponent has lied about what her sources say.


Rebuttals

Foreign interaction

“…but even recognizing the problem [of racism] is much better than pretending it does not exist.

This is addressed under ‘Racism’; you cannot make people non-racist.



“It has been found that bilingualism in itself indeed has positive effects on the brain.”

There are benefits to bilingualism, but the negatives are discussed earlier under ‘A2: Language barriers’.



Forced full assimilation

“The examples of Aboriginals in Canada, America, and Australia clearly show the cultural imperialist nature of forced assimilation: in Canada for example, Aboriginal children were wrenched from their parents into residential 'schools' where they were malnourished, beaten, and even sexually abused- something that the Aboriginals greatly objected against [4].”

My opponent argues for my side of the debate by essentially arguing that Aboriginal people of different countries were invaded by other people who did not fully assimilate! Assimilation involves the foreigners adapting to the country (i.e. the non-Aboriginal people). This full assimilation did not happen, and my opponent shows you the results.

“As in the examples of Japan and Sweden, having a monoculture encourages racism due to cultural beliefs…”

Racism is a biological product, addressed under ‘Racism’.

Academic success

“…family environment, which is based heavily on culture, is a significant factor.”

A “significant factor” = 10%? I will let the audience decide for themselves.

“…multicultural environment attracts more immigrants, which in turn would attract East-Asians who …do better academically, which contributes to the economy.

…and brings about cultural tension, which my opponent has already conceded. Besides, a country could adopt a mono-culture without having to import East-Asians; this is a debate on cultural homogeneity, not racial homogeneity.


Natural divisions

Race =/= culture.

References

[1] http://williameasterly.files.wordpress.com...

[2] http://www.rrojasdatabank.info...

[3] http://rationalwiki.org...

[4] http://www.nizkor.org...

[5] http://www.nizkor.org...

[6] http://www.theguardian.com...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
rikomalpense

Con

Rebuttals

Interactions with other cultures

" It [interaction with other cultures] not "inevitable"; we are arguing whether it should happen!!"

No, we are arguing whether full cultural assimilation should occur within a particular country. In the modern-day globalized world, interaction with other cultures is inevitable. In 2009, for example, around 10% of the American population (around 30 million) traveled overseas, 85.4% for leisure and 21.2% for business (with some travelling for both) [1]. Meanwhile, in 2013, around 70 million tourists visited the United States [2]. And of course, this is not taking in account interaction with other cultures through the use of the Internet. It is doubtful whether any modern-day resident of a First World country would never interact with another culture, even if full cultural assimilation were to occur on a nation-wide scale.

As I mentioned, I do not claim that interaction with a different culture is identical to living with one. However, as again I stated previously, living with another culture is conducive towards interacting with another culture. This will be expanded on later in the "Natural racism?" section.

"Whether opinions differ within cultures is irrelevant to whether they differ against different cultures."

It is, in fact, relevant. Full assimilation is superfluous if differing opinions within a culture may be just as diverse as between cultures. Given the difficulty that would be involved with forcing immigrants to fully assimilate culturally, it would be positive for the host country to avoid it if possible. (For example, residential schools for Aboriginals in Canada that went on for decades still did not succeed in fully assimilating all Aboriginals. [3])

Natural racism?

Pro claims that due there being a strong correlation between people dividing based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences, that racism is natural. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. To begin with, it has been found that the large majority of genes are employed in "responding to environmental signals." [4]. In other words, the environment plays a large role in what we do: if we are taught not to be intolerant, we will be much more likely to not be intolerant than if we were not. It was found, for example, that the amygdalas (associated with emotion, specifically the detection of threats) of those who had racially diverse peers reacted less than those who didn't. [5]

Furthermore, there is often more genetic variation within so-called 'races' than outside of them [6] [7]. There is more genetic diversity in Africa, who are all supposedly part of the 'black' race, than outside of it [8].

Humans may possibly be naturally mistrusting of others, but it can be clearly mitigated through education. It is positive for the host country to have more tolerant citizens, given the inevitable foreign interaction mentioned above. As well, countries in the modern-day rely on imports and exports to grow and remain strong, and if that interaction is harmed through unchecked xenophobia, it's harmful for the country. Certainly, people could be simply taught that racism and xenophobia is bad, but the effects are weak against actively living with those of different cultures and learning through experience.

Correlation
There is always some amount of uncertainty involved with correlations, meaning that it is incorrect to claim that something is definitely causing another. I accept that it is likely , however, and recognize that there is evidence. I have already conceded that people often prefer people of the same culture, but it is irrelevant to the rest of my argument.

Bilingualism

"Fewer to what degree?"

It is impossible to predict to what degree without actively implementing the program in itself, but judging from the bilinguality of Canada compared to America as mentioned in the previous round, it can be presumed that it would have a fair positive effect.

"Users from foreign countries" = potential immigrants; this has everything to do with the debate.

No, it does not. Pro fails to take in account that immigrants, once immersed in English culture, improve their English significantly according to her very source as mentioned in the previous round, meaning that the English proficiency skills prior to this point cannot be claimed to be identical to the English proficiency skills of immigrants.

"This is another time my opponent has lied about what her sources say."

I did not put the phrase "clearly outweigh them" in quotation marks because it was not a direct quotation. The source states, in full:

"The cognitive and neurological benefits of bilingualism extend from early childhood to old age as the brain more efficiently processes information and staves off cognitive decline. What"s more, the attention and aging benefits discussed above aren"t exclusive to people who were raised bilingual; they are also seen in people who learn a second language later in life.The enriched cognitive control that comes along with bilingual experience represents just one of the advantages that bilingual people enjoy. Despite certain linguistic limitations that have been observed in bilinguals (e.g., increased naming difficulty), bilingualism has been associated with improved metalinguistic awareness (the ability to recognize language as a system that can be manipulated and explored), as well as with better memory, visual-spatial skills, and even creativity. Furthermore, beyond these cognitive and neurological advantages, there are also valuable social benefits that come from being bilingual, among them the ability to explore a culture through its native tongue or talk to someone with whom you might otherwise never be able to communicate. The cognitive, neural, and social advantages observed in bilingual people highlight the need to consider how bilingualism shapes the activity and the architecture of the brain, and ultimately how language is represented in the human mind, especially since the majority of speakers in the world experience life through more than one language." [9]

Stating that the numerous positive effects of bilingualism outweigh the negative effects is a simple conclusion from examining the number of positive effects as compared to the negative ones, and the general tone of the writer.

Should I state that my opponent has lied above her sources as well, because she states that "most foreign learners of English know around 2,500-9000 [words]"? Nowhere on her sources is it claimed that this is so. It is said that "they've found" that the most common vocabulary size for foreign learners is that. It is a clear lie to claim that most foreign learners of English know that much, especially since on their very site they point out that their analysis is limited [10].

Making conclusions from information provided in sources is not unreasonable.

Re-rebuttals

Foreign interaction

"You cannot make people non-racist."
Addressed in the section "Natural racism?".

"... the negatives [of bilingualism] are discussed earlier..."
Addressed in the section "This is another time my opponent has lied about what her sources say."

Full forced assimilation

" Aboriginal people of different countries were invaded by other people who did not fully assimilate!"

The point of the example was to show how full cultural assimilation can be borne of the idea of cultural imperialism. Furthermore, as stated in Round 1, I do not argue that that no assimilation is necessary, but that full assimilation is not. The example of Aboriginals and Europeans simply supports my point that at least some amount of assimilation is necessary, and it cannot be claimed that full assimilation would have been better in the long run over partial assimilation on the part of the Europeans.

"Racism is a biological product, addressed under "Racism".
Addressed in "Natural racism?".

Academic Success
"Besides, a country could adopt a mono-culture without having to import East-Asians..."
Certainly, but changes in culture take time: just look at how long it took for interracial marriages, to give an example, to be accepted within American society [11]. East-Asians already have that culture, which means that they immediately contribute.

Natural divisions

Race =/= culture but Pro has not shown that whether people of different races assimilating into a single culture will remove or significantly reduce racism. If it does not, the assimilation of people of different races into a single culture is superfluous.

In conclusion...

This world is globalized, and so foreign interaction is inevitable. Although tensions due to different cultures is unavoidable, it is important to mitigate them to ease foreign interaction. Living diversely can mitigate those tensions.

[1] http://travel.trade.gov...
[2] http://skift.com...
[3] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca...
[4] http://www.discoversociety.org...
[5] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://www.quora.com...
[8] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[10] http://testyourvocab.com...
[11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, Rikomalpense.


Since my opponent has continued to present new information this last round, I should be entitled to do the same.


Affirmative Case: Continuations

A1: People prefer other people of the same culture; having different cultural identities creates disunity

My opponent has conceded that cultural differences create disunity, unease and tension within a country. However, the ramifications of this can vary. Whilst separation within communities is the weakest form of these, outright hatred is the strongest, as I showed you last round (with the Muslim responses to Southpark).

Let me be clear before I make this argument: I do not hate Muslims or Islam. I am merely showing you that Islamic culture struggles to assimilate into different countries, and vice versa. It is a great example of what happens when cultural tensions are high.

Cultural differences can create outright hatred between people. Consider the relationship between Muslim groups and some parts of the rest of the world. In a specific example, “41% of the general public in Spain says most or many Muslims in their country support Islamic extremists. But just 12% of Spain’s Muslims say most or many of the country’s Muslims support extremists like Al Qaeda” [2]. See the high tension?

Other examples of serious problems is that in 2006, “29% of Jordanians view[ed] suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified” [2]. Another statistic from 2006, “61% of Nigeria’s Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden” [2]. Have a look at what these statistics do to the relationship between Muslims and Westerners:



It is not that either culture is inferior. It is not that some Muslims and some Westerners cannot be friendly to each other. It is that these cultures living together cause serious damage. Recently, it only took one Islamic Extremist to bring Sydney to a standstill [9]. It is differing cultures that create these atrocities.


My comment: " It [interaction with other cultures] not "inevitable"; we are arguing whether it should happen!!"


“No, we are arguing whether full cultural assimilation should occur within a particular country. In the modern-day globalized world, interaction with other cultures is inevitable…”

In this argument made numerous times by my opponent, my opponent continually uses incorrect, conflated definitions which results in circular reasoning. This is why she incorrectly paraphrases my quote with “interaction” instead of “living”. The definition given by my opponent was:

“Immigrants: People who've migrated to another country permanently or for a relatively long period of time.”

The underlined implies that they are living in that country, not simply interacting (interacting, as I explained, could happen for far less time). Without this incorrect conflation, my opponent’s argument here becomes: because living with other cultures in inevitable, we should allow other cultures to come into our country. This is a circular argument because the premise is embedded within the conclusion, hence it is fallacious [1].


“It is, in fact, relevant. Full assimilation is superfluous if differing opinions within a culture may be just as diverse as between cultures.”

The majority of the time, that will not be the case (and so with the burden of proof equal, I win this point). A person born into Islamic culture of Saudi Arabia (culture involving Sharia Law, Hilal food, anti-gay marriage etc.) will, on average, have a far different culture to someone in New Zealand (Criminal court law, animal rights, legal gay marriage). Even if someone from New Zealand’s cultural background is very similar to someone’s in Saudi Arabia’s, then he or she will have little trouble immigrating, and thus this leaves my opponent’s point defunct.

Natural racism (also involving points under ‘Academic Success’ and ‘Natural Divisions’)

My opponent seems to think that forcing people of different races together creates less tension. This is not the case. Similar to what happened with cultural differences, let me give you a diverse range of examples.

For example, in 2002, 58% of Mexicans thought that the U.S.A belonged to Mexico [4].

Another example? In 2005, 72% of American Blacks were in favour of Affirmative Action for minority groups, whilst 49% of American whites opposed [5]:


For monetary compensation for slavery, “67% of Blacks support it whilst 4% of Whites did, too.” [6]

In Korea, “according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare… 1.72 children per every 1,000 from multicultural families are exposed to such violence. The rate is about three times higher than that of children born to Korean parents - 0.55 per 1,000” [8].

The common factor between these different examples: race.


“it has been found that the large majority of genes are employed in "responding to environmental signals” … that the amygdalas (associated with emotion, specifically the detection of threats) of those who had racially diverse peers reacted less than those who didn't.”

Here, my opponent concedes my point. The fact that despite racial diversity, people are only reacting less shows that racism is natural, albeit capable of being lessened. You will find this means that whilst people do not react in a racist way, they still have racist feelings, hence my studies’ findings that my opponent has largely ignored.


“Furthermore, there is often more genetic variation within so-called 'races' than outside of them”

People’s racist feelings towards others are based on outward appearance, not inner genetics. You could not say that these races look the same:


“There is more genetic diversity in Africa, who are all supposedly part of the 'black' race, than outside of it”

That is because “black” is not technically a race (think of all the different types of blacks); it is too broad a term.


My opponent claimed that racial tension is something that can be lessened through education and immersion within other races. I negated this with my .75 comprehensive study [7, page 31]. My opponent has not responded to this comprehensive study with anything more than pointing out that the correlation is not 1.0. At best they are going to hide their inherent racial preference (until an anonymous poll comes along). At worst, you are going to have race wars, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Overall, this has the same overall negative effects to multiculturalism. This destroys the idea that we should mix races together to make people less racist and more inviting of other cultures. It is unfortunate that this is the case, but it is the truth.

Correlation Issue

My opponent has essentially dismissed my correlation examples based on not harbouring 100% certainty. I have shown moderate to very highly correlated studies which support exactly what I was arguing. For example, the 0.81 and 0.88 are considered on the top-end of “highly correlated” [3]. As I argued, there is a super strong chance of my arguments being correct, especially since I referenced multiple studies (reference no. 7). Simply because I have not shown 1.0 correlation, my opponent moves the goal-posts and dismisses my arguments. I ask you, as the voter, to consider how fair this is.

A2: Language barriers


My quote: "Users from foreign countries" = potential immigrants; this has everything to do with the debate.


“No, it does not. Pro fails to take in account that immigrants, once immersed in English culture, improve their English significantly…”

But this is the thing: one immersed in English culture. Until then, they are a massive burden in social interactions and to the taxpayer (if your country adopts free English lessons, like my opponent suggested).

Then, as my source suggested, the best ESL people have vocabularies of less than half of English only speakers, and the worst have around 5%. My opponent recently claimed that I lied about my source, but I referenced the +-10% variance they thought the study had. As to why else she thinks it is too limited to use? We do not know; she did not reference that part.

As for Con’s source that I did not address last round, whilst there are cognitive benefits to bilingualism, as shown above and in other arguments, there are far more damaging negative aspects of allowing immigrants to not fully assimilate. This is why despite these benefits, since the burden of proof is shared, immigrants should still be required to fully assimilate.

My opponent’s disastrous Aboriginal Persons example


My quote: “Aboriginal people of different countries were invaded by other people who did not fully assimilate!"


“The point of the example was to show how full cultural assimilation can be borne of the idea of cultural imperialism...

Again, with this example, she has it the wrong way around: the invaders are the ones not integrating, not the Aboriginals. How can my opponent talk about full cultural assimilation when it is about absolutely zero cultural assimilation? Again, this serves as a very good reason that immigrants should be fully integrated, or else these “cultural imperialists” will try and force their culture upon Aboriginal Peoples and other mother-cultures.

Please remember that the burden of proof is shared

Thank you Rikomalpense for this debate, and thank you for reading this debate :)


References

[1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

[2] http://www.pewglobal.org...

[3] http://www.andrews.edu...

[4] https://www.numbersusa.com...

[5] http://www.gallup.com...

[6] http://law.jrank.org...

[7] http://www.rrojasdatabank.info...

[8] http://www.koreatimes.co.kr...

[9] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
http://angermanagement.ca...

You're welcome =)
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
You do realize that I asked Blade-Of-Truth to give a vote a couple weeks ago? And his RFD was well-explained and understandable, which wouldn't give me any reason to object, unlike with the previous vote, which was less clear. You're terribly childish. But I'm sure you'll get past your blindness to your hypocrisy once you grow up a little.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Better luck next time, riko ;)
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Another vote against riko? Queue the incoming angry riko comment, lol xD
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@riko

Haha. You're quite angry, not just irritated. Part of being mature is being able to handle reality, but you seem to have developed a bit (since you can admit that you're irritated).

I am civil in my discourse with voters. The fact that you decided to lash out and say that the voter didn't understand what you said indicates you are not on par with my level of maturity (not that this can be expected of you).

Oh and btw, the way you are projecting your own anger onto my actions is another problem that will vanish in time with maturity.
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
@Zarrotte Irritated, certainly. But trust me, your hypocrisy is nothing compared to what you see elsewhere on the Net.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@riko

Lol!!! You can't admit that you lost your temper xD
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
@Zarrotte You're the one who attacked me, friend. All I did was criticize the voter's RFV, which I hoped would lead to them clarifying their stance. The only one getting heated here is you.
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
@16kadams Alright, I get ya then. :)
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
"Maybe learn to take defeat yourself before attempting to criticize others."

Says the girl who is getting heated over losing here, so she's criticising others. It's a lot easier on Tumblr, cupcake. Maybe you should return...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
rikomalpenseZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate S&G. Arguments - Pro. Due to this being a split BOP debate, Con's multiple conceded points automatically tip the scale in favor of Pro. Furthermore, Pro pointed out numerous fallacies that were committed by Con. This can be seen in Con's attempt to match association with causation and Con's attempt at shifting the goalposts. Given the evidence provided by both sides, I'm left with the conclusion that fully assimilating culturally is indeed good for the host country. Among the reasons already given, Pro additionally showed that racism is natural, Pro flipped the aboriginals argument given by Con to actually hinder Con's case. There are several other minor lines of argumentation given throughout, but with so much already favoring Pro, it's clear that Pro won arguments. Sources - Pro. Both had high quality and quantity in terms of sourcing, but I found Con's selective quoting to be a violation of proper sourcing.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
rikomalpenseZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly Con dropping the case of people liking people similar to them ruins his chances of winning. I mean, it doesn't matter why people hate each other, what the government can do about it, it exists. And it won't go away. It's wrong, sure, but its true. So people from different cultures should, in fact, should assimilate as assimilation will reduce racial, religious, or social tensions created by a host of people from other cultures coming into the country. Dropping this point really harms Con's overall case. Further, as Pro pointed out, some cultures have extremists within them. For example, the single terrorist who caused the large city of Sydney a huge headache. Obviously those specific people should assimilate. Not only to reduce the headache, but so that people are not harmed. So extremists obviously should assimilate. Con also argues for immigrants to be good at speaking English... they have to be immersed in English culture... aka assimilation... I vote Pro.