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

Immigration from Muslim countries is a threat for the Western values and culture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 77020
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




First round is for confirming only.


Debate accepted.

Firstly, I'd like to point out how Con has failed to clarify the terms of this debate and define exactly what they mean by "western values and culture". However, to keep it simple I'll assume that he is referring exclusively to western countries that uphold non-Islamic values. So my argument will essentially be about the differences between culture and values synonymous with western countries and those that are synonymous with Islamic countries. As Pro, I will obviously contend that Muslim immigration as it currently is, is in fact a threat to western countries and therefore western values and culture.

Opening argument:

I now will begin by examining the fundamental differences between Islamic [Muslim] culture and Western culture--which mainly alludes to cultures within Europe, America, Australia and additionally certain parts of Asia. Western countries are predominantly all secular, even countries that have historically held strong religious ties, such as Italy, now have an exclusively secular form of governance. Whereas a number of Islamic countries are still experiencing severe problems in the separation of church and state, the main example being Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even places such as Egypt and Syria which technically have the most tolerant form of governance's in the Middle East, experience large sectarian issues and internal religious and/or ethnic conflicts. [1.]

Thus, there is once again a significant difference between Muslim majority countries and countries in the West. Religious conflict in the west was something that declined hundreds of years ago, which takes us to exactly what "western" values now are. Generally, our values are based on Greco-Roman ideals that derive from the Enlightenment period. These kind of values include democracy, equality--and more specifically, laws based on equality, liberty, rationalism, and of course, secular governance.

Instead of being able to select what kind of values and lifestyle choices appeal to them; which is again the essence of western civilization, all Muslims are required to adhere to "Sharia law". Which differs greatly to Western law[s] due to the fact it is based exclusively on religion and has no elements of secular teaching within it. According to Western law, Sharia law actually violates the rights of people. Laws that are categorized as criminal offenses in Sharia include unlawful sexual intercourse and even alcohol consumption, and legally warrant specific punishments known as "hadd" [2.]

These kind of punishments include stoning, amputation, exile, or direct execution--things that entirely contradict and go against western laws and values. In fact, western law neither considers sexual intercourse outside of marriage or relationships or consumption of alcohol "illegal". On the contrary, it considers the Islamic punishments for these Sharia crimes to be against the law. The subject of women's rights within Sharia is also wholly controversial and directly at odds with western values and culture. For example, a man is entitled to have up to five wives but a woman may only have one husband, a man can divorce his wife without her legal consent--whereas for a woman to divorce a man, she requires his consent which is known as the "khula".

Other restrictions upon women include not being able to own joint property [I.E the man must have ownership over all of it] and the fact there is no specific age for marriage. In most western cultures, both males and females are required to by 16-18 to marry, whereas as in Islam a girl can be married before becoming a teenager [3.]

Sharia Law also explicitly states that a woman requires male permission to:

"Leave the house, take up employment, or to engage in fasting or forms of worship other than what is obligatory."

Likewise, women who are unmarried are under the guardianship of their nearest male relative.

The importance of Sharia Law in this debate is maintained by all practicing Muslims and therefore Muslim immigrants, and to highlight once more; it fully stands against the values that are upheld by the west and laws that exist. Under western law, women are granted equal rights to men and are protected from gender discrimination. The main examples being that a woman may marry and divorce without male consent, have employment without male permission, as well as being able to share or have full ownership of a property.

Now onto western countries and exactly what has taken place as regards uncontrolled Islamic immigration. European countries such as France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the U.K have particularly experienced issues with Muslim immigrants due to how many of them have failed to integrate properly into their societies. France has had huge problems with Muslim violence, the French city of Marseilles for has a 40% Muslim population [which makes up almost half of its inhabitants] and is now considered to be the most violent city in Europe [4.]

Sweden has also had significant difficulties with an increasing Muslim population and violence that has been caused as a result of it. In 2013 there was numerous riots took place in Stockholm, once again in immigrant-dominated areas of the city. [5.]

This connects directly to problems that have arisen because of Muslim immigration and the negative impact it has had on western society as a whole. These kind of cases of violence and failure to assimilate have naturally led to a certain anti-Muslim sentiment in the west, which is only compounded by the continuing waves of immigration. Concerning other countries, the Muslim immigration populated has increased dramatically in the United States and is expected to reach 6.2 million by 2030 [6.]

In the U.K the Muslim population grew by 75% in 10 years and as with the U.S, will no doubt increase further [7.]

Alluding again to France, even "no-go" zones have surfaced in Muslim-majority areas of France [8.]

Therefore, with of all these facts combined--one can most certainly conclude that Muslim immigration as it currently stands is a threat to western values and culture. Anything that doesn't integrate properly or challenges the upheld structure and laws in place, can be categorized as a threat.
Debate Round No. 1


Jstencl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Jstencl forfeited this round.


Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TruthWillOut 1 year ago
Nice to see someone who can cite 'alternative media outlets'! Careful though darlin'... Keep arguing in favour of saying NO to those who cannot and will not integrate and you might find yourself some militant PC resistance. ;)

But seriously, well put together argument...
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Ohh no ;/ I put my argument up first...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
zombie invasion, sweden is gone from what i hear, england to
Posted by Atheist-Independent 1 year ago
On the contrary, it strengthens their previously xenophobic and discriminatory nature! (Not to say that ONLY western culture harbors xenophobia, all of them do.)
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
You may wish to define Western Values and Cultures in R1, so as to avoid examples of small ones that are threatened by it, and it generally not being a threat becoming irrelevant.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con. As such, Con was unable to present any arguments. Ergo, I award conduct and arguments to Pro, who presented a strong constructive as to some problems with Sharia Law, and correlation between lack of strong immigration laws, et cetera.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
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: Con had no objections to Pro. Con had no arguments at all and forfeited round 2 and round 3. Pro by default made more convincing arguments. Arguments to Pro.