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

Should Britain Take More Refugees?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 80278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The Refugee Crisis Is Huge Throughout Europe. Should Britain Do More?


I accept. I don' think Britain should do more.
Debate Round No. 1


Hundreds of Thousands of refugees have escaped turture, murder and many other things to come to europe. They need a home. Germany has taken 800,000 and the best britain can do is 20,000 over the next five years. I believe we should be doing all we can as is our duty as humans to support these refugees and accept them into our country.


Britain has no obligation to help the Syrian refugees. The Syrian refugees come from a region that is controlled by the Islamic State. By letting these refugees in, Britain is seriously putting it's national security at risk. This war was going on since 2011, so why is it suddenly that all of them want to become refugees? It's just a plan by ISIS to hide in the refugee horde, and spread radical Islam across the globe. Europe already is under attack by Islam, and by making it easier for terrorists, they are just making the problem worse.

So, what do I propose? I'm not saying that we should do nothing to help these people, countries like Saudi Arabia have done nothing to help these people, and it's their responsibilty has regional powers to take charge and help. The West can send in aid and supplies to help them, but that all I support.;
Debate Round No. 2


So what youre saying is that every refugee is an Isis agent. There are people out there who need a home, they need support that britain can give. Sending aid to syria is good but how is it going to help the millions already in europe. Would you force them to return home to face persecution and torture. Would you just let them flounder in europe short of food and vital equipment. Im not saying britain should take them all but we should step up to the plate and join germany in setting the standard for other countries to follow.

To the person I am debating. This is not a political or an economic matter but a moral one. If we want to be a kind, caring society then we should act like one.


My source from last round

No, Im not saying that all Syrian Refugees are ISIS agents.

There are millions of people who need a home. How come nobody says anything about them? Give a me a reason why we should specifically care about these refugees? In my opinion helping our national security is more important. I have given reasons why. You haven't really explained why we must, except you are making an appeal to emotion argument.

That's all I have to say.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
RFD Conclusion:

Pro never makes a strong impact. He stuck to moral claims, without worrying himself over the nation's security.

Con made at least two strong cases (national security and where the duty really lies.) Pro does little to address the formal, sticking to a misrepresentation of Con's case, and literally did not address the latter claim. The latter claim, on it's own, it a winning argument.

Con wins.

Some advice for Pro... Drop morality. It means nothing. Morality doesn't determine what's right when playing a game of politics and economics. A moral choice can crash the market. This is why moral cases hold little to no impact. A moral choice that has majorly bad effects is a bad choice. And morality is relative, so while you think Britain has the moral obligation to help someone, everyone can think it's moral obligation is to it's people first.

For Con, read over your arguments and consider where to expand them. Like I said earlier, you brought up the homeless problem in Britain, but never expanded on it (saying Britain can't take care of refugees if it can't manage it's own internal problems.) Never accept the first draft of an argument, it can always get better.

For both sides, use sources, and [1]'s to point them to their respective arguments. Also, for Con, don't make large claims without sourcing. Sources a vital for larger claims to stand up (like saying Isis is plotting to use the refugees.).
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
RFD: I do not hand out S&G or Conduct.

R2: Pro starts only by arguing the it is our duty as humans to take in refugees. This has weak impact as it never explains why it is our duty. It begs the question. I can't be be expected to rationalize Pro's arguments for him.
Con makes a weak case as well in his opening. His claims that it's not our duty because we are putting our national security at risk. That is a strong case, but he follows it by claiming it's an ISIS plot. He doesn't source this claim at all... An extreme case must be sourced to stand, or it becomes unsustainable. How is it a plot? The second argument brings more to the table, claiming that the duty lies with the regional authorities, not the West.

R3: Pro starts by claiming that not all refugees are terrorists. This is weak, as Con never said they all were. Simply that ISIS is hiding agents in the horde. Con's case still stands, as it being a national security issue is dropped. Pro then asserts a massive appeal to emotion, asking why Con would 'force them to return home to face persecution and torture'... This is a case of not addressing the net benefit. One bad verses another. Pro then says this isn't a political case, but a moral one. However, this is entirely political... Politics is debating on what a nation should do. This is a fairly clear case of false dichotomy. Either it's Moral, Political, or Economic. Here, it's all three.
Pro addresses the point I made about not saying all refugees are terrorists. He then explains that targeting refugees while Britain's own homeless are ignored is bad. While it assumes you have to pick one, it does bring up a good point. Inviting homeless into a society that can't manage it's own homeless problem. However, Con didn't bring that up. Con did address that national security is more important.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years 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: RFD in comments.