The Instigator
AmericanPatriot76
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UtherPenguin
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The US should not be taking in the Refugees from the Syria due to the high risk of terror activity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
UtherPenguin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 82744
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

AmericanPatriot76

Pro

this shall be a serious debate

only facts and opinions that have solid evidence behinds it shall be used

cursing shall not be permitted until the final round

trolls will be reported as well as spammers

all arguments will be considered before voting and all sources will have to be cited
UtherPenguin

Con

I accept (assuming the first round is just for acceptance)

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

First off welcome,

my opening argument is this: given the state of world after the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Paris, France the security of a nation's people has to be the leading political party's main objective. now that being said when a nation like America, one of the leading world powers in the UN (United Nations for those who don't know ) starts to take in thousands out refugee's from a foreign nation whose wars have driven them form their homelands there is a high likely hood that many of those refugee's may be sleeper agents of a terrorist group or movement. if said sleeper agents were to gain access to the area's that they have designated as targets such as college campus's, inner city area's and essential buildings for everyday life.

that ends my first argument. what say you my opponent?
UtherPenguin

Con

Thanks to Con for accepting me into this debate, here are my arguments. Since this only the second round, I’ll go with only two arguments for now.

1. Refugees are not a security threat.

One of the primary concerns with allowing the refugees into the country is the fear that various terror groups like ISIS and Al Nusra will infiltrate the refugee lines and enter America, hence spawning another attack like the recent ones in Paris and Mali. Leading to the passing of bills designed to limit the flow of refugees into the country [1]

To address pro’s point:

here is a high likely hood that many of those refugee's may be sleeper agents of a terrorist group or movement. if said sleeper agents were to gain access to the area's that they have designated as targets such as college campus's, inner city area's and essential buildings for everyday life.

Yet to this day, no ISIS related attacks can be directly linked to the Syrian refugees, the suspected were not even apart of the refugees, neither were they of Syrian descent. In fact, all of the suspects as of now were European-born citizens, mostly from Belgium. This is what prompted a “terror alert” within Brussels shortly after the shooting [2].

As of now, there is no evidence directly linking the Syrian refugees with *any* of the recent attacks in Paris, Beirut or Mali. Hence it makes little sense to blame them for the attacks.

Secondly, if terror groups like ISIS or Al Nusra wanted to infiltrate the west, taking the Refugee’s route would be ineffective, unlikely and too risky to maneuver. It would be far easier for them to simply take a fake passport, hop on a plane, and be in any country of their choosing in a matter of hours. The United States has some of the most strict counter-terrorist policies in the world, taking an average of 18 months for the average refugee to enter the country. If ISIL wanted to infiltrate the US through the refugee route, it would be long, ineffective and met with an abysmally low success rate.

Sources:

  1. http://www.cnn.com...
  2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
  3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
  4. https://www.whitehouse.gov...

2. Isolation would encourage further radicalization

Terrorism is defined as

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Note that the purpose of terror in this situation is to intimidate the opponent. The attacks carried out are not just made for the purpose of senseless violence, but to gain a psychological reaction within the opponent. Sparking mass hysteria, and leading the opponent to committing rash and fool-hardy decision in the midst of an emotional reaction. [1]

The attacks made in Paris, Mali and Beirut were done for this specific purpose. The timing of the event played out just as the Syrian Refugee Crisis was gaining large scale, international coverage, and when countries within the EU were still divided on what action would need to take place. By having attacks at this time specifically, the following months would see an increase in anti-refugee sentiment.

This can already be seen in the US, with the Republican party advocating a stop to the flow of refugees. With Ben Carson advocating for all programs towards the refugees to be discontinued, at one point, likening the refugees to dogs [4].

To prevent the refugees from entering the US, or any other country, would leave these people with nowhere else to go. Syria is far too unstable for them to return to, camps in Jordan, Turkey and neighbouring countries are filling up quickly. ISIS is using this opportunity to radicalize these groups, and doing so would require as division and isolation as possible.

Sources:
1. https://www.youtube.com...
2. https://www.youtube.com...
3. http://www.activistpost.com...
4. http://www.politico.com...

Debate Round No. 2
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

i thank my adversary for giving me a challenge. your research was very solid and has caused me to rethink my second argument.

but i found a few holes in a few arguments from Uther.

1. you stated that at this point in time that "no ISIS related attacks can be directly linked to the Syrian refugees, the suspected were not even apart of the refugees, neither were they of Syrian descent. In fact, all of the suspects as of now were European-born citizens, mostly from Belgium. This is what prompted a "terror alert" within Brussels shortly after the shooting [2]" which is very accurate. But, just because they authorities in Paris found the terrorists of Belgian descent doesn't mean that they did not sympathize or even made contact with those within ISIS who are of Syrian descent.

2. According to CNN (i am paraphrasing here) " 31 states have declared that they will not help in the relocation of Syrian refugees on American soil due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening". Now with that being said there is also the idea that there is tension and grudges still held by those who believe that the middle east conflict that has been going on now has taken too many lives and resent anyone who is from that region.

3. there is a lot of opposition from one political party, the Republican party. now i am only touching on this so lets not blow up which side is right and which side is wrong. Being a Republican myself and hearing the views of other Republicans around me in my daily life, my understanding is that the people are actually worried about their lives, family, and the fate of this nation. And unfortuantely seeing how the Democratic party is for bringing in the Refugees there is an obvious opposition on this. the point im making here is that the timing of the influx of refugees is not right for the U.S. or its people.

at this point in time, it is a very bad time to bring in more people who could end up being associated with any terrorist cell.

besides, even if the Federal government passes it, the states have to verify it and with close to 67% of the United states opposing it there is going to be trouble for them ressetling them.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
UtherPenguin

Con

This round I’ll make rebuttals to my opponent’s rebuttals, my additional and final arguments will be in the next round.

R1: “But, just because they authorities in Paris found the terrorists of Belgian descent doesn't mean that they did not sympathize or even made contact with those within ISIS who are of Syrian descent.

However, just because some ISIS terrorists may be of Syrian descent, it doesn’t justify fears towards all the Syrian refugees in general. In the previous part of the argument, Con had made a concession in regards to the Paris shooters being Belgian citizens, which in turn only shows how little the Syrian refugees actually have connection to ISIS. Hence, Pro’s argument here had done little to disprove my point.

R2: “According to CNN (i am paraphrasing here) " 31 states have declared that they will not help in the relocation of Syrian refugees on American soil due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening". Now with that being said there is also the idea that there is tension and grudges still held by those who believe that the middle east conflict that has been going on now has taken too many lives and resent anyone who is from that region.

As seen in the quote ( “due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening”) The primary fear of these states come from the Paris attacks, and the concern that allowing the refugees will result in an attack similar to Texas. This is the exact concern I addressed in my first argument. As evidence had shown previously, the Syrian refugees had no direct connections to ISIS or similar groups. It takes the average refugee 2 years to be allowed entrance into the United States, if a terrorist wanted to infiltrate the west, they would be way more effective taking a fake visa and entering any country of choice within hours.

R3: “there is a lot of opposition from one political party, the Republican party. now i am only touching on this so lets not blow up which side is right and which side is wrong. Being a Republican myself and hearing the views of other Republicans around me in my daily life, my understanding is that the people are actually worried about their lives, family, and the fate of this nation. And unfortuantely seeing how the Democratic party is for bringing in the Refugees there is an obvious opposition on this. the point im making here is that the timing of the influx of refugees is not right for the U.S. or its people.

Pro in this argument has committed the “bandwagon fallacy”, An argument in which the popularity of an opinion is used to justify the position. Or in other words “because Idea X is popular, therefore Idea X is true”

This can be seen when Pro states the large number of opposition to the argument in the beginning of the paragraph.

(Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org... )

Debate Round No. 3
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

AmericanPatriot76 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

AmericanPatriot76 forfeited this round.
UtherPenguin

Con

*drops mic*
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Smoke weed every day. (obvs concession... remove my vote at your peril.)

[*Reason for removal*] Two forfeits in a debate don't constitute a full concession of the debate. Arguments were made by both sides, those arguments stopped at R3. If the voter wants to vote based on arguments, he's welcome to do so, but that requires analysis of the arguments presented.
************************************************************************
Posted by HomelySherlock 1 year ago
HomelySherlock
You need statistics, Pro
Should be an interesting debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
AmericanPatriot76UtherPenguinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con because Pro forfeited. Arguments: Con's were more logical, straightforward, and strong. Pro's were somewhat fallacious and unconvincing. Sources: Con was the only one to use sources to back claims. Clear win for Con.