The Instigator
ruairi50
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vardaanbhat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 89136
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ruairi50

Pro

I believe that the United States would be doing their citizens a disservice by accepting Syrian refugees.

Context: President Obama has said to the people of the United States that we will accept 10,000 refugees from war torn Syria. This has been met with staunch opposition from most Republicans and even some people from the President's own party.

Rules:
1. First Round is only for acceptance and making a basic statement on your view.
2. No forfeiting.
3. Be respectful, site your sources or post the links at the end of each round, make clear, valid points.
4. No trolling.

Format:
Round 1: Acceptance of debate
Round 2: Intro into your argument, offer a broad outline of your main points with sources you plan to use outright.
Round 3: Counter-Argument/Further main points, use this round to further your main points or in order to argue against my main points. (Post any additional sources)
Round 4: Conclusion and closing statements
vardaanbhat

Con

Open and free immigration (i.e., individualism) is the solution to this problem.

Point 1:
It is completely wrong to deny innocent people freedom and opportunity; it is wrong to deny them entry into the "free and promised land." By saying that immigration should be restricted, you are denying the rights of millions of humans.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ruairi50

Pro

Thanks for accepting.

Our nation is under constant threat. Few areas of the world propose a larger threat than that of Syria. ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups have been running rampant in the region for years now. They are potential threats that we cannot take lightly.

Currently there is no way to ensure that we would be safe if there were terrorists in the lot of refugees. It would be impossible to predict who is and who isn't a terrorist. This has been reiterated by plenty, including FBI director James Comey, who has said that "we can only query against that which we have collected and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them." Being that Syria is a literal intelligence hell hole, it would be impossible to vet these people.

So what would the vetting process come down to if we have no real information on the people we are trying to bring into our country? It would come down to a series of weak testing. As Time magazine describes in the article I'll link at the end, the refugees would be interviewed and their information will be run through criminal databases. But if they never made a "ripple in the pond in Syria," there will be no information to verify that they are genuine asylum seekers and not terrorists.

There is simply no way to verify the asylum seekers. As Eric Bolling said in a great analogy yesterday on Fox News, would you drink a cup of coffee if you knew there was a single virus in it? Of course not! The temporary reward and good feeling would be shattered by the incoming disease and suffering. It is not a risk we should take when it comes to our friends and families. We should not put ourselves in harms way.

Sources:

Http://www.youtube.com.... "Jim Comey Testifies on Syrian Refugees." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016
Link to make it easier: https://www.youtube.com...

Altman, Alex. "This Is How the Syrian Refugee Screening Process Works." Time. Time, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016
Link to make it easier: http://time.com...
vardaanbhat

Con

It is both completely wrong and anti-American to base a law that could harm millions of people based off of a partial result (drawing absolutes from majorities).

The fact that some Syrian refugees are terrorists is not enough grounds to ban millions of innocent people from entering our nation.

Lastly, criminals and terrorists who truly will use brute force to achieve their means are ignorant to the law; they will always find an alternate means of entering a country.
Debate Round No. 2
ruairi50

Pro

Our nation is a moral nation. This is an unarguable. Just because we turn away refugees doesn't mean we are causing them harm. We could take measures to ensure that they are not harmed while still ensuring that our fellow Americans are safe. For example, we could set up safe zones in Syria. If we were to do this, they would have a safe area for them to live in (with the added bonus of it being close to home) while at the same time, minimizing the threat to our compatriots.

But in the end, they cannot come here. It is not a betrayal of American values to keep them out. It would be a morally depraved act to allow our friends and families to be put in harms way.

As to your point that terrorists can "use brute force" to enter our country, that is a reality. But these other threats can be minimized as well. Probably our most glaring lapse in security would be our borders. This threat can be minimized through increased border security measures. Will the threat ever completely disappear? Absolutely not! However, we should take this step to protect ourselves. Any reasonable step to minimize the threat to our fellow Americans is a good one.
vardaanbhat

Con

First, you are saying "them." You're implying that these people are defined by the fact that they're refugees. Why should innocent people be kept out for the mistakes of others? Why should innocent people not be accepted as our "compatriots?"

What you're proposing is alienating these refugees, and putting them in special "camps" because they might pose a danger to the public. That is completely immoral.

All people deserve equal freedoms. By denying these refugees the freedoms they deserve, you are contradicting America's founding principles.

"As to your point that terrorists can "use brute force" to enter our country, that is a reality. But these other threats can be minimized as well. Probably our most glaring lapse in security would be our borders. This threat can be minimized through increased border security measures. Will the threat ever completely disappear? Absolutely not! However, we should take this step to protect ourselves. Any reasonable step to minimize the threat to our fellow Americans is a good one." The threat is equal either way." I agree with background checks, of course a terrorist should not be allowed to enter this country. But laws like this have always had minimal effects on any crime rates, because they are fundamentally flawed and anti-human (simply think about the illegal immigrant crisis-this is essentially the same situation).
Debate Round No. 3
ruairi50

Pro

First off, this has been a good argument and I appreciate your input.

America is at a crossroads. We must debate whether we want to put our families at risk or accept people who we can almost guarantee to hide terrorists in their mix. It is being made out to be a hard choice but for me the decision is easy to make.

As a whole. these people are fleeing oppression and pain. We should help them. However, helping them should not mean that we sacrifice our nation's safety and sanctity. We should ensure they have a home, set up a safe zone in Syria, and look for solutions that would make their homeland a suitable home.

Consider your families. Consider your friends.
vardaanbhat

Con

Setting up a safezone in Syria would be far more difficult than simply letting people into this country.

"Consider your families. Consider your friends." I am considering the dying, poor family in Syria, ruined by years of war, death, and destruction, who would give anything to come to a free country. I am considering the people who need our help the most. I am considering America's core principles, and our most basic values as human beings.

I am fighting for humanity. I am fighting for compassion. I am fighting for freedom.

Great job and thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: randomman22// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Better overall execution and information.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) The RFD insufficiently explains both arguments and sources. It's far too overgeneralized, failing to examine any specific points made by either side.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.