The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.
Debate Rounds (3)
1. No forfeits
2. Sources may be provided in the comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. First round is for acceptance only
7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss
First round is for acceptance only. I will provide the plan and criterion as well as the contentions in my next speech.
I hereby accept your challenge and will take you on in this debate. Quite an interesting topic, I might add.
Anyways, I do agree to your terms and, if I may, have one rule for myself that doesn't have to be accepted, but is recommended:
Let's not go below the belt in this debate. You may use sources and factual opinions, but please do not use personal feelings and "hate words". It would be appreciated if you could abide to these terms.
Thank you, and good luck.
I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting.
I will start with my plan, then move on to my criterion, and then my points.
My plan is for the United States to take in 100,000 refugees who have been security screened and have at least a high school level education. They also must be part of families, and agree to learn english as well as become citizens.
The criterion for this debate is well being of both the United States and these refugees.
Moving on to the points.
P1: We have a moral obligation to accept these refugees.
We need to do this as human beings. There are 250,000+ people dying here, including many families and children. We can"t just leave them where they are right now. They are in horrible living conditions, and many of them have died trying to get to other places by starvation, drowning, and other reasons. We cannot have these people dying. The Golden Rule is as follows: one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. What if we were these people, watching our families and friends die, and nobody helped us? These people have education, families, and just want to live a better life where they aren"t under the threat of death, and we can help them. It is the only compassionate choice.
These refugees are currently in horrible living conditions in camps. According to Voice of America, refugee camps along the Turkish-Syrian border also have recently reported cases of cholera and malaria. Experts say these diseases all have the potential to become deadly epidemics in crowded camps, where poor sanitary conditions are commonplace, and daily meals and safe drinking water can be hard to come by.
Add this point to my criterion of well being.
P2: Accepting these refugees would greatly help the economy.
This would mainly happen in two ways, which I will organize into two sub points.
Subpoint A - Creating more jobs.
This would happen for both our (referring to the United States) citizens, as well as the new refugees entering the country. Let me explain.
One of the most common concerns from local people is that refugees will take over jobs, especially unskilled jobs. Refugees often lack the skills necessary to do higher paid jobs due to different languages and other problems, so a large amount of people coming into the job market can cause lower wages to fall. Although, this is not true.
However, in the longer run, refugees appear to create an outsized role in creating new jobs, and even raising the wages of the locals. One of these reasons is that refugees appear more likely than others to create small businesses, according to The Washington Post.
Michael Clemens is the leader of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development. Clemens says that refugees are more likely to create small businesses because compared with other immigrants, refugees are less likely to have a job waiting for them in their host country.
Subpoint B - The National Bureau of Economic Research found that immigration benefitted 19 out of 20 of the industrialized countries they studied. Another study by the Social Science Research Network found that a large amount of refugees going into Denmark led the native workers to switch to more skilled jobs and away from jobs that were mostly manual labor. As a result, many U.S. citizens earned higher wages and received better jobs, even with the refugees also getting jobs.
Add this point to the criterion of well being.
I look forward to my opponent's case. For the reasons stated, vote Pro.
P1: These refugees, even if they meet your criteria and requirements, can and probably will be apart of terrorist organizations, such as the infamous ISIS. We mustn't forget about the tragedy of Paris, France. They let in Syrian refugees, and at a terrible cost. We shouldn't follow in the footsteps of a nation that made a mistake. If we are to let in Syrian refugees, they must be checked multiple times for hazardous material, and interrogate them to make sure they are not terrorists.
Subpoint A: Your requirements
What if these refugees don't meet your requirements? What of the children that have not graduated junior high, and the uneducated families that they are apart of? And there are many people in the U.S. who don't even know the slightest of English, and some are not legal citizens. I won't go too far into the political zone, but there are people in Mexico who are crossing the border illegally and having children in America to become a citizen the easy way. Just because a terrorist group and a squadron of Russian and American fighter jets is present in Syria doesn't make it 100% different from the Mexican drug lords who indirectly terrorize the citizens there.
P2: You may have mentioned diseases in the Middle East like malaria and cholera. You are almost contradicting yourself in your argument. Do we really want sick people to be allowed into the United States, especially with such lethal diseases. We can obviously use the Ebola virus as an example here. The Ebola victims may not have been refugees, but after coming to the U.S. with such a fatal disease, they caused several dozen Americans to fall victim to the virus as well. And allowing Syrians in America, either by air or by sea, they might and probably will bring the infected mosquitoes with them, causing yet another invasive outbreak in the United States.
I truly do want these refugees to be safe in America, but it is common sense to keep yourself out of danger when possible. I believe that we can and should allow Syrians into America when the time is right. And at the moment, we must bide our time and not make a dangerous mistake against our country.
I am interested in what my antagonist's proposal will sound like after this argument.
For the purposes of thinking about ourselves before others, vote Con.
My opponent seems to be questioning if the refugees will meet the requirements, but it simply doesn't make sense. The plan has already been stated. It isn't a matter of "what if they don't meet the standards given", because we will make sure they do.
My opponent says that these people will have diseases when they come in, and brings up the Ebola case. Again, the United States government, mentioned in my plan, will check these refugees for these diseases. The disease argument was meant to say that we need to prevent more people from getting the diseases, which we do.
My opponent offers no source for their ISIS invader claim, so please ignore this, Voters.
To summarize, "for the purpose of thinking about ourselves before others" shows just how ludicrous arguing against this is. No lives come before ours, we are all human beings, Syrian or not. Thank you.
My opponent has probably made an error in his response to my statement. I will now clarify both the obvious and the detailed parts of his errors.
First of all, I would like to quote one of my opponent's statements that he made during the second round:
"My plan is for the United States to take in 100,000 refugees who have been security screened and have at least a high school level education. They also must be part of families, and agree to learn English as well as become citizens."
And I do agree, sir, that the plan has already been stated. Once you have a single plan with no other emergency roads, you cannot change it as easily. It is like trying to fit an elephant inside a briefcase; it is impossible. My opponent seems to have made a contradiction error. Please excuse him, Voters.
Secondly, in the third paragraph of subpoint A of P2, he claims that refugees and immigrants can do things as well as other U.S. born citizens. This statement is too opinionated, and unfortunately, he does not give a specific source to prove this claim. Please ignore this.
However, do not ignore the statement my opponent made which says that I have no source for the ISIS invader claim. It's all over the news, the papers, and the media: ISIS invaded Paris, France, as Syrian immigrants. If my opponent really does need a source for such a general and obvious claim, than I will give a bibliography notation at the end of this argument. All claims aside, it is just as likely for ISIS to invade America as it was with France. We should not make the same mistake twice.
Lastly, I want to thank my opponent for giving his indelicate response to my conclusion. It seems that some would rather want themselves dead than allowing someone else to be at risk. I will respect your beliefs, sir. And, as you can see, he is also making my conclusion a "ludicrous" statement. I'm not quite sure if this is against rule #3, but putting opinion-based commentary can be... risky. If you would like, I'll give a new conclusion: For the purposes of the well-being of those around you AND yourself, vote Con.
I thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with him, and I give him the best of luck.
May the best debater win!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.