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

The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian 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: 11/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 82684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




In the recent events of the horrific tragic in Paris, France of November 13, 2015, the Republican governors are rejecting Syrian refugee settlements in the United States. These states include, but are not limited to Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The Democratic governor of New Hampshire has joined in on this rejection.

I shall be taking the side of con in that this act of rejection is not justifiable.

The debate will follow this format:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Premises

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Rebuttals

Round 5: Conclusion

Please take this debate seriously and keep it clean. Provide any relevant evidence to support your claims when necessary and keep an open mind going into this debate.


I accept your debate. I have been watching these events closely and look forward with great pleasure to debate with you! Thank you for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank DebatingPolitics97 for dedicating their time to this debate topic and it seems you are relatively new, so welcome to this community! Henceforth I will now refer to DebatingPolitics97 as pro in this debate in the fact that my opponent, pro will now support the claim that "The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees," which I shall now refer to as the conclusion. Pro, you have my gratitude in entering this debate as a conservative Republican, as presented in your comment since there is a negative image with this party in this issue and I would like to understand how a Republican might view this situation, but of course I cannot make the claim that this negative image applies to all Republicans. This can also be said for the other main party, the Democrats, but in this debate, I would like to avoid the blame game on the demonizing of a party for their actions as presented in the media. What I might bring up are the actions of a party as seen in history and the present time and the consequences when it is relevant.

As a person from a family of refugees in recent history, I hold this topic dear to me and might use examples from my experiences as well as evidence to support my claims. I hope for this debate to provide a new perspective to the both of us and anybody involved. Firstly, I would like to identify what a refugee means from the Oxford Dictionaries, which shall be my source in this debate to define any terms. A refugee is defined as, "A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster." This is much different than an immigrant, which is defined as, "A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." The two status on a person cannot be interchangeable and the main focus shall be on the status of a refugee. From the definitions, it can be said that a refugee entering a new country, that their life is at stake, while an immigrant's life might not be necessary at stake, but instead, is looking for a better life. In this debate, I would like to strictly focus on refugees from Syria since the conclusion calls for it although there is no doubt refugees from other middle eastern nations are affected as well. I would also like to define the verb, reject and the noun, terrorism.


1.1 - Dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.

1.2 - Refuse to agree to (a request).

1.2 - Fail to show due affection or concern for (someone).


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

Now, I understand that these governors have concerns with the risk of terrorism in their state, but I am here to debate that this is still not justifiable in denying a safe haven to refugees who are actual victims to terrorism. To date, the death toll in Syria is 250,000+, of which 30,000 are children. [1] Are these not innocent civilians of war from terrorism? Keep in mind that the United States is also accountable for the death toll of these innocents from air strikes. The causalities for western civilians and soldiers just doesn't compare, but unfortunately, this is the price of war, not counting the economic cost, time, and trauma. Should the United States not be held responsible and pay the price for playing a part in the rise of these extremists? These were some of the things I pondered when I decided to be con to this conclusion. National security is always a concern when there are enemies that are out to topple a nation and it can be said that some citizens have complacently put their trust into this security until the recent unfortunate events that took place in Paris. This war is also unconventional as well with the attack on innocent lives, but that is precisely the goals of terrorism, to strike fear into the hearts of people, and it seems to work.

I believe these governors have a moral obligation to shelter the incoming wave of refugees. These refugees are fleeing for their lives and are requesting protection, yet they are being rejected. As a person with families who were once refugees, we want nothing more than to pursue life, liberty, and freedom. If possible, some of these refugees are willing to go back home once the terrorism has cease. We are all humans so it is natural to just want to live, yet these refugees are discriminated against as portrayed from just a handful of few who claim to be Islam that wants the death of the western lifestyle. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim.

In terms of further discrimination against the Islam religion, was it not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to create a nation where everybody is free to practice their religion as presented in the First Amendment? Most Americans are considered Christian and is it not in their values to help others when they are in need?

With the fear and distrust in the Muslim people and the refugees, there are some governors who would further discriminate against these communities in their state although these people should have the protection of the Constitution. How can the very same people, who preach freedom and want to spread it in the middle east, not want to grant the very same freedom in the state that they reside in? I feel this hatred is what caused the divide in the American life and it further creates the hate that was never there, which can lead to terrorist acts as "us" against "them".



I would like to start off by stating that yes, my current political party certainly sustains a large amount of heat from media. I would hope that every one would keep an open mind to this debate no matter the beliefs of their own selves. I would like to show how many of these Syrian, Christian refugees have been killed in the process of coming here. Many of these refugees are actually Muslim. I am debating that Muslims are more apt to be terrorists than Christian refugees are, and the problems that i have with allowing the POTUS to bring 10,000 refugees into our country when we have no true way to tell if they are a threat to our nation. To hear my president say that climate change is a bigger threat to this country than all else... it makes me very sad.He says this while we have over 250,000 Christians DEAD in Syria. A large number of the people who would be coming here are Muslims and we have no way to determine which are radical Islamists.

Now,as the Con has stated the definition of refugee, I need to clarify that not all of these people our president will bring into our country are refugees. There are ISIS perpetrators and I will state again that we have no way to tell if they are a part of ISIS or a Christian group! I have no problem with helping the small percentage of Christians who need our help, I would love it if we could bring all of them to our country. Unfortunately, there is too much risk in bringing them here. This is my argument and i will encourage those of you who are voting and commenting to keep an open mind to both of our views and to be fair. Thank you Con for making this civil!
Debate Round No. 2


The issues that pro brings up are the following, "Muslims are more apt to be terrorists than Christian refugees are." I am incline to agree this statement since it should be a comparison of religion since Christian Syrians are just as discriminated against as Muslim Syrians. There is no way to tell whether an individual is a Muslim or Christian, just like as pro pointed out that there is, "no true way to tell if they are a threat to our nation." There is really no real way to determine if an individual will become radicalized without infringement onto the individual's rights. Currently, there is discrimination against a group of people regardless of whether they are American or not and whether they did anything wrong. Consider what is already happening. This is something I received from the White House.

The number of Syrian refugees UNHCR has referred to the U.S. Refugees Admission Program: 23,092
The number of Syrians the Department of Homeland Security has interviewed since FY 2011: 7.014
The number of Syrian refugees who have been admitted since FY: 2,034
The number of Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. that have been arrested or removed on terrorism charges: 0

Not only that, but the screening is insanely tough.

"Refugees are subjected to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States, including the involvement of the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense." [2]

I will also make the argument that there is no restrictions of individuals who are more susceptible to terrorism who are coming into the United States from foreign countries, yet there is discrimination against innocent refugees.

I apologize for not presenting my argument sooner and in a detailed way since I have been preoccupied with work. With the weekend coming up, I hope to address this issue further.



The Con of this argument would like to state that if a refugee is able to enter our country our screening process is sufficient proof that these refugees are safe and should be allowed to be brought into my country.I, however, do not trust my own president in these cases of national security. His immigration policies with mexico have shown that, his dealings with Islamic extremists (his father has claimed to be an Islamic extremists), my president has hugged a man who has taken responsibility for the beheading of countless Christian children and fled the country, yet this man supposedly went through vigorous screening.I beg to differentiate on this matter that saying they will go through screening means that they are not Muslims.
Con has said,

"I will also make the argument that there is no restrictions of individuals who are more susceptible to terrorism who are coming into the United States from foreign countries, yet there is discrimination against innocent refugees."

This is a point I can not dispute. We are allowing hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants into this country with no regard to the dangers they pose! Also, as a side note to this topic, there are arguments that say that it is Constitutional to let these people in our country. How is it Constitutional? It is not once mentioned in the Constitution that we should let every person who needs protection into our country.
Do you really believe that we should allow terrorists into our country?Over 50 of the Syrian refugees who have already been brought have 24/7 studying, because they are already suspected ISIS members. By allowing these refugees into our country that is what would happen and more... Is the safety of 10,000 Syrians worth more than safety of the hundreds of thousands of American lives who are at stake? We can not take these immigrants and refugees into our country! The biggest reason behind this reasoning is that there is no way to pay for them! We are almost 19 trillion USD in debt.I have some very important questions for the Con that I feel that not only he, but our president as well, should answer before even considering taking these desperate Christians into our country.
Where is the money coming from to pay for them? Where are they going to live? How will they eat? How will they get to places? It is not as if these people can bring automobiles with them! These people have not much in the matter of clothes... Who will get clothes for them? How will they get jobs? We can not simply send them to schools to learn trades for free, as this money generally comes from the taxes of Americans (the middle class suffers the most from these taxes as they can barely afford to feed themselves).
This is my main argument and I truly wish for answers!
Debate Round No. 3


Although pro does not trust President Obama on national security, the screening does not go through the president. I insist pro learn more about the nation's security and how it works by listening to Director Christopher Geldart from Homeland Security, one of the many of the United States' departments that does the actual screening [3]. This is an actual organization whose work and expertise is all about national security, much more than the knowledge of common folks like us. Can threats still slip through the cracks? Sure, unless you expect the utmost perfection in what humans do.

I do not want to argue too much about President Obama since I feel it is irrelevant to the conclusion, but I can at least see what he is trying to do in terms of foreign affairs. You don't reconcile with your friends, but your enemies. War, "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state," has been an ongoing process since ancient times until now. If you never make peace, then there will always be war unless you completely obliterate the other side. In my opinion, war is not worth it since it cycles a negative effect at an extreme cost. Even to this day, from the bloodiest war in the United States, the American Civil War since 1861 still has an impact on today. The recent removal of the Confederate flag in South Carolina of July 10, 2015 still shows the great divide that the United States has with the extreme bitterness in the south as a removal of heritage. Are we content with this bitterness and divide in the United States? What will be the effects of this bitterness and divide? I doubt sweeping it under the rug and ignoring it will do anything. I can go on and supply an even greater number of examples, but it is irrelevant to the conclusion.

The United States is at war with ISIS. I feel I do not need to explain this. ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh's objective is to kill everybody that don't yield to their radical beliefs, even Muslim people [4]. The United States has been bombing ISIS every single day and yes, innocent people, regardless of religion are still affected. War claims lives and with current technology and media, the effects of war is easily place in the faces of people to stir emotions that might have not been there before. I want to go over my point, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim." So to date, there is over 2 billion Muslims worldwide [5, 6]. Need more sources? I suggest pro comes up with a relevant counter to these numbers and my next argument. Now consider ISIS able men, women, and yes, even children.

"With a minimum of 8.5 million strong supporters and 24.5 million who view the group at least somewhat positively, the Islamic State has plenty of room for growth in the Arab world." [7] So, with 2 billion Muslims worldwide, and assuming if all of ISIS is Muslim, then that is not even 1%. "Not all Muslims are terrorists." Don't believe the numbers? I insist that pro sets out on a journey to find out the truth.

In recent news, there was a white supremacy terrorist act in South Carolina at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church of June 17, 2015. There was a mass shooting that claimed the lives of nine believers of Christ that welcomed this young man in. This was a tragic event and should they have not welcomed him in and turned their backs on him? In their faith, no. Can this relate to the great divide and bitterness that the American Civil War created? I believe it does. Does this happens all the time? It does, but not as often as media portrays it to be. This is in fact a terrorist act since it strikes fear in the hearts of people that this can happen anywhere. I can go on and on with the examples of the terrorist acts of the KKK, radical political parties of both sides, and even the Westboro Baptist Church. "Not all terrorists are Muslim." Since I mentioned the WBC, comparing Christian people as terrorists with the activities of this group is similar to comparing Muslim people to ISIS. These terrorist group are, but a small portion of radicals that has a loud controversial voice that was able to get attention (think Donald Trump). The only difference between the WBC and ISIS is that I am grateful that the WBC isn't as powerful as ISIS.

My next argument is to show that radicals already exists in a nation, regardless of refugees. Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the ringleader of the recent terrorist attacks on Paris was actually from Belgium. You guessed it, he also perform terrorist acts in Belgium and across the Europe continent.

"Abaaoud's name is also being linked to others who have carried out or tried to carry out attacks on other sites in Europe. A french counterterrorism source told CNN on Tuesday that Abaaoud knew Mehdi Nemmouche, who admitted to killing four people in an attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels, Belgium, in May 2014." [8]

Not only that, but consider this statement from Abaaoud,

"I was able to leave and come to Sham (Syria) despite being chased after by so many intelligence agencies. My name and picture were all over the news yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations against them, and leave safely when doing so became necessary."

I want to point out that it might be even easier than innocent refugees for these terrorists to enter and come into the United States as well since they were citizens of Europe and most likely have a blueprint of their plans and how to implement it. Not only that, but they have the resources and information to enter a nation, compared to the refugees who tries to do it legally and have barely anything, but the clothing on their backs. Also, consider Jihadi John, who was a British resident. Now, how easy do you think it is to catch a flight from anywhere from Europe as a citizen to the United States and hide the fact that you are a radical? I don't feel the need to go into the details, but I am just naming out the terrorists who were successful. What I really want to show is how successful our national security is in catching these terrorists even if they were posing as "refugees". This next source is a list of terrorists, along with their picture and information regarding to what was happening [9].

We, as a nation want to avoid terror, but every single day, these refugees are experiencing this terror. Does it not make sense for these people to flee into safety away from this everyday terror? Regardless of what generation you are, your family has to come to America at some point to seek a better life. Why are we, as Americans, denying this liberty to people who are doing the same thing as what our families have successfully done. Regardless of Christian, or Muslim, or some random religion, everybody is a person that does not want to live in terror.

Pro, you bought up very valid questions and concerns, but I am nearing my limit so I will address them, from a perspective of a generation of refugee families in my conclusion. It will have no bearings on the justification of rejecting Syrian refugees because I feel a life of poverty and eventually achieving the American dream is better than being dead. They were given a second chance at life and I feel honored that my taxes goes out to help people and not kill them.



DebatingPolitics97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


It seems there has been a long break on this debate. My opponent pro has not forfeited the fourth round due to life circumstances, and has posted in the comment section, which I will accept and will refer others to go over. Pro made a list of what the Qur'an teaches to Muslims and the success of ISIS. I would like to also make a correction in my round 3, which I addressed in the comment section, but forgot to in the actual debate. In the second sentence, I claimed that "[I]t should be a comparison of religion..." when it should be "shouldn't".

I shall begin my closing statements. With the heated events still going around in the world, I have set out to argue against the justifications of the governors' action in rejecting Syrian refugees. I believe that a person should not be persecuted for their religion as it is also set forth in the Constitution of freedom of religion. I also made the effort to argue against using religion to persecute against these refugees and have shown that regardless of any religion, Christianity or Islam, that religious violence can still exist on any sides. Pro has also claimed that "[M]uslims are more apt to be terrorists than Christian refugees, are..." but I provided the evidence to show that not even 1% of Muslims are pursuing this violence, which is similar to Christianity, and that ISIS is a bad representation of Islam. I went on to present my argument for "Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim". Using religion to persecute a person is in poor taste since you can cherry pick the bad parts and apply those bad parts to people, which might not be a representation of the person. That is the straw man fallacy. Rarely do I see someone cherry picked the good parts of religion.

In the comment section, pro makes the claim that Paris is not in Belgium, which I agree, but what pro missed out was my whole point. A person is able to freely travel across Europe if they are a citizens and still be able to commit these terrorist acts. I recommend pro carefully read what was presented in round 4. My intentions were to show that these governors are so focused on rejecting the majority of innocent refugees, but there is no system to stop these terrorists, most who are already residing in the nation, from travelling around and still not get caught.

I felt the main justifications that these governors had are hate and fear for rejecting these refugees, which I believe is not justifiable. During this whole debate, I made the assumption that Muslims are people too so I did not mentioned it. These people, who happen to be refugees because they have the very same fear of terrorism are trying to flee for their lives, yet American people have this same fear of an unlikely terrorism act when a tragedy happens. The tragedy of once in a while just does not compare to the tragedy of everyday for these innocent refugees. The number of causalities does not even compare. To prevent tragedies though, there should be a national security system, which I brought up during the debate. The system is still able to catch these terrorists, but I must admit that it is in no way perfect. Nothing is.


Thus, I conclude my closing statements and will now focus on pro's other concerns that will be irrelevant to this debate. For the most part, I agree with pro that I do not want to allow terrorists into our great nation, but not allowing innocent refugees is not what I believe America stands for. I do not know the full details of the screening process or how an organization like the FBI specifically tracks down these terrorists while trying to not infringe on the rights of an American, but they do and it is their job to do so and create a successful system. The United States is the most diverse of all nations because it was able to accept anybody, regardless of culture, religion, and ethnicity. It was able to thrive because not everybody has the same perspective and everybody can see things differently, but we as people, still have the same values, to live free and pursue our dreams, the American dream.

The United States has the most intensive programs compared to other nations when it comes to immigrants and refugees and it is very successful. The Intentional Rescue Committee, which I am proud to become a volunteer is one of those organizations that is part of the solution to a problem. Although the United States is known for its guns and the lobbying powers of the National Rifle Associations, the United States is actually a great leader when it comes to any humanitarian efforts not only in the United States, but across the world. How are they going to eat? There are many great organizations like Feeding America and welfare systems. Not only that, but there are actually buses and trolleys to transport people. Cars are not the only way to get from point A to B. Learning English would be more of a challenge then getting a job, especially a manufacturing or minimum wage job to at least support themselves. Eventually, they can contribute to society and into a growing economy. Of course, these systems are not truly perfect, but at least it is a step towards the solution instead of going towards hate and fear.


DebatingPolitics97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
"My next argument is to show that radicals already exists in a nation, regardless of refugees. Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the ringleader of the recent terrorist attacks on Paris was actually from Belgium. You guessed it, he also perform terrorist acts in Belgium and across the Europe continent."


How is this even considered a legitimate argument? I am quite sure that Paris,you did not guess, is NOT in Belgium. Paris in is France, and Belgium is a totally different country. So I do not see how one could say that.
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
I would post the pages that teach of installing terror into the hearts of infidel and asking of believers to behead the infidel, but I have not the room on the comments. Read the book of the Muslim teachings to see how they could possible be for the majority a peaceful group....
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
sorry i had to forfeit, I had no access to wifi for the past two days. So just as an after note I would like to ask the pro why, if ISIS can be compared to the 1% of christians who are terrorists, does ISIS ; control more territory, have more funding, have more military power, and more followers than that of ANY terrorist organization in the entire world? Also, why does the Qur'an teach Muslims to commit these acts? Why does the Qur'an say that waht are interpreted to be Christians are all liars?This is the Qur'an

1. Alif, Lam, Meem.

2. This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous.

3. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them.

4. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.

5. These are upon guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.

6. As for those who disbelieve-it is the same for them, whether you have warned them, or have not warned them-they do not believe.

7. God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. They will have a severe torment.

8. Among the people are those who say, "We believe in God and in the Last Day," but they are not believers.

9. They seek to deceive God and those who believe, but they deceive none but themselves, though they are not aware.

10. In their hearts is sickness, and God has increased their sickness. They will have a painful punishment because of their denial.

11. And when it is said to them, "Do not make trouble on earth," they say, "We are only reformers."

12. In fact, they are the troublemakers, but they are not aware.
13. And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" In fact, it is they who are the fools, but they do not know.
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
Thank you for being so patient for my reply. I have had some family friends who are in some troubled times. I will be able to have a great amount of time to study and give my next answer to your comments!
Posted by geho89 11 months ago
I would like to make a correction to avoid confusion. In my first sentence, I make the claim of "should" when it "shouldn't be a comparison of religion.." This racial group of people are being discriminated against regardless of their religion.
Posted by awesome_joey 11 months ago
The problem is not about charity - all the innocent Syrians deserve a right to get away - but about security. As we saw in France, it is impossible to tell whether someone is good or bad. We should get rid of the threat (i.e., war on ISIS) if we want to truly help other people. It is much like World War 2; the Nazis were busy killing Jews while we sat around and watched that and Pearl Harbor. We need to take action. NOW. We will spare more lives that way than any other way.
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
do not kill*(I am sorry that was a misprint I do not believe they should be killed) and the Muslims are not filthy. Keep your opinions of whether they are filthy or not in a debate of racism. Muslims as a whole are not evil. Radical Islamists and Radical Muslims are the problem.
Posted by DebatingPolitics97 11 months ago
bball..... Really, that is an ignorant argument and I am a conservative Republican, but i also do think they should be killed. These refugees have a true crisis! The Christians are being slaughtered by ISIS in Syria and they need somewhere to go. The problem that i have, is that there are so many of them we have no way to truly decide which are Christian. Now, calling them "filthy Muslims" is not appropriate as the majority of them are actually Christian.... So before you decide to comment on such matters you might want to do some research.
Posted by geho89 11 months ago
Feel free to accept this debate. I would like to understand the reasoning behind your beliefs.
Posted by bballcrook21 11 months ago
I hope that every one of those filthy Muslims that try to cross the ocean are met with swift death. I side with the Republicans, as I always do, to keep these Syrian invaders out of my country.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yassine 10 months 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.