The Instigator
bencoldham
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
dumbocrat
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

This House believes that we all have a moral duty to help support refugees from other countries

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...
dumbocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 83439
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

bencoldham

Pro

Refugees are fleeing persecution in their own country. The actions of terrorist groups like ISIS are truly horrific. ISIS torture, kill, and behead any one who disagrees with their extremist views. As human beings we should help refugees who are fleeing such terrible acts. Can you imagine if ISIS was beheading your friends or family? Wouldn't you want the international community to help you?
dumbocrat

Con

With ISIS becoming a more popular group in the Middle Eastern area it is hard to take the risk of a refugee being with ISIS because a person's religion cannot be determined easily. The USA is already struggling with our debt. We cannot afford to help people in other countries. If the USA is trying to help more than our budget can afford some people will be helped less and I think that should be US citizens rather than potential terrorists.
In history people who have tried to help other people were willing to give up part of their own success to get others to succeed. If you force tax payers to give up their success to help others succeed then you have just stole. The majority of wealthy people, the people paying most taxes, aren't willing.
Debate Round No. 1
bencoldham

Pro

I will first respond to your point that we are "taking a risk" on refugees. This is a commonly used argument in this debate and I take issue with it for three reasons:

Firstly, when refugees arrive in a country they go through some of the most thorough checks possible. This is especially the case in America whereby the screening process can take a number of months (and sometimes even years). If there is the slightest indication of any links to terrorist organizations/extremist beliefs they will not be granted entry into the country.

Secondly, in response to the above you may argue that they might have a clean record but have recently become extremists. To this I counter that if they did indeed have a clean record and wanted to carry out an international act of terror they could quite easily get a tourist visa for their target country and carry out an attack whilst there. Should we then ban all international travel to avoid this issue?

Thirdly, there is just as much risk of a person born in a Western country becoming an "extremist" as there is a refugee being an extremist. This can be seen in the recent Paris attacks where the alleged ring leader of the attacks was a French citizen.

I will respond to your other points in later rounds of the debate as I feel we should focus on one issue at a time for the sake of thoroughness of argument and depth of debate.

I therefore ask you two simple question in round 2 " should we ban all international travel to combat potential terrorists"? and "why are refugees any more likely to become extremists than citizens born in the host country?"
dumbocrat

Con

The US refugee laws are currently being neglected. That means that test that you were talking about isn't being followed making it better to not allow refugees in this country because the requirements aren't being followed. Anyways the US is helping the non-terrorist Middle Easterners in their own country. Why should we bring in refugees if we want their country to be safe for them rather than ours?Why clean up someones country to let them come to ours? It just doesn't make sense.
Debate Round No. 2
bencoldham

Pro

bencoldham forfeited this round.
dumbocrat

Con

dumbocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bencoldham

Pro

bencoldham forfeited this round.
dumbocrat

Con

dumbocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bencoldham

Pro

bencoldham forfeited this round.
dumbocrat

Con

dumbocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Themeaman909 1 year ago
Themeaman909
Con didn't answer pros 2nd question, I think he should have made a longer argument and used more rebuttals. Good luck con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themeaman909 1 year ago
Themeaman909
bencoldhamdumbocratTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Both forfeited, but con made better arguments than pro.