The Instigator
AmericanPatriot76
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Peepette
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

We should not help anyone seeking refuge into this country until the Isis situation is taken care of

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Peepette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 84020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

AmericanPatriot76

Pro

this will be a serious debate

facts must be double checked with links to them in the description of their argument

All Spammer like arguments comments will be reported along with the person who posted it

let the debate begin. Round one is just to accept the debate
Peepette

Con

I accept and look forward to an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 1
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

AmericanPatriot76 forfeited this round.
Peepette

Con

I will not waste my time writing and formulating of an argument for a person who initiates a debate than forfeits. All done here.
Debate Round No. 2
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

Forgive me for not posting an argument but i have been very busy with work.

now my argument is this if you recall a certain incident took place in the media recently that involved a refugee from syria that along with a accomplice attacked a pacted building of american citzens with guns and bombs.

i am stating this because it has been said multiple times by the head of the FBI that "the U.S. does not have the ability to thoroughly screen Syrian refugees for terrorist ties". Meaning that any refugee that enters this country may be infact a sleeper agent sent here to either instill terror in the populace or recruit new members

Also there is a professor that answered a question on how many people the US actually helps and here is a link to his video https://www.youtube.com...


ther eis my argument friend and again im sorry i didnt state the first argument but work has been increasing since the holdiay season started


Citation

https://www.numbersusa.com...
Peepette

Con

Happy holidays to you. Thanks for making your debate statement rather than dropping the topic all together. I look forward to a good two rounds.

The heading for this debate is "We should not help anyone seeking refuge into this country until the Isis situation is taken care of" so with this cue, I"ll keep with refugees from Middle East and why these people fleeing war are not an ISIS threat.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino were no less than heinous but, the constant media replay and politicians are spouting off does nothing more than increase TV ratings and give office running politicians free face time and a soap box to stand on. We are glued to the TV being lead to believe that an ISIS attack is imminent, which is breeding fear and bigotry. Reason and compassion for the reality of the situation needs to be examined. The media has set a climate similar to McCarthyism of the 50s. Refugees from war torn countries are not our biggest threat. We need to be looking more toward what is happening in our own back yard.

There have been far more non-terrorist mass shootings in the US than ISIS related attacks. Mass shootings in 2012 alone killed more people than the total by terrorism since 9/11 [1]. In fact, terror attacks have dropped in recent years [2] and deaths tolls in such incidences are significantly lower [3]. Also since 9/11, the people who do commit terrorist activities in the US have been predominantly home grown. Individuals who commit mass shooting often are white males with psychological conditions; they have anger issues, feeling of powerlessness and are socially isolated [4]. Yet, there is no more than a week long news flash when these incidences occur which fuels cries for gun law changes. But, the terrorist threat beat keeps droning in our media view when the real threat and frequency of incidences are spawned here at home not from abroad.

Rebuttal: In response to your statement regarding the recent San Bernardino incident. Firstly, Syed Rizwan Farook was a, Illinois US born citizen, not an immigrant. He did not belong to a sleeper cell terrorist group [5]. Syed was living an American style life; he was a home grown ISIS sympathizer. His wife Tashfeen Malik entered the country on a K1 fiance' visa, which admittedly, who's background check was sloppily done [6]. But, this can be cause to wonder; if Farook was not indoctrinated would he have sought out a radical foreign bride instead of seeking an American Muslim spouse? This is a what came first, chicken or egg scenario to ponder.

Rebuttal: FBIs ability to screen refugees. Since 9/11 vetting procedure has been substantially heightened. Those seeking refugee status are first referred through the United Nations or American Embassy, processed through State Resettlement Service Centers, go through multiple investigations and interviews, then are screened through several intelligence groups [7]. The vetting process can take up to 2 years. There are far more expeditious means for ISIS to threaten the US than going through the refugee program. It makes no sense that terror minded individuals would risk exposure with such in depth investigation occurring before they even step foot on US soil [8]. Already, there are 150,000 Syrians living in the US [8]; of these, not a single one has been responsible for any terrorist activity. The FBI did state due to the lack of information available from Syria 100% vetting was not possible. Nothing is ever 100%, and looking at the numbers of Syrian and other Middle Eastern immigrants currently living in the US, the threat doesn't bear a whole lot of fruit [10, 11].Half of the individuals who wish to escape Syria are children, the rest are equal numbers of men and women with only 2% of men being of combat age [9].

Rebuttal: The Roy Beck video. The video centers on immigration as a means of people escaping poverty, not war, or ISIS related incidence; not really topical. Though what he has to say does make sense to a degree, there are other factors not presented. No country or members of the World Bank historically has made significant investment in alleviating poverty at its source unless there's a return on investment. If a poor country does not have exploitable natural resources for industrial use or for export, along with a compliant government, no investment is made. So the poverty cycle continues. But, this is a topic for a separate debate.
Debate Round No. 3
AmericanPatriot76

Pro

my dear opponent I have to say I am indeed impressed with your words and by your statements of media. yes I am forced to admit we all are glued to the screens of our tv's and computers waiting for what is next.

I must be honest with you sir I am quite offended at the thought of my fellow countrymen just waiting for the an event of terror to happen and that by debating with you and others, this is my only way of destressing. But as I walk the streets of my town I see people not only waiting in fear but also waiting in retaliation if the moment arises. Forgive me for being so down but I needed to get that out of my system.

Now back to the matter at hand. My final argument is this. by letting in more people to this country, are we creating more tension and conflict? Allow me to explain this question further. it can found across time and history that by introducing a new species or in this case a group of people into a new environment there can be ... consequences to the introduction. I would like to point out that I mean this only as a example and not as a racist remark.

one particular incident I wish to bring up is the introduction of the nation of Israel that split land between Egypt and Jordan. and even though their borders are recognised by the UN the nation still has an active military on guard just incase of any and all attack from both terrorist and foreign threat. now think of this if the US was to take in more refugees and then give them land within areas that have openly stated that tthey will not allow it. if you think about it, its like putting a open flame next to a gas pump leaking fuel and fumes, ultimately at some point a explosion will happen.

Now this may happen and it may not but i can tell you this. if they do allow the people of Syria fleeing to enter this country i wll welcome them but if they give any indication that they are plotting against the American Government i can tell you this. i will be up in Arms faster than a bolt of Lightning to stop them.

That ends my argument Sir, Have a Happy Holiday's and a Successful New Year.
Peepette

Con

Rebuttal: “this is my only way of distressing” “waiting in retaliation if the moment arises” That’s one point I was attempting to make. It's not allowing war immigrants into the country that is at issue, they have proven to pose no credible threat. It's what we have grown here. First, mass shootings by have far exceed any terrorist events; its weight in death tolls and incident numbers are far above any terrorist activity [1]. As stated earlier, spree shootings are a metal health issue. The cry for more gun control after these events is only a small part of this picture. We have a growing societal metal health problem in recognizing those who pose a threat. These typically white male spree shooters don't receive the same type of public denigration as persons of Middle Eastern decent when a terrorist event does happen. [2]. When these white man shootings occur do we cry war against white males between the ages of 16 and 33? Did the US go bomb Michigan after the Timothy McVeigh bombed of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City [2]? These types of incidences are viewed within a white biased light; were-as when a Muslim commits a terrorist act it is viewed as part of a much larger conspiracy[1] FBI data indicates that there is more terrorist activity made by non-Muslims, than Muslims[2].

You walking down the street waiting in fear of a terrorist attack is not rational; it's media hype and governmental knee jerk reactions that had instilled this fear; it is not reality. When reading or watching the media a viewer has to keep in mind that the US has great financial oil interests in the Middle East. Justification needs to be made to the public on why we have war dealings in the area, and someone or group needs to be the fall guy. Boko Haram has been inflicting atrocities in Nigeria since 2009 [3]. Not until this past year has the US offered any assistance to the area; only after the urging from the UN and Nigerian government [4]. US assistance is in the form of peacekeepers and advisors, no armed forces, weapons or aerial bombing. The US has no substantial financial interest in Nigeria, connect the dots.

Rebuttal:“by letting in more people to this country, are we creating more tension and conflict?”” by introducing a new species or in this case a group of people into a new environment there can be consequences to the introduction. “ Yes, you have that right but, but not in the manner you are implying. Anti- Muslim violence is on the rise in the US due to anti-Muslim press and fear mongering [5], portraying all Muslims as potential threats, which they are not [6, 7]. The US is, by estimate only 2% Muslim [8] but, many of color and accent are falsely seen in this light and subjected to violence. Look at history; during the mid 1800’s Irish Catholics immigrated to the US and were demonized as being non-patriotic due to the false assumption that they answered to the Pope first and would not assimilate into the culture[9]. Let’s not let history repeat itself. Your fear of introduction of a new element is not sound. Many immigrants from many nations and religions already reside here and have assimilated and have contributed in a positive manner.

Rebuttal: “the nation of Israel that split land between Egypt and Jordan” I didn’t quite get all of what your were stating, though I will assume it had to do with the Israel–Jordan peace treaty of 1994, which has to do mostly about water rights and tourism which are important to all party’s economies. And yes there are UN peace keepers there to monitor the situation. US Israeli immigration has ebbed and flowed through the US for many decades with no substantial effect due to their fluency in English and high level of education [11]. The Palestinian conflict has a lot to do with various British and French treaties during and after the second world war which amounted to a litany of political cluster f*cks and misleading promises of land to Syrian/Palestinian interest along the Golan Heights. The illegal taking of the heights in 1967 by the Israelis has yet to be resolved. This really is a separate matter which political intricacies are far beyond the scope of this debate. In short, Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptians have immigrated to the US over the last 30 years with no significant incident. Most of these people were/are highly educated where they could afford the process that is not inexpensive, and have assimilated well into US culture (see previous references)

Rebuttal:of Syria fleeing to enter this country” “but if they give any indication that they are plotting against the American Government I can tell you this. i will be up in Arms faster than a bolt of Lightning to stop them. “As I have presented repeatedly you really need to look at the statistics and articles I have presented to give you a more accurate perception on what is actually occurring. I am making an assumption here, but I don’t think I’m far off. Stop watching Fox news and start delving into the topic in a factual and intellectual level with assessments made on sources material. We Americans have gotten lazy and have become accustomed to believing if it's said or printed on the news it's true. This is not the case. News outlets are businesses that seek profit. Increasing viewers and readerships is their aim. Our government has to justify our involvement. To sensationalize and prey on fear of others outside the norm fuels both their aims. Don’t get sucked in.

Best wishes to you during this holiday season. Please be at peace that there is no real threat. Bring in the New Year with greater analytical wisdom and self education. It will bring you peace and sense of safety. I wish you only the best in the new year.


  1. https://www.rt.com...

  2. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...

  3. http://www.pbs.org...

  4. https://www.whitehouse.gov...-

  5. http://www.aljazeera.com...

  6. http://immigrationpolicy.org...

  7. http://iraq.usembassy.gov...

  8. http://www.cfr.org...

  9. http://www.crf-usa.org...

  10. https://en.wikipedia.org...

  11. http://immigrationtounitedstates.org...

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Death23// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: ff

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award points based solely on conduct using a forfeit as sufficient reasoning.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Death23// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: ff

[*Reason for non-removal*] Forfeits are sufficient reasoning for a conduct vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: bballcrook21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

[*Reason for non-removal*] Forfeits are sufficient reasoning for a conduct vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Thank you Donald for your response. I agree that the FF votes are not good. FF's toward a win or loss negates the time put into the debate. I have noted AmericanPatriot76 on this, and will leave the decision to her.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
These ff votes are a disgrace to good voting. There was a whole debate here ignored by voters.

I'm sorry we couldn't get more voters on this debate. I had assumed we had enough votes until I actually read the votes and realized only one was acceptable. By then, with only a day left, I wasn't able to find anyone else to vote.

I hope Pro and Con will relauch this debate, copy/pasting their arguments to leave out the FF, and delete this debate, as voting on it was not worthy of the time and effort put into it past the second round.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
The Voter's Union has voted once on this debate, and will get a second vote on it soon.
Posted by FlyBoysGirl90 1 year ago
FlyBoysGirl90
I'm interested but why did you forfeit the last/similar debate? I don't want to debate if you are going to forfeit.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
AmericanPatriot76PeepetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote out of the voter's union. Since the US is already helping Syrian refugees, the BOP was on Pro since he was looking to change the current situation. Pro's first argument rested mainly on the threat that Syrian refugees posed. He first brings up the San Bernardino shooting. However this argument is quickly struck down by Con, who showed that the shooter was a US born citizen, not a refugee. He then goes on to discredit all of Pro's argument very efficiently, showing that there are much greater threats to the nation than refugees, but for some reason refugees are looked at with much more scrutiny. Pro sort of drops this entire argument in his last round, and his main argument was that bringing in new people will create tension. However Con easily discredits this argument, by stating that most of that tension goes against Muslims and those mistaken for being Muslims. Con showed that refugees pose no serious threat to this nation, and the BOP remains unfulfilled. Win to Con.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
AmericanPatriot76PeepetteTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
AmericanPatriot76PeepetteTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff