The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Will Eurabia happen?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
danonda15 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 431 times Debate No: 99347
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Eurabia is the inevitable future that left winged Europeans wish to see. We see this happening throughout Europe but where see it most are in the countries of France, Germany, The United Kindom and Sweden. These four countries have embraced the idea of multiculturalism the most. My arguments are consistent and have even been noticeable throughout Europe. Women in Sweden and Germany are frightened to leave the house alone because of the idea of being sexually assaulted, no go zones for police have been established in parts of Paris already.
-ISIS has established thousands of sleeper cells.
-Merkel wants to bring in even more migrants.
-Mass sexual assault in Cologne and Stockholme
There are many more events that I will discuss and the large amounts of evidence and information will show you the hell on Earth that the European Union has instilled into the lives of local native Europeans throughout the continent.

My opponent will use propaganda in order to fool the viewers into believing his nonsensical fantasies but I guarantee, this debate will be an exchange like no other.


I think that it's vital to debunk the Eurabia theory because it is untrue, it causes people to panic and to react irrationally out of fear -- and those reactions actually make Europe less safe, less free, and adhere less to the liberal Western Values that Eurabianists believe they are defending. Moreover, these reactions lead to the marginalization of and discrimination against innocent people. Further, fears stemming from the Eurabia theory serve as distractions; people become more focused on outsider-scapegoats than on the insider Corporate elites who benefit from sowing division.

But first, how do we define "Eurabia"? I suppose that the best definition would be based on the religious composition of Europe -- European countries which do not currently have Muslim majorities (so excluding Kosovo and Albania) would become Muslim Majority countries. Furthermore, this would not only require 50.000001% or more of a country's population to be Muslim, it would also mean that there would be a strong enough faction among Muslim Europeans which opposes any type of assimilation and, in addition to that, favors imposing Sharia Law on non-Muslim Europeans. Therefore, in addition to countries becoming majority Muslim, there would need to be some sort of Islamist takeover in these countries. Again, the Balkans aren't really being discussed here because a. they aren't in the EU and b. in the cases of Kosovo and Albania, large Muslim majorities have existed ever since the time of the Ottomans, and indeed Albania was the most reluctant of the Balkan States to leave the Ottoman Empire. And c. this debate is about major shifts to the demographic/religious/ethnic/political status quo.

But I digress. Another issue is, should the UK be included in this debate even though it is leaving the EU? Which Europe are we talking about? Western/Nordic Europe and the rest of the Eurozone? Countries in Europe which currently do not have a Muslim majority? My opponent will need to be clear about this, and about why he is defining "Europe" the way which he defines the Continent.

Then the other part of the resolution is ,"will happen." Well, if we get really strict about language, when the resolution says, will happen, that would mean that it will happen. That my opponent would have to prove that this is the future of Europe, beyond a shadow of a doubt. My opponent also referred to this as an "inevitable" development. I'd understand if Danon15 decides that this should simply be a fact debate based on preponderance of evidence -- in other words, if he can prove that "Eurabia" is slightly more likely than a secular Europe, just 50.000001% more likely. I'd be okay with either burden of proof for Pro, even though it's the difference between having to prove that pro is wrong some of the time and having to prove that pro is wrong at least 50% of the time. I guess that's because, wording of the resolution and 1st round arguments be damned, Danon15 is my friend.

"Eurabia is the inevitable future that left winged Europeans wish to see. "
I am wondering, would Danon15 like to prove that it is both inevitable and the intended future of the left? Because I can say, as an American Leftist, that it certainly isn't a future I'd want to see. The left is against theocracy in any incarnation -- the idea of Islamists imposing Sharia Law on non-Muslim Westerners is abhorent to the left, and to virtually everyone on the political spectrum. And when you think about it, this issue does not help the left with it's political objectives. The left wants people to focus on worker's rights, defending social democracy from austerity and perhaps expanding it in the future, dealing with Climate Change, protecting a woman's right to choose. These are the European left's main priorities, and as long as people are focused on an imagined (we'll see why this is imagined) threat of "foreigners" and "Muslims" threatening to overthrow secular institutions and governments, well it'll be awful hard to focus on the far more credible threats of inequality and Climate Change. It's bad enough when Eurabia fears are misplaced, if they weren't, if this was a real problem, it would be even harder for the left to achieve it's objectives. Either because of the European Le Pen style rightists of today or (again, if this were a real problem) because of the theocratic Islamist style rightists of tomorrow.

By the way, this isn't a matter of wishing away a problem. The motive explained above means that if the left believed "Eurabia" was Europe's future, it would be engaged in efforts to prevent such a development, since it would mean the undoing of the left's real goals. (Agree with them or disagree with them, they don't include living in a theocracy).

"We see this happening throughout Europe but where see it most are in the countries of France, Germany, The United Kindom and Sweden. These four countries have embraced the idea of multiculturalism the most."

Oh heavens, multiculturalism! Do you want to know the Muslim populations in each of these countries, because Pew Research has the figures: France, 7.5%; Germany 5.8%; UK 4.8%, Sweden 4.6%. [1] Multiculturalism is a good thing -- it enables people from different backgrounds to get along, work together, and just look at Pew's figures! These countries are not in the midst of a demographic crisis which threatens their very social fabric. But, will there be one in the future? I'll address that point in my own contentions. But first, a few other arguments of my opponent's.

"Merkel wants to bring in even more migrants." Not anymore. Merkel's trying to head off far-right opponents and is deporting many of the refugees she so generously let into Germany... She hopes to "send back" 100,000 refugees a year, starting this year. In other words, after Germany had forced crippling austerity onto Greece, Merkel wanted to improve her country's image and earn accolades. Accolades earned, election time, and now when push comes to shove she's done even pretending to be a humanitarian...

"-ISIS has established thousands of sleeper cells."
Well, I don't know how my opponent would know precisely how many Daesh sleeper cells are in Europe. However, the Miror did report on the FBI's assessment of the situation, saying that there were "more than one hundred." [2] More than a hundred -- dire circumstances without a doubt. However, "thousands" appears to be way off the mark. Let's deal with the facts we know, rationally and prudently -- the facts are bad enough.

" Mass sexual assault in Cologne and Stockholme"
Yes, around 600 women were sexually assaulted in Cologne, and that was absolutely horrible. The Putte i Park rapes were also dreadful, and nobody is arguing about that. However, I do take issue with a statement Pro made earlier:

"Women in Sweden and Germany are frightened to leave the house alone because of the idea of being sexually assaulted,"
The fact is, I don't know what extent this is true, because I haven't been to Sweden since 2005, and I've never been to Germany. However, "Indeed, according to official statistics on file with The Swedish Crime Survey, the sexual violence rate in Sweden has remained about the same between 2005 and 2014. In fact, it actually decreased by .3 percent between 2013 and 2014. " [3]

Further, regarding Sweden, when I was there in 2005, I never perceived the climate of fear where women were afraid to leave their houses. If the rate is roughly the same now as it was then, well, I don't presume to know what's going on. One other note on Sweden : "That said, the country has the highest rate of rape in Europe, a statistic that has been partially attributed to both Swedish law, wherein rape is given a wider definition than in other countries, as well as a higher tendency among women to report the crimes to the police."

Regardless though, this isn't a debate about crime rates, it's a debate about population and birth rates.

Contention 1: Small share and declining birthrates
Look at Pew's map of EU member states + Britain. You'll see that the highest Muslim share of any Western European country's population is in France, but it's till only at 7.5%. The overall Muslim share of Europe's population was 6% in 2010. It is projected to be 8% in 2030. Even if we make the Eurabian camp's mistake of assuming exponential population growth from now until the end of time, we're talking about 10% of the population in 2050, 12% in 2070; 14% in 2090, and 16% in 2110. Hardly a Eurabia in 50 to a hundred years.

But even those assumptions are quite flawed. You see, the reason why the Muslim share of Europe's population increased from 4 to 6% over the last 20 years is because, as my opponent will point out, the non-Muslim European birthrate is lower than the Muslim European birthrate. However, Muslim birthrates throughout the world, including in Europe, have been declining over time. In fact, so have marriage rates, among European Muslims:"the somewhat interesting thing that he mentions is a Muslim flight from marriage. The decline of marriage in Europe is well known but striking: The female marriage rate fell in Germany from 98% to 59% from 1965 to 2000; it fell in France over that period from 99% to 61%; in Sweden from 98% to 49%; in Britain, from nearly 100% to 54%."

Pew projects that by 2030, Muslim birthrates will go down from 2.2 to 2.0; non-Muslim birthrates will go up from 1.5 to 1.6. If that trend continues into 2050, -.2 and +.1, then by mid century it'll be 1.8 and 1.7 respectively. These figures indicate that growth in the Muslim share of Europe's population will stop at around 10% in 2050. [4]

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.