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

Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 927 times Debate No: 95345
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)





In light of the Obama Administration's recent completion of its goal to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S, I would like to hold a debate on whether or not this is a good thing. I will argue that it was a net positive and my opponent will argue the opposite.

First round is acceptance. BoP is shared.

Looking forward to a good debate!


I accept and wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Lannan for accepting this debate.

1. Obligation to Foreign Nations

You and I both know that Europe has a migrant crisis. Because the United States is not offering to help, migrants have flooded the European continent, often into countries such as Greece that currently do not have the capacity to handle them, be it economic, spatial, or other reasons. We can't just sit idly by while our European allies are being overwhelmed by the sheer number of people entering their countries. Germany most of all has been especially kind in accepting more refugees than it can handle, but this can't go on forever. Their quota is about 27,000 refugees, a huge amount for a country of its size. [1] In addition, economically struggling countries like Greece are not able to handle the influx of refugees traveling across the Bosporus and the Mediterranean.

Added to our duty to help and support our European allies is our duty to help the migrants themselves. These are people who are fleeing horrific violence and suffering in search of safety. As the strongest country in the world, and arguably the one that could support the most, we have a moral duty to grant safety to these refugees.

2. Vetting System

I am aware that ISIL said they would attempt to get into the United States by taking advantage of the United States' acceptance of refugees. Here's why that won't work. The United States has an excellent vetting process. Refugees are the most vetted of any group entering the country, and the screening is extremely extensive.

Please read before continuing on:;

The screening process has an excellent record. Of the 785,000 refugees admitted into the US since 9/11, only 3 have ever been arrested on terrorism-related charges. [3] That's 0.0003821% (assuming I did my math right). So this potential concern has been negated.

Furthermore, if terrorists wished to infiltrate the country, they would most likely use tourist, student, or business visas to do it, considering that these categories are vetted considerably less and take much less time. For example, all 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 got into the country on one of the aforesaid visas. [3]


America is seen as a beacon of kindness across the world--a country that is willing to reach out a helping hand to those in need. Are we willing to forsake that reputation? We have the money and space to accept these refugees who have endured such terrible hardship. We have a responsibility to help our allies in Europe who have been overwhelmed with the number of people, and we can help thousands of people reach a better life. Our safety has been ensured by the quality of the screening process, and there is no risk of becoming overwhelmed with people, as in Germany and other European countries.

Over to Con for his arguments. I wish you luck.




I thank my opponent for this debate and in this round I shall begin with my case.


For this debate I shall be running the counterplan of the United Nations shall organize the assistance and settlement of Middle Eastern Refuggees.

Why not US?

The purposed plan in this resolution is based around the US accepting in Syrian refuggess, but says nothing about other nations. For one the US has strong opposition to the Syrian Refuggess as there is massive polarization in the US on the topic as the country is split with 51% of Americans opposing such a move [1]. It has been reported in Germany that the Refugees have committed over 200,000 crimes in 2015 [2]. The US does have a good vetting system, but the Americans are currently concerned about these kinds of issues which is why the UN needs to help co-ordinate and lead a world wide effort to solve this issue. To continue with this, with the US being a UN member nation, they will still be able to help the Srian Refugees. To what extent may be up for debate and in question, but under this counterplan the Syrian Refugee crisis can become further closer and closer to being solved.

Help more.

The current impact of the resolution to this date is that the US has brought in 100,000 Syrian refugees and Obama has announced that these numbers will be increasing. The only issue is that this will not be anywhere close to solving this problem. The UN has announced that there are nearly 4.7 million, and climbing, refugees coming out of the crisis in the Middle East [3]. There are plenty of other nations who have yet to begin to accept refugees that can be able to and this will greatly lower the number of displaced peoples from this conflict.

Migrant influx to Europe - graphic

Much of Southeastern Europe are suffering highly under the burdens being placed on them by the migrants and only the UN can effiecently help them as the US cannot help much by taking only a miniscule portion of the refugees. How will this plan be enforced? It is very similiar to the plan that the EU had put for with each nation taking in refugees in purportion to their nation size [4]. The UN would then leavy penalties against nations who refuse to accept these refugees and can reward those who excede their limits.

Veil of Ignorance

Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario [5]. Under this situation we can see that it would be better that the UN directs the plan as it would help aid more people. This would help those at every level in society and with us ignoring all biases we can see that we would want to help the most amount of people here as we could then be potentially helping ourselves here in this area. By doing this we have to perfer the counterplan as it will aid a great number more than the Affirmation's side in this debate.

1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your arguments. Unfortunately, I can't post right now. Really sorry for the inconvenience and expect my rebuttals within a few days.


All points extended.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you again for your arguments.

"For one the US has strong opposition to the Syrian Refuggess [sic] as there is massive polarization in the US on the Topic as the country is split with 51% of Americans opposing such a move."

First of all, we should note that the source you cite is not at all recent, and it is quite possible that sentiments have changed since then. For example, a more recent poll from May shows that "The vast majority of people in the U.S. (71%) would let refugees into the country." [1] We also must realize that the margin of error in this poll is 2.9%, as mentioned at the bottom of your source, making it a statistical tie. The reality is, 51% is such a small majority that it would be quite easy to get the percentage wrong, and different sources say otherwise.

" Germany...refugees have committed over 200,000 crimes in 2015."

First of all, this debate is restricted to Middle Eastern refugees only. Your article states that "Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis are the largest group of immigrants, but are less frequently delinquent in relation to other groups of migrants. Proportionately more offenders were found among immigrants from the Balkans (Kosovo, Albania, Serbia), Eritrea and Nigeria." None of the latter are Middle Eastern countries, so your statistics really don't even apply here. In addition, your source says that the majority of these crimes are petty crimes such as "riding on public transport without paying the fare", "forging paperwork to get money", and "cases of theft, mostly shoplifting." These crimes add up to 165,914 of the 200,000 mentioned. I should also note that your source doesn't note the number of refugees in Germany at the time nor the crime rate among German natives, which prevents us from comparing the two to see the extent of refugee crime as juxtaposed with the native German population.

"The US does have a good vetting system, but the Americans are currently concerned about these kinds of issues which is why the UN needs to help co-ordinate and lead a world wide effort to solve this issue."

Throughout your argument you seem to postulate that a United Nations plan and an independent United States program are mutually exclusive. They are not. While a UN plan is necessary for a long-term solution, the crisis is getting so dire in Europe that fast, independent action is needed--action that the United States is uniquely suited to take. Countries such as Germany have helped a good bit, but they are suffering because of it (most notably seen in the New Year's Eve sexual assaults). A large body such as the United Nations, while able to handle crises such as these very efficiently, invariably take too much time to act in situations such as these. First all nations would have to agree to a common plan, and after all minutia has been negotiated on the UN level, each country would have to individually ratify it--a significant feat in itself considering the makeup of our current Congress. On the other hand, if the U.S. were to take action immediately, independent of the United Nations, we would only have to go through the second step, thus making the process much more streamlined in the short term than if the United Nations were to organize a plan.

"...and only the UN can effiecently [sic] help them as the US cannot help much by taking only a miniscule portion of the refugees."

This is a textbook perfect solution fallacy. [2] The United States of course cannot single-handedly solve the problem; that as you correctly pointed out is the role of the United Nations. But that is not the point. The point is to help in whatever way possible as soon as possible, and unfortunately the UN cannot accomplish that. Thus the United States must at first work independently of the UN in the short term and then partner with the UN for a long-term solution. I would also like to point out that your "counterplan" would almost certainly result in the acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees into the United States--it's still acceptance whether it's UN-directed or not.

"Under this situation we can see that it would be better that the UN directs the plan as it would help aid more people."

To conclude, this assertion would be correct if the two plans were mutually exclusive. They're not. Our European allies are hurting and we can't afford to deliberate any longer. We need solutions now, and fast, independent action by countries taken individually is the only solution. After that, the UN can work to create a long-term solution, as you propose. But the United Nations counterplan is not a feasible solution in itself considering the urgency and the immediacy of the current crisis.

I'm sorry this debate had to be cut short a round. I've had a lot of fun debating you and good luck for your final arguments. Best wishes to you.




I thank my opponent for this debate and I would like to request that the judges do not hold Pro's past round against him.

If my opponent wants to play the dating game, a more recent poll from 4 days ago showed that 74% of Americans oppose this plan [1]. The same poll finds that 62% of voters believe that it is a National Security risk. As a result, with my poll being the most recent, we can see that many Americans oppose Pro's case. My opponent is simply cherry picking from the source as we can still see that these Middle Easterners are still the majority and even if they are petty crimes, crime is still crime. As a result, my opponent's argument negates itself.

My opponent fails to show how the UN cannot help and concedes that the UN plan is better even in the long run, which should be direct grounds of a vote in Negation. We have to acknowledge that Europe and the US are not the only nations in the UN, so we know other nations across the world can help take them in and my opponent drops the impact that I have brought up in this debate in that many nations can recieve financial compensation and this can really help some struggling nations. This drop should be considered prima facia when voting as it is the most important key aspect of this debate so far. My opponent's assumption of the US adoption isn't the complete truth. Under this plan, they can chose to reject or let them in. This was a point that was uncontended by my opponent in this debate.

With that I thank you and urge you a vote in Negation.

1. (
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.