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

Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2016 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,055 times Debate No: 96211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate, so I'm kind of confused, anyways. I believe that Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees. This can be proven through statistics. Last year, Europe accepted about one million refugees, and since then, there have been numerous terrorist attacks, all of which had something to with Islam. The refugees are also about ninety percent able bodied men, which is incredibly suspicious. Besides, when the USA had a civil war, our men didn't run away to other countries, they stood and fought. Unlike the men who are almost certainly working for ISIS, which has claimed to sneak in terrorists through the crisis.


Thanks for opening this debate. I look forward to a civil discussion. Please provide the sources for the information you just mentioned.

Your initial argument focuses solely on incidents of terrorism, but there are other pros and cons to allowing refugees.

1.) it can be economically beneficial. Many European countries have aging and shrinking populations. They will need a larger labor forces to provide the tax revenues to fund government obligations in the near and distant future.

2.) Accepting more immigrants is better for the vibrancy and innovation of the economy. After all, they could be accepting the next Einstein, Steve Jobs, Carlos Slim, Donald Trump or Naghuib Mahfouz (a famous Egyptian novelist)

3.) There is a moral argument that we should be helping our fellow men, women and children who face death, disease and starvation in their home country.

4.) Free democracies must accept some risk in order to be true liberal democracies. We already face risk of home-grown terrorism but that doesn't mean we evict all Muslims or people associated with white supremacy or anti-government groups.

5.) From a numbers perspective, they would be saving more lives than they would be losing when you count people killed from terrorists compared to the lives saved by accepting refugees.

6.) Terrorism is not even close to the leading cause of death in Europe. Obviously more people die from homicide, auto collision, drugs, and probably many more preventable reasons, so the number of people that actually die from terrorist acts, while terrible and tragic, is infinitesimal compared to those. Why deny others their human rights when the negative results are such a small piece of public health and safety?

I guess 6 points is enough to get started. I will respond more directly to your first argument in my next argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright sources from:

1.)Anyways, European security officials have stated that there are far too many migrants for each one of them to security checked, this will increase the probability that ISIS sympathizers can break through and kill. Also, it costs more to resettle refugees in Europe and America than it does to resettle them in neighboring countries.
2.) The average Syrian IQ is 83, which isn't that high compare to Western standards.
3.) I'm all for helping the women and children, but 90 percent of the people coming in are able bodied men, who should be fighting or at least working in Syria. It's kind of obvious that a good portion of these men are ISIS operatives, looking to destroy Europe.
4.) I didn't say to evict all Muslims, I simply stated that the screening process needs to bolstered and reinforced, the Europeans are just letting them through.
5.) Like I said, I'm all for saving the women and children, but the able bodied men should return and go fight for what they think is right.
6.) I didn't say that it was the leading cause, I simply said that there have been numerous attacks since the first wave of refugees were admitted.


First, thanks for providing your sources. And with that, I have to correct you on the statement that 90% Syrian refugees are men. First, I didn"t see that number in the EuroStat report. It did say 76%. However, this was 76% of total asylum applications in 2016 Year-to-Date. So first, asylum seekers does not equal refugees because not all refugees are able to figure out and submit their applications for asylum. The other BBC article does say 1M refugees and the EuroStat data says 662,000 asylum seekers. So you can see that the 76% number is based on a total that is missing almost 400,000 people, or 40%. Second, and more importantly, only 20% of the asylum seekers were from Syria. So even if 76% of the asylum seekers were men, we can't say that is true about the Syrian refugees without additional information. If 90% of the asylum seekers were from Syria, I would accept your statement. However, as it is, we must throw it out.
As to your broader point, I contend the amount of good that can be achieved by allowing refugees outweighs the risk of terrorist attacks. That was why I mentioned that far more people die from other causes than from terrorist attacks. If you think about it, the number of deaths in the EU increase by such a small percentage, it is nearly insignificant. These terrorist attacks are terrible, and we regret every single life, but as a broader threat to safety it is not very large. Especially if you add in the fact that a lot of these attacks are perpetrated by people already in Europe, not Syrian refugees.
The potential benefits are huge and I already identified them.

As to your point that American men stood and fought the US civil war, I have to disagree on a few points. Fist, all men did not fight in the war. As with most wars, it was mainly the poor who fought. In the South, men who owned certain amounts of land and slaves were exempt from service. Their sons were also exempt if they had large estates and many slaves. Check out the movie Free State of Jones for some insight into the men who fought for the South in the Civil War. Of course the North had its own army and did not have the draft. Sure, men signed up to fight. But in many cases, they signed up for the food and pay. Finally, as I said, this is a regional war. The US civil war was not a regional war, although some foreign countries did provide assistance. However, that assistance is no comparison to the Russian jets that are pounding Aleppo with bombs and bunker busters hundreds of times a day. That's not even counting the use of chemical weapons. So let's not compare it to the U.S. Civil War. You say they should stay and fight, I say it's marching to an assured death. Men should protect their families. It is a long, treacherous journey to Europe and I would get my family to safety at all costs rather than getting killed in a proxy war between the US and Russia. It's hopeless for them there.

To respond to your criticism of my points:
1.)European officials are most definitely overwhelmed by the influx, but that can be addressed by devoting more resources instead of turning away all refugees.
2.)Average IQ is a terrible way to measure potential economic contribution. For starters, you can still have an IQ of 150 in a group that averages 82. Also there are so many jobs that don't require a high IQ that these people can do. Their children can then have a better education and make greater contributions. IQ itself is not a good measure of contribution because there are many skills for which this number does not account.
3.)I already dismissed your claim about the majority of refugees being men. But of the men, how can you say it is OBVIOUS that the majority are looking to destroy Europe? It's not obvious to me at all. My assumption would be that they just want to find a safe and stable environment for their families.
4.)I agree that they need to bolster the screening process, but you're argument is that they should stop accepting all refugees. But the point was really that there are plenty of instances of home-grown terrorism that we face as part of being an open, liberal society. Accepting refugees does nothing to change that tradeoff
I think I addressed your other responses in the paragraphs above.
Debate Round No. 2


First, I got my numbers wrong, I apologize. Another thing, the refugees have been dubbed "Syrian refugees" mostly because that's where the most violence is going on. Second of all, I don't see the benefits of flooding Europe with these aliens. They would provide cheap labor, but they are destroying the culture of Europe. Rapes have sky rocketed, and most of this is being attributed with the refugees. While terrorist attack *deaths* are low, the actual number of them has gone up tremendously. My point on the American civil war was one of defending what you believe in, not fleeing to pick or choose countries in Europe.


I have made many points as to how refugees could be a great economic benefit to Europe. Of course, the system is overwhelmed and needs to be beefed up immediately. I agree that this will put some strain on the infrastructure in the short run, but the long-run benefits outweigh the costs. With the aging populations of the West, there will be a competition to bring in young workers to support the older generations. This can be a competitive advantage for Europe.

Additionally, the moral argument is so compelling. These people face certain death, after an unknown amount of suffering. If the West can't intervene to stop the killing, the least we can do is accept the people who choose life over death. Absolutely the women and children, and the men too.

Terrorism is the scourge of our age, and it is absolutely horrifying and appalling. Yet, it is a danger we face as liberal democracies. We faced it during the early 20th century and we prevailed and were strong. There are so many dangers in modern societies. Terrorism, while scary, is not our greatest danger, and it is far from the leading cause of death and social ill.

Europe should continue to accept refugees for their own benefit and to save so many lives.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by theobjectiveobjective 2 years ago
@TheRussian It sounds like you wanted to vote for con but because the argument wasn't strong enough, you chose not to vote. You said my argument relied too much on emotional points but as anyone can see I made 7 points and only one of which was emotional, and all I said was there is 'a moral argument.' It's not as if I went on and on about how said it was etc. You also criticized me for not using enough facts (which were not necessary if you look at my opponent's argument) but then you argue at the end without bringing in any facts yourself! Anyways, I felt the burden on proof was on con because he was making the case for a change, so all I needed to do was disprove his case. He was trying to make the argument that refugees should not be accepted, and I disproved that argument. You are entitled to your opinion, but just because you chose not to vote doesn't mean you are right. However, I'll take you criticism constructively and keep it in mind for next time. Thanks for reading.
Posted by BlargArgNarg 2 years ago
@TheRussian Thanks for the insight, It's my first debate.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
I was going to vote but decided not to. Good points brought up, but both of you made too many aggressive, unsupported generalizations for the debate to stay focused enough for me to make a real evaluation. Saying things that amount to "ISIS is infiltrating and wants to destroy Europe" or "refusing the refugees will lead to their certain death" are too broad, strong and lacking in support. I agree with Pro before and after the debate, but I felt like you needed to really push your points further without resorting to slippery-slope kind of scare tactics that amounted to the idea that "they're coming in massive amounts and raping everyone and gonna kill everyone through terrorist attacks". Con correctly pointed out that terrorism has a negligible death toll on a national level, when compared to the deaths due to Syrian civil war. On destruction of European culture, Pro seemed to have made a mention of this but if you were to drive the point further, it would be much more effective. As to Con, I felt that your arguments relied on appeal to emotion too much. If you could provide harder evidence as to the benefits of such a thing, it would be good because from what I see, it's just very economically taxing on Europe with very little pay off
Posted by BlargArgNarg 2 years ago
Thanks, that was pretty insightful.
Posted by theobjectiveobjective 2 years ago
Congrats on completing your first debate. Hope you do a few more and get your voting rights!
Posted by theobjectiveobjective 2 years ago
Please keep those comments to yourself until after all arguments have been posted. This is not your debate. Thanks.
Posted by JacuPro 2 years ago
I agree with the Pro, but not fully. I believe the European immigration systems were surprised and unprepared for the high inflow of Syrian refugees. They sort of had to improvise in the situation. If they can control the immigration levels and set restrictions, they can continue to let refugees in; however, these refugees need to be checked routinely and carefully in order to prevent further advocates of ISIS from reaching populous cities. The US currently has a strict system for syrian refugee immigrants and the Europeans need to establish one just as strict.
Posted by ThisIsMyUsername333 2 years ago
I'm on your side of this debate, but be sure to provide sources for your information. The voters won't care if you don't have any sources.

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con, because as con pointed out, one cannot assess potential based on IQ, as Pro suggested. Sources to Con, because as it turns out, Pro's sources were wrong.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.