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

European countries should stop receiving immigrants from other non european countries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 42807
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




Just saying, I am not racist, nor I am anti-racist.

First round is acceptence


Position: CON

I shall take stance that European countries shall continue taking in immigrants from non-European countries. Best of luck and look forward to a productive debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con and wish him luck for accepting this debate

The fertillity rate in the European countries have been decreasing, as we know, if the fertillity rate is falling, so is the culture of the country.

According to research, in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, It's required to have a fertillity rate of 2.11 children per family, with anything less, the culture will decline, historically, a culture never reversed a 1.9 fertillity rate, a rate of 1.3 is impossible to reverse, because it would take 80-100 years to correct itself and there is no economical model that can sustain a culture during that time. In other words 2 pars of parents each have 1 child, there are half as many children as parents, if those childrens have 1 child, then there are 1 fourth as grandparents.

If only a million babies are born in 2006, its hard to have 2 million adults in 2026.

As the population shrinks, so does the culture

As of 2007

Fertillity rate of France: 1.8

England/Great Britain/United Kingdom: 1.6

Greece: 1.3


Italy: 1.2

Spain: 1.1

Across of the entier European Union of 28 member states, the fertillity rate is 1.38. Historical research tells us that those numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe as we know it, will no longer exist.

Yet the population is not declining. Why? Immigration. Islamic immigration, of all population in Europe since 1999, 90% have been islamic immigration.

France: 1.8 children per family. Muslims in France: 8.1 per family.

In southren France, where are are a lot of churches, there are now more Mosques than churches. 30% of the children age 20 and younger are islamic. In the larger cities (Such as Paris), that number has grown to 45%, by 2027, 1 in 5 french men will be muslim, in only 39 years, France will be an islamic republic.

In the last 39 years, the muslim population of Great Britain has grown from 82,000 to 2.5 million, a 30 fold increase, there are over 1,000 mosques, many of them former churches.

In the netherlands, 50% of all new borns are muslims, in only 15 years half of the poulation will be muslims.

In Russia, there are over 23 millions muslims, that's 1 in 5 Muslims, 40% of the entire Russian army will be Islamic, in just a few years.

Currently in Belgium, 25% of the population and 50% of all newborns are muslim. The government of Belgium has stated: 1/3 of all European chidren will be born to Muslim families by 2025, just 12 years way.

The German government, the first to talk about this in public, released a statemant saying: "The fall of the German population can longer be stopped. Its downard spiral is no longer reversible.... It will be a muslim state by the year 2050."

Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya said: "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homocide bombers. The 50+ muslims in Europe, will turn it into a Muslim continent withing a few decades."

There are currently 52 muslims in Europe, the German government said that the number is expected to double to 104 million.


I would like to apologize that it took so long for a reply and thank Vladimir for such a quick response. Please check out my footnotes for further comments and source citations.

1. Plagiarism?
First of all, Pro did not cite the source of his information and statistics. I did some verification and found out that his whole passage contains 62% of unique content, in other words, it is highly likely that pro plagiarized from a source. That source is a viral Youtube video named “Muslim Demographics” posted by a user named “friendofmuslim” on March 2009. Given that, pro’s argument is almost a word-by-word copy of what is said on the video. Here’s the link: “; Pro’s arguement is a copy and paste job from the video’s transcripts ( that even spaces and punctuation are almost identical. With this said, I will not take this into account this time but urge pro to write further arguments with his own words, if quotes are to be made, I strongly suggest using quotation marks and include the source at the footnote.

2. Rebuttal
This video and data set is used widely in Atheist sites, however, it contains some misleading and rich in fallacies. In the video, the narrator mentions the high possibility of a demographic threat (Definition: “The concept of demographic threat (or demographic bomb) is a term used in political conversation to refer to population increases from within a minority ethnic group in a given country that are perceived as threatening to alter the ethnic identity of that country.” - Wikipedia [1]). I will now present my rebuttals as a response to the video.

(a) There are very limited accuracy to the video’s interpretation and statistics

“Of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration”

This statement is half true, in European countries in 2005, 85% of the countries’ population consists of immigrants, however, this statistic is based on ALL immigrants, including roman Catholic immigrants, Chinese immigrants, Jewish, etc. Muslim immigrants do not consist even half of that.

“France: 1.8 children per family. Muslims in France: 8.1 per family”

This statement is rather easy to debunk, French government does not have this kind of information based on religion group. Additionally, Government censuses and both private and public surveys proved to be inaccurate since a religion is not a feature that you can distinguish easily without observing one’s behavior and family. Religion profiling has proven its failure historically such as the German profiling and filtering of Jews based on their family backgrounds before and during WWII. Many non Jewish Germans are killed in holocausts.

Rebuttals for this particular video goes on and stated clearly at the BBC and article. I am, however, not here to debunk a video, but to argue that immigration in European countries should continue; these two articles does a better job at that:
- [2]
- [3]

I shall now present my arguments against pro’s stance.

Stance: Europe should continue it’s immigration availability.

(1) Immigration does not negatively affect GNI (Gross National Income)
Since you mentioned a lot about France, this information will be France-Based. You may find similar results in other European countries. The following is the France’s net immigration chart from 1994 to 2003, I am unable to find later graphs on this but I am sure you will agree with me and this chart that France’s immigration value increases every year. This information is given by the “National d’Etudes Démographiques (INED)” (English Translation: National Study of Demographics) [4]:

(I do not know how to insert Photos, but here's the link)

And here is the graph for the GNI (Gross National Income) between the years 2004 and 2012 [5].

(Photo of GNI: France)

The French development in their National income continues to grow as immigrants continue to flow into the country.

(2) Cultural and demographic diversity can be healthy for the country’s economy
Singapore is a perfect example of an economically healthy country with the Country’s wealth ranked as one of the highest in the world and its beautiful GDP. Singapore is one also of the most diverse countries in the world.

Singapore’s Immigration Policy and its effects:
Singapore supports and allows immigrants to work in Singapore if they are skilled labour or having unique qualifications that can help improve Singapore’s economy. Why is this information important to the resolution? An estimated one third of its population are foreigners. Singapore is also part of a band of nations known as ASEAN (Acronym for: Association of South-East Asian Nations) which is very similar to the concepts and goals of the European Union. Singapore continues to progress its economy and is able to keep their cultural values safe [6].

(3) Historical attempts of immigration resistance
The Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 in the United States did not only proved its failure but also brought its racial tension to this this day. The act indicates the deportation of Chinese immigrants without certificates (even those employed in mines and railroad construction) and refusing further arriving of Chinese people [7]. The effects of the Chinese Exclusion Act, racism and discrimination, still adhere American Society today.

“if we are familiar with the past we will understand the present, and only by learning from prior mistakes can we make informed decisions about what courses of action to take in the future”
- [8] Kelly Tian, University of Chicago

These are my arguments for now, I will continue to bring further arguments in the next rounds (to tell you the truth: it’s late and I’m getting drowsy). Best of luck to my opponent!


[4] (France immigration) (National d’Etudes Démographiques (INED))
[5] (GNI - Gross National Income: France)
Debate Round No. 2


You have convinced me that Europe should continue receiving immigrants. I apologize for wasting your's and the reader's time.

Vote con!


Than you, Lenin. To tell you the truth, I know you have the ability and intelligence to do a great debate, don't give up!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Cheetah 5 years ago
Thanks shiv! Sorry but my school starts tomorrow and my schedules are packed and I might have difficulties finding a free time. Thanks for the invitation though! I will defitely look forward to it in the future.
Posted by shiv_ramdas 5 years ago
Admiration to Lenin for being broadminded enough to actually listen to his opponent, rather than just arguing with him. And of course, fantastic debate, Cheetah. You ARE good. I'd be happy to Debate that Obama question with you now if youre still interested.
Posted by Khan.s1996 5 years ago
The pro could've used some other arguments to prove his initial statement to be true. However, I have to agree with the con on this one. The pro was more interested in the "radical Islamists" staying out of Europe. Europe should crack these groups down and provide the innocent Immigrants an opportunity to prosper.
Posted by Artur 5 years ago
@Lenin, I think you are from russia. I speak russian, maybe amateur in russian. kak dela?

I have read your arguement on 1st round and it was a good statistic, but can you give us sources, please.
Posted by Artur 5 years ago
I didnot read now due to the lackness of time, later I will.

I hope it will be a good debated based on facts, political analysis, statistics and e.t.c not based on logical fallacies.

now among my favorites.
Posted by shiv_ramdas 5 years ago
My issue with the argument made by pro at the moment is that it presupposes the destruction of native culture via influx of different cultures as opposed to a multicultural tapestry richer than either in isolation resulting from it. Id have liked to see statistics that dealt with death of culture, rather than merely birth rates. In its current form, the argument is closer to eugenics than economics or heritage preservation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Artur 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: at first, it seemed that PRO will be superior to COn, but then CON refuted him very well. CON refuted PRO greatly. CON did it well. I liked this debate even though it was short ;)
Vote Placed by 00r3d 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I guess