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

When the Rohingyas/Syrians come to our doorsteps, do we embrace them, or cast them away?

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: 2/24/2018 Category: People
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,304 times Debate No: 109466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




The Rohingyas are but human beings just like us, so why do we cast them away like they are nothing? These people have traveled across the dangerous seas, wishing to find a new home where they can start their lives all over again. So why shouldn't we help them?

I believe that as part of the world that has the ability to help these refugees that we should do as much as we can to help them, like opening our borders to ALL and ANY refugee until we do not have the ability to assist them anymore.

Lets just say that I feel absolutely disgusted that the UK has initially refused to take in refugees, as I think that they are able to handle this crisis better than the other European countries like Greece or Hungary, as they have more resources. Even though UK has finally agreed to accept up to 20,000 refugees over the next five years, I feel that they are not helping at their maximum capacity.


Thanks, Tengu, for creating this debate. You've brought me out of my two year hibernation from this site. I've recently become incredibly passionate about social and political issues and have studies the refugee crisis since its inception when the drowned Syrian boy was used by the media to push their agenda.

I will take the position that opening borders to ALL and ANY refugees until we do not have the ability to assist them is a BAD thing. This does not mean I'm against accepting SOME or MINIMAL refugees, but I'm against accepting MOST, or ALL.

As this debate is only three rounds, I will bring up my primary arguments right off the bat.

To begin, I'd like to address what has been happening in Europe ever since refugees have began pouring in a few years ago. Crime has risen, sexual assault and rape have skyrocketed and countries such as Sweden have been classified as the "rape capital of the west" by some sources. Music festivals have had to cancel due to threats of sexual violence [1], and we all know what happened in Cologne a couple years ago [2], when thousands of migrants sexually assaulted and raped over a thousand women during New Year's Eve celebrations. "No-go zones" have popped up all around Europe where refugees and migrants have instilled the highly oppressive Sharia Law in certain areas of cities where they have taken over by sheer numbers [3] [4]. Terrorist attacks have ramped up tenfold in the past years, such as the Nice truck attack, France theatre shooting, the Ariana Grande concert, and much more. This has all become more and more popular ever since the refugee crisis. And funny enough, Poland (the only country in Europe to not allow any refugees) hasn't had a single terrorist attack in the time the rest of Europe has had dozens [5] [6]. Coincidence? I think not.

Now that we have the facts out of the way, and we see how incredibly detrimental it is to allow ANY and ALL refugees into a country, we can see that maybe allowing that many people in isn't such a good idea. Cultures from the Middle East are "different" than Western cultures. The two incredibly different cultures clashing does not work. To accept refugees, we must help them integrate into society and live by our way of life and our rules. Multiculturalism can only go so far until we have clashing ideologies. Sharia Law does not belong in the Western world, and the majority of Muslims worldwide believe that Sharia should govern the land [7]. Now this isn't a jab at Muslims or Islam as a whole, but I'm simply pointing out that these are the beliefs of the majority of them worldwide, and this belief is incompatible with our way of life. So instead of allowing hundreds of thousands of "refugees" from these countries with incompatible ideologies, the way to go about helping these people integrate into our society is to allow a minimal amount of them to come in at a time and set up programs to help them adapt to our way of life.

I'm not saying all refugees, or even most for that matter, are bad people. I'm sure a lot of them are simply looking for shelter from their country which is going to Hell. But we cannot blindly allow as many as you wish in to our countries, as it's been proven that that doesn't work. So I'm really looking forward to hearing your argument for allowing ANY and ALL refugees (until we can't manage them all).

And I haven't even gotten into ensuring the native citizens of our countries are taken care of and accounted for before we open the doors to other people who need help as well. The homeless and poverty rates are still just too high to start bringing other people in to take care of as well, but I'll get in to that next round.

On to you, thanks.

Debate Round No. 1


Hello Mister_man! Thank you for the quick response, I will now try my best to support my side of the argument.

First things first, you have mentioned in your debate that cases of sexual assault and rape has skyrocketed, but don"t you think that the reason for this rise is because of the locals themselves who are bullying the refugees just because they do not belong in that place?

You said that thousands of migrants have been sexually assaulted, but by whom? The migrants themselves or the locals? I really do not think the migrants would dare to do such a thing because the place that they are currently in is not their home, and they can be chased out any moment. They would want to treasure the chance that they are given to start anew, instead of throwing it into the trash can. But yes, I do acknowledge the fact that not all refugees are nice, and they do not commit crimes, but these people do not represent the entire migrant population. I quote Thomas de Maiziere, the interior minister of Germany that "We cannot allow all refugees living among us to be put under general suspicion. The vast majority live with us and adhere to our rules and values." Also, out of the crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and just 1 per cent of migrants account for 40 per cent of migrant crimes (which does not only include those from syria), according to the figures.

The second thing is that, if a small country like Singapore can coexist with a multitude of different religions and cultures, how can"t the European countries coexist with a mere addition of about 2 more religions? Singapore has Catholics, Buddists, Muslims, Islams, Teochew and many many other different religions, yet until now, there wasn"t a lot of cases of racial riots, so I do believe that the European countries will be able to coexist with them, but they need time.

The third thing is that, a UN report investigator, Ben Emmerson, warns that moves to crackdown on migration may worsen the risk of more attacks in Europe while breaching refugees" fundamental rights. Him, as the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, found "little evidence" that Isis and other terror groups use refugee flows or that asylum seekers are prone to radicalisation. Delivering a report to the UN General Assembly in New York, he said: "While there is no evidence that migration leads to increased terrorist activity, migration policies that are restrictive or that violate human rights may in fact create conditions conducive to terrorism." Mr Emmerson"s report found that policies to "criminalise irregular migration", build fences and carry out push-back operations are driving covert movements and people smuggling provides a valid reason for the terrorists to attack. His report was also echoed in Europol"s 2016 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, which acknowledged a small number of known cases.

Also, moves to turn away or detain refugees from Syria and other countries feeds into extremist propaganda that seeks to portray the West as a violent and oppressive enemy of Muslims. As a resident of SG, I do not want to see this happen, and I would prefer if my government will still be able to work with the West peacefully, as the West is a powerhouse that will be beneficial as an ally.
I hope you will be able to understand my points because I don"t think I phrased them correctly (I"m chinese so my english is a little bit bad).

Thanks for reading and we are now on to round 2!!!!

Sources that I referenced :D:


Thanks, Tengu.

I don't think for a second that sexual assault and rape has skyrocketed because the refugees have been treated poorly. This is actually a point against bringing in loads of refugees, as even if it's the natives of the land they're migrating to that are mistreating them, that's still a valid reason to not allow them in. I don't doubt for a second that some natives of the countries the refugees have fled to mistreat them to an extent, but this is most likely not a primary reason for the sexual assault and rape skyrocketing. In many cultures throughout the Middle East and Africa (the primary places these refugees come from), women are looked at as second class citizens to say the very least, and it's easy to conclude that they are in fact oppressed [1]. If sexual assault has skyrocketed, the primary reason is because sexual assault is basically acceptable in the cultures that a lot of these refugees are coming from.

To clarify, I meant the migrants were perpetrators of sexual assault, thousands of migrants raped and assaulted native German women on New Year's Ever celebrations. However in the private message you sent me you said you made a mistake and misunderstood my point so no problem at all about that.

Your point about being able to "chase the migrants out at any time" is unfortunately not true. The amount of anti-islamophobia laws that have been implemented in multiple countries, the majority being refugee-friendly countries [2]. It's considered a hate crime in many countries to even criticize Islam, let alone chase anybody out. That isn't really an option, plus the majority of the country won't even think about that as that's pretty extreme.

I agree that it makes logical sense to cherish a new start in a developed part of the world, however this just doesn't happen with a large percent of migrants, as they carry their culture with them. The majority of migrants are young male adults who have been raised in an environment and culture that is nearly incompatible with western views. They are escaping war, not their culture, so they bring their culture with them, and they have no reason to adapt to our culture when so many of them come into our countries at the same time. This is yet another reason why we shouldn't allow all refugees in, as they have less reason to adapt to our customs and way of life when they have everyone else from their home country living with them in the same area.

Good point about 1% representing 40% of crime, however the numbers don't add up in Germany, for example, a hotbed for refugees in (if I'm not mistaken) the numbers and methods you prefer. The crime rate is higher for refugees than German citizens [3], and the types of crime are more severe. Terrorist attacks are committed infinitely more by refugees than citizens. In 2016, at least 300,000 migrants out of 1,200,000 (25%) were arrested on suspicion of committing a crime. That is not 1%. And of course keep in mind that I'm not saying every migrant is a criminal, but with numbers like that, we can't allow millions of them to flood in as they wish.

The main difference between Singapore and European countries that refugees are fleeing to is that Singapore has had these cultures for much longer, and they've learned to coexist and adapt to the country's standards. Minimal immigration and adherence to customs and standards of Singaporean people is what allows Singaporeans to get along so well, regardless of cultural or religious background. The case with Europe is that there are mass amounts of migrants flooding in all at once, not allowing for any adaptation to culture.

Your point on Ben Emmerson is a good one. And thanks to President Trump, ISIS is mostly gone (a debate for another time, I'm sure), so I don't think it's as big a risk as it once was. However, the Washington Times did mention how the CIA acknowledged the fact that ISIS was planning on and did carry out multiple instances of hiding terrorists in refugee flows [4], so it's definitely an issue, and even if it isn't a big one, we can all see the destruction and damage a handful of these people can do, with hundreds of innocent casualties at the hands of less than a dozen terrorists, which could very well have come through with the refugees. With that being said, my main point is against the culture and lesser crimes, although still very serious, such as the rampant sexual assault, rape, and attacks. Building a wall may increase the reason for a terrorist attack, but it will decrease the risk of one.

I agree that completely denying every refugee the opportunity to immigrate to a western country would be detrimental to the west's global PR, but I think this risk is minuscule in comparison to the many points brought up against the refugee movement.

To elaborate more on my point from the first round in regards to the country taking care of its own citizens before allowing a plethora of others to flood in, is ideal. There are over 550,000 homeless people in America as we speak [5], and over 43 million people living in poverty [6]. These numbers suggest that we need to look after our own citizens before we allow hundreds of thousands or even millions of people (a lot being unskilled workers) to immigrate rapidly into our country. If we can't look after our own citizens, we will not be able to look after the amount of refugees that you'd like brought in. This isn't even a moral argument anymore in regards to clashing cultures, but just an infeasible goal to have everyone live safely and healthy when we import people at those numbers.

Don't worry at all about your English, I think your arguments were really well put together. I couldn't even imagine having a conversation with someone in another language, let alone a full on debate, so +1 to you for that haha.

Good luck in the final round, looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

[1] (Looks like a biased website but they quote the Quran and have reputable sources)
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Mister_Man!

I think that welcoming refugees is not just a lifesaving humanitarian gesture at a time when more people worldwide are uprooted by war and crisis than ever before. Refugee resettlement also enriches our economy and enhances our national security. Now, as the Trump administration considers how many refugees to accept in 2018, American values, tradition and interests are at stake. I do understand your point of Singapore and America being different in terms of culture, but I would like to clarify one thing. There are actually no refugees fleeing to Singapore right now (we are talking about the Rohingya crisis here), the Rohingyas (from myanmar) are fleeing to the countries nearer to them, like Bangladesh and Indonesia. Singapore is unfortunately farther away.

For the Europeans, this is a particularly difficult time, as they are compelled to address internal economic and fiscal challenges even as they take stock of their place in the world, as well as managing the Syrian Crisis. Europeans may find in relatively hard to accept the Islamic culture at first, but I believe that with time, they would be able to do so. They just need to get past their mindsets - cultural forces are actually downplayed or ignored as relevant concerns by their intellectual and foreign policy elites. This neglect is regrettable, for while there are some aspects of European culture that Muslims find problematic or repellant, there are others that Muslims find appealing, even admirable. Their unwillingness or inability to address any of these cultural phenomena renders America all the more ineffective at addressing the Muslim world. If this could be solved, I believe that the European countries would be able to coexist with the Syrian Crisis.

I understand that America may not be able to handle so many refugees (even though the rest of the world expects them to) as they might have problems of their own or insufficient resources, but I just didn"t think that the poverty rates are this high. If I was a political leader, I would place my own countrymen as the first priority. But my point is, the Syrians wouldn"t be staying in America forever, just for a period of time (Just that we don"t know how long or short this period is). So I think that America could afford to take in refugees.

Another thing is that, through a video that I have watched (which I can"t find it now), a news reporter claimed that most of the refugees have actually achieved rather high academic status and many of them are actually professionals in their respective areas. So I think by actually taking the refugees in, America might benefit from it economically. And maybe solve the problem of poverty in America or other European countries.

You also said that ""the crime rate is higher for refugees than German citizens [3], and the types of crime are more severe". I think that I forgot to put in this piece of evidence but, Germany actually also said that the refugees that are committing these crimes are like Nazis, or other refugees (I am not really clear), but definitely not the Syrians.

My debate topic is actually about the Rohingya/Syrian crisis, but we are only doing the Syrians
right now :( but it is ok, I can have a seperate debate on the Rohingyas.

Thanks anyways!



Well thanks for a good debate, you've done a lot more than simply appeal to emotion which is what the majority of people resort to when I talk about subjects such as this with them, so I really appreciate and respect the arguments you've brought up!

I completely agree that helping people out in any way is a morally justified thing to do, but like we've been talking about before, sometimes it's just not the best for everybody. It's tough knowing people are struggling in the world, but it's better to have a minimal amount of people suffer than allow the suffering to spread, which is what allowing countless numbers of refugees into other countries does.

You're right that Singapore hasn't accepted any refugees - that is the reason Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, whoever, get along so well. They are allowed to slowly grow together and adapt to each others' way of life, instead of being forced into clashing cultures all at once by the hundreds of thousands.

You're right that the Europeans have Europe to worry about. The EU is collapsing, and although the entirety of the continent isn't falling apart, they do have some of their own problems to work on before bringing in hundreds of thousands or millions of unskilled refugees to get government handouts. So it's economically and fiscally futile.

As far as culturally, I can see Islamic culture being able to coexist if and only if it is implemented into their society slowly. Canada is somewhat of a good example of this, although Jihadi Justin is really siding with them over Native Canadians, but we can see that slowly implementing a minimal amount Islamic/Middle Eastern culture can work for the most part, while still keeping our Canadian values intact. However the keyword there is slowly. Allowing more than a few thousand to flood in all at once will do nothing but move a country from the Middle East to wherever they're going. If two million Syrians move from Syria to Germany, why would they have any need to learn German culture? They're around millions of their own people, just like in Syria, but within a safer country. So with all that being said, you made a good point at the end that America needs to address a cultural divide so they can begin thinking about accepting refugees, essentially proving that America is not prepared to accept very many right now.

I cited a reputable source and there are many more showing that poverty rates are uncomfortably high in the country, so I don't really think that is up for debate. Again I agree with you, put the citizens and natives of your country before people from other countries - so don't take in a countless number of refugees. We have no idea how long refugees stay - it's usually forever [1]. "Resettlement" doesn't mean temporary placement.

You mentioned the government and other officiating bodies are not prepared to handle or even address the cultural divide, you accepted that America may not be able to handle the amount of refugees you're proposing with a lack of resources and problems of their own such as homelessness and poverty, you say American values, tradition and interests are at stake, and you also say leaders should put the interests of citizens and natives of their own country before that of others. So looking over everything you said, you've convinced me even more that refugees shouldn't even be thought about at this point in time.

It would be great if you had that video or a source to back up the claim that most refugees have achieved a high academic status, because what I find is quite contradictory of that. Here's an article from the UN Refugee Agency [2] stating that Europe just does not have the resources to even allow refugees to attend school, however the divide between the educated and uneducated is quite high. It looks like you have a bit of a point here, that some refugees are incredibly well educated, but a lot are uneducated, and at least one in five is illiterate in their own language [3]. Unfortunately the economy and poverty rates will not benefit if a handful of skilled workers arrive with a plethora of unskilled, illiterate, uneducated others.

Whatever the case may be, whether it be Syrians or others committing these crimes, the fact still stands that the crime rate is higher within refugee demographics than the citizens.

You're right that specifically the Rohingya refugee topic went over my head and I focused more on the Syrians than anything, so I apologize for not addressing them as well. I'm still happy we were able to discuss this, and I hope we accomplished something.

Thanks for the debate! I'm sure we'll chat again in the future.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 4 years ago
LOL nice timing, thanks for voting! Glad somebody did at least haha
Posted by Varrack 4 years ago
I voted with 30 seconds to go. LOL
Posted by Mister_Man 4 years ago
Incredibly sorry for the last minute reply, had a busy weekend. I'll get to this within 5 minutes of my turn being over LOL
Posted by WOLF.J 4 years ago
i stumbled upon a charity appeal for this, 25 pounds just for 2 donated meals, what a rip off!
Posted by Mister_Man 4 years ago
If you solidify your stance a bit more I'll take you up on this. Do you believe we should have open borders to any and all refugees, or should we have a strict vetting process and only take in certain ones? And are we talking about America or Europe, as Europe is the area that's been affected most by the refugee crisis.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 4 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that massive influxes of refugees create crime hotspots as well as the potential for terrorist attacks. He lays out how ideological clashes create tension (Islam vs the West), and that allowing a large amount of refugees in would be a net detriment. Pro responds by showing evidence that immigrants generally aren't prone to radicalisation, and that most crime involving migrants aren't caused by them. Con rebuts this by showing how 1/4 of German refugees were arrested for crime and that there have been instances where ISIS has instigated attacks through refugee flows. Pro hardly rebuts this in the following around, and seems to spend it summarizing their previous arguments. I vote Con because 1) Pro didn't make any original arguments (I'll assume BOP is split), 2) Pro made a few concessions (like how the US probably can't take in many refugees), and 3) Pro seemed to drop all of Con's rebuttals in the last round. Good exchange though.

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