unknown777anonymous (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-05-31 01:06:01
| Speak Round
WCS7 (CON)It's completely ridiculous notion that we should accept all refugee.
(I will just use the word "all" the same as it's dictionary definition)
Accepting every refugee into any country, regardless of country would be catastrophic to the accepting countries' politics, inter-country relations, economy and many more.
Let me just give some examples:
- For economical, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources against the people living there.
- For social, there might be a divide (a sort of culture clash) for these natives which cause a great divide among the people in the country.
- And lastly for political, the refugees, which might be caused by religion, gullibility or any on there factor are usually swayed into one political party or another causing a much lower outcome from the other side
When people talk about refugees, they usually make a "think of the children" argument but changed to "think of the refugees". We've seen the crisis migrants caused in Europe. Now multiply those migrants by 10 and you have basically doomed your country.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-05-31 13:28:28
| Speak Roundunknown777anonymous (PRO)Excuse me, I missed my deadline last argument
Mostly people worry if the Refugees are Terrorist that are just pretending so the solution for that is Security or testing the migrants to find out the 'real'refugees
Just like the other citizen, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources, there's no problem with that, if we accept refugees its like we accept them as the citizen inside the country, but you're right, they have nothing and they can't provide for themselves so they need others, the solution for this is to find some organization that volunteer to help them.
For social and having different cultures, there's no problem if people have different beliefs or religion culture and tradition as it cause no harm.
A powerful country is not 'that doomed' if they add many migrants and the Europeanas didn't complain in the migrant crisis but instead accepted the Syrian refugees,they actually more cared about the experience of them traveling from a dangerous journey.
We should accept refugees for it is moral to do so, just imagine if you were the refugee and you'll be at risk if you stay at your homeland.
We know financial, economic, social, population, safety, resources,morality, employment are affected by these but I see no wrong sacrificing these for humanity. Refugees are not just a burden.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-02 03:41:39
| Speak RoundWCS7 (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-04 03:42:02
| Speak Roundunknown777anonymous (PRO)Economical argument
- Alex Nowrasteh cites a 2013 International Labor Organization survey of Syrian refugees in Lebanon which found they had a wide range of skills. “Half of the workers were skilled or semi-skilled while the other half were low-skilled workers in agricultural or personal services such as cleaning,” writes Nowrasteh. “Few spoke English but lower-skilled jobs in the United States require more manual strength than English ability.”
Social argument
- Beside the Social impact of low birthrate that Germany is facing, there are several economic challenges. According to Peter McDonald who is a professor of demography “very low fertility substantially reduces the size of the labour force within one generation just as the population is ageing rapidly”(2008). When a country faces demographic decline, the majority of the working people will be aged which deprives the country from the diversity of ideas brought by new generations. As Seamus Grimes said “It is generally accepted that societies dominated by 50 and 60 year olds are unlikely to be very forward-looking”(1994). Hence, the lack of the young human resources creates social and economical issues. In order to lessen its demographic shrinks during a reasonable time, Germany decided to host Syrian refugees.
Political argument
- Accepting refugees is necessary to defeat ISIS.
ISIS’s strategy is to goad the West into turning against Muslims, driving people back to its caliphate. Forcing refugees back toward Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who refugees say that they are fleeing, would play into ISIS’s hands and actively aid the recruitment that has already proven to be instrumental to their success.
US intelligence officials have complained for years about their lack of intelligence on ISIS. One official told theLA Times in 2014 that Syria was “a black hole.” Patrick Eddington, a former-CIA intelligence officer, calls Syrian refugees “the single best source of information on life inside ISIS controlled territory.”
Moral argument
This image of a young boy who drowned in the Mediterranean and washed up on a Turkish beach deeply affected us all. It was a sign that things needed to change, and that we need to take in those who need protection. What would the alternative be? If we close the borders, we’ll find new images of thousands of people lingering on the European border. Is that what Europe should be? We don’t want that. That’s why we decided to take them in. And it was the right decision. Even after the events in Cologne, the decision stands, and that’s also the right decision.Many of the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the brutal oppression and terrorism of ISIS – the very force we are fighting against ourselves. Others are fleeing the mass-murdering regime of Bashar Assad, which at this point is only modestly less oppressive than ISIS. Even if they are not forced to return to their original homes, for most of them the alternative to admission to the US or some other Western nation is life in refugee camps with little freedom, and horrendous living conditions. For that reason, the moral case for allowing them to migrate freely is even stronger than for most other migrants.
We cannot take everyone. We have to exercise caution when refugees arrive from a region that breeds anti-Western terrorists. But we remain that shining city on a hill. We must not close our arms to the world, or to the family on a raft.
Sources
- https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=bsocial+enefits+of+accepting+refugees
- http://auwanthology.tk/archives/781
- https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8962710
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/23/the-debate-over-syrian-refugees/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91a2c1b1ce47
- http://time.com/4024901/the-u-s-has-a-moral-obligation-to-help-syrian-refugees/
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-05 20:12:05
| Speak RoundWCS7 (CON)For this round i will be responding to both of your arguments: (My counter argument starts after >)
- Mostly people worry if the Refugees are Terrorist that are just pretending so the solution for that is Security or testing the migrants to find out the 'real'refugees
>How will we do this? Did we invent some kind of "terrorist detector"? It's very hard to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't.
- Just like the other citizen, refugees will have to compete for jobs and resources, there's no problem with that, if we accept refugees its like we accept them as the citizen inside the country, but you're right, they have nothing and they can't provide for themselves so they need others, the solution for this is to find some organization that volunteer to help them.
>First of all, it is a problem that refugees will be competing for jobs. It really isn't fair for the people of an area to compete with tens thousands of people (because you said ALL refugees) who were let into the countries just to survive, also in last half is another problem: it is fair for the poor people in the area that an organization help the refugees and not them.
- A powerful country is not 'that doomed' if they add many migrants and the Europeanas didn't complain in the migrant crisis but instead...
>They didn't complain just suffered. Also they didn't accept every immigrant imagine the problems is they did.
(The next post was pretty long so i won't be copy-pasting the parts)
Economical argument
>Half of the workers are low skilled which means they are competing for the same jobs as teenagers like me with low qualifications. For me vs. a refugee for example it would be 50-50 chance of getting the job because we have the same skill level. now imagine half of the thousands of immigrants vs. the Low qualified people the area fighting for a job.Social argument
>There are plenty of ways to do this without refugees. Like a more than 3 child policy.
Political argument
>I didn't understand what he was trying to argue about ISIS. Also see above. Why couldn't the ISIS sneak among the refugees. You would have to accept them because you would accept "All of them".
Moral argument
>First of all, appeal to emotion argument.
>Secondly, I never said anything about closing borders, some refugees should be let in but not all of them.
>Lastly you contradict you self. You are are arguing for "That we should accept all refugees" but yet in your argument you say "We cannot take everyone" this is because you just copied and pasted one of your sources (see screenshot) 
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 05:05:45
| Speak Round
Judge: Imbster
Judge: GuitarKirby
Too many economical sacrificesPosted 2018-06-07 13:15:47
@Prakash. depends to the countries' laws and economical condition but besides that, accepting refugees is fundamentally a kind thing.Posted 2018-06-05 20:17:24
They should not be allowed to enter the others country territory
Posted 2018-06-01 01:08:14