On balance, Europe has a moral obligation to take in refugees from Iraq and Syria.

I want to start by expressing my disappointment at pro for using a vague rule to try and twist support in his favor, and even though he could argue to some extent I did break a rule, I will acknowledge on to a certain level I did play out of hand but considering the situation I would have hoped he'd discussed with me further about it, either way, I leave it up to the voters to decide whether I was in the wrong or not.I wish to point out very quickly that pro has also committed a rule violation as well, introducing TWO new arguments in his final round, that being the political interests argument that he suddenly brings up in the final round and the return of interest argument that was a part of the 'foreign aid to improve international relations' contention. (International relations was only mentioned and never expanded in the second round, and he should have no right to use the last round to expand on it where I have no chance to rebut it at all.) I want to keep the voters in mind of this when voting as well.The Defence - The economic crisisPro has argued that the refugee crisis is a 'globally funded effort' and hence it should help Europe's economic situation, but this is simply too vague, first of all, there is absolutely NO indication whatsoever that even a decent proportion of this funding is actually going to the EU to help the respective nations tackle their refugee population, the majority of the funding is sent to humanitarian aid in poorer middle eastern countries, where even still, they lack $15 billion USD to fulfill the relief effort. [A] [B]Hence, there is no significant funding effort to help the EU situation, and even if such an event happened, it wouldn't be for the best. Funding refugee intake in such gigantic proportions will, as I mentioned before have serious consequences in the long run for those governments that take them in with the crime situation and the bulk of money spent to accommodating these refugees instead of getting them to start up helping the economy.The rest of his rebuttal goes along stating how Greece is being well funded and how they can easily manage it and they are having a easy time as other countries pay for their situation, bypassing many of my other points. Pro fails to address how the funding they have receive will prevent the political and social unrest and how the increasing costs from refugee camps will actually be worthwhile in the long run. Literally the only thing pro has tried to state is that they are being funded and left it at that, and that despite some effort to help Greece out, some level of funding does not help them as they are still draining. Macedonia shut it's borders with Greece further preventing the already gigantic proportions of refugee intake in Greece, over 40,000 already, from recovering by sending them to other countries. [C]Furthermore, pro tries to introduce a counter policy of distributing refugees by the GDP percentage across Europe to "even" it out, a simply ridiculous statement. It does not take anyone much time to figure out how distant people's views can get when they live far apart from each other. A left-wing approach from a country such as Germany is going to differ greatly from a stronger right-wing approach in a country such as Ukraine. Trying to evenly distribute them is never going to happen and the situation in Germany is a mere slap-in-the-face example of how other countries aren't going to accept as much simply because their GDP is high.The Defence - The oppositionPro has tried to dispute that what is considered moral cannot be decided by the population, or at least, a majority, as pro has accepted. And honestly, there is nothing simply more wrong than saying people cannot have a say in what can be justified, since it's the people who make up the country itself. I don't understand what pro defines as 'correct' since he takes no time to elaborate on that, why is this? Simple, because there is no universally correct idea of how things should be done. If the death penalty is illegal in the UK, that suddenly doesn't mean it's okay to have it illegal in other countries such as Brunei, as people may feel the death penalty may be better. Similar to a crisis, if the majority is against it, then it is justifiable that they can consider it moral not to accept them. Talking about the Jews doesn't help pros case, this is an example from back in the time where communication wasn't as advanced, and it wasn't as simple to simply turn on your TV and find out what was happening to the Jews just like what was happening during the refugee crisis, a majority of the US population wasn't aware of the horrors faced by the Jews under Nazi occupation, so it's immoral to simply put the blame on them for not accepting them.The Defence - The Crime IssuePro is getting confused with what I have been trying to express, the Paris Attacks does not share a direct link with the refugees fleeing themselves, but it does share a link with the Islamic State as they are using the situation to their advantage. [D] Syrian passports were found at the scene, and although they were obviously fake, it presents a significant breach in security as perpetrators are using the refugees to their advantage, if it be connected to the Islamic State or otherwise, which also threatens the refugees themselves. But when pro states France has to 'independently' deal with these issues, it further proves my earlier point that a EU obligation to accept refugees should not stand and it should be moral enough to let France decide if they don't want more.The crime rate increased 65% in Germany, the rape statistic in Germany being lower than other countries, but that's because pro did not take into account the massive increase in theft crime from 9421 to 16066 incidents, attacks with bodily injuries, from 5172 to 8994 incidents, and an increase in overall crime from 32,495 crimes in 2013 to 53,890 crimes in 2014. [E]The Defence - Europe's BurdenPro simply denies that it was never Europe's burden to accept refugees alone, yet the irony is that if this resolution is affirmed by the voters, then it suddenly becomes Europe's burden over every other state in the world. Why? Because many developed nations choose not to accept this burden, and in no way can pro simply claim countries like Australia are accepting the burden Europe is, because it simply is not. The only case pro backs up that it would never be Europe's burden is the case in the Middle East, where nearly 2 million of pro's unsourced '4 million refugees' reside in Turkey, [F] a burden that Turkey accepted on their own, not through political pressure, while most countries like Saudi Arabia never accepted any refugees at all, being developed as well. So pro never answered the question, if the Middle East is taking up the burden willingly, why should we affirm the resolution and not have other developed countries take it as well? Why shouldn't it be 'Developed countries have a moral obligation' and not just Europe? That is why this contention still stands strong, as pro NEVER addressed this.Conclusion -Here are the points that I've proved throughout this debate in bullet points -* Europe's economic situation does not improve despite the immigration because of - *Crime *Social unrest *Difficulties managing the refugees* Europe's crime rate increases at a damaging rate.* Developed countries should all have the burden, not just Europe.* The majority has the right to define what is legally moral in their state.* Four major arguments compared to pro's two shows that my case is stronger overall. And like I said before, pro himself has committed a rule violation of introducing new arguments in the final round, and using the round designing for defending against rebuttals to elaborate on arguments he should have done earlier, and I'd like voters to keep that in mind as well, but overall, it was a great debate, and I thank pro either way for the interesting run!Sources in Comments