It was a mistake for Germany to take in 1million migrants.

1. Reasons for migrating She essentially concedes this point when she admits she presented the statistics of all of Europe, not Germany. I did the latter and as such the data I has authority in this debate. Not that her source contradicted my claims, she just misrepresented it and never objects to what I said. She merely reiterates that only 19% of asylum requests were made by Syrians, but every single round I pointed out that the idea of only Syrians being entitled to asylum is false. The only way for her to respond would have been to argue that Iran, Afghanistan, etc. are save countries. Which is absurd. Again, Baltic countries etc. have been declared to be save, as such requests by people coming from there have almost no chance of being accepted and the sources we both presented deal with requests, not how many actually got accepted. Thus, the number of economic refugees are even smaller than what the statistics at hand might suggest. 2. Education She drops the specific argument about the unspecified changes in German education and instead asks “Why should Germany be forced to sacrifice its education, economy and safety for people who aren't eve refugees?” This is essentially the first point she made, because the phasing implies Germany should not care for economic refugees. As such she concedes her point on education in general and the complaint at hand was answered under 1. Reasons for migrating. In short: Nobody forces Germany to help people who don’t need help and Germany rarely does that. I could respond to the other things she said here, but since she does not deliver any justification for her claims, she does not meet her burden anyway. 3. Culture She asks questions like whether I want the sharia to be implemented or whether I want a lot of rapes happening as if it was somehow established fact that these things are going to happen. Of course I don’t want them to happen, but Pro gives not a single reason to think the might actually happen. Indeed, it is precisely claims of rape skyrocketing like this, Ulf Küng, head of the CID Braunschweig, whom I quoted last round, responded to, when he said they are “absolute nonsense”. I don’t think my opponent realizes what numbers we are talking about here. One million refugees aren’t going to change the culture of a country with over 81.2 million citizens. 4. Standards of living She refuses to respond to anything I said. I rest my case. 5. Crime My opponent, once again, twists the numbers in her favor. I presented the exact number, 3.4%, in my opening statement. Why does she feel the need to claim it is 4.0% (1 in 25)? I calculated 3.4% by assuming every refugee would commit only one crime, which I admitted to be a grossly inaccurate assumption. 3.4% is the worst case scenario, because those refugees who stand out for violence commit far more than just one crime (1). Yes, it is against the law to revoke asylum status unless the person has committed crimes of outstanding severity (was repeatedly serving prison sentences) or is a threat to public safety, as stated by Section 53 and 54 of the Residence Act (2). Further, expelling any criminal refugee would be against the non-refoulement principle of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which states: “No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (3) 6. Terrorism I asked her to present the numbers, which she ignored. My opponent only reasserts her unsubstantiated claims. There have been seven attempted attacks in Germany after, all of which were prevented (4). I’ll say it again, to take the fringe possibility of a terrorist attack happening, even assuming some dozen people would be killed, as a reason to leave multiple hundreds of thousands of people to ISIS is not only ridiculous, it is paranoid. In conclusion, my opponent did an extremely poor job of justifying her claims. What she proposes violates both German law and international conventions, whenever I asked to back up some claim, she ignored my request and she blatantly misrepresents data several times. I rest my case, VOTE CON! Sources (1) http://www.spiegel.de... (2) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de... (3) http://www.ohchr.org... (4) http://www.sueddeutsche.de...