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

Round 3: I will summarize each contention raised using bullet-points and then I will follow with an analysis of the arguments, detailing why the arguments are flawed and misinformed. C1 Summary:* Europe is suffering from economic crises.1. Specifically, Greece has been on the verge of economic collapse. They've been the worst hit by the refugees out of all of Europe. 2. Greece would require substantial financial aid if it were to accept refugees* Only Germany seems to have helped Greece with the refugee crisis* Accepting refugees will lead to a positive feedback loop, encouraging more refugees to come, making the situation worseThere is no doubt that Europeans for the most part are still trying to get out of the Great Recession. Nonetheless, this is no excuse to refuse refugees into these countries. Con argues that Europe is in an economic disaster but has failed to illustrate the magnitude and its consequence on Europe"s ability to take in refugees. Con does not take into account the fact that Europe consists of several countries whose powerful economies could support weaker Euro countries in taking in refugees, nor does Con realize that the European refugee crisis is a globally funded effort.To begin, we should recognize that smaller economies (entailing countries with smaller populations and geographic size) only need to take in proportional amounts. As it turns out, most of these smaller countries barely accept any refugees anyway. Germany (most powerful Euro economy) takes in the gargantuan majority while countries like France and the UK have accepted much less, even though their economies are relatively strong. I would argue that the refugee crisis would be much easier to deal with if every country"s GDP and population were taken into account. (1) Germany"s short-term burden would be fairly distributed among the countries. Above all, Con"s main argument that Greece and other economically burdened economies will not be able to handle the refugees is debunked by a simple fact: these countries are barely paying for their troubles. Departures to mainland Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, and Austria " among others " between the months of October 2015 and December 2015 have been relatively stable at around 8,000 to 10,000 refugees. (2) This regulation and maintenance of the migratory process is obviously expensive; however, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency, most of these countries, particularly Greece, have received enormous voluntary funding from countries such as the UK, USA, the EU, and more. (3) The UNHCR (Refugee Agency) requires Greece to put out ~$17.3million for the refugee crisis. Amazingly, 89% of those funds have been met ($15.4mill) - all of it came in the form of donations outside of Greece. (3) Other weaker/more vulnerable countries have similar stories: Bosnia and Herzegovina have 87% of their required funds paid for. Serbia ~60%. Macedonia 88%. More effort is needed, but the major premise that Europe cannot afford to take in refugees (note: obviously it has no moral obligation to take in ALL refugees) is patently false. Finally, Con"s final point of a positive feedback loop is uninformed considering the fact that there is a limit to the population of Syrian refugees. Not only this, but I mentioned that Europe does not have an obligation to take in all refugees. The resolution only requires that refugees are accepted. It does not say all. We know this to be self-evident by the fact that, as mentioned in my arguments in round 2, over four million refugees have taken refuge in other parts of the Middle East. C2 Summary:* As a result of steadfast support for the refugees, Merkel has lost a good deal of German favorability. Merkel"s actions have caused civil unrest.* Citizenry hold fears of terrorism, cultural conflict, etc. Con commits a basic bandwagon fallacy. He is essentially arguing that, because a majority is scared of refugees, Germany has no moral obligation to take in refugees. Just because a majority shares an opinion, does not make such an opinion correct. On the eve of the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of Jews tried escaping imminent despair at the hands of the new German Order. The refusal by the Western world (not just the US) to take in the Jewish refugees was caused by the same agitations of today: economic hardship as well as political and social fears. (4) The result: their extermination numbering in the millions. Although the historical comparison does not share magnitude or probability, the principle is the same. You are able to lend a hand, and you don"t - you are partly complicit in the group"s ultimate demise. This ties in well with the golden rule as a general moral principle. C3 Summary:* Paris attacks example of repercussions of excessive migration* Cases of rape showing up* Government has a responsibility to secure its citizens and so should refuse to accept more refugeesFrom the outset, I will establish that crime rates have increased absolutely, but not relatively. "The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans. These findings are the result of an initial evaluation conducted by the BKA in cooperation with all federal states and commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior." (5) Crimes increased in total simply because of the increase in population size due to the past year"s record immigration levels for Germany. The articles continues to cite that less than 1% of all refugee crimes were sex crimes, while homicide was about .1% The fact that such crime rates are so low for the country that has taken in virtually all of Europe"s refugees is very telling of the security threat posed by these refugees. Con mentions the Paris attacks that happened November 2015. I would argue that the refugee crisis has little to do with the Paris attacks. France has had a rising Muslim population (currently 10%) independent of the refugee crisis that is experiencing a grueling clash of cultures. To associate the Paris attacks directly with the refugees is to deliberately perpetuate xenophobia. There have been, and will be, numerous fatal attacks that have more to do with French-Muslim relations than they have to do with the current refugee crisis. The French have to address these issues independently for the most part. C4 summary:* Refugees flee to Europe for prospect of better life* Moral obligation for all developed countries to take in refugeesI have sprinkled points regarding this contention throughout my round 2 arguments and in this rebuttal round. Con is misinformed for the most part regarding this contention. As stated earlier in my arguments round, over 4million refugees have already settled in other parts of the Middle East (by the way, these countries are nowhere near as prosperous as Germany). Europe is NOT bearing the whole burden. And even then, it is misleading to say that Europe as a whole carries a burden since the majority of the refugees is staying in Germany. Germany is not Europe. The other point I tried to make throughout this round is that the resolution does not require that all refugees be accepted into Europe. Fundamentally, I do not disagree with Con's C4. It definitely should not have to be Europe"s burden alone. The thing is that it isn"t, and it never was.Sources:http://www.independent.co.uk...http://data.unhcr.org... file:///C:/Users/Benjamin/Downloads/20151211EstimatedArrivalsbyCountry.pdffile:///C:/Users/Benjamin/Downloads/SpecialMediterraneanInitiativeEXTERNALfundingupdate12January2016.pdfhttps://www.washingtonpost.com...Note: I'm going to repost my sources in the comments due to space and pasting issues...Your turn, Con!