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

Round 4 In this final round of mine, I will assess Con’s main points that target my arguments on the golden rule and the benefits of immigration. I will do this by expanding the arguments I made in round 2 in order to help better capture the strengths of my arguments. It’s Irrelevant? The golden rule in its rawest form can be responsible for many decisions made at the international level. Economics is a way of thinking; thinking like an economist means finding ways to maximize efficiency and produce the strongest results. As a general rule, people perform their best when they are well incentivized: you will work harder knowing that if you do, you will be paid more (i.e., do your part and you will get what you deserve). As abstract as it is, incentive-based decision making is at the heart of the golden rule. In other words, it is generally in your best interest to help others when they need your help. This is because, when the tables are turned, YOU will want their help, and they will feel no obligation to help you if you had never helped them. In addition, at other times, those you’ve helped in the past may be more predisposed to doing you favors over time, feeding into a positive feedback cycle of mutual interest. This feedback loop is more or less dependent on continued application of the golden rule as it becomes more of an expectation than an act of grace. Speaking of incentives, take the example of foreign aid. It is well-known that developed economies have no immediate need for healthy diplomatic ties between them and poor third world economies. Poor countries have virtually nothing of immediate economic value to the developed economy, but we give aid for several reasons nonetheless. One reason is that helping to create newer, stronger economies can create a future market for business; if the developed country helps raise the economic prospects of a third world economy, they can expect a “return on investment” in the form of extra foreign markets/preference for the developed economy’s goods and services, thereby increasing GDP. There are political interests as well, since foreign relations can turn “hot” and “cold,” stimulating or stagnating economies depending on the political climate. The most obvious examples include some present day examples like Russia’s meddling in the Ukraine, or the lifting of sanctions in Iran. These cases have more intertwining complexities than simply following fundamental incentive-based decisions processes, including the refugee crisis. Nevertheless, the case for Syrian refugees stands: Many countries in Europe are having existential crises. France and Britain, for example, have thriving, growing Muslim communities that will have more representation in these democracies over time. These countries have seen and continue to see clashes between these groups of people; this existential crisis bears its roots from the colonial era. Although there are some fundamental differences in the cultures at play (which is largely responsible for much of the violence and demonstrations that have occurred over time in Europe), much of the rationale behind these events comes from a perceived indifference on the part of the native Europeans to understand and accommodate the Muslim community. There is the widely held belief that Westerners are domineering, egocentric racists – to paraphrase. (1 & 2) Thus, these Euro countries have a moral incentive to accept the refugees because it would signal to the Arab states and Muslims in general that Europeans DO care about the plight of Muslims and that their lives are worthy of respect and protection. One can easily assume the response of European Muslims had the European nations completely ignored the refugee crisis and sent them all back to their war-ravaged countries. Taking in refugees can help (if only even temporarily) defuse the social unrest in these countries, creating a safer and inclusive environment for all to live and prosper. Issues with a declining population… Citing an article from The Economist, Con blatantly states that there is nothing inherently wrong with a declining population. I proceeded to read the article and I find nothing written about immigration. Nor did I find any graph that could even allude to populations and the impacts on economics. Then Con invites me to dispute the veracity of my claim and the subsequent effects of a declining population. While I have previously given a lengthy discussion on the effects of immigration and the demographic dividend, Con responds with no substantial rebuttal to my claims. Conclusion In this debate, I presented two expansive arguments in support of the resolution. Those two arguments are the golden rule and the economics of immigration and the demographic dividend. I managed to single out all of Con’s main arguments, dismantling each one in full with contradictory evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. I believe I have illustrated broadly the issues with my opponent’s rebuttals to my arguments. The golden rule was expanded to illustrate incentives, mutual interests and their application to international relations and the particular present day issue of Europe’s clash of cultures. The rest is history. Vote Pro! Ending note: I find it worth mentioning to the readers and voters that Con broke the debate structure that was given and agreed to in round 1. Round 3 is for rebuttals to round 2, but my opponent devoted a section of his round 3 rebuttals to attacking my round 3 rebuttals. The obvious reason for such a rule to the debate is that only one person can take advantage of reading the opponent's rebuttals in round 3 and compiling a response that challenges both round 2 arguments and round 3 rebuttals. I hope that those who vote in this debate will take this breach of the rules into consideration when choosing a winner. Sources:1. http://www.pewglobal.org...2. http://www.gallup.com...