Political Correctness and Terrorism

Thanks, Pro! I'll now rebut Pro's case. I. OverviewsA. TopicalityNot all illegal acts are instances of terrorism. Terrorism is "violence intended to induce fear in a population for political aims. " Suppose someone robs a gas station for money. Sure, it's illegal, but it is not "terrorism. "In his first argument, Pro talks a lot about thefts, forgeries, and robberies committed by migrants. Thefts and robberies are almost always for-profit crimes, not crimes designed to make political statements. Forgeries are not even acts of violence, so they (prima facie) cannot be terrorism. In his second argument, Pro talks about xenophobic attacks and right-wing violence. If these hate crimes are not undertaken to motivate political change, they are not terrorism. Some such attacks may be merely to vent anger or to express rage. So, it is not clear that these crimes are cases of terrorism, though some may be. The impact is clear: Pro's contention one is simply not topical, and much of the activity he refers to in his second contention is also likely not topical. Do not permit Pro to introduce new data. With only 1 speech left, this would create an unfair space/time skew against me. B. The WestMost of what Pro says pertains only to Europe, not "the West;" he cannot really affirm his argument for the entire West. II. Open BordersA. Rates of TerrorLevels of terrorism in Europe are not higher than those in the past; in fact, they are lower. From 2006-2014, fewer than 25 people per year died from terrorism, except in 2011, when Anders Behring Breivik (a native Norwegian) killed 77 people. From 1997-2005, however, more than 25 people per year were killed in all but 3 of those years. [1] "From 2000 to 2015 the death toll from terrorist attacks drops, with most years seeing less than 50 fatalities, a stark contrast to the years leading up to 1990 when more than 150 people died almost every year. " [2] In 2010, there were more than 4.8 million refugees in Germany, and Europe's Muslim population has been growing at a rate of 1% a decade (this is expected to continue through 2030). [3] Clearly, then, increasing rates of Muslims in Europe have not correlated with higher rates of terrorism. B. AssimilationPro bemoans the lack of meaningful assimilation, arguing that "prevaricating politicians" claim that "immigrants will integrate into their new, European societies, [yet] statistics show otherwise that migrants have increased the crime rate. " Firstly, crime rates are not necessarily indicative of levels of assimilation (natives commit crimes too), but, secondly, if the goal is to boost assimilation in the hope that this reduces social tensions (and, with that, right-wing ire) and also, as Pro claims, crime, PC policy is the best way to do that. PC is the best framework to encourage effective assimilation of minorities into a community. I explained this in my case with the (dropped) argument about ownership. Since Pro never responded to this point, extend the argument, and turn it to say that I solve for Pro's arguments best. III. The Right WingA. BreivikPro selects just one instance of right-wing terror in Europe. One example is insufficient to prove an "on balance" claim, and cannot prove the general claim that Pro wants it to. Furthermore, the Breivik incident occurred before the refugee crisis began (2011, as opposed to 2015), which reinforces my argument below that right-wing terror was not a result of a recent "massive migration influx" as Pro claims is the case. B. The DataLet's keep in mind that the absolute number of right-wing terror incidents in Europe is incredibly small. Europol states, "A total of 9 attacks classified as right-wing terrorism" occurred in 2015. [9] Moreover, Pro can only claim this small number of attacks as offense if he can demonstrate PC behavior to be the likely cause of them. If Pro can only claim that a fraction of 9 attacks was due to PC behavior, it will be extremely difficult for him to outweigh my offense. Finally, Pro's source 8 presents no data that supports the claims Pro quoted in his case. C. MotivationsIt is also not clear that the right-wing extremism is necessarily the result of PC policies. There are several potential explanations.1. Merely letting in immigrants is not necessarily a PC policy. Europe's acceptance of large numbers of refugees during the 2015/2016 crisis may be PC, but the population of Muslims in Europe had been rising well before then. [3] The changes in culture that have aggravated many right-wing extremists may therefore be caused by regular immigration policies than by the more recent PC policies. 2. Europe and the US may be experiencing right-wing extremism due to their poor economic climate. [4] US growth is stagnant, many European economies are anemic; unemployment many European countries exceeds 5, or even 10, percent. [5, 6] Minorities are often scapegoats when society's are not doing well, be they the Jews under Hitler or the Chinese during the Great Depression. [7, 8] Therefore, poor economic conditions may be causing ant-immigrant sentiment. 3. Pro explains that Breivik was motivated at least in part by low Norwegian birthrates, which cannot reasonably be attributed to PC. Simply put, the rise in right-wing extremism may have been caused by factors other than "the massive migration influx" Pro discusses. If Pro cannot tie that extremism to PC, he cannot claim that PC is causing or exacerbating right-wing extremism. IV. SoftnessA. LinkPro's basic claim here is that PC, by preventing us from having serious discussions on immigration, makes us soft. Pro hasn't actually drawn any causal link, using any kind of non-speculative evidence, between PC making us soft and increased terrorism. The only example Pro offers is Sweden, but this example is bunk for a few reasons. Firstly, the article is from 2012 (three years before the refugee crisis). Secondly, there is no evidence in his case that minorities are the main perpetrators of these crimes. Thirdly, the very article Pro cites notes that experts attribute the large numbers of reported rapes due to more Swedes feeling able to report those crimes than victims in other countries. Fourthly, the article states: "the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before. " So I utterly perplexed how this has anything to do with immigrants whatsoever. Even if it did have something to do with immigrants, rape is not terrorism; this data is a redherring. B. Governments and AssimilationGovernments do realize the importance of integrating immigrants into Western culture. Why else would Finland host acculturation classes for new arrivals? Or, if governments are so terrified of speaking out about the importance of assimilation, why would Germany have pushed back when Turkey's Erdogan urged Turks in Germany not to assimilate? [10] The reality is not the exaggerated world Pro paints in which no one can speak out about issues of race or culture. PC is not a prohibition on discussing these issues; rather, it is a call to discuss these issues in a mature, polite way. There may be PC-Nazis who take the idea too far, but "on balance" people and politicians are not as constrained as Pro imagines them to be, otherwise the policies I cited in my own case would not be being debated. The very existence of this debate, of the articles I've cited, and of the conversations about increasing migration that are occurring in the West's political sphere, are evidence against Pro. V. Anti-PC = Crime and TerrorI explained in my case how ghettos, as well as fighting and demonizing words, are drivers of terrorism. Ghettoization in particular may also go some way to explain crime; these communities have been neglected by the broader society for many year if not decades, and their conditions have been allowed to decay by governments who saw no political purpose in reaching out to such communities. The abject poverty that awaits many people in these ghettos or slums may cause them to turn to crime to sustain themselves. They do not commit crimes because they are migrants or because they are Muslims, but because they lack sufficient economic opportunity and support. Pro talks, for instance, about how recent migrants turn more to crime, but he also neglects to mention that many immigrants are prohibited from working by law until their claims are processed; this leaves them in an undesirable no-man's land where they cannot work to earn a decent wage, but are expected not to turn to illicit activities to support themselves. This kind non-PC policy breeds disaffection, disloyalty, and anger, and would likely drive individuals to commit acts of terror. Anti-PC behavior is therefore not conducive to effectively combating terrorism. VI. ConclusionMuch of what Pro says is simply not topical. At points, it feels as if he wants to engage in a broader critique of current European immigrant policies, which is fine, except that it doesn't impact to the specific issue of terrorism. Pro may well believe that immigration leads to all these bad outcomes, but this debate is only concerned about one outcome: terrorism. Pro also attempts to blame things that happened before the migrant crisis on the migrant crisis and focuses too much on cherrypicked examples rather than data capable of affirming the topic "on balance. " Finally, many of the ills he tries to pin on PC may not be caused by PC. VII. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . http://tinyurl.com...6 - . http://tinyurl.com...7 - . http://tinyurl.com...8 - . http://tinyurl.com...9 - . http://tinyurl.com...10 - . http://tinyurl.com...Thank you.