2nd DDO Census Debate: Syrian Refugees

Let's start with a few overviews. OV1) We weren't aware that, when one side decides to play devil's advocate, the other is duty-bound to ignore points they drop. How rude of us to treat this like an actual debate. We recognize that Con is playing devil's advocate, and, while we sympathize with their circumstances, we're not going to handle them with kid gloves just because they took on a difficult argument. It was their choice to take up that side of the debate. They're expected to uphold it, and they're expected to address our points, the same as in any debate. OV2) This is a policy debate. We were required to, and did, present a policy: the USFG should accept Syrian refugees. It's up to Con to outweigh our impacts on that case, just as it's up to us to outweigh their case. That's the scope of the burdens, and apart from our presenting a case, they're equal. When it comes to a basic question of what action we should engage in, it becomes a comparison of our two worlds. Without comparison, we can't establish net benefits. In our world, we accept refugees. We never said that Con was required to present an alternative, but the fact that they've chosen not to do so means they default to a policy in which the U.S. accepts absolutely no refugees - that upholds their side of the resolution, and assumes nothing else. Con hasn't chosen an advocacy, so this is the one we're weighing against. OV3) The view that Con is the only side that's weighing this debate based "on values and arguments" is patently absurd. Since the beginning of this debate, we've argued that values based on obligations of recognizing the importance of human life, verbal contract, shared community, alliance, and security are all reasons to affirm. We've presented 3 clear arguments with substantial impacts. Those haven't suddenly vanished. OV4) Con mischaracterizes much of what we said. Every time we mentioned national security last round, it was in direct reference to statements made by Con. We even quoted them. We didn't make assumptions about the source of those arguments. We just showed how the position Con has relegated themselves to supporting, one where we accept absolutely no refugees into this country, would be perceived, and what effects that perception would have. Now, we will crystallize the debate and present voters. Con's contentions come down to two major points. 1) Discrimination/Finances Con argues that refugees will still have problems in the U.S. This only shows that a slight majority of refugees will experience discrimination, and many won't get jobs. Even if that's the case, that's still a far cry better than their current circumstances, where refugees are assured to face violent discrimination and abject poverty with no hope of recovery. So even if you're buying this argument to the largest degree possible, we outweigh. But let's delve down into the points. On discrimination, We argued last round that placing the refugees in more Democratic locations would reduce discrimination. Con presents you with a map of where refugees are settled. Compare that map to the map of large cities in the U.S.: http://www.debate.org... They just so happen to overlap almost across the board, especially the bigger populations. Almost every city is more liberal, even in conservative states like Texas.[43] The vast majority of placements are also in Democratic states, as many were placed either in the northeast or west. So, thank you to Con for giving us reason to believe that the U.S. government does place individuals in less discriminatory areas. On finances, Con either ignores or disregards all of the relevant sources that show just how refugees actually make out. The sole reason that Con provides for their financial instability is that the stipend that they receive from the government isn't big enough. Three problems. First, our source 26 actually does say how many Americans offered up their homes: "Hundreds of Americans". That number has likely grown as the number of petition signers continues to increase.[44] That's hundreds of people who could be accepted into this country with absolutely no housing costs, making $1000 over 3 months manageable even if they have no other income. Second, we showed that refugees are more likely than not to become self-sufficient. Con did a piss-poor job of checking our links. For demonstrating employment, look at the document in [33] under page 5, which directly states the overall percentage of refugees who proportion of refugees employed versus the U.S. population, under page 6, which shows that they rely less and less on public benefit programs, and under page 20, which has all the data supporting those conclusions. For demonstrating self-sufficiency, look at the document in [34] under page 20, which directly states the numbers provided in the debate, pages 28-31, which highlight performance measures of each voluntary agency and state involved in this process. These documents are HIGHLY relevant. Third, Con drops our argument that, even if they utterly fail to become self-sufficient, the social safety net in this country is much better equipped than anything the refugees currently have access to, which means their circumstances are ALWAYS dramatically improved. 2) Prioritizing Public Views This is the only competing point Con made: that the wishes of the general public should be paramount. We've argued since R2 that life and quality of life are paramount on the basis of shared humanity and shared community. Con hasn't argued that these lives are of lesser importance than any American lives, they've simply asserted that the government has a duty chiefly to their constituents. They argue that public opinion matters, but they don't provide any reasons to believe that the refugees will produce any negative impacts for the country, nor do they provide any impact to negative public opinion (which is already negative [45]). So this value cannot possibly outweigh the values we've presented. The duty to adhere to the clearly false views of a paranoid majority of Americans does not outweigh our basic duty as human beings. We have argued that Con is doing more harm than good by adhering to those views. Now, let's analyze how successful those arguments have bene. Why are you voting for Pro in this debate? First, you're voting Pro because we provide a tremendous amount of evidence showing that these refugees have nowhere else to go and will endlessly suffer in the absence of assistance from the U.S. or other countries. We provide that assistance. We clearly uphold basic humanitarian values, none of which have been addressed by Con. We save tremendous numbers of lives, and ensure that they return to a decent standard of living. Second, you're voting Pro because we're the only ones in this debate to explain why the U.S. has a specific duty to any other body, namely other governments. Con says that we no longer have the duty to take 10,000 people, but his own source shows that the Senate will never fall in line with the House to override Obama's certain veto.[46] His promise will continue to stand, and as such other countries will continue to expect that we take on those 10,000 refugees. We're debating policy, and therefore we're debating that policy within the context of what currently exists, and that includes our promises. Con continues to drop the explanation that ignoring that duty threatens our relationships with allied nations, particularly when they're on the brink of financial collapse. Third, and most importantly, you're voting Pro because we are the only ones addressing a very real threat to the U.S. and its allies, not to mention the very same threat that is perpetuating the civil war that created and is expanding the refugee crisis. That threat is ISIS. Con practically drops this argument in the previous round, so all of that extensive analysis we provided in the last two rounds for: a) why ISIS is dependent on the success of its propaganda (Con conceded this), b) why accepting refugees will undercut and degrade that messaging, and c) why completely excluding refugees will strengthen that same message becomes extremely important. Our side is the only one working to show the rest of the world that xenophobia, prejudice and paranoia don't define our foreign policy; "treating foreign visitors a[s] a threat first" and as a result spurning them entirely clearly showcases all 3. Our side is the only one addressing the threat of ISIS in any substantial way. Our side is the only one with any chance of addressing the very real and consistent threat of ISIS to other nations in their area and abroad (which includes the U.S. itself). Our side is the only one actively working to prevent defections of impressionable Americans to this terrorist organization. In other words, our side is the only one that requires the U.S. to uphold its most basic burden to its citizens: keep them safe. All Con has in response to this is the utterly baffling argument that ISIS's "threats [to bring their members in with the refugees] are real, and valid" while simultaneously saying that they "are not arguing that refugees are a security threat themselves"... Are we missing something? Are they trying to argue simultaneously that the refugees will include ISIS agents, and therefore be a threat, and that those same refugees won't be a threat? They haven't justified this point in the slightest, and there is no evidence that ISIS has successfully gotten any terrorists into any nation by this means. So, voters, buy the statement that the refugees are not a security threat, which also contradicts Con's assertions that peoples' fears of those same refugees are "100% justified," and ignore the rest of their unwarranted, unsourced argument that suggests otherwise. For all these reasons, vote Pro. 43. pewrsr.ch/V7Vpx1 44. bit.ly/23C6whb 45. bit.ly/1vnzqh8 46. bit.ly/201r1zm