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

The Case For - The "Golden" Rule and the Economics behind itWhen it came down to morality, I expected such a thought-provoking argument of the humanitarian argument to come up, but imagine the disappointment instead this comes up, and finding out how poorly this has tried to convince all of us here today that in the grand scheme of things this actually should still apply, why not? Let me explain. Quite simply, pro has dramatized the golden rule, essentially trying to state that we have a moral code to run by which strictly states we must 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is what makes up the reasons for why most countries in the EU accepted refugees in the first place, partially true, however, they accepted it under a humanitarian perspective, and not under the wording of how this golden rule has apparently been carried out. Why? It's irrelevant. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not take into account of any of the values or interests of either the Europeans or the refugees themselves, how Germany decides to treat a refugee may not be how that refugee may want to be treated, and hence it is potentially dangerous in itself. Furthermore, it is too general. The refugee crisis is a very sensitive and troubling issue that has been facing the world and no such principle does even have an impact or should have an impact on the moral obligations a country should take, each and every society has it's own idea of what morality is and it is in no way restricted to this definition at all. It's not the only factor we should base decisions on. Pro brought up two substantives, the second being the economics argument being centered on immigration which I will nullify in due course. Simply put, compared to the issue of crime or the impact on the European economy, the golden rule doesn't consider any of these issues when pro put it forward as his major argument, which is why as I stated before, the golden rule is extremely flawed. With Germany having the biggest economy in Europe and suffering greatly from the crisis, [A] European countries are going to base morality over what is right for their country, and simply not what is 'the right thing to do' in a humane point of view. So, moving on to the economics. Here's where pro really invested most of his time trying to prove his case, but no matter how many words he wrote or how he tried to exert his knowledge on the economics of the refugee crisis, (which also partially led to why he criticized most of my arguments as 'misinformed') he still ended up coming up with numerous assumptions and simple factual errors. Let's summarize this case,'Replacement migration is good. ' - Basic sum up. This is essentially what pro has argued, he has pointed out that European countries are experiencing an aging population and a fall in birth rates, which is true. But he has tried to link immigration to the mix, which doesn't work out. Why? Because firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with a declining population. [B] Europe's economy can still easily be maintained with the population at hand, and I invite pro to dispute this if he so wishes, without the involvement of more refugees. Granted, it may hurt the economy, but there is no case showing that, (even in the very long term) that it cannot still be controlled by the governments of Europe, and a lot of other factors play into the economics of this, and we can already experience 'increased' consumption as it is with refugee populations Europe already has right now, but there is no 'moral' grounds to accept more because magically more increased consumption = better economy off the bat. And if pro does argue that it has a better effect, where is the example, look at Germany, look at Turkey, what has increased levels of migrants done to their countries? Refugees are holding the economies back, neither has seen any sort of improvement or positive effect from accepting so many apart from the fact that it makes them 'look like the good guys. ' Instead of increased consumption resulting in a lot of money circulating the economy, all this money has instead been redirected to keep the shelters and camps inside the country active as hardly any refugees are actually working. Why is this? Because they have simply not been allowed to, and there is nothing morally wrong with that, because this is my next point in addressing pros economic argument. It still houses illegal immigration. It somehow became pro's job to try and emphasize for far too long that immigration was simply a good thing that Europe needed. Yet this never answered the question of illegal immigration at all, unless quite obviously, pro didn't consider it. [C] Illegal immigration is still present as hundreds of thousands of refugees are running past European borders without being properly checked up on beforehand which constitutes illegal immigration, and that plays a significant role in pulling the economy back, and not pushing it forward. What comes from illegal immigration is a increase in crime, cultural conflict, religious conflict, rape epidemics and corruption to that economies system. As I explained in my opening arguments, such acts that pro did not deny were happening, play detrimental roles which puts a huge hole in pros argument, that more or less resembled a lecture on how economics works rather than directly focusing on Europe itself. So pro has simply tried to bypass this, talk simply about how great immigration is and bloated on about how terrible the Europe's economies will be without this, yet he has never proved this and is yet to prove this. And once again, I invite him to. Being there is a significant word limit restraint at this point, as it is generally hard to address both pro's cases and my own arguments, I will provide a general defence which will be significantly expanded upon in round 4. I had provided most of my points in my rebuttal, but I will address the points brought up that come under incredible factual inaccuracies. Now, if pro is going to argue that the refugee crisis is a globally funded effort, that's one thing, but suddenly saying we should direct the funds to helping more immigrate into Europe will put a huge question as to how effective this is going to be. There are simply far too many, at this time for Europe, to accept simply through that funding effort, and what should have been done, was have this funding effort directed to helping the situation IN the Middle East so that no more have to emigrate out of the Middle East and to Europe which pro stated will benefit Europe, but will not help the Middle East at all. As I stated before, societies have their own view on morality, and in no instance will there ever be a 'proportional' amount of refugees in each state. Furthermore, a majority DOES have a share in saying what they believe is morally correct for their society, society is based upon the ideals of the population itself. Also, what has come as most amusing is that despite pro saying I've been well misinformed, he keeps blurting the '4 million refugee statistic' in the Middle East, unsourced mind you, as an example for developed countries to accept more. But then look at Lebanon's example, they took in so many refugees that it ended up costing their government $4.5 billion ANNUALY. [D] But pro did misintepret that contention, so I will repeat it briefly, I was referring to the situation in the US and Australia for example, that have not accepted nearly as many despite having the ability to help out, which pro did not directly address. As I have now hit the max limit, I leave it over to pro to present his defence and I will sort mine in the final round properly. Sources in comments.