2nd DDO Census Debate: Syrian Refugees

Rebuttals 1. Crisis This point largely focuses on the crisis refugees face, and there limited options in safety. Going through my opponents argument here, he mentions that refugees face intolerance, discrimination,and violence. Unfortunately we believe that discrimination would be just as bad (maybe worse) with refugees inside the United States. Due to many recent events caused by ISIS, many Americans fear terrorism, and accepting refugees is the last thing many Americans want. Americans, in the past have always had a hard time treating refugees much better than other countries. The major difference is now, we are under real threat of terrorism from a group of people coming from the very country these refugees are coming from. (1) America has a history of negative treatment of orientation's belonging to countries we were in war with. Okay it is 2016, and maybe times have changed from the mis-treatment of Japanese Americans from after WW2,(2) but blatant discrimination aside, these refugees may have a hard time finding jobs, and living and sustaining themselves economically. The US may be cheap compared to other European countries, but we aren't "cheap"... Especially our cities. Qatar, UAE, Lebanon, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are far cheaper. In fact Saudi Arabia is half as cheap as the US (3). It's more practical to send poor, inexperienced people there. Refugees aren't guaranteed great jobs here. In fact, the US 2.5x as expensive as Syria for people with no jobs or foreseeable future. SA is only 0.5x more expansive. Pakistan is cheaper than Syria. Imagine taking poor people and throwing them into a world that is that much more expansive... It's like telling Americans they can only buy new cars... It'd destroy them. We agree with that the refugees have it bad, but America be so much better of an escape from crisis. My opponent mentions that accepting refugees into America will increase their quality of life, where as we wonder what kind of quality of life they would have here, under circumstances of worsened discrimination and financial instability. 2. Duty The resolution of this debate is whether the USFG should take refugees in, and while current events demonstrate that the plan has already been committed, that doesn't show reason for it being the right course of action. While the United States will likely go through with it's plan, our goal is to argue why the plan shouldn't have been made in the first place. However, would the international recourse that our opponent mentions really be so bad? And why should the United States Government value the opinions of international image over the opinions of it's own people, when copious polls seem to demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans not want these refugees? If the recourse was something serious like a world-war, that is one thing. But there are many other countries that do not allow refugees (as my opponent mentioned in his first point) who don't seem to be getting a lot of negative push back from the rest of world for not accepting refugees. We feel that it is a gross over-exaggeration to say that the USFG would be "spitting in the faces" of the U.N. by choosing to honor it's own citizen's concerns for National Security. 3. Backlash While we agree that a large part of ISIS success is due propaganda, it doesn't reduce the fact that their is a lot of realism to both their threats, and that scares many people. My opponent mentions this as well however relates a large part of it to being subtle manipulation on ISISS' part to achieve their goals. The quote from his source (30) seems to be an inaccurate read of the situation. Rather than viewing Muslim refugees at a direct threat, Americans realize that it is unnecessary threat. Most people are not voting against having these Muslims in the country because of an understanding that they are "all terrorists". My opponent lists three ideals that he thinks will benefit from having refugees in the country. 1. "Good treatment undermines propaganda". What about the bad treatment? As mentioned earlier, it is more likely that that than not many will receive some sort of discrimination based on current events. Even if there was more good than bad, the bad experiences will exist nonetheless, and that is what ISIS would focus on. It's impossible to "undermine" propaganda, when a terrorist group can add spin. 2. "Social Media lends credence to fellow countrymen" The pro world has a very "Happy go lucky" attitude about refugee treatment, that doesn't display realism in nature. Again with the good stories, there will also be the bad. This nullifies much of the "good" experiences will have. It is also un-realistic to assume this will be taken well from their country men. Hearing a positive story about someone who escaped a civil war into another country, most likely wont effect an "entire country" or even a large part of that country, to the extent of thinking that America and all of it's ideals are suddenly amazing. It is unrealistic because it hasn't worked that way in other countries who accept refugees. 3. "Prevention of radicalization" There is simply no evidence to support this theory, and if anything, even more so this supports the opposite in light of the San Bernadino massacre. Without direct stories, American's can see how bad it is over there. That didn't stop a couple from being inspired to join up to the cause. Also we are assuming by this logic that, all refugees share a firm singular opinion about the issue, which is very likely un-true. Sources: (1) http://www.pewresearch.org... (2) https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu... (3) http://www.numbeo.com...