I run out of time in my assessment but the point I was trying to make about the creation of atmosphere was that without suitable conditions in many of these European countries due to high incidences of Islamophobia, migrants wouldn't be able to even live and work and improve the economy and population as they would in a more stable atmosphere.(CON'S point) That was a point CON did not address thus leaving his only argument as the one which dealt with human rights violations, which in itself is a strong argument. Nevertheless, with one argument against the three his opponent raises, it's difficult to adjudge CON the winner.
@elomtet thanks for the judgment. The main takeaway I take from this is that I should have clarified that when my evidence talks about Syrian refugees or Afghan refugees providing economic and population advantages, between 75%-98% of these refugees from these countries are Muslim. I thought it was obvious that refugees from these countries are almost 100% Muslim, but apparently not.All of my evidence was specific to Syrian and other middle eastern refugees having already provided and being able to continue providing an economic and demographic advantage. Sure there will be trials and Islamophobia they'll face, but the evidence shows they have been able to assimilate and will continue to be able to be assets to Europe, despite the populist sentiment.Still, apparently I should have clarified the amount of Muslims who made up these refugees. Something to change for the next debate.
@elomtet Thanks for the feedback!
@singalport @debateme13With community vote going to the CON and 1st judge voting for PRO we have a tie; we will bring a second judge to make the final decision!
If there is any need for clarification, then please do comment! I know I got a little too quick in my reasoning towards the end!Something I specifically wanted to clarify was that the populist beliefs, the idea of protecting Muslims by denying them asylum (and therefore sending them back to worse conditions), and finally the fact that welcoming them helps with lowering terrorism, all helped bolster the idea of a need to uphold human rights. While Economics and population may not be affected as much (as Pro rightly argues), this does not outweigh those human rights that these countries agreed to uphold. That is what decided the debate for me and I voted Con.
@lupita Thanks so much for this! I actually really liked this judgment, not just because you voted for me, but also because you correctly pointed to the flaw in some of my case. It's very true that the advantages to Europe from Middle Eastern Refugees are only about a 10th of the total immigration advantages since Muslim Refugees only make up about a 10th of immigration. Ironically, I made that point early on because it helped the human rights perspective, but then it wound up hurting a few of my other points that I had been planning on focusing on from my pre-debate research. I wasn't expecting his case to be "Ban Muslims" so I had the economic and population arguments ready to go, and yet they sort of conflicted with the overall numbers since he was only dealing with the Muslim immigrants.But I certainly agree the human rights vs. populism points were the foundation of my case, thank you for noticing that and thanks for the decision!
You managed to divide the judges guys so it came down to popular vote!@debateme13 Congrats for advancing to the next round!@singalport Great job as always :-) See you in November?