We Should Accept Syrian Refugees

Judge: IncorrigiblePerspective
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
Great to see the debate argued in the correct spirit. Both of you argued really eloquently.
Bifurcations shaded it for me, but it was a close thing.

---

3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as biased

Judge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
I think CON wins by a little due to a slightly more convincing case, it seems to be a better idea to fight and destroy ISIS so there is no need for refugees from Syria. Syria should not be left to collapse and instead should be taken back. The PRO side had a convincing case though. In the end, it depends on how you look at it. Who knows what any of the plans would lead to in the long run.

---

1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional

Judge: TheHouse
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
CON loses the debate due to a misunderstanding of PROs case. This is best shown in his second round speech in which he asserts that PRO has not defined the countries involved and the number of refugees each country would take however this is clearly defined in PRO first round Speech as EU member states, with the possible involvement of Canada and the USA, and a proportional distribution of refugees. The question of time is not explicitly answered but the implied answer of for the duration of the Conflict in Syria is adequate enough. CON spends much of his time trying to prove that Syrian Refugees are a danger to the countries they are travelling to citing terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. PRO handles this argument by showing that Syrian Refugees were not involved in these attacks. As PRO states in her rebuttal particularly in the Paris attack, these were home-grown terrorists having been born and raised in the EU. In her rebuttal to the use of the San Bernardino attack she shows that one of the perpetrators is born in America and the other an immigrant from Pakistan, again CON misunderstands PROs case, he believes that PRO concedes that this was a “refugee but from another country” Pro does not but even if they had this does not bolster CONs case as the debate is specific to Syrian Refugees. Much of the debate went this way with a mismatch in arguments from Con against PRO.

Feedback:
PRO more clearly defining what is rebuttal and what is your own substantive case would have made this easier to judge, though much of your substantive does rebut CONs case explicitly pointing out where this happens would make my justification easier to explain. Also more clearly stating your mechanism in this debate in particular would have benefitted your opponent as your opponent didn’t seem to understand what your plan was exactly, this would have elevated the level of the debate rather than the somewhat wonky (for want of a better word) debate that was had.
CON read/listen carefully to your opponent’s speech. Much of your case was direct to what you saw to be PROs case, this did not match up to what the case actually was which made your rebuttal weaker which led to overall your case being weaker as much of it was rebuttal. For example your criticism of the holes in PROs plan didn’t match with their speech. Which countries? The EU, possibly Canada and the USA. What number? A proportional number. For how long? The only question we are not given a direct answer to, but also the question that matters the least.
Also many of your citations and examples were problematic as they did not match up with your analysis, and PRO did capitalise on this but not to the extent they could have. For example the Paris attacks were not carried out by Syrians as you said they were. PRO very easily points this out and it no longer has an impact on the case, however if your analysis had go on to show that no they weren’t born in Syria but they were fighting in Syria and made their way back to France without alerting the authorities by exploiting the refugee crisis this would have had a much bigger impact on the debate and would have proven a difficult argument for PRO to overcome.
2-3 mins of your first round is just a segment from a Youtube video, I don’t know if I can credit this, I don’t believe I can and have chosen not to as it is not your own work.

---

1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: Leachy
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
Good debate guys, I just wanted to apologize if what I have written below sounds negative. I thought you both did well and I have been detailed below not because I want to be critical but because I want you guys to be able to learn a lot from it.

So I thought this debate was really close but also problematic because neither side was prepared to really engage with the core of the others argument instead choosing to pick around the edges. On one side of the house you had the idea that we have a moral responsibility to refugees. On the other you had the argument that Refugees put locals in danger. Neither of you ever weighed both principles and explained why yours need to take priority. You attacked their arguments but never gave me the comparative rebuttal I was looking for.

So having said that, what was this debate about on who won. I thought there were three key questions in this debate.
1. Will refugees put Europeans in danger
2. Do we have a moral responsibility to be taking refugees
3. What will happen if we don't do this

On the first question I felt the negative came out on top. I felt he did a good job of establishing why refugees posed a threat to Europeans or whoever the local people may be. I think he made the case well that I didn't have to believe they were all terrorists to believe the threat they posed was real because just a bad few could cause real damage.

The responses we got were inadaquet on this point. The idea that every threat could be resolved by better organisation was good, but I felt his anylsis showed that some of these problems were intrinsic and not merely caused by organisational issues. The rebuttal that some refugees support isis because they were afraid of Isis was well dealt with by pointing out where the surveys were taken and then this point was dropped by the affirmative. I think on the issue of background checks both sides just asserted they did or didn't work so I ignored it entirely.

On the second question I think the aff won. I think she did a good job of establishing why refugees will suffer if they stay where they are and the neg didn't actually respond at all apart from saying we can make their homes better, which in the short term at least I didn't find that convincing. He also responded that most refugees are men which I thought was a powerful point and it got no response, but it came out late so I couldn't give it much weight. The real problem for the aff and what stopped this point from deciding the debate is that she never went to extra step to explain why Europe in particular had a moral responsibility to take more refugees. She explained that their situation was really bad and that other were taking more refugees but never said why this meant Europe should start taking them apart from the idea of the 'birth lottery' but I needed more analysis about why wealthy Europe could shoulder this burden and why the sacrifices Brits would have to make for example paled in comparison to what refugees were suffering in Syria.

On the final question I thought both sides were about even. I thought the argument that we can win the war was strong but also the point that not accepting refugees would increase anti western sentiment and make our problems was also strong. Finally the point that refugees will keep flooding Europe anyway, was Incredibly strong but came out properly in your last video. It was just too late for me to factor it into my decision.

So having said all that I awarded this debate to the negative because I thought he was able to prove the harms more effectively than the aff was able to prove we had a moral obligation. I felt the affs case was better constructed and had more potential but the failure to execute it meant the simpler negative case was more convincing.


Feedback:
Ok, not sure what this part is technically meant for but I'm using it to give general debating feedback and tips.

* Be comparative, compare the values, not just the models in a debate. Show me why your principles take precedence over his.

* Stop relying on Expert opinions and statistics so much, It may be my australasian bias showing but you guys were substituting analysis for statistics and quotes. Its fine to quote Ted cruz, but don't expect me to believe it just because he said it. Explain in detail why what he said was true. Also when you give a statistic, explain why that statistic says what he says, that far more important than the number.

* Don't be arrogant, the neg kept saying that he was winning points, let me be the judge of that. Adjudicators HATE being told what they are thinking.

* Don't say this is what happening therefore I'm right or their model will never happen. Debating is about what SHOULD happen not what will.

* Always explain in detail your arguments in detail. Step them out for me. A good rule of thump is to step out your argument and then step out the steps!

---

3 users rated this judgement as constructive