THBT: The US Should Grant Asylum to Greater Number of Refugees
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
The context of Coronavirus is not relevant to the context of the debate, and should not be mentioned.
Thanks for accepting. I will take my case from three basis, first from virtue (why we ought to do it from a moral standpoint), second from results (what is occurring because we are accepting refugees), and third from reasoning details (what would happen if we tried to enforce denial of refugees).
Refugees are in such trouble in dangerous territories. These terrorists, these wars, they are not allowing refugees to speak or move freely. Indeed, we hear of America, the land of the free, home of the brave. They have been the number one in helping victims live their lives, giving them another chance.
But what's the contradictory pattern in this chart? It seems that President Trump has stood by his discrimination, and failed to uphold the very idea of the United States leading the world in helping people. They have already established an act in congress , taken the responsibility to take in people, who are in danger and life-threatening situations. The Senate's unanimous consent on said act goes far to highlight the importance of human life, and the power of the US to accept refugees.
As the very virtues of the words on the Statue of Liberty, how can we go back on our promise as "land of the refuge"?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" 
To stop the process and principles in the middle out of nowhere seems strange and illogical. This would require such a massive revolution that it would be near impossible to support. Urban.org words the case extremely well, noting from the definition of refugee, that refugees differ from immigrants in the cause (though not effect):
- ...refugees come here seeking safety and refuge from violence, torture, or persecution. They do not voluntarily choose to migrate but are forced to leave their home countries because of circumstances outside their control.
- After being forced from their home countries, refugees usually experience a long period of displacement in refugee camps or other vulnerable conditions while they go through an exhaustive vetting process in applying and waiting for permanent resettlement. 
Due to the value of human life, and the ideals that construct the basis of America, the premise can be won merely on this point alone. Even if Con could miraculously flip point II and III, he would have to prove that the destruction is so severe that it is equivalent to negating our act from congress, and the ideals of freedom and acceptance from America.
A lot of Americans complain, we come to steal their jobs, but refugees encourage you to work harder, with greater competition at hand. Refugees provide a strong backbone of the economy, as well. The involvement of refugees gives extra motivation, resulting in a better work force in America. As one study notes, "refugee-country immigrants spurred significant occupational mobility and increased specialization into complex jobs, using more intensively analytical and communication skills and less intensively manual skills."  With over 95% confidence and a positive correlation over 13 years, the study makes it apparent that we definitively boost the US economy, causing a win-win situation.
Indeed, not only do refugee workers thrive, the entrepreneurship works excellently. The start-ups differ from taking jobs as there may be limited demand for workers, while the demand for companies may never end, with more and more customers and fields to satisfy. One article from HBR carefully analyzes this relation, noting the pattern: ", in total, 35%-40% of new firms have at least one immigrant entrepreneur connected to the firm’s creation." Through data crunching through the Census Bureau, they conclude that the businesses of immigrants are no worse than those of natives. Not only so, "firms created by immigrants who have grown up in the U.S. are generally associated with better outcomes, in terms of lower closure rates and higher representation among larger firms."  The contribution to the economy and exchange of money will allow the resulting finance to boom as a result.
The mere export of immigrants can provide many benefits to overall trade between countries. It has been agreed that there is a definite positive correlation between the refugee/immigrant to the effects of trade. One study clarifies that it has been able to find a reasonable cause as well. Firstly, statistics note " a 10% increase in the Vietnamese network raises the ratio of exports to Vietnam over GDP by 2% and the share of total exports going to Vietnam by 1.5%".  Next, the study finds that people's motivations are inherently related to them establishing businesses. The ties to their formal nation allow us to foster the trade, with the undeniable link between countries.
III. Legality Impact
If con advocates for the same or a lesser amount of refugees, he agrees with Donald Trump's executive order, as it is the status quo. But this is impossible to enforce on a legal level. Already, states have rebelled in recent events. "The vast majority of U.S. governors, Republican and Democrat alike, have affirmed their support for continued refugee resettlement".  The mayors and those in power on the local level are already observing their beliefs. They see how immigrants and refugees contribute to the job force. What would you say to them to dissuade them?
Because we already established the resettlement groups and the people to enforce these ideals, the loss on our side is immense if we continue to support Trump's executive order. The same site highlights the context: "But because of decreasing arrivals since 2017, these agencies have been forced to shutter more and more offices each year. As of June 2019, refugee resettlement agencies had closed 51 programs and suspended resettlement services in 41 offices across 23 states." The effect then follows as such: "These reductions have meant serious cuts to personnel, losing valuable expertise on issues important for successful resettlement, including trauma care, housing assistance, and job placement." With the lose-lose impact of cutting back further on refugees, I'm simply not seeing the Con side, and the burden is completely upheld.
Unfortunate. I'll give con another chance.
As con has forfeited three rounds in a row, I have no choice but to declare victory. He is free to bring up some points, but he cannot win this debate as I have zero chance to respond to any of his arguments.
I'd like to give my utmost apologies to Undefetable - I thought I had more time than I did.
ohhh you seem like a really solid debater. Assuming fauxlaw just ties and RM continues to ff, you might just be the first to end his name sake!
Feel free man, I'm loaded down rn
I agree with the statement but I can think of some pretty good arguments against - I'll take it on if nobody else with a genuine belief that they shouldn't doesn't
It's just you. It's a pretty hotly debated topic
is it just me or this is a truism