Europe Should Ban 3rd World Immigrants

I'm tempted to actually go through these points and give Pro his due when it comes to the arguments he's presented, but doing so would require me to give Con's arguments more than a passing read, and I don't see a reason to do that. Pro didn't need the rule about not including AI-generated arguments for him to win this debate - I would have just considered Con's R1 and R2 auto-forfeits for being fully written by AI. Unless it's agreed by both debaters ahead of time that AI-generated arguments are acceptable, they are by default not acceptable. As such, Con essentially full forfeits the debate, conceding it to Pro.

Description,
I like the rule,
"(5) Debaters must use their own writing. Writing will be tested with gptzero. If your text in a round is 10% or more AI, you forfeit that round."
Pity world is in such a way that it 'needs to be a rule.

Personally I lean towards the Pro side.

Round 1 Rennaissance
Argues: Violence, Rape, Terrorism, IQ,
Been skimming, will return later in depth, likely. I'd bad at statistics.
The IQ argument though, offhand I'm doubtful is too strong, but I've not read of it deeply.
I think Nurture is a stronger argument of national IQ being effected, not Nature.
Not that intellect and Nature is without 'any merit.
But 1 it has workarounds, 2 I think Eugenicists tend to overstate it, 3 degree of inbreeding used to be more common in most all of the world.

Argues: Welfare, Culture Disruption, Need for Stronger Deportation, Lack of Need of Immigrants by Europe.

Round 1 HoangNguyen
Argues: Statistics and be misleading, Correlation is not Causation, Cherry picking,
I think there is truth in this, but one does the best they can with the information and statistics one has.
Argues: Demographic changes and need for new population.
I 'really hate this Pro Immigration argument often used by people. To my mind it's an ideological 'insanity to replace your own people with foreign blood and foreign values.
1 there's other ways to boost one's population, 2 even if there are harmful effects by an aged population it's better than replacing your own people, 3 the population will recover eventually, 4 less people means better wages and better environment.
Argues: IQ citation highly criticized and controversial.
I think Con has a point, but regardless of the IQ being of Nature or Nurture, the fact is that people of the 3rd world would be more likely to have it, and would be entering X 1st World Country 'with said IQ.
The damage and the 'weight of the 3rd worlder is 'much the same either way. 'IF genetic, admittedly genetics are not forever, but why introduce weakness into one's society?
If nature, 'maybe a generation of few, the descendants will have higher IQs, but maybe not. It can be hard to get out of a pit if poor, hard to escape parents influence.
I don't understand why one would want to import low IQ into one's country. . Perhaps if one wanted a lower class to do menial jobs for bad pay, perhaps corporate greed.
But the greedy are traitors, one should want one's countrymen well paid, and there will 'always be 'someone willing to do a menial job 'eventually. Not everyone can be rich.
Argues: That immigration drives cultural development.
I don't agree.

Round 1 Thoughts,
Though I am 'personally heavily in Pro's Camp, lot of my criticisms are my own, not the debaters.
Pro has made some decent arguments, Con has fairly criticized many of them. Debate currently tied I'd say. But lack of sources might hurt Con by the end of the debate.

Round 2 Rennaissance
Ugh, I hate wins on technical debate rules, though I understand many people like very structured debates. Especially people who have formally debated in real life, likely.
Rule 5 is the only rule that says debate is forfeited by breaking said rule, so likely I possibly I will hit Con with Conduct ding or mentally give more weight to Pro's arguments.
Ah wait, possible AI use. . . That's a pity.
I hate going onto random sites, even for AI checks, but Con doesn't deny AI and forfeits the final round.
. . . Hm, rereading Cons first round, 'does sound a bit AI like. Though I have heard some people argue that humans will become homogenized themselves by AI, speak like AI the more they use it. Same way people often have 'TV accents.
Well, debate goes to Pro, looks like, but I'm still going to read the rest of the debate.

Argues: Further on immigration and rape throughout Europe. More sources. Argues people must pick examples 'somewhere, can't list 'every example. Argues benefit fallacy. Argues IQ evidence is not controversial.
Pro 'may be right, but I've not researched into it. There are big physical differences between people, be strange if there weren't 'some mental differences as well.
People 'really reviled Eugenics after WW2.
. . . Still, even 'with differences, there are 'large genetic differences even within different regional population maybe.

Argues cultural destruction exists.
Honestly I don't think one even needs to look outside Europe for proof of such.
Before the wider world, people were happy enough to tribalize themselves and otherize others. Cultural changes existed even then. The Romans, The Normans, so on so forth.

Deportation,
Well, I think 'should involves money as a consideration.
Some actions are not worthwhile in terms of cost.

Round 2 HoangNguyen
Okay, that 'clearly looks like AI to me now, it's arguing Pro's case.

Round 2 and 3 Thoughts,
Well, Con broke the rules and forfeited. Pro victory.