Let’s start with what the possible criteria for acceptance are. There have been various cases with a similar tone: visa, passport, etc. So, it is established that there already are and have been parameters for acceptance. Now we have a different parameter being appealed for installation in the current status quo.
This debate could be talking about: ethical issues, effectiveness issues, and efficiency issues in promoting safety. The expected link back in this motion will be based on those three criteria, agreed by both Team Affirmative and Team Negative. If prediction should serve us right.
There are other expected clashes in this debate, other than Team Affirmative and Team Negative arguing which proposal introduces better and faster safety for the recipient country. Which proposal will increase refugee intake, for example. Or whether perceived safety is as important as safety, for example. Or if safety is more important than religious value. Or if there are legal (and/or ethical) grounds for countries to implement extra entrance acceptance criteria.
- Because this will improve safety
The safety concern in this argument branches into two different parties. Safety for the host country, and safety for the refugees. It could be argued that safety for the host country comes from the more rigid and tight screening and filtering of refugees via this extra layer of protection having them to convert, and then argued that safety for the refugees come from a more positive reception and perspective from a previously prejudicial society. However, Team Affirmative could also assert that by providing extra safety for the host country automatically translates to extra protection for refugees too. Why? Because the potential danger and harms to refugees could only stem from negative stigma and prejudice from citizens and the society in host countries. The moment when they feel they are still safe, they won’t think that the source and cause of mishaps in their homeland comes from the refugees.
So, how will this criteria help improve safety for host country? Bear with us as there will be quite aplenty burdens of proof to satisfy regarding this point. For one, we could start with how this is a form of screening in order to filter the extremely religious from the progressive-to-moderate-to-liberal Muslims. This is not assumptive, as the more liberal one is, the less connected they are with their original supposed religion. This ultimately culminates and manifests in the presence of Muslims who do not believe in God, Atheistic-tending Muslims. And this serves as protection, because the ones who would likely commit crime, under the name of religion, IN ASYLUM COUNTRIES, are the ones who are extremely religious. Now, another of the expected impacts of conversion is the mitigation of extremist tendencies and mindsets within the conservatively religious Muslims. You could explore more about the process in conversion where they need to at least study a little bit about Christianity (or other target religion they would like to convert to) and that will include not only the tradition and culture, but also the philosophy and underlying values. This will expose them to various values and decrease their extremist tendencies. You should think of other factors that might provide the same motivation (and discouragement).
But why is that explanation necessary? Because we could never deny the fact that there will be some extremists who decide to “let’s convert for a while”, just for the sake of entrance. And, let’s face the fact, there is little to nothing we can do in order to prevent that from happening. Thinking of a failsafe plan in order to identify the ones having that motivation from the ones who don’t is near impossible, on top of that.
- Because not implementing this criteria will be hypocritical otherwise
It is undeniable that refugees who are desperate enough to leave conflict zones and to find a safe haven will convert just for the sake of increasing their chance for acceptance. The trend is already heading towards there. There is already this phenomenon of subtle discrimination among the officers working and operating in country boundaries and borders. The concerns you should have regarding this phenomenon, and thus your explanation for this point, is how the perception of public (not only the refugees and potential refugees!) is towards this phenomenon. Because sometimes it’s better to just admit that a certain trend is happening, no matter how unjust and inhumane it might sound. And besides, you could always justify your actions.
- Because it is better to have this dichotomy.
If you decide to go hard, go all the way hard. Let’s be as evil as we can, not half-ashed evil. At some point of the debate, experienced negative teams will establish the argument of “This is EXACTLY what ISIS wanted, you digheads, for them to prove to fellow Muslims that Christianity is evil and that they want to proselytize you and convert you to follow them – now they have more grounds and substance to convince moderate and progressive Muslims to kamikaze our ashes, thanks!”.
Well, anyway, just expect them to mention and utilize it. Rebuttal comes in the form of two possible options for you, whether you want to deny that premise, or concede and accept that that will likely happen.
It might be tempting for you to deny and attack that (especially if considering you just brought your Team Affirmative Argument 1, since they are kind of same in essence), but please consider conceding and accepting. Go evil.
Yes, this will incite hatred. Yes, ISIS will garner even more support from the moderate-progressive who decides not to go liberal but go back to their own conservative and extremist values instead. Yes, there will be a dichotomy happening. There is no possible middle grounds for moderate and progressive Islam. Yes, they will be left with only two choices – be liberal, so liberal to the extent of almost being an Atheist (well, it is kind of safe to assume that a Muslim who has decided to become a murtad fitri, by adopting Christianity, is very likely to have had lost faith in all religions anyway), or be conservative, so conservative that they think of us infidels as objects to exterminate.
Justifications would be needed, of course. First, you could assert that development of one’s faith in religion is almost always dynamic, and almost never static. People change faiths, or at least have different and varying levels of integrity in their faiths at different stages in life. Second, the way things are for these people who are living in conflict areas, is that the development can only go one way and not the other. A person who is conservative can only either stay conservative or start to develop liberalistic values. And once you go there, you don’t go back. Same goes with the liberal Muslims, either stay there, or go conservative. And once they arrive at conservativeness, no going back again. This only-one-way-direction movement is because of the limited discourse that could possibly happen at the same time over there. Unlike in the rest of the world where there is no conflict, so that it’s possible for broader, wider, and more various forms of discourses emerging.
Okay, so it is just a matter of time until they arrive at either end of their religious spectrum. Why not just make it happen sooner?
Now to the second justification. The sooner it happens, the easier we do our jobs. The existence of progressive-moderate Muslims are the soft-stances and the lukewarm and the undecided people who give the rest of us a huge headache as to where their alliances truly lie. We cannot say that they are entirely conservative, because some of them are open to ideals from differing religion. We cannot brand them as our allies as well, because to some extent they will still think that there is part of Islam that tramples and outweighs the rest of the other religions. Due to this inconsistency of them, it gets confusing as to what course of action would be best suitable to approach those kinds of people. So, apply the dichotomy, classify them to the most extreme of either end, then provide protection to the liberals, and we can finally do whatever we wanted to the extremist jihadists. It is safe to assume that the military soldiers and humanitarian groups are getting sick and tired of telling the difference between civilians and ISIS, by the way.
MegaSableye: “So, if a certain someone is suspected to be infected with the zombie virus, you…”
dissent_me_plz: “Catalyze the virus and zombify him immediately”
MegaSableye: “Then kill”
A fair warning for Team Negative firsthand. It might be tempting to argue that it is immoral for countries to impose such a criteria, but we highly discourage you from doing so. One, what are your grounds? Legal grounds? No. Auto-concede. You don’t have them. Ethical grounds? Yes, but highly debatable. And one in which you don’t have much chance of winning either. Why? It won’t contribute much to the debate. The wording of this motion does not ask whether or not they have the right to impose this. They HAVE the right already. The discourse in this motion circulates around whether or not an EXTRA criteria is OKAY to introduce.
- Because this will jeopardize safety
It just so happens that what Team Affirmative assume as being contributive towards safety is actually destructive in fact. A major component of what constitutes safety is perspective. Paradigm. Reception. Whatchamacallit.
So, your burden of proof is explaining how this criteria is unlikely to change the paradigm and perspective of the citizens (and/or the refugees). After proving that this criteria is absurd, or useless (not harmful, please – harmful means that it poses and has a certain impact towards perspective – stick with either absurd or useless), burden of proof should be easier to satisfy. Now that this criteria is ineffective, society perspective won’t change, and their fear will still remain as a fear, their stigma will still remain a stigma.
(By the way, how in the world would you tell, or know, that Ahmad, who still retains his beard and thick eyebrows, thanks to his genetics, has actually undergone baptism yesterday and is a Catholic as of today?)
- Because this criteria is kind of weird
Do you remember to concede that point where countries have grounds behind imposing various acceptance criteria they might happen to have? Good, well done.
That was the point where you have to concede and retreat, but now, here is the part where you fight back and defend.
Yes, indeed, that there are criteria imposed. Yes, indeed, that there is virtually not a single country that just blindly and randomly accepts everybody entering. But, here is the catch: there is something all these criteria have in common: contribution towards the society.
Let’s talk about the explanation behind visas. Why are there various visas out there? Travel visas, work visas, visiting visas, etc. etc. The moment when you visit a country, you “enjoy” the country’s benefits. The air might be cleaner. The food might be cheaper. The transportation might be better. All of these are fun and games, until – you happen to be working. Uh oh, you are a visitor in a certain country, and you happen to be GENERATING INCOME on your DESTINATION COUNTRY. Whilst, other people, their own citizens, have a certain income tax deducted from their earnings, because the country needs to make money too, not only the citizens. You, GENERATE INCOME, DO NOT contribute ANY INCOME TAX, and WILL TRANSPORT the money BACK TO YOUR HOME COUNTRY. Cases are, when you do this too often, and the immigration officers get suspicious of your passport without a working visa, have fun on your next flight back to your home country. You’re deported.
Anyway, that’s only one explanation. You should find other factors that constitute contribution a country expects in order to strengthen this point. Link back to how religion has nothing to do and has no connection whatsoever with this parameter, and you’re set.
- Because this will jeopardize international relations
This is inherently bad for the government, as this will incite hatred. Because this sends the message that the government is branding and labeling that a certain religion is bad. Islamophobia is already bad enough of a phenomenon in Europe (the most common asylum countries for Middle East refugees), but when you emphasize things like this, it is going to be escalated to nonsensical levels. For starters, this is going to hamper diplomatic relations with Islamic countries. The vital and much needed information about Islam and ISIS from Iran and Turkey (let’s use those two countries as an example first, for now – as those two countries happen to have a stance of being against ISIS) will now consider joining forces with ISIS because they have seen what a total icehole you Europeans are. Kiss those diplomacy, bilateral economic relationship, and vital information goodbye. Next, ISIS propaganda will be justified as they will have proven their point: Look at how those European Christians are proselytizers, they think that we Islam are misdirected, and that’s why they want to convert us. Attack!