Hey Sup Forums, I was chosen to do a persuasive speech for my humanities class on why Australia should NOT let any more refugees in. I need stats, facts, laws, and what not.
I personally don’t have anything against the refugees, but the girl opposing me in the debate is a massive SJW, and it would mean the world to me to destroy her, i've always won when ever we’ve argued face to face, but this time it’s extra special since it’s in front of the entire class. I need my facts and stats by tomorrow, please help me out.
I think immigration should be a two way street. I Call it reciprocal immigration.
The problem with these immigrants, is that they come from countries that we can't immigrate to ourselves. The countries are largely lawless,violent, corrupt, and intolerant places. So the way I see it, is that if Australians can't safety move to and live these countries as full citizens, and live in safety, own property, vote, hold public office, then we shouldn't allow any immigrants from that country.
This will have a civilizing effect on the world, because people will no longer be able to flee problems. They will have to fix them.
You could also note that japan has very restrictive immigration policies and is doing fine.
Aiden Price
Blast her with Sweden rape statistics, along with no go zones, silencing and unreporting of rapefugees crimes etc. Really Sweden is your best example of why mass immigration is not a good thing.
Hunter Evans
just make the statement that boat people are not refugees but are in fact illegal law breaking economic migrants who because of their attempt of illegal entry should never be allowed entry into Australia as it directly contradicts current policies and steals the placement of legit refugees waiting, and dying in UN sanction refugee camps in foreign countries doing the right thing and waiting for legal entry.. Twist the topic, make it political, and if your told you are off subject, argue the point that the suppression of your right to open and free speech is directly opposed to your rights as a legal law abiding Australian under constitutional law. argue and clarify what your teacher/instructor deems a "refugee" . Drive home the point that you cannot defend not letting in more refugees but Australia should never step down to the criminals entering illegally into Australia.
Tyler Morris
maybe you should make the distinct between 'refugees' and 'economic immigrants'. Like in the case of Germany, the Syrian refugees were actually fleeing a war torn country but economic immigrants from non-syrian countries like pakistan etc. were just using the refugee crisis to get better welfare.
They should also learn the country's language and culture, and integrate into society.
Use stats from scandanavia e.g. sweden, japan, and germany.
just a thought...
Justin Collins
Don't talk too much about the refugees specifically, because her fee-fees ("muh drowned babies") would win her the support of the class. Instead, try explaining to them the fact that diversity leads to lower social trust.
So basically, to add more ethnic diversity to Australia is to knowingly reduce social trust, support for the welfare state, and trust in the government. Let that bitch get stuck in the contradictions that exist between her own views.
Daniel Torres
Oh, and a rhetorical point derived from this would be:
"Will these refugees return to rebuild their homeland once the war is over?"
See her try to wriggle her way out of that one.
David Martin
australia, to win the debate, you need to just ask 1 question:
How many refugees is enough? If you should let it one, why not let in two? If you should let in two, why not let in 6.5 Billion?
I mean, they've got just as much of a right to be here as we do, right?
^^This argument works because it causes the SJW to realize that resources are finite. It is easy to say, "sure I'd rather help refugees than not" but it is not always clear what is being sacrificed to help said refugees. When the sacrifice is > the benefit to refugees, then no more should be allowed in.
The beauty of the reductio ad absurdem, is that SJW's know you can allow 6.5 billion to immigrate. Then you ask, "OK, how many can we take then?" They'll either 1) say we can take 6.5 billion, which wins you the debate since everyone knows that's not possible. or 2) agree that 6.5 billion is too much, but think we can still take more > then you ask them where the limit point is, and WHY. If she cant defend this decision, then her argument is arbitrary, and should necessarily lose since its not an argument, its a supposition.
Josiah Ortiz
>I personally don’t have anything against the refugees
You faking wot meight?
Christopher Perez
whatever you do, dont take other user's advice. It's fucking terrible. You cant say "They're taking our jobs, or "diversity is ruining our society". I mean holy shit you'll just instantly sound like a bigot. You need to be reasonable, and try to examine the issue reasonably. What are the reason to let refugees in? What are the reasons to not? Does one outweigh the other? How many refugees? Does the answers above change depending on how many?
Owen Richardson
Resources are limited and UNHCR is more economically efficient at helping refugees. It is cheaper to help on spot than to help in an expensive country. Thus you can help more if you send aid rather than accept refugees.
displaces native population, draws funding away from indigenous issues, keeps minimum wage low, sup[ports and encourages a people smuggling trade.
Connor Williams
Sad but true. Although "refugees" destroy the working class and there is not a single example of a sucessful mulicultural society, you will sound like a biggot because these ideas take a lot of time to explain. Fun fact is that USA was not multicultural until very recently. They had a huge immigration pause during the 20th century that allowed the immigrants to assimilate to the anglosaxon culture
Carter Wright
bumping for OP on a quest to crush the opponent. God's speed user!
John Phillips
You know her arguments, just oppose her arguments and it`s done.
Also, strategically place some agents in auditorium so they`ll strawman sjw`s (not really strawman, but whatever).
1. girl: females that are not feminists must be killed, because they are racists *while shaking her head niggerously*
2. boy: it`s 2016 mate, why are you a hillar.... erm healer.... *someone whispers something to him* ah ye - you are Hitler! you are Hitler! you are Hitler! *tries to cheer crowd so they repeat his chanting, while pouring menstrual blood on his face*
John Ross
Just memorize the transcript of a Black Pigeon video of your choosing
Jaxson Miller
Refugee convention requires them to make the claim for refuge in the first safe country they enter. If they are coming to Australia, they are by definition not Refugees, they are migrants. The only people that could make legitimate claims for Refugee status in Australia are Kiwis and Flips.
