IQ2 Debate: Should Australia Curb Immigration?
Australia is a multicultural community. We speak more than 300 languages and nearly half of us were born overseas or have a parent born in another country. We’re privileged to have access to cultural practices, knowledge and cuisines from across the globe.
But with the significant rise in both migrant numbers and overall population, there comes the question of how our nation will support its new residents. Employment, infrastructure, affordable housing, education, healthcare and community services all need to be addressed when considering our future.
Hear environmental scientist Dr Jonathan Sobels, Indian-born writer Satyajeet Marar, urban planner and housing policy expert professor Nicole Gurran, and Australian Labor Party member doctor Anne Aly as they discuss whether we should raise, or decrease the annual intake of migrants.
//
Find out more about The Ethics Centre:
www.ethics.org.au
Experience our events:
www.ethics.org.au/events
Be part of our community:
Like us on Facebook / ethicscentre
See us on Instagram / ethics_centre
Follow us on Twitter / ethics_centre
Пікірлер: 4
Basically the against side says we need more infrastructure and development to cope with the immigration numbers but we must not curb immigration. Without population growth we wouldn't need more infrastructure and development. Who benefits from population growth? The industry Nicole Gurran works for.
I think there to be a flaw in this voting system. Winning a debate should not be based on the majority voting at the end. It should be based on the change in voting that the debaters are able to affect.
@unbearableunbearable2740
4 жыл бұрын
Quite true. The audience stacked 60% "against" to begin with, gave the "for" team no chance under the rules of this debate. And is 60% "against" representative of how this issue is perceived Australia wide? Doubtful. To be fair, the portion of the audience that already have an opinion should be 50/50 for and against, so the change of vote of the undecided can decide the outcome. Or only allow "undecided's" to vote at the end
There was really no contest between the two sides. The first speaker for the 'for' team was the most cogent, articulate and intelligent. He stood out from the rest because he addressed the fairly obvious -- and all too tragic -- environmental consequences of growth. Neither of the 'against' speakers got close to addressing these issues. One is compelled to assume, therefore, that these critical issues are unimportant and that, really, everything is just about us ... or more specifically about all those people who are not here yet! If you are not speaking about environmental issues -- and their intractability in the face of relentless human encroachment, you really have nothing to say. It beggars belief the 'against' side got up. Evidently reason and science matters not a bit.