The Instigator
aaronyero
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ishant117
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Banning Muslims From Entering U.S.A Is Great Idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 92645
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

aaronyero

Pro

I believe in what Donald Trump said, which is to temporary ban Muslims until we can figure out what's going on. If we can figure out if there are any radicals coming over and are they actually causing troubles. Even if it is a small amount of people causing trouble in America.

https://www.youtube.com...

Rules:
1. No trolling
2. No google docs, words must remain in available words.

Let the games begin.
ishant117

Con

Aaren, everybody has a right to put his opinion and I respect your opinion that "Muslims should be banned from entering U.S.A. is a great idea". But I kindly request you to read the facts and data that I have posted below. Read and understand it clearly and calmly and then we can proceed peacefully to a good argument regarding this sensitive subject.
so, here is the true historical data and facts-

All terrorist organisations in this world are Islamic, but very few people know that who primarily created them in the first place-

Well, America and Russia(soviet union at that time) were always in a conflict that who would become the ultimate global superpower, and Afghanistan served to be the central ground for this battle between the 2 powers when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 . This led to tensions between America and Soviet Union which is referred to as the cold war (1979-1985). America wanted to drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan but was not willing to directly go to war with the Soviets. The "Mujahideens" were the Afghanistan Muslims who were fighting the Soviets for their land. America played a very clever game here. It managed to convince the other Muslims living in Middle east and around the world that Afghanistan war is a war to protect Islam and their Islamic state from the communism ideals of the Soviets. America convinced these Muslims to fight to protect their religion around the land which belongs to them, and promised these mujahideens that they (America) will help them to build an Islamic state in Afghanistan post war. Hence lakhs of mujahideens came from as far as Libya and Egypt to fight the Soviets. For them, it was a religious war known as Jihad but for America it would help them to become the ultimate global superpower once Soviets were defeated(their only competition). America gave arms, ammunition, money, training and support to these mujahideens and ISI in the war which they ultimately won. But America betrayed the mujahideens as once the war was won, they(America) stopped all the funding and other support to Afghanistan, and quietly deserted the area. This angered the mujahideens and hence Al-Qaeda was born(first terrorist organisation). America, thus played the central role in creating Al-Qaeda. It was a gun which they created for their own dark motives but it backfired at them only. About 8 lakh- 10 lakh "INNOCENT MUSLIM" civilians were killed during the war.

America supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war(also supported Saddam Hussein) in 1980s to maintain sufficient control over oil reserves in the region, by supplying weapons, training, and intelligence to both sides. On both sides, 5-7 lakh "INNOCENT MUSLIM" civilians died due to the war.

America again led war in Iraq in 2003 to capture Saddam Hussein whom ironically they supported first (for their own greed-oil reserves of Iraq and Iran). America attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and for the next 10 years fought the Taliban( A terrorist group formed from the Al-Qaeda itself) after the 9-11 attack and attacked Pakistan(some areas- to fight the Taliban) in 2011. The total tally of civilians killed violently due to American attack on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (all Muslim habitats) via missiles, drones, guns, bombs,etc is 210,000.
America also gave birth to ISIS to divide and conquer the oil rich middle east.
Also America has also openly supported terrorist group Sarekat Islam in Indonesia against the Sukarno and supported the Jamaat-E-Islami terrorist group against Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan.
The fact that the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" has a long and torrid history of "CREATING" and " BACKING TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS" will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore "HISTORY".

So, it can be concluded-
1- America is responsible for the death of 8.5 lakh innocent Muslims in Afghanistan-Russia war 1970s.
2- America is responsible to create Al-Qaeda (first terrorist organisation), Taliban(successor of Al-Qaeda) and now has successfully managed to create the ISIS(financially the strongest terrorist organisation till date- an extension of Al-Qaeda).
3-America killed (indirectly) 10 lakh" INNOCENT MUSLIM"civilians in Iraq-Iran war.
4-America has directly killed a total of 210,000 "INNOCENT MUSLIM" civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan combined.
5-America illegally detained around 3000 INNOCENT MUSLIM men post 9-11 attack, tortured them(some were tortured as long as 7-8 years) without any evidence against them, just on the basis of doubt in prisons such as Guantanamo Bay (now closed).
6-America has created ISIS which is again killing innocents.

After reading the above facts It can be easily concluded that America, for its own dark purposes and greed has created (had a major role) and backed the terrorists around the world and is itself responsible for all the terrorist attacks around the world and of course in U.S.A, has killed around 20 lakh "INNOCENT MUSLIMs", over a period of 46 years from 1970s, has completely destroyed the economy of the middle east countries (whom America attacked), and committed the inhumane act of torturing around 3000 innocent Muslim men.

And now Donald Trump is saying that-
- Muslims see Americans with hatred.
- Muslims commit inhumane acts.
- Muslims are responsible for forming terrorist groups and carrying out attacks around the world.

I think that all these views are suitable for Americans. The American government has committed the worst atrocities against the innocent Muslims, to fulfill their own "GREED" and "HIDDEN MOTIVES". They never bothered about their (Muslims) lives and always kept their (America's) national interest over the innocent lives as can be clearly seen in all the wars.

So now in my argument I believe that banning Muslims to enter America is not a great idea because-
1-Why should you ban a group from entering your country, against whom you only have committed the worst atrocities possible for so many years.
2- Banning the innocent Muslims from entering America will not solve the problem because they are peaceful people and not terrorists.
3-It can harm many Muslim's lives who have to travel in and out of America for work purposes.
4-Such a step can increase chances of a terrorist attack as it can further anger and offend the terrorists who already are not very much into liking America.
5-It is a discrimination against a particular group of people.
6-Such a step can harm trade between America and other Muslim countries, primarily the middle east countries which supply 40% of world's crude oil.
7-American government should review its own political and international policies and should start thinking about lives of innocent people over their own national interests.

I am eagerly waiting for your argument and now what you feel about the Americans and the Muslims.
Debate Round No. 1
aaronyero

Pro

In this argument I have said that it's a great idea for us to ban muslims. Con clearly did not make a argument against this in the majority of his comeback, instead he talked about how America is responsible for everything ISIS and how it did bad things. Though this could be true, this doesn't make the idea of banning muslims a bad one. Even if America caused the issue than it's still up to Donald Trump and congress to stop it from causing any harm to America.
Now moving on the arguments he did make against the idea of banning muslims.

1- "Why should you ban a group from entering your country, against whom you only have committed the worst atrocities possible for so many years." So we can protect America from danger, this is a morale argument not a logical one.

2- " Banning the innocent Muslims from entering America will not solve the problem because they are peaceful people and not terrorists. " Not all of them are peaceful people though, some are radicals that wish to hurt America. Just look at what is happening in Germany with mass muslim gang rapes and attacks in school and churches also robbery. And hell the Orlando shooting which is said to be one of the words mass shootings in American soil was done by someone with
connections to muslims and suicide bomber, we'll find out later if he was Muslim this happened too recently. So yes I do believe we need to take these radicals apart from peaceful Muslim immigrants so they don't continue causing harm.

3- " It can harm many Muslim's lives who have to travel in and out of America for work purposes. " This is true, but we need to protect American lives. This is sad, but it must be done. This is also a morale argument con presents.

4- " Such a step can increase chances of a terrorist attack as it can further anger and offend the terrorists who already are not very much into liking America. " Yes, but they are already attacking like I just showed. So there's more of a negative result in not stopping them from coming in as they are already attacking us. Plus the ban will stop them from coming in to do those terroist attack.

5- " It is a discrimination against a particular group of people. " Yes, but it must be done to stop the radicals from coming in. Would you rather be politically correct and allow radicals to come in to kill and rape people? I wouldn't want that.

6- " Such a step can harm trade between America and other Muslim countries, primarily the middle east countries which supply 40% of world's crude oil. " But they need to trade with us to make a profit don't they? Do you really think they are going to stop making a profit because we banned Muslims? It's up for the voter to decide that one.

7- " American government should review its own political and international policies and should start thinking about lives of innocent people over their own national interests. " I'm fairly certain banning Muslims to prevent radicals from killing and raping people is thinking about the lives of innocent people.

Sources: http://eaglerising.com...( My best one, as it shows radicals from muslim immigration attacking, look at the videos in the article. The second one shows the attacks as well. )

http://www.cnn.com...( This one shows that ISIS was saying the shooter was part a Islamic Fighter. Keep in mind this needs to be fully confirmed, but the germany case still stands.)

http://www.latimes.com...
ishant117

Con

Aaron - Previously you quoted all of these-(till 18 lines -for just reminding you)
"Even if America caused the issue than it's still up to Donald Trump and congress to stop it from causing any harm to America.
1- "Why should you ban a group from entering your country, against whom you only have committed the worst atrocities possible for so many years." So we can protect America from danger, this is a morale argument not a logical one.

2- " Banning the innocent Muslims from entering America will not solve the problem because they are peaceful people and not terrorists. " Not all of them are peaceful people though, some are radicals that wish to hurt America. Just look at what is happening in Germany with mass Muslim gang rapes and attacks in school and churches also robbery. And hell the Orlando shooting which is said to be one of the words mass shootings in American soil was done by someone with
connections to Muslims and suicide bomber, we'll find out later if he was Muslim this happened too recently. So yes I do believe we need to take these radicals apart from peaceful Muslim immigrants so they don't continue causing harm.

3- " It can harm many Muslim's lives who have to travel in and out of America for work purposes. " This is true, but we need to protect American lives. This is sad, but it must be done. This is also a morale argument con presents.

4- " Such a step can increase chances of a terrorist attack as it can further anger and offend the terrorists who already are not very much into liking America. " Yes, but they are already attacking like I just showed. So there's more of a negative result in not stopping them from coming in as they are already attacking us. Plus the ban will stop them from coming in to do those terrorist attack.

5- " It is a discrimination against a particular group of people. " Yes, but it must be done to stop the radicals from coming in. Would you rather be politically correct and allow radicals to come in to kill and rape people? I wouldn't want that."

My argument-

So basically Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims to enter into America to-(points from your writing only)
1- Stop them causing any harm to America.
2-Protecting America from danger.
3-Stop radicals from entering who are hurting America.
4-To protect American lives.
right? So, we can assume that the radical Muslims are really present in huge numbers both in and out of America and they are responsible for the MAJORITY of the terrorist attacks or any other attack, and this group is the biggest threat to the security and lives of American citizens. Do you agree with that?
Well, I don't, because the STATISTICS and facts have a different story to tell-

According to Euro-pol(European Union law enforcement agency), out of all the terrorist attacks in European countries, LESS THAN 2% have been committed by the ISLAMIC RADICALS, but the remaining more than 98% attacks have been planned and executed by other NON- MUSLIM extremist groups such as FLNC in France, Left Wing militant forces in Greece, etc. In 2013, out of a total of 152 terrorist attacks in Europe only 2 were for religious purposes and executed by the Muslims, while 84 were carried out by Ethno Nationalists, or the separatists.

Let's see in America. According to FBI reports, out of all the terrorist attacks since 1980 till 2005, ONLY 6% have been executed by the ISLAMIST TERRORISTS, and 94% of the attacks have been carried out by the NON MUSLIMS groups such as Latino group and the Left wing extremists (who want America to become socialist nation from capitalism). These groups are CHRISTIANS (Roman Catholic).
A study conducted by the University of North Carolina states that since 9-11 attacks, 190,000 Americans have been killed, murdered, shot dead, etc, but out of these Only 37 Americans has been killed by the RADICAL MUSLIMS.
In 2013, due to mass shootings in public about 137 people were killed in a single year, which is more than 3 times the number of people killed by the MUSLIMs in total in AMERICA since 9-11 attacks.
In fact in 2013, it was more likely that Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year MUSLIM RADICALS killed 3 people in the Boston marathon while toddlers around America killed about 5 kids by accidentally shooting guns.
AND, according to president Obama and other reports, Orlando shooting was not the job of an Islamist radical.

So, It can be concluded that-

1- MUSLIM TERRORISTS form only about 2% of the total terrorists in Europe and about 6% in America and
2- MUSLIM RADICALS have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attacks out of the total tally of 190,000 Americans having being killed since then.
3- MUSLIMS RADICALS have only killed a mere 0.01% of the AMERICANS SINCE 9-11, while the CHRISTIANS( extremist groups and random people opening fire in public) have killed a huge 99.99% of the AMERICANS.
4- CHRISTIANS are a bigger threat to AMERICA than the MUSLIMS.

So, I conclude my argument by stating- ( you can argue further on the basis of these points)-

1- Since MUSLIMs Radicals are responsible for such a TINY fraction of deaths of Americans i.e. only 0.01% since 9-11 attacks, they are NOT MUCH of a THREAT to AMERICA, but since the other 99.99% deaths are caused by other extremist groups(Left wing extremists and Latino group) which are CHRISTIAN, they are a bit more dangerous and harmful for Americans then the MUSLIMs. Though JEWISH and some other groups also exist but they are in small numbers. Christians are in majority, since America is a Christian nation. Hence there is no need to ban the MUSLIMs.

2- If Donald Trump was really worried about the security of American citizens, then He certainly would have taken some action against the 94% NON-MUSLIMs terrorist groups, but he is targeting only Muslims. WHY?

3-I very strongly believe that Donald Trump is playing a very smart political game here. He has very cleverly gained the support of whole of America by introducing his banning Muslims policy, since Americans already have developed an ANTI-MUSLIM sentiment post 9-11 (which has been greatly supported by the media, who are always portraying every terrorist in the world as a Muslim, and hence people have concluded that every terrorist is a Muslim only, BUT Aaron, now I think at least you know the FACTS), hence by taking any step against the Muslims in the name of national security, Americans are bound to support you, and Donald can easily become a national hero, which in fact he has become and secure votes in the elections.

Donald Trump has just framed this policy to fulfill his personal agenda of becoming the president of the U.S.A.

If he really was concerned about Americans' security,First of all, he would have definitely targeted the 94% groups who are responsible for killing 99.99% of people and are operating in a vast majority as compared to the MUSLIMS RADICALS.

4- About 100,000 Muslims immigrate into America for work and living purposes every year. By banning MUSLIMs into America, lives of all these people will be greatly affected. Some may even lose their jobs. This will be a huge problem.

5- This move will affect all the other Asians also. Since all the Asians have a similar height level, skin color and style of speaking, they will be easily confused with Muslims and they will also not be allowed to enter America.

6- I think that Donald Trump is really dumb if he thinks that by banning peaceful Muslims, the Radicals also will not be able to enter states, because these Radical Muslim organisations are financially and technically very sound. They can easily disguise themselves as an American by various methods such as plastic surgery and many more.

7- These radicals can harm and kill Americans without a need to enter America. They can launch airstrikes by fighter planes, missiles, and other weapons, as I said , these organisations are financially very strong.

8- There have been and are many Muslims who have contributed towards America's economy and pride. Some of these names are- Muhammad Ali( boxer- International icon), Dave Chapelle(comedian), Dr. Ayub. k. Ommaya(inventor of ommaya reservoir- used to treat brain tumor), Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan(American Army- died while helping vacate a house), Mohamed.A.El.Erian(CEO of Allianz and a recognized economist worldwide), Lupe Fiasco( award winning rapper), and many more. Muslims have also contributed in charities, medical industry and business. And now banning Muslims would be a great insult to these MEN who have made AMERICA PROUD. It will be a slap on their legacy.

9- Muslims are more than 5000 in number serving in the Army, ready to lay their lives for America at any point of time. RADICAL MUSLIMS have killed just 37 Americans, but these 5000 plus MUSLIMS serving in the army are on the verge of death in protecting Americans whenever there is a terrorist attack or any other national threat.

10-Banning Muslims can greatly increase the risk to Americans in Muslim dominated countries. They will be targeted for taking revenge and as a way of expressing anger against AMERICA and such policy against Muslims.

My 9th point is more of a morale based because I believe that every policy should take into account morale as well as practical aspects, and this particular one can affect the lives of many innocents, so we should definitely consider the morale and human issues.
Debate Round No. 2
aaronyero

Pro

My response to my opponent's argument:
My opponent misunderstood my argument completely! He misunderstands my argument for saying " they are responsible for the MAJORITY of the terrorist attacks or any other attack " quote from my opponent's argument, he was debunking that statement. No, that wasn't what my argument was about. I was discussing how radical Muslims are starting to hurt people therefore we must ban Muslims until we can figure out what's going on. My argument wasn't about comparing radical Muslims to the other one nor was it saying we should only focus on radical Muslim terrorism. Let's take a look at my opponent's argument.

First argument he makes is that only two percent of Europe's terrorism is done by Muslims, this is the error I was talking about. These arguments don't deny the fact that radical Muslims still are causing damage like the Orlando shooting. Also on top of that he doesn't really give us a link to the sources, no links at all to the research. He says Euro-pol claimed that, but he doesn't give us any links to the research that Euro-pol supposedly made. So no links to his sources, that's a major flaw.

His second argument is questionable at best, yet again he makes the same flaw as the first argument. No links to his sources, just expects us to believe FBI really said that. Also the research he gives is from 2013 and 2005, but than now this is the present we aren't talking about the past. And in the present one of America's worst lone wolf mass shootings was done by a radical Muslim and the sources I give about radical Muslims attacking are around the present time,like the German report being 8 months ago. So we can see that these horrible attacks are starting to rise up now. Also just like the first argument, this isn't against the idea that banning Muslim from entering America until we can understand what's going on with these attacks.

His third argument was that christens are a bigger threat to American people than radical Muslims. This argument doesn't make the idea of banning Muslims till we can figure out what's going on invalid or wrong. Nor does it take away the fact that a radical Muslim did a major mass-shooting.
And than his fourth argument is him talking about how Donald Trump is not concerned about American people, and how he is trying to fulfill his own political agenda. But he never makes the idea of banning Muslims invalid or wrong, nor does that argument even attempt at that.

He than talks about how banning Muslims will make them lost their jobs, this is true but I don't want more mass shootings happening.

He then says Muslims looks like Asians it will mix them up. First of all we're looking for their religion, and I'm pretty sure those Muslim immigrants will come from places where radical Islams are around. So we would have no problem.
He then says the radicals will enter the state anyways because how strong they are, he forgets how strong our defense is. And we have radar, so it would be really hard for them to force themselves inside without being blown up by our defense. ISIS is not as strong as American army, this was a weak argument. Voter do you really think ISIS could breach our America's defense and force themselves inside?

He then says the radicals can harm Americans without coming to America, he says they can use airstrikes. So their airstrikes would be able to come over to America and hit us? First of all like I said we have a strong defense, but that's quite distance. Even if they were able to get missiles over to America our defense would notice it with our radars and stop it. We have missile defense, it's called the NMD.

He then says Muslims contributed a lot to American society and banning them would be a insult, first of all we have no choice and there are radicals attacking. Second of all this is a emotional argument.
My opponent than says there are Muslims serving in the military, this is true but we still need to block out Muslims to prevent radical Muslims from coming in. Plus we are only blocking out immigrants.

And his tenth point is that banning Muslims will cause them to attack Americans who enter Muslim countries. First of all that shows that radicals are dangerous, as they blame one American and attack him, even if he wasn't responsible for the attack. Second of all we are focusing on defending America, if a American wants to risk his life and go to a Muslim country where radicals are than that's his choice. But we should defend America from attacks, and we should prevent them from being attacked by Muslim radicals.

Sources: http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://fas.org...
ishant117

Con

Come on Aaron, Do you really think I would be posting wrong statistics on an international debate site. I really thought you would argue a little more sensibly. Anyways-
You want the sources-
So here are they-
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Go through these fully -

According to a study done by University of North Carolina, less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims.
-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And yes Aaron, now you should know after reading all this and the sources that FBI and EURO-POL have ACTUALLY released this report and you should BELIEVE it.

MY Arguments-

1- Pro is just giving one example every time- Orlando shootings in 2016 killing 49, but is completely ignoring the fact that-The nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA) tracks mass shootings in the United States and their data shows that there have been 76 days this year(2016) with mass shootings in the United States " and 88 days without. A total of 207 people have died in those incidents, including the known victims of the shooting on Sunday in Orlando,
(http://www.vox.com...)

OK, so if we see the Orlando shootings also-
Then again, you and other citizens are mistaken and just trusting the media and media is showing what the government wants it to show.
Do some research, and you will find out that though Omar Mateen was the gunman, but the original plan and plot of the shootings was done by someone else and Omar was not the only person involved. It is also being said that the security agencies are involved in the attack to support a secret government agenda and to- FURTHER PROVOKE HATRED for MUSLIMS in AMERICA.(These are not my ideas but the evidences and the reports are saying this)
I am not making this up. trust me. There are investigations going on.

-http://yournewswire.com...
please read it completely and then ARGUE back.

FUN FACT- OMAR MAJEED is not an immigrant who has come to America recently. His family have been living in New York since 1980s. He is born in America, New York and is an American citizen. He never even stepped out of America once.

-https://en.wikipedia.org...

MY ADVICE- Please don't blindly trust the media (T.V. or newspapers). They don't always show you the TRUTH. It's the most
powerful tool today to influence anybody's mind. Like you- How you just saw the media and concluded that the shootings were solely the job of a RADICAL MUSLIM, without knowing the facts. Please go to the source I have given and you will find that LOGICALLY- Omar Mateen could not have killed 49 people by himself alone.

So we can conclude that-

1- In 2016 NON-MUSLIMs who are mainly CHRISTIANS have killed 158 Americans and MUSLIMs have just killed 49.
So, the Christians have killed more than 3 times than the Muslims.
sou-http://www.vox.com....
Well I think that now I am not talking about 2013 and 2005 but 2016 and my this point is quite current and up to date, isn't it Aaron?
--http://www.vox.com.... Anyways, moving on-

2-The Orlando mass killings were also not completely a RADICAL MUSLIM's job but may be an INSIDER job, may be the government( as per the REPORTS and my source-http://yournewswire.com...)

3-OMAR MATEEN was not an immigrant but an American citizen only.
source- https://en.wikipedia.org...

4- Less than 0.0002% of Americans have been killed by MUSLIMs since 9-11 attack.(sour-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

I conclude my argument by-

1- Pro quoted-"His third argument was that ..... people than radical Muslims. This argument doesn't make the idea of banning Muslims till we can figure out what's going on invalid or wrong".

ARGUMENT- If you really want to figure out what's happening, then American government has the statistics for 2016 till date which clearly says that NON MUSLIM's(Christians mainly) have killed 158 Americans in mass shootings (more than 3 times than Muslims)and MUSLIM's have killed 49. So, on he basis of this, take action against the other CHRISTIAN lone wolves and organisations who have killed 158 people, and then i'm sure you and America CAN ACTUALLY figure out that what is happening or what is wrong because as ANY LOGICAL MAN would do-
First he will target the MAJORITY of enemy and at LAST the enemy who is in MINORITY.
So, BANNING MUSLIMs would not work out well for America because the MAIN THREATS will still be there in your own country. Hence, this step is "STUPID", "ILLOGICAL", and "INEFFECTIVE."

2- Pro quoted- "Nor does it take away the fact that a radical Muslim did a major mass-shooting".

ARGUMENT- According to INVESTIGATIONS and EVIDENCES- "No, IT WAS NOT", and as if CHRISTIANS don't . See stats.

3-He than talks about how banning Muslims will make them lost their jobs, this is true but I don't want more mass shootings happening.

ARGUMENT- In 2016, there have been 75 SHOOTINGS in U.S.A by NON MUSLIMs and only 1 by MUSLIM (that too is being investigated whether IT WAS ACTUALLY as i QUOTED ABOVE.). If you and American government doesn't want any more mass shootings, than search and make policies against the NON MUSLIMs who have killed 158 people, rather targeting the MUSLIMs who have killed 49 (in doubt), because as I said above-
Any SANE and LOGICAL government and Police would first TARGET the MAJORITY group who are the ACTUAL THREAT and never the MINORITY GROUP to get maximum benefit and security for the people.
VOTERS, if you agree with me on this LOGIC please vote for me.
Even if you send out Muslims from America, then also mass shootings will not stop- BECAUSE the ACTUAL culprits are still roaming out, free in U.S.A.

And you cannot just trouble the innocent 100,000 , who every year come to U.S.A. for work purposes and also the Muslim residents of America just because MUSLIM RADICALS have killed 37 Americans. (Not taking Orlando shooting into account because of doubt as explained above)
YOU should NOT STOP something BAD by doing some other bad thing.
OK, so answer me what will you people say-
Well, we have now managed to stop the RADICAL MUSLIMs who would have supposedly entered U.S.A
and caused harm to maybe 5 or 6 people ( MUSLIMs have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attack), BUT we have just destroyed the life of 3.3 million MUSLIMs who had been peacefully living in U.S.A. for years and also the work opportunities from the 100,000 MUSLIMs who annually enter U.S.A. and other thousands who have to go in and out of America for work purposes. yippee!! That's pathetic. You can not harm MILLIONS just to save 5-6 people from supposed attacks in the future.
As I said Stopping a CRIME( on a VERY TINY SCALE) by committing another crime( ON A HUGE SCALE) is completely WRONG, ILLOGICAL, INHUMANE , and STUPID.
source- http://www.pewresearch.org...
VOTERS , vote for me if you think I am right. But If you also think that to save 5-6 lives it's RIGHT to destroy and affect millions of innocent lives, then you can surely vote for Pro.

4- Do you think that the RADICAL Muslims will come with ISLAM as their religion on their passports. They will definitely disguise themselves may be by plastic surgery and carry a FAKE passport with a fake country of birth, and can easily enter U.S.A. As I said they are technically very sound.

5- Aaron, If U.S.A. has SUCH a strong defense as you are boasting, THEN-

- WHY U.S.A. is home to one-third of mass shootings in the world. We are just 164 days in 2016 and already mass shootings count have already reached 133 in U.S.A.
source 1--http://edition.cnn.com...
2- http://www.vox.com...

- Why is U.S. not able to defeat ISIS still, despite fighting since 2011 post Syrian civil war.

FUN FACT- U.S. armed forces are SHRINKING and equipments are outdated. Combat readiness and defense budget both are declining. VOTER, please check out source and decide for yourself
source-http://www.heritage.org...

6- So, an airstrike by the RADICALS is quite a strong possibility, and may be you will not be able to defend.

7- I am talking about the Americans ALREADY LIVING in these Islamic countries and not going for a visit. U.A.E.- 50,000 living.
source-https://en.wikipedia.org...

8- Pro quoted-"First of all that shows that radicals are dangerous, as they blame one American and attack him, even if he wasn't responsible for the attack."
Just as you Americans BLAME all 1.6 billion PEACEFUL MUSLIMs for the acts of a FEW (RADICALS).

9- Banning Muslims is certainly not the most VIABLE option both ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY as I have explained above.
We should always go for the best option and I am damn sure that increasing security and other measures are much more effective than this.

10- This policy can seriously UPSET the peace progress in the world which has taken years of struggle and violence to come till here.
Please don't say now that - "true, but we have to take this step to save lives of Americans"
This can also be done by increasing security in the country, or by attacking the MAJORITY of threats( as argued above), and many more options.
This is not the only option left.

11- As I said we are dealing with humans, so we have to take morality and emotions while making any decision.
(Muslims contribution to America).

12- Out of the last 12 Nobel Peace Price winners, 5 are Muslims
Debate Round No. 3
aaronyero

Pro

My oppenent starts off saying if I thought his sources was wrong, and I should argue more sensible. This is a debate, you must link your sources or that's a error and could be a point off.

He than says that my arguments consist of one example of radical attacks everytime. His arguments are false, I was giving out the Germany reports as well. I can give more examples for voters if those weren't enough. The Paris shooting(2015), Boston Bombing(2013), San Bernardino attack(2015), Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack(2015, and Porte de Vincennes siege(2015. All of these had radical muslims that swore their alligence to ISIS.

Anyways his next argument towards the Orland Shooting argument I made. Was that the media shows what the goverment wants it to show and that the idea the gunman didn't work alone and it was a conspiracy to help a secret goverment agenda. He then leaves a link to his source, hopefully the source can A: prove that the media shows what the goverment wants to show,B: prove that there was a conspiracy to help a secret goverment agenda, and the security agencies were involved, and the least of them all C: prove that the gunman wasn't working alone, which wouldn't really matter as it was still a radical muslim attack.

His sources are sadly conspiracy theroies . But it never proves that it was a inside job or if the media was lying to work for the goverment. Keep in mind his source is a conspiracy theory. And the point still stands that it was a radical muslim terroist attack.

NOTE: There were 320 people in the club according to VOX and the man had 345 bullets. It would be like shooting a fish in a barrel. He only shot 100 people out of 320, that mean't 220 were left unharmed physically.
Con says Omar was born in America. He was still a radical muslim who attacked a gay club. And his family were muslim immigrants.

He then says don't trust the media, but he doesn't really prove that the media is lying and he than says that Omar could have not killed 49 people himself. We already argued the conspiracy THEORY.

1.Con says Christians killed 149 in 2016 while Muslims killed 49? First of all that's false, if we are talking about in general than Muslims killed 10125(2016) and they are starting to come to America. Second of all even if that was true, it still wouldn't mean we shouldn't do the ban. ALSO: Radical Muslims attacks are done for their religion, Con's sources doesn't say if it was relgious christian attacks. So it can't be their religion to blame if they weren't doing it for religious reasons, but these radical muslims do pledge that it's for their religion. ISIS is religious movement.

2. Con continues with the conspiracy. But I already argued the conspiracy.

3. Con continues with the argument of the fact that the mass shooter was born here. But his same sources say his family was muslim and were immigrants.

4. Con continues saying that only 0.0002 of terroist attacks were done by Muslim, but this was from 2014. Most of the terroist attacks I list are after that. People are still killed either way.

5. Con continues with the idea that Christians are worse, and kill more people. First of all let me say that banning muslims to stop radicals from coming in is easy to do, as most of these attacks are religious wise, which like I said ISIS is indeed a religious group driven by faith. A other challenge is the fact that Christians make up most of America, and they are already in America so we can't kick them out or else that's against the constitution. Pew Research says 70 percent are christians.

Now that we have that out of the way, we can conclude that it's easier to ban Muslims first, than we can deal with any other religious attacks in America. Just because there is one threat it doesn't mean we can't take action towards a other and let them start coming in to kill Americans, CON still doesn't prove that it's a bad idea. He just says " the main threat will still be there ", yes that's true, but why don't we take care of the easiest problem to fix, than deal with the hardest ones. It makes no sense to ignore the problem, people will die.

6. Con: " Nor does it take away the fact that a radical Muslim did a major mass-shooting " he says " According to INVESTIGATIONS and EVIDENCES- "No, IT WAS NOT", does he mean the conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theories? We already covered that if so.

7. Con:" He than talks about how banning Muslims will make them lost their jobs, this is true but I don't want more mass shootings happening. " , he responds with " In 2016, there have been 75 SHOOTINGS in U.S.A by NON MUSLIMs and only 1 by MUSLIM ", yet again he makes a argument out of the conspiracy THEORY. Also this is in America and is not including the ones in 2015, like I said in general there were 10125(2016) killed, and they are starting to come here. He also continues with the argument there are worse than radical muslims, I already made a argument about this. Also the majority group is harder to deal with, than the minority group. And yes the mass shootings won't stop, but how about we have less mass shootings?

Con:" And you cannot just trouble the innocent 100,000 , who every year come to U.S.A. for work purposes and Muslim residents of America just because MUSLIM RADICALS have killed 37 Americans. " First of all, mass shootings and attacks are still happening because of radical muslims, so I perfer to protect America and it's people. I'd rather not have people being killed in the exchange for 100,000 people to come to America to be happy. Also that's a conspiracy THEORY that I already argued against. Orlando did happen.

" YOU should NOT STOP something BAD by doing other bad thing. " Would you rather stop Muslims from coming to one of the third world countries they have acess to to save American lives? Or do the opposite.
He than ask what will be said to the people, he supposes " Well, we have now managed to stop the RADICAL MUSLIMs who would have supposedly entered U.S.A and caused harm to maybe 5 or 6 people " That is a great under exaggeration, Orlando Shooting killed 50 and hey Paris Shooting killed 128, which was way more than Orlando. Con says" MUSLIMs have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attack", voter we both know this is false, let me state again it was a conspiracy THEORY not fact! He than says doing this will destroy the 3.3 million muslims living here, that's false. Because we are banning them from coming in, not kicking them out.

Con says it's wrong to target a small crime and create a bigger crime. FIrst of all it's not on a tiny scale, we're saving life on a HUGE scale, like I said they are killing many people and are starting to come here, about 10125(2016) there are still other third world countries they have access to. But Americans will die if radicals come here.

8. CON says muslims could easily sneak in. We'll probably just judge if they came from the middle east or where ISIS and Islam is highly practiced. So there you go.

9. Con talks about the argument about the defense, and says America has mass shootings. first of all that's inside America, we were talking about missles hitting America from ISIS. We were talking about border and missle defense.
CON ask why did the U.S not defeat ISIS yet. In my opinion it could be because it's their land so they know it better and they are supported, or it could also be the fact we don't know whose a ISIS member or supporter.
CON says that millitary budget is dying and defense is weakening. Part of Trump's plan is to rebuild America's millitary defense.

10. Con says ISIS could fire a powerful missles and can't defend against it. I don't think ISIS has a powerful missle to reach us. I already talked about the millitary fix.

11. Con says he was talking about the Americans already in Islamic state. Yes I know, but just because they decided to go to islamic states doesn't mean we should allow Americans to be killed.

12. Pro calls me a hypocrite for saying they are radical muslims for attacking one person for someone else's action.There's a difference, we're not blaming the 1.6 billion muslims for the attacks. I never said every muslim was responsible for a terroist attack.

13. Con says banning muslims is bad encomnic and political wise, plus we could always increase security.
I'm sure we can have 100,000 muslims not come in and still have a decent ecnomy unless CON proves wrong, it's not that easy as just increasing security radical muslim attacks were done unexpected, you don't know who's a ISIS supporter.

15. Con says this could hurt peace process and there are other ways like security and target other sources. What peace progress that we were having with Muslims, please explain further.

16. Con says there are morales and Muslims contributed to society. Just because Muslims contributed to America and there are morales doesn't mean we should allow radicals to come in and kill people.

17. Con says that 5 muslims were noble peace winners. We still have radicals coming in and killing people, we shouldn't allow them to do so just because some muslims have Nobel Peace Prize.

Vote PRO, Con's arguments in my views mostly comparing one terroist to a other, emotional arguments, and conspiracy theories.

SOURCES:
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.pewforum.org...
http://www.militarytimes.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
ishant117

Con

Pro's arguments are ridiculously weak, pathetic and baseless.
I will counter his arguments one by one-

Pro, in the second paragraph gives examples of attacks around the globe that had RADICAL MUSLIMS at work.
he says-
the Paris shooting(2015)- In Paris
Saint- Quentin- Fallavir attack(2015)- In France
Port de Vincennes siege(2015)- Paris, France

Out of 5 of his given examples,ONLY 2 have occurred in America and other 3 in FRANCE

ARGUMENT-1- In this debate we are talking about AMERICA and not about FRANCE, I think . IT clearly shows Pro doesn't have any attacks left in AMERICA to list , hence he is including FRANCE also.
VOTERS-Pro is going out of CONTEXT every time.
- 1st DRAWBACK in PRO'S argument.

But I will list some of the mass shootings by RADICAL CHRISTIANS in AMERICA (NOT in FRANCE, VOTERS) recently-

Attacks and shootings- 1-Colorado Spring, 2-Rose burg Ore, 3-Charleston, 4- Isla Villas, 5- Washington D.C., 6- New town, 7- Aurora, 8-Oak Creeks, Oak Land, and many more.
total dead- 91.
http://timelines.latimes.com...

In para- 3- PRO is saying "Orlando shooting may have been a combined but then also the shooter was a RADICAL MUSLIM."
ARGUMENT
1- I never denied that but those who assist terrorists and "work with him"are also terrorists. Once again PRO is only listing ORLANDO shootings.
2- Why only one RADICAL MUSLIM is being focused upon, why not others who were involved.
3- Concrete facts would be found by one reading the given source that the shooter was assisted heavily.
BUT there are NO PROVES that ISIS was involved in the attack or they guided OMAR MATEEN.
http://yournewswire.com...

In para-4 PRO says that it never proves that it was an insider job
ARGUMENT-
1- BUT the evidences and facts prove it.(read my source VOTERS to get clear IDEA).
It only shows that - PRO is NOT WILLING to accept the truth.

para-5-
ARGUMENT-
1- Yes, his family were immigrants but they immigrated to U.S.A. in 1980s and not recently. So a MUSLIMs BAN policy would have worked then BUT NOT NOW.

Para-6-
ARGUMENT-
1- YES the media is lying because they are only focusing on one person and not the whole issue as i said above.
2- President OBAMA and Hilary Clinton are hinting that it may have been an insider job and are OPPOSING Trump's banning Muslims policy. https://www.theguardian.com...
3-Donald Trump and Pro are both fine with mass shootings unless they are not perpetrated by MUSLIMs.
My reason - U.S.A had already experienced 132 mass shootings in 2016 till Orlando but nobody reacted till the 132nd,
but as soon a MUSLIM got involved, suddenly Donald Trump seems to be concerned about the killings and forms his Ban Muslim policy. WHY?
http://www.vox.com...

POINT-1- by PRO-
Argument-
1- It's NOT FALSE VOTERS. NON Muslims- killed 158, Muslims- killed 49(Orlando) in 2016 in AMERICA.
My source- http://www.vox.com...
2- PRO gave a global report-"Muslims killed 10,125 in 2016 which is again OUT OF CONTEXT, Since we are only focusing on U.S.A.
DRAWBACK-2.
So final reports- Muslim killed- 49 in America in 2016, right? OK, moving on-
4- Radical Muslim attacks are done for religious purposes but Orlando attacks (which is the ONLY SO CALLED ATTACK by Muslim that PRO is referring EVERY TIME) are still in argument that whether done for religious purpose, mental illness, or was it related to Gay(sexuality) issues. So don' conclude VOTERS. https://www.theguardian.com...
5- But since shootings happened in a gay night club maybe Sexuality (GAY) would have been the reason because if only Religious motive was there then why did shooter choose a Gay club. https://en.wikipedia.org...
6- Even if CHRISTIANS attacks are not religiously motivated BUT then also people ARE KILLED right? and that too in more numbers than by Muslims.

POINT-2- by PRO-
Argument-
1- PRO doesn't know what is a conspiracy theory. Let me explain- It is a theory based only on believes and not on concrete evidences but Orlando shootings is NOT conspiracy because there are solid evidences and proofs as I said above- refer my link VOTERS.

POINT-3- by- PRO-
Argument- already made above.

POINT-4-by-PRO-
Argument-
1- Most of the terrorist attacks that PRO listed are not even done in U.S.A. (said above)
2- PRO has given 1 example of Boston bombings out of the 2 terrorists attacks in America but that was done in 2013, right?
So, VOTERS PRO is a hypocrite who doesn't want list and data from 2014 but to prove his own point has taken one from 2013.
3- PRO till now you have given just 1 example after 2014 in AMERICA. Give recent examples of Muslim attacks other than which you have told till now, please.
4- I have given examples from 2016 till 2012 in my first argument, cos I believe 2103 and 2012 don't have MUCH difference.
5- OKAY, VOTERS if we talk about 2016 then I have already given the actual number with source, which proves that Muslim attack has only been 1 out of the 133 shootings in 2016 in U.S.A.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.vox.com....

POINT-5-by PRO-
Argument-
1- I never said to kick out the CHRISTIANS but take other security measures.

POINT-6-by PRO-
Argument- I have already said it isn't a conspiracy theory as said by PRO and many other organisations were involved and not just a RADICAL MUSLIM was involved.

POINT-7-para-1-by PRO-
Argument-
1-In 2016 there have been 132 shootings by NON MUSLIMs and only 1 by MUSLIM (Orlando), and this is NOT OUT of conspiracy theories. VOTERS, PRO is LYING . That theory is only to prove other organisations were at work. BUT these numbers are actual and FACTS. VOTERS see for your self-
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.vox.com....

I by mistake typed 75, SORRY.
PRO, i request you to give YOUR SOURCES about the number of shootings in 2016 by Muslims.
Don't counter my FACTS without a SOURCE. This is NOT the spirit of debate.
PRO quoted- "in general there were 10125(2016) killed"
- Again PRO is going out of context and framing global reports VOTERS.

POINT-7-para-2-by PRO-
Argument-
1- PRO says that mass shootings are happening because of MUSLIMs which is RIDICULOUS as I have given you the ACTUAL figures. Out of 133 only 1 mass shooting has happened because of MUSLIM.
PRO is WRONG and has very poor ANALYZING skills.

POINT-7-para-3- by PRO-
Argument-
1- It is not at all an exaggeration, because Muslims have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attacks till 2014(according to a study by University of North Carolina) http://www.thedailybeast.com...
and in 2015 there have been 3 attacks by Muslims in U.S.A. killing a total of 22 https://en.wikipedia.org...
and in 2016 the Orlando shooting killed 49.
So, It can be concluded that since 9-11 attacks, MUSLIM terrorists have only killed 108 Americans till 2016, which means every year on an average they kill 7 Americans. Also out of that 80% are AMERICAN CITIZENS only and 20% are immigrants http://www.vox.com...
which makes the average killing per year by MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS- 1.
I have my sources ready PRO. DO YOU?

2-PRO quotes-"Con says" MUSLIMs have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attack", voter we both know this is false, let me state again it was a conspiracy THEORY not fact!"
ARGUMENT-
1- PRO is such a RIDICULOUS person VOTERS. He has said the above statement without a backup source. SO, VOTERS, HOW on earth can you believe him, that the numbers are not fact but a conspiracy?
This 37 killed study has been done by University in U.S.A. only. (see links).
2- Everywhere PRO has said that everything is a conspiracy, BASELESSLY.
3- PRO, If you say so, then GIVE your SOURCES. or DON'T you DARE to blindly counter these TRUTHS, just to win the debate.

FINAL Argument-

WHY it is a bad idea to BAN MUSLIMS to enter America.

Argument- Any Idea is bad if it has more cons and less pros, right VOTERS?
OK, So, MUSLIM TERRORISTS form just 6% of all terrorists in U.S.A. rest 94% are of other religion mainly CHRISTIANITY.(source given previously)
Muslims have killed a total of 108 Americans till 2016 since 9-11 and average yearly killing by an IMMIGRANT is only 1, as calculated above.
And every year 100,000 Muslims immigrate to America NOT FOR FUN (as again BLINDLY quoted by PRO) but to do work, also hundreds have to come in and out of America on regular basis for work. So banning Muslim immigrants-
- may save life of 1 american yearly but ruin and disturb lives of 100,000 and lakhs of Innocent Muslims, SINCE if they are out of work, how will they survive?

Also, If a RADICAL wants to enter U.S.A. he will form a fake passport with fake country of birth and also will disguise himself, hence the U.S. authorities will never know that he is from which part of the world actually.
Now you see voters, why it's such a dumb idea. RADICALS can enter after the BAN also, so what's the use.

Also, Pro is fine with risking lives of many Americans in Muslim countries( 50000 in U.A.E alone) just to save 1 life in U.S.A.

Voters now you see, the BAN has only DEMERITS and not a single MERIT, so it's definitely a very bad and pathetic idea

I request PRO to counter all my ARGUMENTS from TOP to BOTTOM(full article)
- with SOURCES, not blindly
- don't give global reports but be in U.S.A. only
- in points

In all my arguments I am speaking on the basis of FACTS, EVIDENCES, and sources but Pro all the time is just speaking his mind as he has no sources to support them.
Debate Round No. 4
aaronyero

Pro

To start off the argument, Con's argument points out the fact that most of these radical Muslim attacks I spoke of are in different countries. But, we are talking about radical Muslims immigrating we are talking about the potential danger they might bring to America and how dangerous they are in general.

He than says I just didn't have enough list of radical Muslim terrorist attacks in America, which I can actually give you right now. Here is a big list of radical Muslim attacks since 9/11: http://www.wnd.com... .

He than lists Christians attacks, here I can actually say is out of context. Because we are talking about the danger from Muslim radicals not Christian radicals. He completely just focuses on the other side, which doesn't make the danger from Radical Muslims invalid at all.

Con claims I admited that the Orlando shooting was assisted, despite me debunking the theory and showing how it could have easily been done by a single man. I don't remember saying this, I even checked to make sure I said this and couldn't find anything, so Con's argument is false. Con: " In para- 3- PRO is saying "Orlando shooting may have been a combined but then also the shooter was a RADICAL MUSLIM. " "

He yet again says I'm only listing Orlando Shooting, despite in my same argument putting up multiple different cases of Muslim attacks. He than continues with his conspiracy theory that has no facts.

Con than says " Concrete facts would be found by one reading the given source that the shooter was assisted heavily. ", But con doesn't quote the evidence, I couldn't find any facts when I read through it.

In the video there is only one gun that can be heard being fired, so how could it be more shooters?
He than says there are no proof ISIS was involved with the attack, now I will bring up a source that Con used many times. And that is the FBI and VOX. Omar pledged his alliance with ISIS, so he was inspired by ISIS to do the horrific shooting.

Con than reply to my statement about how the theory never proves that there were more people. Con says there was, but never shows us any quotes that proves it.

Con says that the family immigrated in 1980, but in my defense Orlando was only one case of radical Muslim attacks, but it did show the affect of what ISIS has on Muslims. Now the family got here early, but we can still stop any radicals from coming in, in 2016. To prevent more of these attacks.

Con says the media is indeed lying because they are focusing on one person and not the whole issue. First of all it wasn't a fact second of all you didn't prove they were lying.

He than says Obama and Hillary are hinting that it may of been a inside job, this doesn't prove that it was a inside job.
Con than makes a straw man fallacy, saying that I'm okay with mass shootings as-long as Muslims don't do it. First of all I never said this, he just says false things to make my argument easier to attack. The thing is people still died and there is a solution to it.

He than says it wasn't false that Christians kill 149 and Muslims only 49, but I already showed Muslims did kill more people than just 49.

He than says me talking about radical Muslims killing in other country is out of context. This is false because we were talking about the danger of radical Muslims, and we are talking about them coming here. So it's okay to talk about their danger in general.

He than says the Orlando shooting is still being debated if it was religious or not, but like I said he pledged himself to ISIS before doing the attack. And he than yet again says false things saying it's the only radical Muslim attack I speak of, but I already showed multiple different radical Muslim attacks.

He than questions why the shooter choose a gay club, well he pledged himself to ISIS and the Qua-ran is against homosexuals. I think it was obvious it was religious.

Con can't prove that the Christian attacks are religious, but the radical Muslim are. So that allows us to look at the Islam religion and do the ban. Because the Qua-ran is against homosexuals. If there's no connection between the religion and the mass shooters than we can't just blame the religion, but here there clearly is when it comes down with Islam.

Con makes a other straw man saying I don't know what a conspiracy theory is. He says that the Orlando shooting was done by two people and is not a conspiracy theory because it had " solid evidence ". Con yet again doesn't quote what evidence this was, but I have yet to find any evidence in the article that makes the conspiracy theory a fact. Could con please quote the evidence from the article?

Point 4:
1. I already talked about this.
2. Yes, but that was just one of them. So it really is just nip-picking as it doesn't really make the other sources I showed invalid at all.
3. I did give recent attacks, about 10,125 killed.
4- In his fourth point I can't really make out what he was trying to say or what he was replying too, Con should be more clear. But he said it's from his first argument and I can't find anything from the first argument.
5- I already argued against this.
POINT-5 response: He responds to me saying we can't really kick out Christians, he also says we could just take other security measure. What other security measures?
POINT-6 response: He says that he already said it wasn't a conspiracy theory and other organization were involved, first of all there is no evidence to prove it and Con never quotes the evidence.
POINT-7-para-1 Response: Con says I am lying as American only experienced 132 shooting, first of all this is in America and I was talking about in general. He than ask for the number of shootings, well I gave you how much they killed in general.
POINT-7-para-2 Response: He than says " PRO says that mass shootings are happening because of Muslims " , I think I worded this the wrong way. I was trying to say there are radical Muslims doing mass shootings and attacks, I wasn't saying all of the mass shootings and attacks are caused by radical Muslims.

POINT-7-para-3:
Con responds to calling out him saying that Muslims have only killed 37 since 9/11. This is false because of Orlando, which had 49 killed. Also this is America, and we are talking about Radical Islam threat coming to America. So we can talk about the general, which is 194,092 killed in Islam terror attacks since 9/11, in my sources you can see it get worse and worse.

Con than says that 80 percent of terrorism in America is done by U.S citizen and 20 percent by immigrants. This is the same thing what he did with Christians, he went out of context and started talking about a other terrorism group which didn't make the threat of radical Muslims invalid at all.

He responds to my comment about me saying that his source that the Orlando Shooting was a inside job was a conspiracy theory, he responded to me by saying " PRO is such a RIDICULOUS person VOTERS. ". He was very unprofessional and made a fallacy by targeting me directly instead of my argument. Also I didn't need any source, because the source for your info is right in front of me and has not enough evidence to prove that it was a inside job, Con never quotes any evidence from his source. So therefore we can see it as a conspiracy theory from it's lack of evidence.

He proves this by saying the University Of North California saying 37 people were killed since 9/11, his source is from a article from 2015 before Orlando shooting.

His next argument is that any idea is bad if it has more cons than pros. Well it matters how powerful the cons and pros are. He keeps talking about America and talks out of context talking about Christianity, so we can skip that as we already argued against it. He than says I said Muslims come here to work, but here let me ask you something voter. What is more important people's life? Or someone not being able to come to America to work, there are still other third world countries left like Europe.

NOTE: To clarify about me talking about general, Muslims coming here raises the potential for attacks because they were already attacking in different countries and doing terror attacks. So they could still come here and do more terror attacks.
Also he than talks about how easy Muslims could come here with a fake passport or country on there. Here's a easy solution, how does he come to America? We can kick him out if he comes from a airport in Islam, and also Trump said we would be doing profiling to stop this.

IN RESPONSE TO ONE KILLED A YEAR ARGUMENT: Also it's more than just ONE life to save, look at Orlando shooting. And look at what they did in other countries. Also you do know planning a attack probably takes years to get all the weapons and ammo, so when they are finished prepping they do a major terror attack that kills many. Ar-15 is 949 dollars and 10 ammo clips are 190 dollars, he also had a glock which is 500 dollars. So in total(excluding the bullets) it's about 1639 dollars you have to save up. And Omar was a security guard, his yearly wage is probably $25,752-$33,389.

So in conclusion on why not to vote for Con: Con was very unprofessional, he made logical fallacies, and he said things that were out of context.

Sources: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.glockstore.com...
http://www1.salary.com...
https://www.stagarms.com...
http://yournewswire.com...
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.vox.com...
ishant117

Con

ishant117 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
Sorry PRO and VOTERS , I was facing some serious time and technical issues with my laptop and hence not able to post my final argument but I am posting my final argument through comments. Please give it a view- I have covered my full final argument in below 5 comments -
Sorry for this and thanks for co-operating-
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
First of all, I apologize to Aaron for being RUDE and calling him RIDICULOUS. It was really not needed.
I agree with PRO that- Yes, Muslims radicals are causing trouble in U.S.A. and around the world on the sole basis of religion.
I am certainly NOT accusing CHRISTIANS for more terrorism in U.S.A. as compared to Muslims and I am as concerned as you about the killings.
I will not present something new but just SUM UP my argument-
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
1-In first para, PRO is saying that the list is not out of context because Muslim immigrants are a danger to all in general and are slowly coming to U.S.A.
ARGUMENT- I don't agree because data shows that only 20% of terrorists attacking in U.S.A. are immigrants.

VOTERS and PRO will not believe that out of all the Muslim terrorists attacking U.S.A. in mass shootings, beheading, etc, not even a single has immigrated recently. Everyone was born there and the family moved to U.S.A. before 1996.

So Muslim radicals are not starting to come to U.S.A. but are present in U.S.A. only. So, saying that Muslims radicals all over the world are dangerous and many of them have started to come to U.S.A. is totally wrong.

Radical Muslims immigrants are killing on an average 1 American yearly.(calculated previously with source.), AND I have also included the Orlando shootings which killed 49 Americans, but then also the average yearly killings by muslim radical immigrant is 1 only. It is the most up to date calculation made by me since 9-11 attacks till 2016 june 20th.

I think only one Orlando shooting should not be taken as a ground to ban Muslims. (As 90% of PRO'S argument is based on Orlando). I think, Donald Trump is winding up things way too fast.

PRO, I would have definitely agreed with you if there were SUDDENLY more incidents like Orlando in recent years and that too done by immigrants who have come recently, maybe 2-3 or 4 years back but not 30 years. But nothing as such as happened, so CONCLUDING that Muslims Immigrants are increasing and hence terrorist attacks due to them in current scenario is not right, I feel.

2- PRO says that he didn't find any concrete proof in my source that Orlando was an assisted job and that I don't give any proof in my argument. See, PRO should understand that I can't give all the evidences in my arguments because of WORD LIMIT. That's why I gave links. But since PRO could not find any concrete proof, I will give some-
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
a) Eyewitness accounts are of course suspect, and we must be aware of hoaxes. Yet the media isn't even asking questions or doing research. One survivor says he heard the Mateen call someone and say he was the fourth shooter.

b) There were two others that were in the club slaughtering people last night that were not caught" Eyewitness".

c) Mateen would also have a fully-loaded pistol with an unknown number of magazines. Let's assume he was using a 9mm handgun, which holds a 15 round magazine, and that he was carrying 4 additional magazines. That's 75 rounds of 9mm ammo.
In total, Mateen would have had 345 rounds of ammunition.
If you think 345 rounds of ammo is a lot, talk to some soldiers. People are hard to kill.
Even at close quarters, it takes several rounds to kill a person. People are terrible shots. People who are full of adrenaline and have been running are also terrible shots. Witness interviews also indicate that Mateen shot into the ceiling.

3) Even if the shooters were all Islamic(if more than one), than also I gave the reasons why Ban is a terrible idea-

In point-7- para-3 PRO says that 37 killed since 9-11 is false as Orlando happened. But I mentioned that a total of 108 people have been killed by the Muslim Radicals since 9-11 till 2016 20th june. This is the most up to date calculation, with sources.

5- People who move from in and out of America will face huge problems, since money to their families will stop. Also family members will not see their fathers or mothers for an uncertain extent of time.
Muslims compulsorily leave U.S.A. for visiting MECCA or pilgrimage yearly. So by banning them to again enter U.S.A. where will they go. All there properties are in U.S.A. only, right?
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
PRO says that Muslims have in general killed 10387 in 2016 and 194,092 in general since 9-11.
ARGUMENT- Data is TRUE But this is from around the world and I have already said above that radical muslim immigrants are not coming to U.S.A. but are already there. To support this I have also said that not even one muslim radical has come recently to America but are there before 1997 or 2001. VOTERS can check Wikipedia of all the suspects of the attacks given by PRO only.

PRO has said that-"He than says there are no proof ISIS was involved with the attack, now I will bring up a source that Con used many times. And that is the FBI and VOX. Omar pledged his alliance with ISIS, so he was inspired by ISIS to do the horrific shooting."

Argument- "Well VOTERS, Omar Mateen NEVER pledged himself with the ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com....
I don't know why PRO is lying. But quoting wrong statement is not the spirit of a debate. This was a major FLAW.

I never quoted that there were 2 people involved in the attack.

Media doesn't give FALSE information but INCOMPLETE data which is as good as a false report.

I will now just sum up my argument-

I believe that Banning Muslims to enter America is NOT a great Idea since it has many cons and very less pros.

1- PRO has not answered about risking lives of lakhs of Americans in Islamic countries (50,000 Muslims in U.A.E. alone).

2- PRO has failed to tackle the problem of fake passport and country of birth. Maybe, the radical Muslim can take a flight from a Non-Islamic country. How will the U.S.A. government will catch him then.

3- . By banning PEACEFUL muslims to just filter out the Radicals one is violating the right of any FREE men in the world.

4- Also 100,000 muslims immigrate to work in U.S.A. and support their families. Yes as said by PRO they can also work in the 3rd world countries, but they wouldn't be able to earn as much
Posted by ishant117 11 months ago
ishant117
Muslims compulsorily leave U.S.A. for visiting MECCA or pilgrimage yearly. So by banning them to again enter U.S.A. where will they go. All there properties are in U.S.A. only, right?

6- Also as I have already already given reports previously that only 108 Americans are killed since 9-11 till 2016 20th june and this 108 ALSO includes Orlando and also the fact that Muslims terrorists form only 6% in U.S.A. and 2% in Europe.

I think this is a very low figure and you don't need to take such a drastic step for such small thing.( I am not justifying that small number of people killed is fine, but just comparing the numbers. It's on a very low scale. It doesn't require such a big step to be taken.

7- If government wants to stop all these mass killings by the immigrants( just 20%), then ban all the radical terrorists from all religions. Why just Muslims are getting targeted and not other radical groups?

8- If PRO is saying that ISIS is behind or influencing the radical attacks. But also ISIS also manages to brainwash the CHRISTIANS- WESTERNERS who carry out the attack. So banning the muslims will not do any good. http://edition.cnn.com....

9- Holy Quran never says to kill. It's just some idiot's version of ISLAM which is not true. Islam is a peaceful religion but some groups have made it violent but actually is not if you read the QURAN.
http://www.answering-christianity.com...
http://www.justaskislam.com...
10- This ban can further inflict anger in the young Muslim children against the U.S.A. as this policy can disturb the lives of many Muslim families economically who are living here since a long time. The children will grow up seeing their parents suffer because of the American government and may take up arms and attack U.S.A. since ISLAMIC terrorism on U.S.A. has been inspired by anger and betrayel.
No votes have been placed for this debate.