The Instigator
julianarodham
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ILikePie5
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
ILikePie5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,123 times Debate No: 99517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

julianarodham

Pro

Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional. It is hard to debate that this is not unconstitutional. Our founding father based this nation on the freedom of religion, so why is a religion being singled out and "banned" from entering our country? Many people will argue that most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims, but that is simply not true. How could this possibly not be unconstitutional?

The fact that anyone is being banned based on any similar trait is unconstitutional.
ILikePie5

Con

Thank You to my opponent for this wonderful opportunity to debate something in relation to Donald J. Trump, who I have been a vocal supporter of since he announced his infamous wall idea. I wish my opponent good luck, and hope the judges enjoy reading this debate. Thank Y'all!!

First, I would like to point out that Trump's Executive Order is not a Muslim Ban. It is a ban on nationals of the countries. The seven countries that are Muslim majority were chosen by President Obama believing that they were of particular concern. [1]
They are countries that Obama, who all the Democrats worship, chose with the advice of his State Department. If it was a Muslim Ban as PRO claims, why are the 3 countries with the largest Muslim population Indonesia, India, and Pakistan not mentioned in the order?[2] The answer is that it is not a Muslim Ban. It is simply a temporary travel ban from countries exposed to terrorism and where terrorists could easily disguise as terrorists.

Now onto the unconstitutional part.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."[3]
The Constitution, specifically the Bill or Rights guarantees the EXERCISE of religion. Trump isn't banning people from practicing their faith, or expressing their faith, but this shouldn't matter as I have proved that it is not a Muslim Ban.

The travel ban, or as PRO would call it, Muslim Ban, which is false, is not unconstitutional, as it follows the law, specifically Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182 which states, "(3) Security and related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General
knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to
engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to
espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export
from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
unlawful means, is inadmissible.

(B)
Terrorist activities-

IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist act

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland
Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely
to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or
serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; [4]

I look forward to this debate, good luck!

Sources:
[1]http://thehill.com...
[2]http://www.mapsofworld.com...
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4]https://www.uscis.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
julianarodham

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate request. I look forward to this.

1. President Obama, made a list of "countries of concern". This is substantially different than putting an executive order into place, banning people from entering the country. Trump's ban originally included green card holders; that in itself is unprecedented.
a) President Obama as proven by CON's statement, was for careful vetting of the people coming into our country. Unlike Trump, President Obama did not make a sweeping generalization of the people coming into our country.
b) This executive order is more than just a ban from countries that have been "exposed" to terrorism. If this was the case essentially all countries would be banned from entering the United States. This is due to the fact that the majority of countries have been exposed to terrorism in some way.

2. Donald Trump's presidential campaign was based around the fact of a "Muslim registry". Since there is no specific way to tell whether or not someone practices Islam, this "temporary ban" is the next best thing.

3. Addressing CON's statement: "why are the 3 countries with the largest Muslim population Indonesia, India, and Pakistan not mentioned in the order?"
The reason behind these countries not being addressed in the order are as follows:
a) Ivanka Trump's dresses are made in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. During the last fiscal year, Ivanka Trump's clothing incorporation made $100 million in revenues. [1], [2]

4. Why were these seven countries chosen?
a) Nationals of the seven states that have been banned have killed zero people on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during this time period.
b) Over the past four decades, only 20 out of 3.25 million immigrants granted access to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil. Only 3 American citizens were killed by refugees all stemming from Cuba in the 1970s.
c) Zero nationals from Syria / Libya have been convicted of these crimes.

5. If this Muslim ban is really dedicated to keeping America safe why aren't Saudia Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, and Egypt included on this list? Here are the statistics:

[3]Saudia Arabia
Number of Terrorists: 19
Number of Murders: 2,369
United Arab Emirates
Number of Terrorists: 2
Number of Murders: 314
Egypt
Number of Terrorists: 11
Number of Murders: 162

6. Coming to my final point, CON quoted the following law:

"(3) Security and related grounds.-


(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General
knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to
engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to
espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export
from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
unlawful means, is inadmissible.

(B)
Terrorist activities-

IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist act

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland
Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely
to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or
serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;"

This law has already been put into place, so the addition of more laws especially those of executive orders are uneccessary and as proven by recent protests, lead to more chaos.

Good luck!

[1]: http://www.teenvogue.com...
[2]: http://www.forbes.com...
[3]: https://www.theatlantic.com...

ILikePie5

Con

Thank you to my opponent for his/her swift arguments.

1. My opponent concedes that Former President Obama included those 7 countries because they were of concern, which in turn, proves that this is not a "Muslim" Ban, and therefore isn't unconstitutional.

a) Obama took chances by allowing people from these terror plagued countries to come here in the first place. Instead of potentially risking American lives, which the President has an obligation to protect, Trump put a temporary ban on people coming from those countries regardless of who they are. The Paris and Nice terrorist attacks were committed by terrorists that were radicalized in Syria. Not to mention that Salah Abdesalam, the Paris attack mastermind was a Belgian national.[1] Unless we want the terrorist attacks that have occurred in Europe to happen here because of open borders like Obama and other liberals propose, I suggest, like Trump, we stop all immigration, until we know a safe way to vet the people.

b) These countries have been the most exposed to terrorism. I will explain why with regards to each individual country

1.) Somalia- This nation has been chaotic ever since its independence. If you have ever seen the movie Blackhawk Down,
you could see the chaos. After the Battle of Mogadishu where 18 Americans lost their life, America pulled all
troops out of the war-torn nation.[2] Now, the terrorist organization of Al-Shabaab rules this territory, not to
mention countless pirates in the Horn of Africa.[3] We don't want these people here.

2.) Libya- As you may know, Hillary Clinton was the one who destabilized Libya after the assasination of dictator Muammer
Gaddafi. Gaddafi, kept all the terrorist organizations in check because that's the defenition of dictators. This event
eventually lead to ISIS to take over the power vacuum in Syria. [4]

3.) Syria- As I'm sure everyone knows, ISIS has its stronghold in Syria in the city of Raqqa

4.) Iraq- ISIS also holds major territory in Iraq.

5.) Sudan- This nation is a State Sponser of Terrorism. Major terrorist organizations include Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, and Al-
Shabaab. Even our federal govt recommends to not travel there, especially in Khartoum, the capital. [5]

6.) Iran- Iran itself is a disaster for America. The Iran Deal was a disaster and not even a deal as it wasn't approved by
Congress, not mention Iran is the worlds largest sponser of terrorism.[6] Along with this, thousands of Iranians
chant "Death to America." Do you really want these people coming here?[7]

7.) Yemen- This nation who's govt. is controlled by Houthi Rebels that are funded and supported by Iran is extremely
dangerous. AQAP, also known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operated in, along with countless other
terrorists.

These people wouldn't hesitate to kill us. Do you really want them here?

2. The temporary ban is perfectly legal as defined by the law I provided. It has nothing to do with religion.

3. My opponent only cites Indonesia as being beneficial to Trump. Extend India and Pakistan. My opponent suggests that Mr, Trump has some type of conflict of interest with Indonesia. Trump has renounced his ownership in his businesses and gave it to his children.[8] Not to mention there is also an ethics panel set up just in case Trump has a conflict of interest. Your own source says Ivanka's dresses are made in China and Vietnam. And how does a dress have anything to do with a ban? Ivanka could make the dresses in China and Vietnam. This argument is totally unrelated.

4. Extension of 7 countries

a) My opponent seems to be using outdated information. A Somali Refugee, just recently, committed an attack at Ohio State University. There was also another terrorist attack at a Minnesota shopping mall and at the University of North Carolina. One was committed by an Iranian, and 2 by Somalis.[9] In short, my opponent uses outdated information.

b) 40 years ago, there was hardly any conflict in the Middle East, and instead there was the Cold War. Again, my opponent uses outdated information.

c) Again, we have only just started accepting refugees from Syria, and we have accepted very little. We can still stop the refugee population to prevent further damage. Why gamble with American lives?

5. I knew this argument would come up.

Saudia Arabia is our largest ally in the fight against ISIS and has a strong stable govt. unlike the 7 countries. My opponent mentioned Al-Qaeda, but at this point, they are hardly a threat. After the death of Osama Bin Laden, they have virtually collapsed and some militants have joined with ISIS. AQAP is different.
UAE is also a key ally in the region and one of the most rich along with Saudi Arabia. Their govt. is also stable.
Egypt has a strong leader in President el-Sisi, who is also fighting ISIS along with us.
Stable governments are incredibly important, as they have a functional military that can aid us and can fight back against terrorism within their own countries. We need allies within that region to help us combat ISIS

6. The law gives the President power to use that law when he needs it. He used it now via the executive order.
My opponent concedes that the ban is constitutional by disregarding this.

Good Luck!

Sources:

[1]https://www.nytimes.com...
[2]http://www.npr.org...
[3]http://www.nbcnews.com...
[4]http://www.npr.org...
[5]http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
[6]http://www.cnn.com...
[7]http://www.nbcnews.com...
[8]http://money.cnn.com...
[9]http://www.politifact.com...
Debate Round No. 2
julianarodham

Pro

My opponent (CON) continuously brings up the fact that the place in which immigrants are coming from are horrible and "terror plagued"

Every point CON has made has been in regards to what is happneing outside of the United States. By making these statements it is further proving my point that immigrants, refugees specifically should not be banned from enter the United States. Seeing as though they are fleeing the countries in which the terrorists live.


Now, onto how this executive order, by Donald Trump is considered unconstitutional:

a) This ban violates the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause (EPC), and it also constitutes an "establishment" of religion. Due to this, it also violates the first amendment. It doesn't matter whether or not Muslims are citizens, noncitizens, green card holders, refugees or visa holders. The EPC strictly prohibits, "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
b) no act by a government official—no matter to whom it applies—can be based on disapproval of a race, ethnicity or religion. This statement can be simplified as follows:

- The motive of the government and its agents is what matters most. Donald has already proven that he feels anger towards Muslims when he called for a "complete shutdown" of Muslims coming into our country. This almost got him kicked off of the campaign trail.

c) CON stated, "First, I would like to point out that Trump's Executive Order is not a Muslim Ban. It is a ban on nationals of the countries. The seven countries that are Muslim majority were chosen by President Obama believing that they were of particular concern."
This argument is weak to say the least. Just because an order violates some people of a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age group etc. Does not make the violation legal. It would not matter if Donald discriminated against all 1.6 billion Muslims or just one, that does not change the fact that it is unconstitutional.


d) Trump's executive order states the following (this is in regards to what the Secretary of State should do.):
“prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.” This directly violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. Because his order is specificall targeting Muslim majority countries. This clause states that, “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
Not mention the fact that the day Donald signed this order he taped an interview with David Brody in which he was asked, "the refugee changes you’re looking to make, as it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?” Donald responded "Yes," then continuing to suggest that Syrian Christians should receive special treatment. This again is evidence that proves Donald Trump is violating the Establishment Clause which prohibits the favoritism Trump he is showing.


e) Honestly, does CON believe that innocent citizens of these seven countries are trying to flee to come and kill us all? CON continues to mention how open our borders are, but the vetting process to get into the States is already extreme. No one has ever suggested that we let anyone come in. The United States should be careful as to who they're letting in and we were doing this prior to the Muslim Ban put into place by Donald. This Muslim ban would not have stopped: 9/11 or the Pulse Shooting. This ban does nothing but encourage people to join ISIS and their radical thought process. [1]


[1]: http://www.politico.com...;
ILikePie5

Con

Thank You for your swift response.

I agree, some people are fleeing these countries because of the violence. However, it seems to me, you don't know why, Mr. Trump has banned everyone. I assumed that you would know why, but it's my fault for not explaining, so I will now. The simple fact is, you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a refugee. ISIS has publicly said that they will infiltrate the refugee population.[1] We can already see the results of this in Europe because of France, Belgium, and Germany. Unless you want to gamble with American lives, we must figure out how to tell the difference, and until that, we cannot take any risks.

I will respond according to the arguments and relation to other. I apologize for the letters not being in order.

c) Not all the people within the countries are Muslim. There are Christians included in the ban to. It's based on nationality, not ethnicity. He isn't just discriminating against any religion or ethnicity. If he was, he'd just ban a religion, not all of them!

a) My opponent has not specified what the EPC is, so I will provide the 14th Amendment and the section I believe seems to be most relevant.

The 14th Amendment:

Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[2]

Let's look at the history of this amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified by Congress after the Civil War, which gave rights to African Americans and established that anyone born or naturalized, are citizens of the U.S. and therefore all of the rights apply to them as well. As I'm sure readers can tell. This is simply to ensure states don't discriminate blacks, as it is now a federal law and does not relate to the 10th Amendment which is states' rights. How does this have anything to do with immigrants coming into the country? But I will also provide the the rights of the United States Customs and Border Protection. They are special as they do not have to follow the 4th Amendment. Here's an excerpt

"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence activity."[3]

The trustworthy info, is that ISIS has said they will infiltrate the population, and therefore by probable cause are inadmissible to the United States of America.
They are the ones that can reject entry to the country, but this is for people, who already have a visa, and are already here when the ban took affect. To people who don't and are wanting to obtain one, they will be rejected, as is the right of a sovereign state protected by the law I provided above.[4]

I've already explained that the 1st Amendment allows for the free exercise of a religion. No one is being told when they arrive to the country, that you cannot pray to God or read your holy book. You can also establish your religion there, no one is going to tell, you can't convert people here to Islam or Christianity.

Trump doesn't hate Islam. He hates Radical Islam, which our past administration couldn't even say because they were to politically correct. Currently, we cannot tell the difference between the 2 in people. The Muslim announcement actually increased his support. He announced the ban around December 27th, 2015.[11] He has 36% support among the GOP on around December 16, 2015 according to Morning Consult Poll.[12] The next Morning Consult Poll showed him at 42% support.[13] His support increases, so Americans agreed with him.

d) My opponent seems to be cherry picking certain clauses from the executive order. In the section I'm about to provide, it explains why minorities will be prioritized.

"(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexistent international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."[5]

Religious persecution is the key there, not to mention it has to be confirmed by Rex Tillerson and John Kelly. I suggest my opponent stop cherry picking their arguments. It's not favoritism, it's called convert or die. The country was established because of religious persecution in England. Establishing it as favoritism is ludicrous.

e) I don't believe innocent people want to kill us. But I believe that a small risk is still a risk. The vetting process may be good, but chances are still there. Actually, the refugee program failed as the Ohio State shooter was a Somali Refugee, and so were others that I mentioned before. Before 9/11, airport security was terrible, now it is extremely high security.[6] The Pulse Nightclub's shooter's father was a supporter of the Afghan Taliban and was seen at the infamous Hillary Clinton's rally. Just proves that terrorists support liberals and their refugee policies. The father also hated homosexuals and as a result, may have influenced his son in such a way.[7] If the liberals stop stereotyping this ban as a Muslim Ban, then maybe ISIS won't recruit people. It's the liberals that portray it this way even if it isn't. Kuwait, a Muslim majority country has also imposed a ban from Muslim Majority Muslims. [8]Where's the outrage on that? Where was the outrage when these same Muslim Majority countries banned people of Jewish descent?[9] The mainstream media, especially CNN, will continue to fund these lies, and everyone already knows that CNN is fake news. Cartoon Network has a better rating than CNN.[10]

Green card holders aren't affected by this travel ban. Remember that.....

I hope my opponent can understand that this IS NOT a Muslim Ban.

Good Luck and Thank You.

Sources:
[1]http://www.wnd.com...
[2]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3]https://www.justice.gov...
[4]https://travel.state.gov...
[5]http://www.npr.org...
[6]http://www.farecompare.com...#/
[7]http://www.cbsnews.com...
[8]https://www.moroccoworldnews.com...
[9]http://www.dailywire.com...#!
[10]http://yournewswire.com...
[11]http://www.politico.com...
[12]https://elections.huffingtonpost.com...
[13]https://elections.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
julianarodham

Pro

Please note, the quotes from the previous article.
"Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally." - Donald J. Trump
"it" in referral to the 'Muslim Ban' which he is quoted as calling it.

Please note, that the 14th amendment was originally for African-American citizens, but this can be applied to anyone. ISIS claimed to have infiltrated the population, but just as you are unwilling to "risk the lives" of American people I am unwilling to risk the lives of any innocent people.

It comes down to a lack of compassion.
ILikePie5

Con

I will first respond to my opponents claims and then lace some observations I have noticed.

My opponent, one doesn't clarify which article/quote Trump said that in. Regardless, I will answer their claims. My opponent doesn't seem to notice that there is a difference between a Muslim Ban, and a temporary ban, that Mr. Trump has placed. Like I said earlier, it it was a Muslim Ban, every Muslim on the Earth would be blocked from coming. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Therefore, the Muslim Ban has nothing to do with the quote. It's simply just a ban.

My opponent seems to misunderstand what the 14th Amendment does. You don't have rights until you step on American soil. So the government can deny visas as they aren't issued in the United States. Now the only challenge remains the people who were already on a plane and were coming here. The answer to that as I already provided was about the United States Customs and Border Protection. They have the right to consider anyone inadmissible to the United States. Who controls the USCBP? The Department of Homeland Security. Who controls the DHS? John Kelly. Who does John Kelly answer to? President Donald J. Trump.

The first priority of the President of the United States of American is to protect its citizens. The choice is yours, do you Americans first or people who you don't know. My President and I have chosen Americans. You can risk your house and your family, but my President and I will not. I have compassion for my family and my fellow Americans, it seems to me that you care more about the families of refugees and not your fellow Americans.

Observations:

-My opponent concedes that Trump has no conflict of interest(Ivanka argument)
-My opponent concedes that the ban is not a Muslim Ban as they cannot explain why India and Pakistan aren't on the list, even thought they have high populations of Muslims
-PRO concedes that Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt are not a threat, and in doing so concedes that it is not a Muslim Ban
-PRO concedes that the law I provided is legal and therefore is not unconstitutional
-My opponent uses unreliable information in the form of outdated information to spread misleading information
-My opponent frequently cherry picks their arguments specifically the argument about the text of the executive order.
-My opponent concedes that Trump isn't favoring one religion over another
-PRO concedes the argument about the United States CBP have the power to reject anyone over probable cause
-My opponent concedes the argument about the 1st Amendment
-My opponent concedes that Trump doesn't hate Islam, but hates Radical Islam
-My opponent concedes that the Pulse shooter's father was influenced him
-My opponent concedes that the Pulse shooter's supported Hillary, therefore supporting PRO's stance even though he was a Taliban admirer
-My opponent concedes that Kuwait is also imposing a ban, and there is no outrage over that
-My opponent concedes that the 7 countries have the right to be banned based on the data I provided
-My opponent concedes that their protesting is flawed as there were no protests when Jews were banned
-My opponent concedes that CNN is garbage

Most of all, my opponent considers the lives of Americans to be worth less than the lives of the refugees.

Donald J. Trump singlehandedly defeated the Democratic Party and the GOP Establishment. He beat the odds against the MSM and the political pundits who said he was going to lose. He fought through the numerous accusations flung at him. The reason why this happened is because the PEOPLE support him. The PEOPLE supported his ideas and his policies. And what is happening right now? He is keeping his promises he made to the American people. A President who prioritizes America first and who fulfills his promises. What more can we ask for?

For all of the reasons I mentioned above, I strongly urge a CON ballot in today's debate.
Thank You to my opponent for this Civil and timely debate and thank you to judges for reading. I hope y'all enjoyed.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TSDTriston 1 year ago
TSDTriston
I disagree that it is unconstitutional.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Forbes estimates it at 4.5 billion.
Posted by julianarodham 1 year ago
julianarodham
No one knows Donald Trump's true net worth because he has yet to release his tax returns.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
@funnerisbetter, everyone is banned from those countries. That's why I said it's not a Muslim Ban
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
@McCain, that is not true. As I pointed out, Obama chose those 7 countries. Did Obama have business dealings? I don't think so.
Posted by funnerisbetter 1 year ago
funnerisbetter
ILikePie is easily triggered watch this.
Hey what about him prioritizing Christians. Couldn't Muslim terrorists pose as christians?
Posted by McCainOffensive 1 year ago
McCainOffensive
The reason not all Muslim countries are listed is due more to business than it is to politics. The seven countries named are among the countries in the Arab world that do not directly do business with Trump's businesses.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
He is not failing as a businessman, he has a net worth of 4.5 billion dollars. If politicians have screwed things up, maybe it's a good idea to try some fresh blood.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Then can you explain by Obama considered them to be "dangerous?" I'm a Texan. We always say ya'll
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Nordung
It is also interesting that the Trumpster in this debate started out his argument with "Y'all!"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year ago
medv4380
julianarodhamILikePie5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Grammarly score is 72 with some spelling errors that should have been caught in spell check "happneing" Con had a score of 81 and no obvious spelling errors. Both sides have a lot of grammar errors and incorrect comma usage. Pro created a severe Burden of Proof. When something is unconstitutional, the parts of the constitution dealing with immigration should have been cited. In particular, Article 1 Section 8 or the 14th Amendment. By making this, an argument over the freedom of religion Pro set upon a fine point and failed. Due to the lack of citing of relevant constitutional points both are tied for sources.
Vote Placed by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
julianarodhamILikePie5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument, although well sourced, was inherently flawed in three ways. The first one was his claim that a conflict of interest existed for Ivanka Trump's clothing line and that is why no ban exists on India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. The very source he cites makes no mention of India or Pakistan, but of Vietnam and China and Indonesia. Second, he makes the assumption that none of the refugees are potential terrorists, and makes no effort to recognize that is precisely what has been happening in Europe. Finally, he said ""Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally." - Donald J. Trump "it" in referral to the 'Muslim Ban' which he is quoted as calling it." The article to which pro cites offers the quote and then proceeds to quote mine it. Allow me to quote it "This is not a Muslim ban".