The Instigator
parkerwil
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vegard95
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 6/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 92574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

parkerwil

Pro

Rules:


    1. No slandering, or simply being rude- this debate should be a loose debate, not a stern debate hating on each other.




Rounds:

This debate will be composed of four rounds

1. Acceptance- Thesis

2. Opening Argument

3. Rebuttal

4. Closing Statements

Thesis:

Placing a temporary ban on Muslims is a necessary security measure that should be taken.



vegard95

Con

a ban on muslims would cause nothing more then fear. it is discriminations against muslims and harmful to a society that deems itself multicultural
Debate Round No. 1
parkerwil

Pro

The Ban Details: Topic 1


    1. A ban on Muslims until the criteria is meet, and we can ensure safety for all Americans.[See Topic 2]
    1. The ban will not deport any Muslims in the country- it will start by increasing screening for Muslims.[See Why in Topic 3]
    1. The ban would not be meant to be extended indefinitely, thus making it permanent; but a temporary ban, ideally not exceeding 6 months. [See Topic 3]



Criteria of the Ban to be lifted: Topic 2

We have succeeded in

    1. Re-defining our screen process.[See Topic 3]

    1. Tightened immigration laws.[See Topic 3]



Reasoning: Topic 3

As seen in Topic 1: Point 2 "The ban will not deport any Muslims in the country- it will start by increasing screening for Muslims.[See Why in Topic 3]"

We need to be reasonable: The United States already has millions of Mulisims living in it, to deport them would be unreasonable. The United States should start by completely redesigning the process we have of clearing immigrants into our country. We should not at all risk a chance of anther Paris attack; we simply cannot put working Americans in harms way.

As Seen in Topic 1: Point 3 "The ban would not be meant to be extended indefinitely, thus making it permanent; but a temporary ban, ideally not exceeding 6 months. [See Topic 3]"

I agree our country is built on diversity, and culture; that is why I would not support a permanent ban on Muslims from entering our country. Muslims are part of our culture, by the United States improving immigration policy, not only will we provide safety from terrorist attacks to full Americans, but to African- Americans, Chinese- Americans, Mexican- Americans, and to Muslim's living in the United States.


As seen in Topic 2: Point 1 "Re-defining our screen process.[See Topic 3]"

Our Current system is failing; we hardly know whoever comes into our Country. The President states that the screening process is extensive and working well. It simply is not- the people (refugees) that attempt to enter the country don't bring documents, we know nothing about them.. yet they still get cleared to enter.

Miscellaneous: Topic 4

    1. We have no records to check Syria. Their government will not provide any database's, or any aid. We are going in blind, and allowing potential terrorist entry into our country.

    1. I believe the United States' founding values is to be a humanitarian country, liberating the oppressed; but we cannot do that at the expense of security for citizens. Jihadist's mission is the destruction of Western civilization as said in their Koran.


Conclusion: Topic 5

Our current system is not working, in order to reduce the risk of terrorist activity in the United States, we must improve our security screening. We cannot take any risks with it; the reality is, we are at War with Jihadist.

Questions for Con: Topic 6

    1. If you are against the Temporary ban to be able to 'catch up' and improve screening and security; what is your proposal to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks?
vegard95

Con

on topic 3:

this is not improving the immigration policy, this is ridiculing it. the modern populace of united states is already seen as a laughing stock by the rest of the west because of their ignorance and their hyper patriotic attitudes.this idea would set back americas immigration policy years. it would damage the united states reputation with the rest of the west. and you can forget all about your beloved saudi oil.

"We should not at all risk a chance of anther Paris attack; we simply cannot put working Americans in harms way."
im sorry, but how many americans die every year from school shootings? there is a school shooting almost every month, and what does statistics show us ?

they are white,christian,uneducated,mentally unstable men. at the lowest statistics shows that it is atleast 62% (source is politicalresearch.org)

as you can see, muslims are not the blame for americas problems. ur doing that fine on your own.
most of the refugees are not extremist, again facts show that after prolonged stay in a westernized country their attitudes and ideals change. they learn to trust the government, not to fear it.they will not do america any harm. have u seen the news? have u read what is happening down there? they just want to get out of that hell of a country.
what ideas like this does is harboring fear, you establish some kind of idea that muslims are bad people. you make people afraid of them, you make people wish to stay away from them. you make them not welcome in society, and then what happens?
they are not included in society, you are not able to properly itergrate them.

Topic 6

we dont need screenings. what they need is psychological treatment caused by severe war trauma. include them in political discussions.make them open up and discuss. and before they go see an immigration officer make them go through a 2 week course that shows what is accepted and not accepted in a westernized society. that we view women,gays,transexuals as equals and that you are free to practise any religion as long as you do not harm any other individual. if u get anyone with clearly ultra conservative views, then maybe block them from entering the united states or maybe atleast make it clear if they do not throw away their values then they are not welcome in a westernized society
Debate Round No. 2
parkerwil

Pro

["We should not at all risk a chance of anther Paris attack; we simply cannot put working Americans in harms way."
im sorry, but how many americans die every year from school shootings? there is a school shooting almost every month, and what does statistics show us ?

they are white,christian,uneducated,mentally unstable men. at the lowest statistics shows that it is atleast 62% (source is politicalresearch.org)]

I’m not talking about Mexico, I’m talking about Muslims who come into this country and put a risk on Terrorist activities. 9/11 is an excellent example of this. Right after France took in thousands of refugees who are mostly Muslim; they got attacked. Now the United States is following their example and taking in 10’s of thousands of refugees. That is no doubt a security risk as we could have a repeat of the Paris attacks. The school shootings you are talking about is a completely different debate.

[as you can see, Muslims are not the blame for America's problems. ur doing that fine on your own.
most of the refugees are not extremist, again facts show that after prolonged stay in a westernized country their attitudes and ideals change. they learn to trust the government, not to fear it.they will not do america any harm. have u seen the news? have u read what is happening down there? they just want to get out of that hell of a country.]

I can ask you the same question, have you seen the news? You hear more and more of Muslim’s raping women; Muslims attacking vets- it is very common.

Along with that, Muslims come to America to change America, not to become American. Muslims attacking citizens for not following sharia law- absolutely ridiculous.

After a poll taken on Muslims, 81% of them supported the Islamic State Slaughters.

[what ideas like this does is harboring fear, you establish some kind of idea that muslims are bad people. you make people afraid of them, you make people wish to stay away from them. you make them not welcome in society, and then what happens?
they are not included in society, you are not able to properly itergrate them.]

Never established that they are bad people at all, I establish Jihadists are dangerous- and that cannot be argued with- it is a reality.

I do appreciate the Muslim community, but the peaceful majority of Muslims were irrelevant in the 9/11 attacks… the peaceful majority were irrelevant in Islamic beheadings… the peaceful majority were irrelevant in the Paris and Belgium Attacks. Muslims will have to accept the facts that their brothers who do act in violence, does raise questions. But those questions don’t involve them being denied entrance into the United States, or to be liberated. It would lead to more intensive testing and screening to be able to clear them to join the States. Since we cannot put Americans at risk.

Of course, we want them into our Country, that’s what the United States was founded on, but we can’t just open the door and let them flood in.. again, they need to be cleared, they need to be proven they won’t bring destruction or death. Americans come first, not Muslims.

[what they need is psychological treatment caused by severe war trauma. include them in political discussions.make they open up and discuss. and before they go see an immigration officer make them go through a 2-week course that shows what is accepted and not accepted in a westernized society. that we view women,gays,transexuals as equals and that you are free to practice any religion as long as you do not harm any other individual. if u get anyone with clearly ultra conservative views, then maybe block them from entering the united states or maybe at least make it clear if they do not throw away their values then they are not welcome in a westernized society]

I find that faulty.

1. How will we pay for that? We are heading quickly to 21 trillion dollars in debt.
2. You suggest make them discuss their political views and if they are too conservative block them from entering the united states.. that’s not democracy.
3. In addition to the above comments, not everyone has the same views
4. You cannot make someone give up a religion or their values, it is something they grew up in and learned throughout their life, you cannot just snap your fingers and make them get rid of their values. That’s not practical.

vegard95

Con

when did i ever talk about mexico?

the oklahoma bombing is also a significant point for this. it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the most significant act of domestic terrorism in United States history.

Now the United States is following their example and taking in 10"s of thousands of refugees"
what are u going on about? Halfway into the fiscal year, the U.S. has accepted only 1,285 new refugees. most american states are in opposition of taking in muslim refugees. that there will be a number higher then 9000 the next couple of years is higly unlikely.

still whites are in the major majority of the rape cases. yes some vets are getting attacked, as far as i know there was one such occurence in the us last year.

i would like to see this poll. u may be able to find this people when u go into backwater countries like pakistan and afghanistan. but so high in a western state, i would very much like to see it.

how many of them do u really think a terrorists? it is an extremely small majority. u want to refuse them of humanitarian aid because some guy called abu-bakr blew himself up in iraq last weekend?
u are already putting americans at risks, u have one of the highest murder rates in the west.More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the us. far more then killed in the 9/11 attacks. u have people walking around with guns, people with severe diagnosises that the US health system does not take care of. mental health is one of the united states biggest threat, much higher then what this minority of muslims would do to your country.

1: ur state budget is still 19 trillion dollars. ur far of from a dangerous debt. this is something the us could afford. getting proper mental care not only for the muslims coming in but the us population in general is something that would be extremely benneficial for the us. u will get alot of people back in the workforce and it would stimulate the economy in the long run.
2: neither is banning them.
3: a minority has dangerous views. at the highest 5% (source, ssb.no)
4: if they are clearly too dangerous, dont allow them into the country. it may not be democratic, but usa is already fading further and further away from democracy, doing such an action anyway would not damage their reputation. norway is already doing the same thing.
Debate Round No. 3
parkerwil

Pro


I must concede that I support a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country until we can get things under control until we can guarantee that no Jihadists will be entering our country and causing terror.



While Con seems to be against a ban on Muslims entering the country; suggesting the Muslims aren’t causing any problems, but in fact by placing a ban would cause more problems such as fear, and Muslims causing terror.



[how many of them do u really think a terrorists? it is an extremely small majority. u want to refuse them of humanitarian aid because some guy called abu-bakr blew himself up in iraq last weekend?]



Of course, they need assistance, but honestly, again, American’s come before they do. 19 al-Qaeda hijackers [who were Jihadists] were able to bring America to its knee’s and kill more than 3,000 citizens, Law enforcement, Government officials and agents, and fire fighters. That small majority killed many Americans. That small majority kills citizens, that small majority is trying to change America, that small majority is hurting America in more ways than you may realize.



[ur state budget is still 19 trillion dollars. ur far of from a dangerous debt. this is something the us could afford. getting proper mental care not only for the Muslims coming in but the us population in general is something that would be extremely benneficial for the us. u will get alot of people back in the workforce and it would stimulate the economy in the long run.]



Con suggests that the United States if far from a dangerous debt while we are going to be In 21 Trillion dollars by next year. It is 21 trillion dollars of debt, not a budget. The United States is starting to lose the value of its dollar, thus causing our role in world trade to decrease. In fact, the US dollar is now not needed for World Trade- huge problem. ( http://www.truthandaction.org...)




By placing a temporary ban, the United States would have an opportunity to reshape our current immigration policy. We would be able to safely provide aid to these refugees who do want to flee the country, and ultimately ensure safety for all citizens, and peaceful Muslims entering our homeland.


vegard95

Con

u can not put the majority of muslims at risk just because the a small number of the minorities are jihadists. the terrorists in the paris attacks where not syrian refugees. they were french citizens that have lived all their life in ghettos never being properly intergrated, lacking a support system they went to radical mullahs that seemed like strong human being, which is were the actual problem is.

u need to have a system and a society in place that which to get them properly intergrated. that does not fear them,but welcome them. the muslims of europe are westernized and good willing members off society. u can put all the problems in the world on muslims.
you have much more dangerous groups in the usa that which to change society like the dominionist andthe army of god.In 2011, analyst Daryl Johnson of the United States Department of Homeland Security said that the Hutaree Christian militia movement possessed more weapons than the combined weapons holdings of all Islamic terror defendants charged in the US since the September 11 attacks.

lets not forget the Srebrenica massacre, 8000 muslims killed by orthodox christians. and yea, hitler was a catholic christian supported by the catholic church.

what im saying is that 21trillion dollars is not a critical problem just yet. most serious economists agree that this can be solved by A tax on Wall Street financial transactions. This would have the added benefit of discouraging short term speculative trading and encouraging more stable longer term investments.
Crack down on off-shore tax havens. Estimated to bring in at least $100 billion a year.
End the deferral on foreign source dividend income. Obama promised to close this loophole, which also would discourage shifting jobs overseas.
Eliminate deductibility of interest payments on corporate mergers. Should bring in at least $50 billion a year and discourage abusive takeover attempts.
Raise taxes on short term capital gains. These gains should be treated as ordinary income, as they were before the Reagan era.

without any of this affecting muslims immigrants or average americans. so yes america could afford it if they actually to iniative to fix it.

u could fix the immigration policy already during this crisis. just look at Sylvi Listhaug in norway, she revamped the entire norwegian immigration policy during the most extreme months of the crisis. u just need a politician who is capable and has a proper solution to the problem. banning them is not solving them problem
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheGrumpyPotato 1 year ago
TheGrumpyPotato
Did we seriously learn nothing from world war 2? This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and later on we had to apologize for the cruel singling out of a whole ethnicity.
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
@Cobalt
I didn't say there was anything *wrong* with discussing it, I said it's frightening that you're discussing it 'in any way seriously'. Shows a lack of understanding of political history and human nature.

@ViceRegent
Oh wow, a hyperbolic argument. You're brilliant. I am deeply engaged and excited about continuing to talk to you. Totally sincere too.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
So skyjacker does not want the state regulating human sacrifice? Interesting.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
SkyLeach - There is nothing wrong with *discussing* things like this. As you said, promotion of critical thought is fine. There's nothing wrong with thinking about a position you feel is "bad", as it allows you to more fully form what you feel is bad about it, as well as give you the opportunity to explain this to someone else.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Please define a minimum length of said ban, to ensure you're not just saying something like 'when we close our borders for a day to all people anyway.'
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
It's rather frightening that people can actually discuss things like this in any way seriously.

Governments have no business regulating belief systems of any kind. Promotion of critical thought and education is fine, and serves as an ideal counterbalance to dogmatism. There is no need to delegation regulation of belief to the government, and a massive amount of risk in doing so. Just look at history if you want to know why it's a horrible idea.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 1 year ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Are you talking about Muslims that are already citizens of the United States too or just trying to block Muslims that want to visit?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
What is skyleach talking about other than parroting government school nonsense.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
I'd like to accept, if you'll have me.
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
any ban on a religion would destroy the nation, thus negating the whole 'security of our nation'
No votes have been placed for this debate.