The Instigator
Runes
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

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 2 votes the winner is...
Capitalistslave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 101137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Runes

Pro

I believe President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban was a great choice because the Executive Order protects the people of this great nation from more terrorists trying to enter the United States, attack our way of life, citizens, and country. It's a fact, that Iran sponsors terrorism (1) , which is why the country is on the ban list as well as Sudan, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, and Yemen. All countries that since 1979, have been state-sponsors of terrorism. (2)

(1) https://www.google.com...

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalistslave

Con

I challenge you to find me even one terrorist attack that was performed in the United States that wasn't done by a citizen of the United States who was born here, but from an immigrant. Immigrants aren't our enemy.

The travel ban is unnecessary for this reason, and really hurts people in foreign countries. Those people in those countries are trying to escape their governments that promote terrorism, as you mentioned. Why should we not accept people who are opposed to what their state is promoting? Just because they were unfortunate enough to be born there?

We already have very good vetting laws in place. The evidence of that is the fact we've not had any terrorist attacks from immigrants. The only thing that needs to be done is extreme vetting. We've not had any attacks from immigrants, so why ban them? Why punish them for something they've not done themselves?

Again, if my opponent fails to provide even one terrorist attack committed by an immigrant, this suggests they just don't commit these terrorist attacks and the travel ban is unfounded.


While you might argue that these bans are keeping Americans safe(I don't think it makes a difference because the immigrants we accept don't do acts of terrorism), it certainly is making those immigrants less safe by not allowing them to come here. They live in countries that promote terrorism, as you said, and if you object to that, you're probably in danger in those countries.


Also, something that I highly question about Trump's travel ban, is that it doesn't have Saudi Arabia or other countries that have a high presence of wahhabist Muslims. Wahhabist Muslims are much more likely to be violent and promoting of terrorism[1]. Shia Muslims are much more moderate than Wahhabists, and yet Iran is on the list who is predominantly Shia.

The fact that Saudi Arabia and other countries are not on the list suggests Trump has some other motive behind this ban.

Sources:
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Runes

Pro

We, as the public, do not have all the information about immigrants who have conducted or were planning terrorist attacks about immigrants who have conducted or were planning terrorist attacks. Trump has ordered that information to be available but it isn't available yet. Also, the Ohio State University attack was committed by an immigrant (2) on November 28, 2016.

We do have proof that our vetting process is flawed (3) and if you have read the 9/11 commission report,, it identifies significant weaknesses in our ability to prevent major attacks. The update report confirms those weaknesses have not been addressed.

It's a well known fact that Syria, at the very least, cannot provide the required information on its citizens. Why should we not take a period of our time to improve the vetting process to safeguard our citizens?

The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on the list only suggests that Saudi Arabia, complies with our required information for vetting (4) - not that there is an alterior motive.

You assume we have good vetting laws without you or I having reports that fully outline terrorist attacks or planned conducted by immigrants.

Based on the fact that terrorists have been able to commit a horrific attack on United States soil (9/11, Pulse Nightclub attack, San Bernardino attack, etc.) and the fact that terrorists are willing to spend significant time and resources on a strategic attack AND that they despise the US, one would have to believe we'd rather be safe than sorry.

Also, I am sorry for using," Muslim Immigration Ban," instead of," Travel Ban." I wish I could change that but I can't.

Sources:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://www.nationalreview.com... (ISIS has also said that they will pose as refugees to enter this country (5))

(3) http://www.ibtimes.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

Quotes from my opponent will be in italics, and I will respond accordingly.

We, as the public, do not have all the information about immigrants who have conducted or were planning
Well, you can't blame me for taking the position I did since that information is not yet given to us. Since we don't know about terrorist attacks committed by immigrants, or if they happen to a greater degree than non-immigrant terrorist attacks, then it doesn't yet make sense to ban them from entering the country. Once we have this information, and if it turns out that the immigrants from these countries make up a significant percentage of terrorist attacks performed in the United States, then I would agree with you on this topic. Until then, I have to oppose it.

Now, in regards to the one that happened against Ohio State University, this was an immigrant from Somalia. This would be grounds to ban immigrants from Somalia, what about the other 6 countries he banned? I also wouldn't say one immigrant terrorist attack is enough justification to ban an entire country from immigrating here. I think there needs to be a significant amount of terrorist attacks that are performed by a country before we ban them. I will put it at a low percent, let's say 5% of our terrorist attacks. If 5% of terrorist attacks performed against the US come from Somalia, I would consider this grounds to ban them from coming to the country until we make our vetting system stricter. However, just one terrorist attack, I think, isn't reason to ban the entire country.

We do have proof that our vetting process is flawed (3)
Your third source doesn't talk about that, I think you meant to cite your second source. And when you cited source 2 above, I think you meant to cite source 1. Going off of that you meant to cite source 2, this is the National Review. It is known for having extreme right wing bias[2] "They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes." Now, to judge your specific article, let's look at the claims they make in the article. Here is a claim they made: "We know ISIS has already successfully infiltrated the West through the refugee system. And we know from other contexts that our vetting process can be deadly deficient."
They provided no source for this information, no study, no facts that can be confirmed. This is all opinion, and thus this source is not a reliable source that you used. I wouldn't take it seriously at all.

Now, what polifact had to report on the vetting system is this: "Background checks on refugees seeking to enter the United States are among the most stringent in the world", and they later point out in this article how what a congressman claimed about vetting under Obama being haphazard, to not be true whatsoever. They further explain that there has not been any Syrian fatal terrorist attack since the 1970s[3] It will be tougher to question my source as politifact is rated as one of the least biased news sources out there, and their factual reporting rating is "very high"[4]
Why should we not take a period of our time to improve the vetting process to safeguard our citizens?
As pointed out, it's one of the most stringent in the world already, and we can make it even harder if you want without banning them. No vetting system will be perfect. There will be people who can get in who might be a threat to Americans. I don't think that the small chance of that happening, though, is reason enough to ban all of the law-abiding refugees who do come here, however. We're potentially saving more lives by accepting many refugees, than we are allowing some to be killed by the small chance of a terrorist coming in.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on the list only suggests that Saudi Arabia, complies with our required information for vetting (4) - not that there is an alterior motive.
I would like to point out that your own source admits, "President Trump's sprawling business interests in Saudia Arabia may have influenced his decision, presenting a possible conflict of interest. "
So yes, your own source even suggests there may have been an ulterior motive.
Additionally, I didn't see any information in your source talking about how Saudi Arabia complies with our required information for vetting. Anyone who reads the article will also see that is missing, which was what you were citing the article for. I contend, also, that this article is not a good one, not because it's biased or doesn't have factual information, but because it doesn't support what my opponent claimed.

At this point, I would urge voters to vote for me for sources, as I've proved my sources are reliable, and shown that my opponent's sources either are very biased, don't have facts to back up the claims in those sources, or when they did have facts, they weren't facts that supported my opponent's points.

If my opponent doesn't change this next round and provide good sources that have facts that actually support their claims, it should be clear that voters should vote for me for sources.

In addition, the telegraph, which is what I provided in the last round as a source, has a slight right-wing bias, but a high factual reporting rate.[5] Slight bias is better than strong bias.

Now, I'm going to go back to points my opponent made in round 1, as I feel I didn't fully address them previously. Quotes will again, be italicized.

It's a fact, that Iran sponsors terrorism (1) , which is why the country is on the ban list as well as Sudan, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, and Yemen. All countries that since 1979, have been state-sponsors of terrorism. (2)
I'll give you the fact that these states sponsor terrorism(or, are at least classified as states sponsoring terrorism by the US), though I would argue the US does in a way too, but that's besides the point. At any rate, the governments sponsoring terrorism has no bearing on how the people of that country will be like, especially since those countries are not exactly democratic and representative of their people. You can see that on this world democracy index that all of those countries are ranked pretty poorly in terms of being democratic[6].

Thus what the states do is not representative of what their people want. Why should the people be punished in those countries for what their governments are doing? It doesn't make sense to do that. It would make more sense to punish their government in some way, not the people of those countries.

Sources:
[2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[3] http://www.politifact.com...
[4] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[5] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Runes

Pro

First off, I would love to address that I used, according to my opponents sources, biased sources, but so did he. Politifact.com has a liberal bias (1), and yes, maybe some of my sources were biased, but your sources have some bias to them and I know you addressed this but I think I should just make it a tad bit clearer. Also, mediabiasfactcheck.com has a possibility to be prejudice as well seeing as how anyone can go on that website, and vote how they feel which can be very biased based on whether or not they like the articles they put out. the owner, and/or the party the voter affiliates with. Say I hate CNN (and I do) and I'm a Democrat. I could go on that website, look up CNN, and tell everyone that they have an Extreme Right Wing bias. I could hate Anderson Cooper, and just vote that since he's affiliated with the opposite party, CNN must be that party. Either way, my biased source, nationalreview.com, had a high factual rating, despite the bias it has.

Second of all, there have been several more terrorist attacks other than the Ohio State University, committed by immigrants, the San Bernardino attack (2 & 3), New York and New Jersey explosions (3), Boston Marathon bombings (3), and 9/11 (3). The countries that they were from may not be on the ban list, but the one's we are banning SPONSOR TERRORISM. Iran. Yemen, Sudan and the four others SUPPORT TERRORISM.

Now, you said that if one terrorist attack has the perpetrator originating from Somalia, that we shouldn't ban the whole country. But ONE terrorist attack, IS ONE TOO MANY. No terrorist attacks should happen anywhere period. Which is the main reason this ban exists. To try and crack down on terrorist attacks on US soil. By the way, we did not ban Somalia from entering this country, but you probably already know that and that's because only one terrorist has come from there that has attacked on US grounds.

Our vetting system is flawed. As I said, if you read the 9/11 commission report, you can very easily see these flaws. (4) There have been cases where we vetted someone, they were rejected, and we let them in on accident. All a terrorist organization, such as ISIS, has to do is put a terrorist through the vetting process, memorize the questions, come back to the HQ, study the questions, come back to the interview with another terrorist, and they're in. I don't about my opponent, but this seems flawed to me.

On the vetting system being stringent, I do have to agree, it's a very tedious process (5), that many people have to go through in order to come here, but the Middle East has the highest percentage of terrorists and terrorist organizations in the world. We have to ban some of those countries, or more terrorists will keep pouring into this great country.

You state that the countries being banned are ranked low on the world democratic government scale, and that they're people don't have too much of a voice. I do have to agree with this again, they don't hold free and fair elections to elect people such as a president, but instead they have dictators and emperors (a little exaggeration with emperors). You did say in both rounds that the people shouldn't be punished for their governments, but there is nothing stopping them from driving to a US controlled area or UN controlled area, and flying to America after being vetted of course, or coming in as a refugee.

Sources:

(1) http://www.politifactbias.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.cnn.com...
(4) http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
(5) https://www.nytimes.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

I'll provide defenses from my opponent's rebuttals in the same fashion I have thus far

Also, mediabiasfactcheck.com has a possibility to be prejudice as well seeing as how anyone can go on that website, and vote how they feel which can be very biased based on whether or not they like the articles they put out.
Actually, this isn't how things are decided to have bias or to be factually accurate by mediabiasfactcheck. There are polls that anyone can answer, yes, but because of the things you mentioned, this is why these polls don't determine whether they are biased. Surprisingly, you'll find some respondants on the poll asking how biased MSBC is, some will say they aren't biased, and some even responded saying they have a right-wing bias, when anyone who is reasonable will recognize they have a left bias. To find out how mediabiasfactcheck determines whether a media source is biased or not, there is a formula for this which they provide in this article[7]. Now, looking at the source you provided that argues politifact is liberally biased, they don't exactly show a well-defined way in which they measure bias. Looking at several of the examples they gave of politifact's supposed bias, it seems like only conservatives would conclude these were biased, because they pander to conservative views as well. Mediabiasfactcheck presented how it determines whether a media source is biased, whereas this source does not. Mediabiasfactcheck's means of determining how a source is biased seems reliable, and I don't know of any reason to trust the source my opponent offered. They didn't offer a reason why to trust that source either. Thus, I believe the source I provided talking about politifact's bias being one of the "least biased" sources is accurate.

Second of all, there have been several more terrorist attacks other than the Ohio State University, committed by immigrants, the San Bernardino attack(2 & 3) New York and New Jersey explosions (3), Boston Marathon bombings (3), and 9/11 (3).
Again, my opponent used a source that doesn't suggest what they said, and actually suggest the opposite. The wikipedia source states about the San Bernardino attacker "According to sources, Farook had a "troubled childhood" and grew up in an "abusive" home in which his father was often violent towards his mother.Farook grew up in Riverside, California , and attended La Sierra High school, graduating in 2004, one year early"
Then CNN, their other source states that there have been no terror attacks committed by refugees from the countries banned. It's true these are terrorists from other countries originally, but none of them are from the targeted countries banned. Why should these countries be banned, and not the ones which were actually involved in the terrorist attacks mentioned in the CNN article?

Now, you said that if one terrorist attack has the perpetrator originating from Somalia, that we shouldn't ban the whole country. But ONE terrorist attack, IS ONE TOO MANY. No terrorist attacks should happen anywhere period.
Which is why I'm wondering why Trump didn't ban the countries of origin where the terrorists in the other cases you listed above came from. This ban didn't make any sense to institute on the countries he chose. No terrorist attacks came from thsoe countries, but plenty have come from other countries. You pointed that out yourself.

Our vetting system is flawed. As I said, if you read the 9/11 commission report, you can very easily see these flaws. (4)
That's a 585 page report. There's no way to verify that one can easily see the flaws in the vetting system within the amount of time this debate is going on. I only have 3 days for this debate. If you already know about the flaws, and are familiar with the commission report, you should have mentioned at least the pages that indicate we have flaws. Even if it does indicate we have flaws, this is an old document. And as the source I provided pointed out, our vetting system is constantly changing, and so these flaws may not even be relevant today.

There have been cases where we vetted someone, they were rejected, and we let them in on accident. All a terrorist organization, such as ISIS, has to do is put a terrorist through the vetting process, memorize the questions, come back to the HQ, study the questions, come back to the interview with another terrorist, and they're in. I don't about my opponent, but this seems flawed to me.
Yet you didn't name a specific instance where this happened or showed a source stating this is what happens. This needs evidence to support that we let people in on accident.

but the Middle East has the highest percentage of terrorists and terrorist organizations in the world. We have to ban some of those countries, or more terrorists will keep pouring into this great country.
Using that logic, then the logical thing to do would be to ban the countries which produced the most terrorists that harm Americans. Saudi Arabia is one of them. Syria is not one of them.

but there is nothing stopping them from driving to a US controlled area or UN controlled area, and flying to America after being vetted of course, or coming in as a refugee.
Well, if they could easily do that, then what is this ban even accomplishing? What stops a terrorist doing that? Seems to me that you just proved that the ban does nothing in reality because people could just do this instead. So, why keep the ban if it does nothing in reality?
Sources:
[7] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Thescarecrow066// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Better choice and I believe in the Pro more.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter is required to assess the arguments made in the debate. Simply stating that one side was the "Better choice" and that he believes in them more isn"t an assessment of anything beyond the voter"s personal opinion.
************************************************************************
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
That's vote bomb though
Posted by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
RFD-

On one hand, I can't buy Con's "name me an attack perpetuated by non-American citizens on US soil"

Um... 9/11?

BUT.

Pro makes a lot of perfectly good points, but there are all flawed. His main premise says that we should ban countries because they harbor terrorists. The problem with this, and deftly pointed out in Round 3 by the Con, is that this doesn't solve for anything. As a policy judge, I see no offense coming out of the Pro. Not to mention that he uses sources that are generally bad and do not help in his case, especially the 500+ page report stemming out of Round 3.

Con, the problem with you is that I disagree with you. But I have to award you source and argument points for 2 reasons. You win sources because at least they corroborate your story unlike the Pro's, and you win arguments because when weighing both sides, the solvency provided by the Pro just doesn't outweigh the Con's logic against the travel ban. Therefore,

Con 5-0.
Posted by Runes 10 months ago
Runes
On the other hand, the wife was an immigrant.
Posted by Runes 10 months ago
Runes
I forgot to provide evidence for the 4th statement I made about ISIS saying they will pose as refugees so here it is:

http://www.newsweek.com...
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
@Capitalist
Ohio State attacker
Posted by Runes 10 months ago
Runes
I understand, the word travel ban didn't really pop up into my mind, my mistake. Sorry.
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
Call it a travel ban. In no way shape or form is this a "Muslim Ban."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sensorfire 10 months ago
Sensorfire
RunesCapitalistslaveTied
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: Ultimately neither party displayed exceptionally good or bad conduct, nor did one's spelling and grammar stand out as better (though con was able to spell "ulterior" correctly and pro was not, this was only one instance). However, in the the real tests of debate, arguments and sources, Con was the clear victor, providing well-researched counter-arguments to all of Pro's arguments and using reliable sources, even pointing out problems with Pro's sources and giving sources for that! For these reasons, it is clear that Pro is ultimately the debate's victor.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
RunesCapitalistslaveTied
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 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: RFD in comments. Weighing goes to Con. Sources don't back Pro's case at all, but Con's do, therefore 5-0.