The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Taking in thousands of refugees from middle eastern countries puts American citizens in danger.

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: 7/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 93931
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

Taking in thousands of Syrian refugees would place American citizens in unnecessary danger of terrorist attack such as the ones seen in many European nations. Terror attacks also entails taking over sections of the country and implementing Sharia Law where they are now considered "No go zones"
Amedexyius

Con

I will accept this argument in favour of the United States accepting Syrian refugees. Syrian refugees do not pose a serious threat to American citizens, nor were they responsible for recent attacks on Europe, nor have they implemented any miniature states of Islamic fundamentalism. I will use this round for acceptance,
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

1. The Obama administration has adamantly stated that they are performing background checks on every person that seeks refuge in America but Director Comey has stated that we cannot possibly vet every person.
https://www.youtube.com...

2. While Syrian refugees may not be solely responsible for the recent terror attacks they have been responsible for massive chaos and unrest in many European countries. Such as riots and destruction of cities.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

3. Many refugees seek to implement Sharia Law as the primary law in every country they settle in.
https://www.youtube.com...

4. Countries that have take in mass numbers of refugees have seen an increase in rape
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
http://www.wnd.com...
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent for creating his argument.

Opening Arguments

Before I actually start with my points let me state, nearly all of these YouTube source provided by my opponent are independent channels with their own personal bias in this subject form. I seriously question the validity of the 'sources' my opponent has provided and urge the voters to look at the videos and their parent channels.

Counter Arguments and Rebuttals

The first argument of my opponent is vague and his source not synonymous with his claim. The United States is far below its acceptance goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees [1] and is well within the capacity to run background checks considering the US has strict immigration policies [2] [3].

The next arguments of my opponents do not align with the American national standard of asylum acceptance. These nations in Europe are in the geographical proximity of an Exodus from these war torn nations that closely border them [4]. These nations don't have the capacity to deport them at the number they are receiving these immigrants [5]. Unlike the United States, the Middle East is not within a geographical proximity to create a conceptual invasion of their immigration borders. The US has the power to manipulate and are within full control to accept a certain few amount of refugees that they wish to accept and time is not a problem [6].

The continuing argument of my opponent regarding immigrants and Sharia Law are the product of a channel with extreme right-wing ideals and nationalistic videos. I question the validity of the source of the YouTube link.

As for the final argument of my opponent regarding the rise in crime from the European nations that took in these refugees, they are not in control of the situation (Understandably) considering their large open borders are powerless to stop an influx of migration that continues showing up at their doorstep. The US, on the other hand, is in full control of all Middle Eastern immigrants.

Sources
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[2] https://www.rt.com...
[3] https://www.hrw.org...
[4]http://www.economist.com...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.state.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

The sources I provided do not show any bias, they simply capture on video the behavior and the words of these refugees. It's hard to claim these video providers have a bias when the refugees are literally speaking for themselves. No media outlet is completely without bias, mainstream media is especially guilty of this. Often times the reality of a situation can be obtained from independent journalists that have no one to alter their stories. Today, there are many news stations that have an extremely left bias portraying the police force in America to be inherently racist. The right also has their channels that are bias. This is why it is more important than ever for people to look at the facts and come to their own conclusions, do your own research and don't rely solely on someone else to provide you information.

1. FBI director Comey goes on record speaking out about performing background checks in places there are no systems to check into.
https://www.youtube.com...
The FBI and NSA are the primary agencies responsible for investigating the people that wish to come here from Syria. Below is a quote from director Comey
"We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them,"
End quote

FBI counterterrorism expert stating that the US does not have the resources to vet all the refugees and expresses the danger of ISIS using the refugees to infiltrate the US.
Counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka stating we dont have the resources to properly vet the refugees
https://www.youtube.com...

The House of Representatives passed a bill that would require additional security measures be taken on refugees coming from the middle east but President Obama stated he would veto the bill. The President opposes a bill that would require additional security to ensure American safety. It's important to note that their were 47 Democrats that supported this bill.
31 state governors have stated that they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees but whether or not they have the authority to do so is highly debated.
http://www.cnn.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.numbersusa.com...

However it does speak volumes about the stance the majority of the country takes on this issue. These are elected officials whose purpose is to represent the citizens that elected them and ensure their concerns are heard and addressed. There have only been 7 states that openly embrace the position President Obama is planning to take in regards to the refugees.

2. My opponent has a valid point that the US is not within geographical proximity for these people to simply walk into our country in the mass exodus seen in Europe. However in recent years we've already had problems with riots breaking out and causing chaos in cities like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore. It is not unreasonable to believe that with the number of refugees Obama plans to bring, it is possible for extremists or members of ISIS to infiltrate and begin to cause the same kind of chaos we've seen in Ferguson, Baltimore, as well as the European nations.

Hillary Clinton has stated that she believes the US can do better than 10,000 refugees. She wants to increase the number to 65,000. That is a dramatic increase that only increases the threat of infiltration the FBI has been warning about. That's also 65,000 people living off of American taxdollars.
https://www.youtube.com...

3. These people have a culture that is drastically different from ours and the result can be seen by anyone in the videos below. Not to say that there are none who could coexist peacefully withour culture because there are. But based on what we've seen there are a dangerously high number of them that cannot peacefully live alongside us.
The Muslim Brotherhood has organized a plan to infiltrate the US
https://www.youtube.com...
Muslims declaring Sharia will takeover Europe and America
https://www.youtube.com...
News crew attacked by refugees in Sweden in one of 55 no go zones
https://www.youtube.com...
Refugee crisis in Europe
https://www.youtube.com...

Undoubtedly my opponent will ask you to again ignore the alleged bias of these videos instead of paying attention to what these people are saying and how they are acting. These people are not shy about their beliefs and they are not afraid to use violence as the videos show.

In response to my opponents final paragraph. My opponent seems to have some contradictions. On the one hand accusing the videos I linked of having a bias, videos that depict mass chaos at the hands of the refugees. On the other hand my opponent does not deny the explosion of crime that has come with these refugees instead blaming open borders. The fact that the FBI does not have confidence in our ability to vet 10,000 people (let alone the 65,000 Hillary is calling for) should be enough cause for concern to halt anymore from coming to the US. For all we know the refugees causing so much destruction in Europe may not have any ties with terrorism. What if these people don't have any terrorist ties and just behave this way because of their beliefs?
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent for providing his arguments.

Opening Arguments

My opponent claims that his sources do not show bias. Just to show an example, one of the channels in his list of sources is packed full of comments and videos with absolutely no foundation on the claims that all Muslims are attempting to establish Sharia Law [1]. My opponent continues his argument stating that "No media outlet is completely without bias" which is true, but independent news channels can be put to any perspective, especially the right wing channels you provided. My opponent also makes unfounded claims that independent journalists are the best journalists and continues his claim by stating they have "no one to alter their stories". Except themselves, of course, having no regulations to alter any 'evidence' of theirs [2]. My opponent finishes his anti-left wing speech by stating "do your own research and don't rely solely on someone else to provide you information" yet independent news agencies are providing you with information that is virtually impossible to obtain yourself without outside help.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent leaves my argument regarding how the United States is in full control of the number of refugees we can accept without any limitation of time. The United States doesn't have the resources to make a check on every refugee that applies, and they realize that which is why the United States is behind their 10,000 asylum grant schedule [3]. Yet the topic of this argument is whether accepting them is the danger, and the US is taking all the precautions necessary, even if behind schedule to ensure only the most trustworthy are accepted. I hope my opponent actually makes a statement against my rebuttals instead of just repeating himself in paraphrase.

The next argument of my opponent is irrelevant to whether accepting them puts us in danger because the United States is already undergoing security processes towards the immigrants. The source was taken out of context because the United States has total control over whom may enter.

The next statements of my opponent simply addresses controversies in a Democracy and not whether acceptance of refugees is an absolute danger.

The next statement of my opponent is an absolute assumption, stating that accepting refugees will cause riots and chaos citing examples like in Missouri and Baltimore which is completely irrelevant because the rioting in those two locations had to do with xenophobia in authority figures [4][5]. As for his attempted relation to European rioting, recent riots in Paris and Greece had to do with strides of austerity measures, and not targeting refugees [6].

The next argument of my opponent regarding the increase of refugees to be taken in by the United States is irrelevant to attacks in Europe as the FBI director stated. Nearly all recent terrorist attacks that had swept the country were from legal immigrants or by homegrown converts and inspired terrorists [7]. Nearly none of the refugees were responsible for the attacks, and are allegedly scapegoats of ISIS in their recent attacks. As for the argument of 65,000 people living off tax dollars, I won't even begin to refute the statement, simply because it s irrelevant to the argument. Your quarrels with welfare does not concern our debate

The next argument of my opponent regarding Sharia Law are all backed by right-wing news channels with their own bias against Islam [8][9][10]. I will also say that my opponent still hasn't been able to explain or refute the factor of geographical proximity and overload of resource capacity to deal with their immigration invasion on the borders of the EU.

Undoubtedly, my opponent won't be able to provide a rebuttal that isn't subjective on the bias of the news channels provided and lack of foundation to criticize Islam as a whole, to be radical.

In the final argument, my opponent succumbs to a strawman fallacy [11] stating I made a contradiction in my argument when I didn't meet up against my claim. The videos my opponent represented were biased in nature and opinionations of the Sharia Law doctrine these refugees accompany, although the crime waves in Europe from the nations who can't control their influx do not have a correlation to any unified front against Western values. My opponent continues with a statement against Hillary but does not acknowledge the lack of the variable of time leaving the US still in control of the situation. The final statements of my opponent become an appeal to emotion with the hypothetical question of "What if"?

Sources
[1] https://www.youtube.com...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[3] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.commondreams.org...
[7] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org...
[8] https://www.youtube.com...
[9] https://www.youtube.com...
[10] https://www.youtube.com...
[11] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Pro

Any bias a source may have becomes irrelevant when the people in question are recorded speaking and acting the way they do. My opponent seems to be under the impression that these people are not representing themselves on video, that the source is somehow twisting what these people say. That is a deflection because seeing these people on video only proves the motion to be true. The videos show these people destroying cities, attacking people, threatening to kill people, admitting to a planned invasion, demanding money for no work, calling for Sharia Law to take place as the law of the world, and they are not shy about this. My opponent has failed to explain how a potential bias could us skew the video evidence. These people are self representing and they are not shy about it.
Independent journalists are often the most reliable sources of accurate information because they are the ones that are willing to speak on topics that the mainstream media will never go near. The Gulf of Tonkin attack that catapulted the US into the Vietnam war turned out to be a lie. Mainstream media refused to report on the issue, it was independent journalists that took the information and made mass amounts of people aware of it. This is known as a false flag event and there have been quite a few brought to light because of independent journalists.
My opponent seems to be under the impression that just because information comes from a particular source it can hold no validity or authenticity, if we were to accept this line of thought virtually all media sources become impossible to rely on and we end up being completely in the dark.

Heres an example to simplify the point Director Comey and the counterterrorism expert were making.
Suppose Kevin has been a drug dealer for many years but he has never been caught for it. Kevin applies for a job and when they do a background check no drug charges appear on his regard. Does this mean that Kevin never used or sold drugs? No, it just means that he wasn't caught! He didn't make the ripples the Director spoke of and therefore Kevin would be eligible for hire. It's that simple.
https://www.youtube.com...

FBI counterterrorism expert stating that the US does not have the resources to vet all the refugees and expresses the danger of ISIS using the refugees to infiltrate the US.
Counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka stating we dont have the resources to properly vet the refugees
If this is the argument my opponent believes to be irrelevant, I would ask him to explain in detail how it is not dangerous to ignore the opinions of those that are responsible for the vetting of all the refugees. If they believe that the system is so flawed that ISIS could use the refugees to infiltrate the US, does that not speak directly to the dangers of allowing them into the country?

Ferguson and Baltimore were used as examples to show that we already have similar riots to those in Europe. Both cities suffered arson, looting, people being attacked, police officers being attacked, police cars being set on fire and destroyed. The fact is, riots are already happening in the US. My opponent has offered no proof that the refugees could not create another riot like Ferguson or Baltimore. The reason for the riots are irrelevant, but the fact that they happened proves it is possible for refugees to do the same.
If the US cannot prevent radicals or terrorists from entering the country, and cannot prevent massive riots on US soil, how then would it not be possible for the refugees to cause the same type of chaos?

The first video provides a look into what radical muslims have planned for the US.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com... (mute this video, terrible song for video)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

My opponent stated "Nearly none of the refugees were responsible for the attacks, and are allegedly scapegoats of ISIS in their recent attacks"
I'd like to remind my opponent and everyone reading this that it only took 19 terrorists to perform the attacks of 911. All of whom came here legally.

Again, right-wing bias is brought up but not the radicals very own words. Yet again my opponent has dodged the undeniable proof of these people being caught on video. The right-wing did not put those words in their mouths nor make them cause such destruction, they simply make people aware of the evidence.
It is true the the geographical proximity of the EU to neighboring countries created a particularly difficult situation but that does not undermine the statements of Director Comey.

My opponent seems to be leaning quite heavily on the alleged bias of my sources but has done nothing to explain away the words and actions of those in the videos. He has failed to explain how a bias could change the proof. Is he suggesting that somehow the right-wing bias altered the words in the videos? That they were behind the riots in Europe? That the right is forcing these people to say and do these things?

Ill respond to each source my opponent used
1. A truly fascinating video that I intend sit down and watch all the way through, however it does virtually nothing to help make his case. It has zero relevance to the main topic. Speaks more to conspiracy theories than fact.
2. I did not use the source mentioned in the article. Even if I had, how do you explain away the video proof?
3. Being behind schedule means literally nothing because the intention is still 10 thousand. As the FBI Director stated "you can vet until the cows come home" Time is not the issue, its the lack of reliable sources in Syria. As stated before there are those that could get past every vetting process but still be radical, have terrorist ties, or even be an ISIS member. There are just too many flaws with the process that time alone cannot solve.
4. Ferguson riots were not committed by refugees but it goes to show that massive riots can happen on US soil.
5. See 4.
6. A group of peaceful protesters does not negate what radicals have done and continue to do. Radicals are still calling for the deaths of Christians and Jews. Keep in mind the radical that killed 80 people in Nice, France. Radicals do not want peace, they've been saying as much for countless years.
7. This video actually reinforces my position. Again, geographical prox plays a part in Europes situation but this video speaks volumes about the types of people trying to infiltrate the west.
8. I would have used this video if I had known of it. It goes to show even further how dangerous radicals are.
9. I dont know what to say about this link. Perhaps my opponent accidentally used it.
10. See 9.
11. Great website
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent, for once again, providing his argument,

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent attempts to defend his source by stating that the people in question were recorded. If the voters take a look at the videos, they'll realize that they either show people protesting, some of which for questionable government aspects but don't represent all of the refugees, or would show the video making portrayals and estimates of what the grand goal of the refugees are. The sources aren't twisting what the 'people are saying', they show titles and conveniently placed wording of "refugees" and "attacking" along with a few excerpts of the exceptions of the violent in the country.The sources just show what the publisher hypothesizes of the future, a unified radical Islamic agenda which is nothing more than bare assertions. My opponent says "The videos show these people destroying cities, attacking people, threatening to kill people, admitting to a planned invasion, demanding money for no work, calling for Sharia Law to take place as the law of the world, and they are not shy about this. " but none of these videos actually show any of that other than people assuming such a radicalization will take place. My opponent claims I failed to explain potential bias, but my claims state & prove that all your video sources are the product of independent channels and show nothing other than assertions themselves. These people protesting and causing riots could be protesting for a different agenda other than fundamentalism and do not represent the entirety of the refugees.

My opponent claims that "Independent journalists are often the most reliable sources of accurate information because they are the ones that are willing to speak on topics that the mainstream media will never go near", an unfounded statement. I stated before that independent journalists are unreliable because they will be spewing their own agenda considering they don't have regulations regarding the altering of evidence and personal opinionations, like in mainstream media. This means they have the potential to publish mis-leading news and their own assertions of situations without the resources and ability to analyze the events fully [1]. Therefore, they are unreliable.

My opponent uses his example of the Gulf of Tonkin concerning independent journalists, although, my opponent provides no foundation that they were the ones who uncovered the situation and it is improbable they could have because it was the USFG that was controlling the distribution of information regarding the event [2]. My opponent then uses a "No True Scotsman" fallacy regarding all media because they all have the potential to be biased [3]. My rebuttal to that which my opponent overlooked was the fact that independent journalists have the ability to bypass any form of media regulations because by a bureaucratic definition, they are not official media outlets.

As for my opponent and his statements regarding the drug examples and Director Comey, to which I can find no sense whatsoever. What? What does that example have anything to do with Comey stating the FBI doesn't have the capability to process the established number the US wishes to establish? My opponent also did not refute my examples of the United States having the control over time and the situation at hand, as well as the American potential to divert more resources. I should also state it is not just the job of the FBI to single-handedly process each and every individual as the Department of Homeland Security is much stronger and capable of such. The DHS receives roughly $41.2 Billion annually [4] compared with the FBI receiving $8.3 Billion annually [5]. My point being that the FBI may not be entirely capable, although the USFG, and even just the DHS is, and has the potential to create more involvement.

I continue the next rebuttals of my opponent with the simple rebuttal that the United States still has the power at hand to manipulate this problem into a solution by diverting more resources and allowing further involvement of the Department of Homeland Security, which they already participate in [6]. My previous arguments already null the arguments brought up by my opponent, as well as point out his fallacious statements regarding words I never stated.

My opponent continues his argument with examples of Ferguson and Baltimore without refuting that the causes for the riots were irrelevant to any refugee riots in Europe. My opponent makes the claim that "My opponent has offered no proof that the refugees could not create another riot like Ferguson or Baltimore." which I can easily counter with the fact that any group of angered persons can cause mass riots, including Far-Right wing protesters [7]. My opponent continues with another "What if" by "If the US cannot prevent radicals or terrorists from entering the country, and cannot prevent massive riots on US soil, how then would it not be possible for the refugees to cause the same type of chaos?" This of course can simply be refuted by the fact that the US is in full control of all people entering the country, concerning Middle Eastern refugees. A point my opponent still hasn't refuted, and I believe is safe to assume he succumbed to.

I urge the voters to look at the YouTube links my opponent has provided and to not say with a nervous smile and chuckle that those videos aren't in the least bit assumptive. Not to mention, them being independent channels. I should also say that radical Islam does not represent all of Islam, since Islam has many different branches. I'd like to remind my opponent that the radicals that executed the September 11th attacks came Pre-9/11, before the drastic events took place and the current migration system of the US changed to ensure security [8]. I should also say that one of the strongest attacks in the US, the Oklahoma City Bombing, which took over 160+ lives, was motivated by an anarchist agenda from American born, American heritage, American citizens [9].

The next argument of my opponent still hasn't proven that all of Islam is radical, nor are all/the majority of the refugees entering Europe. My opponent also has not given any examples of refugees openly declaring an establishment of a European Islamic State. My opponent brings up Director Comey, still without refuting the flexibility of American fiscal allocation. My opponent still refutes my claims of source bias stating I did nothing to explain which makes me assume he's electively illiterate as 20% of my last arguments in the prior rounds were discussing why his sources were untrustworthy. If that isn't enough to show that your source has bias, I'm going to quote you and your criticisms to my sources.

Source Criticisms

1.) My opponent doesn't realize this source was his own that I was making a reference to. I am astounded by the fact you didn't go to the trouble to even recognize your own foundations. You also admitted that it "Speaks more to conspiracy theories than fact." (Refer to Round 2, Pro's Argument, Sharia Law YouTube Link).

Due to character limits, I can't post more. I have to reserve space to my sources. As for any voters who don't believe my sources, look at them yourself.

Sources
[1] https://journalismthefuture.wordpress.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] https://www.dhs.gov...
[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[8] http://www.migrationpolicy.org...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

Con is suggesting that the videos I linked are showing people protesting a questionable government and/or trying to depict a fraction of the refugees as a representation for the majority. Con has failed to explain what the government has done that is questionable. These governments are allowing thousands of people to stay in countries and scrambling to create accommodations for these people, giving them money for which they did nothing to earn, trying to find jobs for them, and offering them shelter. As con stated in previous rounds, there are tens of thousands of people entering European countries in a mass exodus with no restrictions on their borders. People are literally walking into the countries by the thousands so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they were not well prepared for the numbers of people entering. There are videos showing refugees criticizing these countries that give them refuge, claiming that the conditions are not acceptable, demanding they be giving spending money when they have done nothing to earn it. Demanding rewards despite nothing to warrant a reward is the logic of small children. If things were truly so bad in there home country they would not be so ungrateful.
Con goes on to claim that the videos I linked are using "conveniently" placed words such as refugees and attacking and adding videos containing violence to make a connection between refugees and danger. Con is making the assertion that the publisher has an anti-Islamic agenda.

A quote from con regarding the videos showing refugees destroying cities, attacking people, and admitting a planned takeover of the west.
"but none of these videos actually show any of that other than people assuming such a radicalization will take place"
Evidently con did not watch the videos because they do in fact show these people saying exactly these types of things. Anyone can go on Youtube and find a plethora of exactly the same types of videos. This can be likened to a criminal being shown a recording of himself committing a crime and claiming "that's not me" even though the camera had a clear shot of his face.
Con also stated:
"along with a few excerpts of the exceptions of the violent in the country"
The problem with this statement is that there are not just a few exceptions of violence, there is an epidemic of them. Many of the videos depict thousands of people flooding the streets, attacking police and/or native citizens. Many of these countries have seen a massive increase of sexual assaults coinciding with the arrival of refugees. But for arguments sake lets pretend that the massive amount of chaos and sexual assaults these countries have suffered were caused by the "few" con spoke of. That would mean that a very small percentage of a large number of people were able to cause extraordinary damage. So does that mean that just because a small number of people were behind all of it, somehow that makes it an exception? We've seen videos of police being attacked and chased by massive groups of people, we've seen locations in several European nations become no-go zones for the natives. If a small number of people could do all this it makes the statements by Director Comey and his agency even more concerning.
There are two important things to keep in mind:
1. It only took 19 terrorists to conduct the attacks of 911.
2. Europe has seen a dramatic increase of Islamic attacks since the mass exodus con spoke of.
If the FBI does not believe we can weed out radicals or terrorists it is perfectly reasonable to assume that dangerous individuals could slip through the cracks and come to US soil.

" These people protesting and causing riots could be protesting for a different agenda other than fundamentalism and do not represent the entirety of the refugees. "
Con uses the words "could be" meaning he is making an assumption. A dangerous one considering people are losing their lives to radicals.

A quote from
"In October 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the US National Security Agency, concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident."

This cover up was never reported by mainstream media, it took independent journalists to make the America people aware of it. There are indeed regulations imposed upon the news but there is still a dangerous potential for censorship on important topics, like the Gulf of Tonkin. Independents do indeed have the freedom to bypass media regulations but again that means they are free to bring the truth to light without being censored. Mainstream media, despite being regulated is still capable of being unreliable or even corrupt. Take the George Zimmerman case for example. Zimmerman is suing NBC for purposefully editing his 911 call to make him seem more racist. This is a mainstream media source altering the truth to present a false narrative.
Dan Rather, one of the most iconic media figures went public with the rampant corruption of mainstream media.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

The drug example I gave gives a more domestic example to put the situation in perspective. The same principle applies to both examples. Guilty people can and do fall through the cracks.
"Comey stating the FBI doesn't have the capability to process the established number the US wishes to establish?"
Con either misunderstood Comeys words or used the wrong wording because Comey was not speaking about the capability to process the established number. He spoke about the lack of resources to properly vet anyone coming from Syria, not the numbers of people.
Having control over time means given the FBIs concerns. Con is choosing to ignore Comeys very clear words.
"we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person"You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country"s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation." (10/21/15)"
The following quotes come from the agencies involved in the vetting process.

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: "But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we"re not going to know a whole lot about." (10/8/15

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "The intelligence picture we"ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn"t what we"d like it to be"you can only review [refugees" submitted background data] against what you have." (10/8/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: "But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we"re not going to know a whole lot about." (10/8/15)

Ferguson was relevant because it showed that we do not have full control on US soil. And the US may be in control of who enters, but people we don't want here could slip through the cracks.

The fact that 19 radical Islamics conducted 911 as well as all the recent attacks we've seen from them in recent years proves that all of Islam does not need to be radical to cause massive casualties and destruction.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel killed 80 people including 10 children and injurying 202 with a truck in Nice, France. This man was a native of France but it is not unreasonable to say that those entering the country could do the same.
Radicals can be home grown or come from other countries.
http://www.cnn.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Amedexyius

Con

Thank you Pro, for your arguments and their strong rebuttals.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent had created a tiresome chain of topic dodging and goes out of the question to "what the government has done that is questionable". What the governments did that was questionable varies from European austerity measures [1] to the French burqa ban [2]. These government don't have the choice or resources to deport the mass exodus of people flooding their borders, I said that in my first arguments and you didn't refute it, you actually agreed to it as you did now. However, they shouldn't treat these people like prisoners or second class simply because they are refugees, as human beings, they deserve morality and respect, you wouldn't just give them bread rations. My opponent still did not provide much evidence regarding it is the representation of all the refugees that they are "ungratefully" receiving allowances, others are grateful to their providers. My opponent thinks I made an assertion his sources had an anti-Islamic agenda and I'm not going through the foolish repetition that I proved every single argument prior to this one.

My opponent's videos do not show the riots as a link to a unified attempt to institute a European Islamic State as he claims, if you are only counting the rioting videos and not the conspiracy theories. Evidently, my opponent has not been able to refute my solidifed claims and cognitive dissonance seems apparent.

My opponents next arguments regarding the crime waves which the violence cannot be refuted but proven irrelevant to the argument considering the US has full control of all those who enter. The small percentage of people who cause these damages forced their way into the gates of Europe and my opponent did agree Europe was not prepared to accept them or deport them. This argument can be rendered null considering it overlooks the entire variable that the United States is in control of the situation. As for the 19 terrorists, they received outside funding and years of dedicated planning [3], Europe's recent deadliest attacks were mostly homegrown converts [4] and your argument of the FBI still overlooks my argument considering DHS fiscal allocation.

I used the words "could be" in your quote because the riots don't show your assertion of a fundamentalist society, either as Europe has been subject to many protests as I previously mentioned.

The quote my opponent uses regarding "the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy makers" literally proves my point the USFG was in charge of all information released to any media. You submitted that argument to my point. My opponent still hasn't provided the argument that independent journalists were the ones that uncovered the distortion of events and he hasn't proven that mainstream media is untrustworthy. My opponent points out that regulations doesn't guarantee stopping corruption or distortion but it at least shows what was edited and that evidence was violated to show a certain aspect of the truth compared to independent journalists who aren't monitored and work only for themselves (Refer to Round 3 & 4 Arguments).

As for Dan Rather, what he said and your sources applied only to the news station he worked for and the experiences he felt. CBS does not represent the entirety of mainstream media [5] and their problems are their own.

My opponent says his drug examples still apply to his statements but fails to back it up. If my opponent stating Comey was speaking of anyone coming from Syria, then his argument is irrelevant because it can't (And I proved it wouldn't) apply to the standard set by the USFG (Refer to Round 3 & 4 Arguments). Syria is still a state and their previous police state tendencies forces them to make their own background checks and documents which for travel purposes is easily provided to other nations [6].

My opponent's quotations still don't match up with the un-refutable variable the USFG an deny asylum to anyone whose background they can't access due to complete control over the immigration from the Middle East. People we don't want here that could slip through cracks wouldn't slip through them by the asylum standard if you are implying such. If they come under VISA's that is a different argument because that would no longer give them a refugee status.

The fact that the topic of the argument states taking in thousands of refugees which the US has the complete resources of time and finances to monitor does not align with your 9/11 argument which I previously stumped. If radicals are homegrown like my opponent states, they aren't refugees and are therefore a different argument entirely.

Thanks to my opponent for this argument. If I appeared to have been too curt or rough in my debates on any manner, my apologies. I like to get my points across strong.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://www.bbc.com...
[5] http://www.cbs.com...
[6] http://www.bbc.com...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.